&1BBAB7 Ibwwitjr iff i'SlU^im. i ^wmffm^*'. II wui I ipppp^pw^wppiwipi DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS ON THE _ SCRIPTURAL DOCraiNEk,. 'V, ATONEMENT «^ S)^lgWlCE AND ON THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND THE MODE OP REASONING EMPLOYED, BY THE OPPONENTS OF THOSE DOCTRINES AS HELD BY THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH : WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME STRICTURES ON MR. BELSHAM'S ACCOlTNT OF THE UNITARIAN SCHEME, IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WIIiBERFORCE'S TREATISE. BY WILLMM MiGEE, B. B. SENIOR FELLOW OP TRINITY COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD AND LAST LONDON EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY JAMES EASTBURN, 86 BROADWAY. PAUL AND THOMAS, PRINTERS. 1813. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLMM CO^r^N'GimM PLV^N'KET. -*^r5®0»^ In placing at the head of these sheets a name, to which the respect and the admiration of the Puhlic have attached so much celebrity; and in avowing, at the same time, that I have selected the name of a Friend, with whom I have been united almost from childhood, in the closest ha- bits of intimacy; I am aware that I subject my- self to the imputation of acting as much from a motive of pride, as from a sentiment of affection. I admit the imputation to be well-founded. To enjoy the happiness of such a Friend, and not to exult in the possession, would be not to de- serve it. It is a pride which, I trust, may be indulged in without blame: and the distinction of having been associated with a character, so transcendently eminent for private worth, for public virtue, and for intellectual endowments, I shall always regard as one of the tnost honom'able circumstances of my life. IV But, independently of these considerations, the very nature of my subject supplies a reason for the choice which I have made. For I know not, in truth, to whom I could, with greater propriety, inscribe a work, whose chief end is to expose false reasoning and to maintain true religion, than to one, in whom the powers of just reason- ing are so conspicuously displayed, and by whom the great principles of religion are so sincerely reverenced. With these views, I trust, that I shall stand excused by you, my dear Su', in having, without your knowledge, thus availed myself of the cre- dit of your name. The following treatise, in which so many additions have been made to a former publication, as in some measure to enti- tle it to the appellation of a new Work, I submit to your judgment; well satisfied, that if it meet your approbation, it will not find an unfavourable reception from the public. I am, my dear Sir, With the truest attachment, Youi' affectionate Friend and Servant, THE AUTHOR. Trinity College^ Dublin^ Sept 21, 1809. CONTENTS. Page, Trefatmf Address to the Students in Divinity, in the Universi- ty of Dublin 9 ^rfvcrtt.9cmenf to the Second Edition . . . . 15 >4rfyer ^ Isa. liii. 10. ** Rora. viii. 32- ft «««»• v. U- 33 ileath of Cliiisl is pronounced in scripture to have been a s^,- crifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men. It is asserted, that the several passages which seem to speak this language, contain nothing more than ji^ruratlve al- lusions : that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life for, that is, on account of mankind :(/) and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but (g*) figurative, it is contended,(/i) 1st. That the death of Christ did not correspond literally and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice ; 2dly. That being in different places compared to different kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any : and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propUlatlon or ex- piation of sin under the Mosaic dispensation at all ; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin. (/) As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little con- sideration. The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic sacrifice, is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that because Christ was not of the spe- cies of animal, which had usually been offered up ; or because he was not slain in the same manner ; or because he was not offered by the high-priest, there could have been no sacri- fice, (/c) But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered iip in expiation be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those^who mean to cavil, not to discover truth. Again, as to the second argument, which from the compari- son of Christ's death, to the different kinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow, that* it was of the nature of all. Resembling that of the (/) Passover, inas- much as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage ; partaking the nature of the sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression ; and similar to the institution of the scape-goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all : may we not reasonably suppose that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and comple- tion of the whole sacrificial system ? And that so far from be^ (/) See No. XXX. {§) See No. XXXI. {h) See No. XXXII. (0 See No. XXXV. {k) See No. XXXtV. (/) See No. XXXV. 34 iiig spoken of in figure, as bearing some resemblance lo the sacrifices of the law, Ihey were on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells iis,"^ but figures, or faint and partial representa- tions of this stupendous sacrifice which had been ordained from the beginning ? And besides, it is to be remarked in ge- neral, with respect to the figurative application of the sacrifi- cial terms to the death of Christ ; that the striking resem- blance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have pro- duced just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers ; since they must have been aware that the constant use of such ex- pressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error, in that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people whose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial representations of the death of Christ have been understood ? We come now to the third and principal objection, which is built upon the assertion, that no sacrifices of atonement (in the sense in which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under the Mosaic law : such as were called by that name having had an entirely different import, (th) Now that certain offerings under this denomination, related to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremonial wor- ship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others Avere again appointed to relieve persons from ceremonial incapacities, so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor, not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases, even of the (n) moral law, will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus we find it decreed, that if a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered to him to keep — or have found that which was lost, and liefh concerningr it, and sweareth falsely, then, because he hath sinned in this, he shall not only make resti- tution to his neighbour — but he shall bring his trespass-offer- ing unto the Lord, a ram without blemish oitt of the flock ; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven HiM.f And again, in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was betrothed, * Heb. s. 1. (m) See No. XXXVI. («) See No. XXXVII. f I-ev. yi. 2-^7, m the offender is ordered to bring his trespass-offerings and the priest is to make atonement for him with the trespass^ offering, for the sin which he hath done ; and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.-'^ And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description of prestfmp^woi/s, it is manifest from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender. Again, as to the vicarious (o) import of the Mosaic sacri- fice ; or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had deserved ; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free-will offering, he shall lay his hand upon the head (j)) of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for /ti??i;f but the ceremony of the scape-goat on the day of expiation, appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, however, as not being necessary (q) to my argument, I shall not at present enlarge. That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no sufficient reason to deny. That it existed In like manner amongst the Arabians, (r) in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its universal prevalence in the heathen world, though corrupted and disfigured by idola- trous practices, was the result of an original divine appoint- Vient, every candid inquirer will find little reason todoubt.(s) But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the non-existence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ, to indicate such sacrifice, necessarily falls to the ground, (f) But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that any such sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appoint- ment. For on what principle do they deny the former, but this ? — that the sufferings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God: can not render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent than he ?S in his own nature ; and consequently can have no power • Levit. xix. 20, 22. (o) See No. XXXVIII. (p) See No. XXXIX;. t Levit. i. 4. (q) See No. XL. (r) See No. I-/I5C. (» See ^^o. XLT. (?) ^ee XLU, / 36 to avert from the offender the punishment of his transgres- sion. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the ex- piation of sin, must be impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin : and why they feel it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the old.(^) Setting out with a preconceived erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest contradiction; they hold themselves jus- tified in rejecting every acceptation of scripture which sup- ports it. But, had they more accurately examined the true import of the term in scripture use, they would have per- ceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unna- tural interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text. They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in scripture language, implies solely this, " a sacrifice wisely and graciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender. "(w) To ask why God should have appointed this particular mode, or in fvhat way it can avert the punishment of sin, is to take us back to the general point at issue with the deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemp- tion under any modification, such matters cannot be subjects of inquiry. But even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstan- ces of natural connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered as a sensible and striking re- presentation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God's justice : and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner ; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilt, and a hearty de- sire of obtaining pardon : and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression. This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testament. Now is there any thing in this degrading to the honour of God ; or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural rea- son ? And in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, (v^ See No. XLITT. («ri ) SecNo. XLIV. 37 as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that may not in a cer- tain degree, be embraced by our natural notions ? For ac- cording to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins ; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordain- ed this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his at- tributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacri- fice : that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this ; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a propor- tionate sense of God's love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endea- vour after a life of amendment and obedience ? Thus much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious subject. Whether in the expanded range of God's moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten Son, it is not for us to inquire ; nor does it in any degree concern us : what God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe. One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the Subject of the offering, but the Priest who offered it. There- fore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor ; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of be- nevolence, by which he offered himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of the sacrifice^ forgiven ; but in virtue of the intercession admitted to favour and grace. And thus the scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ, in- cludes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure in- tercession, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the re- jection of that notion. It contains the great advantage (x) of impressing mankind with a due sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue — Humility. And the fact is plainly this, that in every at- tempt to get rid of the scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic qual- ity, more or less to prevail : we find a fondness for the opin- ion of man's own sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of revelation. (x) Sec Nov XLV. 3a If now upon the whole it has appeared, that natural reasou is unable to evince the efficacy of repentance : if it has appear- ed, that for the purpose of forgiveness, the idea of a Mediato- rial scheme is perfectly consistent with our ordinary notions : if it has appeared, that revelation has most unequivocally pronounced, that through the mediation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our redemption has been effected : if it has ap- peared, that Christ is tleclared to have effected that redemp- tion, by the sacrifice of himself for the sins of mankind : if it has appeared, that in the scripture meaning of sacrifice for sin, is included atonement for transgression : and if it has appear- ed that the expression has been applied to Christ, in the plain and literal sense of the word, as the propitiation of an offend- ed God : I trust we are sufficiently fortified against the deist, who denies the divine mission ; against the Socinian, who denies the redeeiIing mediation ; and against the modern rationalizing Arian, who denies the expiatory sacrifice of Christ : in short, against all, who would deprive us of any part of the precious benefits, which on this day our Saviour died to procure for us ; against all, who would rob us of that hum- hle feeling of our own insufficiency, which alone can give us an ardent and animating faith in the death and merits of our blessed Redeemer. DISCOURSE II. Heb. ix. 22. And without shedding of blood is no remission. On the last commemoration of the awful subject of thi* day's observance, it was attempted in this place to clear the important doctrine of redemption from those difficulties in which it had been artfully entangled by the subtle specula- tions of the disputatious deist, and of the philosophizing Christian. The impotence of reason to erect the degraded sinner to an assured hope of the sufficiency of repentance, pointed out to us the necessity of an express revelation on this head : that revelation, in announcing the expedient of a Mediator, was seen to fall in with the analogies of the Provi- dential economy : the Mediatorial scheme was shown to have been accomplished, through the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God ; and this sacrifice to have been effective to the expiation of the sins of the whole human race. What the peculiar nature, and true import of this sacrifice are ; and in what sense the expiation effected by it is strictly to be un- derstood, it is my purpose on this day to inquire. And as, on the one hand, there is no article of Christian knowledge of deeper concern ; and, on the other, none that has been more studiously involved in obscurity ; I trust that you, my young brethren, will not refuse your patient attention, whilst I en- deavour to unfold to your apprehension, the genuine, because the scripture interpretation of that great sacrifice, whereby we are redeemed from the power of sin, and have received the promise of an eternal inheritance. In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ's sacrifice has been derived : whereas, in fact by this, all former sacrifices are to be interpreted ; and in reference to it only, can they be understood. From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful that the greatest perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in general ; and that they should ultimately fall with cumulative confusion on the 40 nature of that particular sacrifice, to the investigation of which fanciful and mistaken theories had been assumed as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early and universal practice of sacrifice, to an irrational and super- stitious fear of an imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been led in defiance of the express language of revelation, to reject and ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness of (y) superstition : others, not equally des- titute of reverence for the sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human {s) invention ; and have thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the Jewish sacrifices as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice ; and consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human excogitation. Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various. In one, sacrifices are represented in the light of giflSy[a) intended to sooth and appease the Supreme Beings in like manner as they are found to conciliate the favour of men : in another, they are considered as federal rites, (b) a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of friend- ship with him, by repentance and confession of sins; in a third, they are described as but symbolical actions, or a more expressive language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are eucharistical ; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of, and contrition for sin strongly expressed by the death of the animal, representing that death which the offerer confessed to be his own desert. (c) To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names of Spencer, Sykes, and Warbiirton, li mdiy generally be replied, that the /acf of Abel's sacrifice seems inconsistent with them all : with the first, inasmuch as it must have been antecedent to those dis- tinctions of property, on w hich alone experience of the ef- fects (rf) of gifts upon men could have been founded : with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages prior to that period, at which both the words of scripture, and the opinions of the wisest commentators have fixed the permission (e) of animal food to man : with the third, inasmuch as the lan- guage, which scripture expressly states to have been de- rived to our first parents from divine (/) instruction, cannot (y) See No. XLVI. (z) See No. XLVII. (a) See No. XL VIII. (.b) See No. XLIX. (c) See No. L. (r/) See No. LI. (e) See No. HI (/) See No. LIIL 41 be supposed so defective In those terms that related to the worship of God, as to have rendered it necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the sentiment of gra- titude or sorrow; and still less likely is it that he would have resorted to that species of action, which in the eye of rea- son must have appeared displeasing to God, the slaughter of an unoffending animal. (^) To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the several theories I have mentioned, would lead to a discussion far exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore dismiss them for the present. Noi* shall I, in refutation of the general idea of the human inven- tion of sacrifice, enlarge upon the universality (h) of the practice ; the sameness (t) of the notion of its efficacy, per- vading nations and ages the most remote ; and the unreason- ableness of supposing any natural connexion between the slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the viola- tion of God's laws, — all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as both the general idea and the particular theories which have endeavoured to reconcile to it the na- ture and origin of sacrifice, have been caused by a departure from the true and only source of knowledge ; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we endeavour to establish the genuine scripture notion of sacrifice, at the same time provide the best refutation of every other. It requires but little acquaintance with scripture to know that the lesson which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience had fallen under the displeasure of his Ma- ker ; that to be reconciled to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a Redeemer was appointed, and that this Redeemer laid down his life to procure for re- pentant sinners forgiveness and acceptance. This surren- der of life has been called by the sacred writers a sacrifice; and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such as have been desirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system, it has been a favourite object to represent this sacrifice as entirely figurative, (fc) founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices of the law ; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers, as a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect but as types or shadows, is evident from various passages of holy writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews; in which it is expressly said, that the law having (} shadow of good things to come, can never with those sacrifices which ^) See No. LTV. (A) See No. LV. CO See No. LVI. C'^) See Nos. XXXI. and XLIII. E 42 thet/ offered year by year coiitiniiaHy, make the comers there- unto perfect : — bid this wan, after he had offered one sacri- fice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.^ And again, when the writer of this epistle speaks of the high-priest entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacritice, he asserts, that this was a figure for the time then present, in which ivere offered both gifts and sacrifices^ that could not make him that did the service perfect; but Christ being come, an high-priest of good things to come ; not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us ; for, he adds, if the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spi- rit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- science from dead works to serve the living God /f It must be unncessary to detail more of the numerous passages which go to prove that the sacrifice of Christ was a true and effect- ive sacrifice, wliilst those of the law w^ere but faint repre- sentations, and inadequate copies, intended for i7s introduc- tion. Now, if the sacrifices of the haw appear to have been but preparations for this one great sacrifice, we are naturally led to consider whether the same may not be asserted of sa- crifice from the beginning : and whether we are not warranted by scripture, in pronouncing the entire rite to have been or- dained by God, as a type of that one sacrifice, in which all others were to have their consummation. That the institution was of divine (/) ordinance, may, in the first instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of (m) Abel, again in that of Noah, afterwards in that of Abraham, and also from the systematic establishment of it by the same divine, authority, in the dispensation of Moses. And whether we consider the book of (u) Job as the production of Moses ; or of that pious worshipper of the true God, among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears ; or of some other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the materials left by Job himself ; the representation there made of God, as prescribing sacri- fice to the friends of Job, in every supposition exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon this question. These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary hypothesis, and to which I have al- * Heb. X. 1, 12. t Heb. ix. 9—14 (/) See No. LVII. (m) See No. LVIII. (n) See No. LIX. 43 ready alluded, might perhaps be sufficient to satisfy an in- quiring and candid mind, that sacrifice must have had its origin in divine institution. But if in addition, this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected with the sacriPiCe of Christ, confessedly of divine appoint- ment ; little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us then examine more particularly the circumstances of the first sacrifice offered up by Abel. It is clear from the words of scripture, that both Cain and Abel m.ade oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwith- standing the well known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commentator, (o) that Abel's was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear, that Abel's was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now what could have occasioned the distinction? The acknowledgment of the Supreme Being and of his uni- versal dominion, was no less strong in the offering of the fruits of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the flock by Abel : the intrinsic efficacy of the gift must have been the same in each, each giving of the best that he pos- seissed ; the expression of gratitude, equally significant and forcible in both. How then is the difference (p) to be ex- plained ? If we look to the writer to the Hebrews, he informs us, that the ground on which Abel's oblation was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his in faith; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opin- ion of this writer, the animal sacrifice. The words are re- markable — By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by tvhich he obtained witness that he rvas righteous, God testifying of his gifts.^ The words here translated, a more excelletit sacrifice, are in an early version rendered a much more sacrifice, {q) which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original. The meaning then is, that by failh Abel offered that which was much more of the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by Cain. Abel consequently was directed by faith, and this faith was manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to infer? — Without some revelation (r) granted, some assurance held out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue : and without some pe- culiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he coukl not have exempli- fied his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made, we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consi- der whether this could have a connexion with any divine as- surance communicated at that early day. (o) See No. LX. (p) See No, LXr. (q) See No. LXU, (r) See No. LXIII. * Heb. xi. 4. 44 It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempter that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to conceive how the principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our first parents the grand object of failh. To perpetuate this fundamental ariicle of religious belief among the descendants of Adam, some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the pro- mised deliverance, would naturally be appointed. (s) And if we admit that the scheme of redemption by the. death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the begin- ning ; that is, if we admit that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means : if we admit that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; what memorial could be devised more apposite than that of animal sacrifice ? — exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience : — thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time represent- ing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of manki?id : — and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the fall, and the recovery: the death denounced against sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One who was to lay down his life to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems then to have been pecu- liarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious kriowledcfe : and the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins w^hich had arisen from man's transgression ; and a full reliance upon the promises of deliverance, joined to an ac- quiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment. If this view of the matter be just, there is nothing impro- bable even in the supposition that that part of the significa- tion of the rite which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some degree made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this, (scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption,) room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the pronii^^e of redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these princj* (s) See No. LXIV. 45 pies, we shall find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that Abel's offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacri- fice which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith ; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not ap- pearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty in acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and ex- pressing his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by pre- senting some of those good thijigs which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of his parents* disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of revelation, because they fell not within its apprehension of right. He takes the first place in the annals of deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit, which, in later days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacri- fice of Christ. This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of expostulation in which God addresses Cain, on his express- ing resentment at the rejection of his offering, and the ac ceptance of Abel's. The words in the present version are, if thou doest well, shall thou not be accepted.'' — and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door^ — which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply no very satisfactory meaning, and have long served to exercise the ingenuity of commentators to but little purpose. But if the word, which is here translated sin, be rendered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, a sin offering, the reading of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shall thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the door, (t) The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain for not conforming to that species of sacrifice which had been offered by Abel. He refers to it as a matter of known injunction ; and hereby points out the ground of distinction in his treatment of him and his brother : and thus, in direct terms, enforces the ob- servance of animal sacrifice. As that part of my general position, which pronounces sa- crifice to have been of divine institution, receives support from the passage just recited ; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite bore an aspect to the sacrifice of * Gen. iv. T. (t) See No. LXV. m Christ, additional evidence may be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inasmuch as he places the blood of Abel's sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently the blood ofsjnink- ling :^' and represents both as speaking good things, in dif- ferent degrees, (v) What then is the result of the foregoing reflections ? — The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith but the promise of a Redeemer : and of this faith, the offering of an animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the legitimate, and consequently the instituted, expression. The institution of animal sacrifice then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate and most appo- site application to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connect- ed with the work of redemption, that likewise we have reason to think was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE appears to have been ordained as a stand- ing memorial of the death introduced bi/ sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the Redeemer » We accordingly find this institution of animal sacrifice con- tinue until the giving of the law. No other offering than that of an animal being recorded in scripture down to this pe- riod, (w) except in the case of Cain, and that we have seen was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind also were the sin-offerings presented by Job, he being said to have offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his sons, lest some of them might have sinned in their hearts.f But when we come to the promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal sacrifice and atonement, or recon. ciliation with God, clearly and distinctly announced. It is here declared that sacrifices for sin should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of transgression. And with respect to the peciiliar efficacy of animal sacrifice, we find this remarkable declaration, — the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make atonement for the soul :J in rc-rerence to which words, the sacred writer, from whom I have taken the subject of this day's discourse, formally pronounces, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Now in what conceivable light can we view this institution, but in relation to that great * Heb. xii. 24. f Job i. 5. ^ Lev. xvil. 11. (r) See No. LXVI. (iu) See No. LXVII. 47 sacrifice which was to make atonement for sins : to thit blood of sprinkling, which was to speak better things than that of Abel,^ or that of the law. The law itself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can the principal institution of the law refer ? — an institution too, which unless so referred appears utterly unmeaning. The offering up an animal cannot be imagined to have had any intrinsic efficacy in procuring pardon for the transgression of the offerer. The blood of bulls and of goats could have possessed no virtue, whereby to cleanse him from his offences. Still less intelli- gible is the application of the blood of the victim to the pu- rifying of the parts of the tabernacle, and the apparatus of the ceremonial worship. All this can clearly have had no other than an instituted meaning ; and can be understood only as in reference to some blood-shedding, which in an eminent degree possessed the power of purifying from pollution. lu short, admit the sacrifice of Christ to be held in view in the institutions of the law, and every part is plain and intelligible; reject that notion, and every theory devised by the ingenuity of man, to explain the nature of the ceremonial worship, be- comes trifling and inconsistent. Granting then the case of the Mosaic sacrifice and that of Abel's to be the same ; neither of them in itself efficacious ; both instituted by God ; ^nd both instituted in reference to that true and efficient sacrifice, which was one day to be of- fered : the rite, as practised before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a sacramental memorial, shoiving forth the Lord's death until he came ;f and when accompa- nied with a due faith in the promises made to the early believ- ers, may reasonably be judged to have been equally accept- able with that sacramental memorial, which has been enjoined by our Lord himself to his followers, for the shoiving forth his death until his coming again. And it deserves to be noticed that this very analogy seems to be intimated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the institution of that solemn Christian rite. For in speaking of his own blood, he calls it, in direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses es- tablished and sanctified the first covenant, the blood of the NEW covenant, which was shed for the remission of sins .-"^ thus plainly marking out the similitude in the nature and ob- jects of the two covenants, at the moment that he was pre- scribing the great sacramental commemoration of his own sacrifice. From this view of the subject, the history of scripture sa- crifice becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abe!, and the patriarchal sacrifices down to the giving of the law., * Heb. xii. 24- f 1 Cor. xl 26. i Matt. Kxvi. 28- 48 record and e?iemplity those momentous events in the historj^ of man,— the death incmred by sin, and that inflicted on our Redeemer. When length of time, and mistaken notions of religion leading to idolatry and every perversion of the reli- gious principle, had so far clouded and obscured this expres- sive act of primeval worship, that it had ceased to be consi- dered by the nations of the world in that reference in which its true value consisted : when the mere rite remained, with- out any remembrance of the promises, and consequently un- accompanied by that faith in their fulfilment, which w^as to render it an acceptable service : when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart, and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each offended deity : when with the recollection of the true God, all knowledge of the true worship was effaced from the minds of men : and when joined to the absurdity of the sacrificial rites, their cruelty, devoting to the malignity of innumerable sanguinary gods endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine interference ; then we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by express revelation, the knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species of worship ordained by him from the beginning, particularly enjoined. The principal part of the Jewish service, we accordingly find to consist of sacrifice ; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement is expressly annexed : and in the manner of it, the particulars appear so minutely set forth, that when the object of the whole law should be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to its intended application. The Jewish sacrifices therefore seem to have been designed, as those from the beginning had been, to prefigure that one, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And as in this all were to receive their con- summation, so with this they all conclude : and the institu- tion closes with the completion of its object. But, as the gross perversions, which had pervaded the Gentile world, had reached likewise to the chosen people ; and as the temptations to idolatry, which surrounded them on all sides, were so pow- erful as perpetually to endanger their adlierence to the God of their fathers, we find the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal habits. And since the law itself, with its accom- panying sanctions, seems to have been principally temporal ; so the worship it enjoins is found to have been for the most part, rather a public and solemn declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to the Gentile idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed 49 lo succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit. That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering persons or things fit to approach God in the exer- cises of the ceremonial worship ; whilst at the same time they were designed to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and possessed the transcendent virtue of atoning for all moral pollution, involves in it no inconsis- tency whatever, since in this the true proportion of the entire dispensations is preserved. And to this point, it is particu- larly necessary that our attention should be directed, in the examination of the present subject ; as upon the apparent disproportion in the objects and effects of sacrifice in the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against their intended correspondence have been founded. (.x) The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ ; tke law itself being but a schoobnaster to bring us to Christ; the sacred writers in the New Testament^ natu- rally adopt the sacrificial terms of the ceremonial service, and by their reference to the use of them as employed under the law, clearly point out the sense in which they are to be understood in their application under the gospel. In ex- amining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the New Testament, we are clearly directed to the expla- nation that is circumstantially given of them in the Old. Thus, when we find the virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like manner as it had been to those un- der the law ; by attending to the representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we arc enabled to comprehend its true import in the former. (3/) Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly compared with it by tlie writer to the He- brews, is that which was offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation. (s) The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a goat as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people : and having sprijikled the blood of these in due form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a se- cond goat, denominated the scape-goat; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the {x) See No. LXVIIL (y) See No. LXIX. (2) See Nd. LXX. F head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness : in this manner expressing by an action, which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offerina;, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by tliis symbolical translation to the animal. For it is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct oue : it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin-offering. («) So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness, manifestly im- ply that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin- offering, consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this ceremony ? — That as the atonement under the law, or expia- tion of the legal transgressions, was represented as a transla- tion of those transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain, and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred ; so the great atonement for the sins of mankifid was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, under- going for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death which had been denounced against sin ; and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actual- ly transferred to him, as those of the congregation had been symholically transferred to the sin-offering of the people. That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ's sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both the Old and the New Testament : and that thus far the death of Christ is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total disregard of the sacretl writings. It has indeed been asserted, by those who oppose the doc- trine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sacrifices. (6) With what justice this assertion has been made, may be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced. The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which must necessari- ly mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities) — this ac- companied with the death of the victim ; and the consequence of the whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the offerers, and the ablution of all legal offen- siveness in the sight of God : — thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less than this we are (a) See No LXXI. (*) See No. LXXII. 51 clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that which we must attribute to the great atonement of which the Mosaic ceremony was but a type : always remembering care- fully to distinguish between the figure and the substance ; duly adjusting their relative value and extent ; estimating the efficacy of the one as real, intrinsic, and universal ; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived, and em- blematic. (c) It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atonement has been explained in this, and a former discourse, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced. (f scripture, will be seen when we come more particularly to notice this performance in another part of this volume. ftd PRE-BXI9TENCE OF CHRrST, sine muUis precUnis ipsius, Jesit nomine invocato, impetravU ipse. {Socinus contr. Eutrop. torn. 2. p. 678.) This stib- lime interpretation has, it must be confessed, been relinquished by later Socinians, who in imitation of Grotius, consider Christ as asserting only that he was before Abraham in the decree of God. But how this could serve as a reply to the objection of the Jews, respecting priority of actual existence ; or how in this Christ said any thing of himself that was not true of every human being, and therefore nugatory ; or why the Jews upon a declaration so innocent and so unmeaning, should have been fired with rage against him as a blasphemer ; or (if the sense be, that Christ existed in the divine mind antecedent, not to Abraham's birth, but to his existence in the divine mind like- Avise) what the meaning can be of a priority in the divine foreknowledge, I leave to Mr. Belsham and his assistant com- mentators to unfold. Indeed this last interpretation seems not to have given entire satisfaction to Socinians themselves, as we find from a paper signed DiscipuliiSj in the 4th vol. of the Theol. Repos. in which it is asserted, " that the modern Unitarians have needlessly departed from the interpretation given by Slichtingius, Enjidinus, and other old Socinians, and have adopted another in its stead, which is not to be sup- ported bij any just grftmmatical construction.^' This gen- tleman then goes on to furbish up the ,old Socinian armour, and exults in having rendered it completely proof against all the weapons of orthodoxy. Mr. Wakefield however seems to think it safer to revert to the principles of Grotius's interpretation : and accordingly having fortified it against the charge of grammatical inaccu- racy, he presents it in somewhat of a new shape, by translat- ing the passage, Before Abraham was born, I am he — viz. the Messiah. By which, he says, Christ means to imply, that ** his mission was settled and certain before the birth of Abra- ham." That Mr. Wakefield has, by this construction, not only avoided the mystical conceits of Socinus's interpretation, but also some of the errors chargeable on that of Grotius, cannot be denied : but, besides, that he has built his entire translation of the passage upon the arbitrary assumption of an ellipsis, to which the texts quoted as parallel furnish no support whatever, it remains, as before, to be shown, what Intelligible connexion subsists between our Lord's answer, and the question put to him by the JeAVS. If he meant mere- ly to say, that his mission as the Messiah had been ordained before the birth of Abraham, (which is in itself a tolerable strain upon the words even of this new translation,) it will require all Mr. Wakefield's ingenuity to explain in what way this could have satisfied the Jews, as to the possibility of AND NATURE OP OBJECTIONS. 61 Clirist's having actually seen Abraham, which is the precise difficulty our Lord proposes to solve by his reply. Doctor Priestley, in his later view of this subject, has not added much in point of clearness or consistency to the Socinian exposition. He confesses, however, that the " literal mean- ing of our Lord's expressions'* in the 56th verse was, that ** he had lived before Abraham," and that it was so consider- ed by the Jews : but at the same time he contends that our Lord did not intend his words to be so understood : and that when he afterwards speaks of his priority to Abraham, his meaning is to be thus explained ; " that in a veri/ proper sense of the words, he may be said to have been even be- fore Abraham, the Messiah having been held forth as the great object of hope and joy for the human race, not only to Abraham, but even to his ancestors." (Notes^ &c. vol. iii, pp. 329, 330, 333, 334.) Such is what Dr. Priestley calls the proper sense o( the words, Before Abraham was, I am. J have here given a very few instances, but such as furnish a fair specimen of the mode of reasoning, by which those enlightened commentators to whom Mr. Belsham refers, have been enabled to explain away the direct and evident meaning of scripture. I have adduced these instances from the ar- guments which they have used relating to the pre-existence of Christ, as going to the very essence of their scheme of Christianity, (if such it can be called,) and as being some of those on which they principally rely. I have not scrupled to dwell thus long upon a matter not necessarily connected with the subject of these discourses, as some benefit may be derived to the young student in divinity, (for whom this pub- lication has been principally intended,) from exposing the hollowness of the ground on which these high-sounding gen- tlemen take their stand, whilst they trumpet forth their own extensive knowledge, and the ignorance of those who differ from them. These few instances may serve to give him some idea of the fairness of their pretensions, and the soundness of their criticism. He may be still better able to form a judgment of their powers in scriptural exposition, when he finds upon trial, that the formuloe of interpretation, which have been applied to explain away the notion of Christ's pre- existence, from the passages that have been cited, may be employed with the best success in arguing away such a mean- ing from any form of expression that can be devised. Thus, for example, had it been directly asserted that our Lord had existed for ages before his appearance in this world : it is replied, all this is true, in the decree of God, but it by no means relates to an actual existence. Had Christ, as a proof oHv's iiic^nrpeteiicy oh the subject of the Indian theology, has als'o been proved by Mt» ttalhecl, who has showVi, in the preface to his translation of the Gentoo Code, (p. 32. ed. 1776.) that wtiter'^s total defi- ciency in the knowledge of the sacred writifigs of the iirn- doos : and as to Mr. "GrOse, I refer the reader to the Indian Aniiquities, (p*p. 249^, "^155.) for instances of his superficial acquaintance with the affairs of Hindostan, It is of the greater importance to appreciate truly the value of the tei^t'i- mony given by these writers, as on their reports has been founded a conclusion, directly subversive of the fact here attempted to be establlb'hed.-j- * In addition to the authorities already referred to upon this head, I Would suggest to tlie rcHder a perusal of J^lr. Mickle^s Iv^uiry into the Brahmin Philosophy ^ suffixed to the seventh Book of his Translation of Camoens's Lusiad. He will find in that interesting summary, abundant proofs, not only of the existence of the practice of human sacrifice in mo- dern India, but also of the total incredibility of the romances of Dow and Holwel : and he will at the same time discover the reason why these au- thors are view^ed with so mucli partiality by a certain description of wri- ters. The philosophic tincture of their observations upoh religion, and the liberties taken, by Mr Holwel especially, with both the Mosaic and Chris- tian revelations, were too nearly allied to the spirit of Unitarianism not to have had charms for the advocates of that system. — The superiority of the revelation of Brahtna over that of Moses, Mr. Holwel instances in the creation of man. In the former, he says, " the creation of the human form is clogged with no difficulties, no ludicrous iintJitelUgitle circutnstandest or inconsistencies. God previously constructs mortal bodies of both 9exes for the reception of the angelic spirits." {Mickles Lusiad, vol. ii. p. ^53.') Mr. Holwel also, in his endeavours to prove the revelation of Birmah and of Christ to be the same, gi-avely proceeds to solve the difficulty which arises from their present want of resemblance, by asserting that " the doc- trine of Christ, as it is delivered to us, is totally cori'upted : that age after age has discoloured it; that even the most ancient record of its history, the New Testament, is grossly corrupted; that St. Paul by his reteries, and St. Peter by his sanction to kill and eat, began this woful declension, and perversion of the doctrines of Christ." {Mickle^s iwwW, vol. ii. p. 254.) After this, can we wonder, that Dr. Priestley considered this writer sviffi- cien\.\y enlightened to be admitted as undoubted evidence in the est-ablish- ment of whatever facts he might be pleased to vouch ? Yet it is whimsical enough that this writer, who is so eminently philosophical, and as such is so fiivourite a witness with Dr. Priestley, should have disclosed an ophiion with respect to philosophers, so disreput'alile as the following. " The devil and his chiefs have often as well as the good angels, taken the human form, and appeared in the character of tyrants, and corrupters of morals, or phi' losophers, who are (he asserts) the devil's faithful deputies " {MicJtle's Lu- siad, vol. ii. p. 250) f To the curious re!ad6r -who miy wish to see the latest and Most interest- ittg account of the sanguinary superstitions of the Hindoos, and of the ge- neral state of that people in point of civilization at the present day, I would s'^rongly recommend Dr. Buchanan's Memoir on the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India : in whicli he will not only find ample confirmation of Mr. .Maurice's statements, as to the dread- ful extent of human sacrifice among the natives of Hindostan, (see pp. 33, 54, 47 — 50, 91 — 104.) but also the most affecting exposition of the decay- ing state of religion amongst their jfconquerors. nVHA^ SACljllFlCES. 75 The subject of this number may derive additional light from the nature of the representations of the Divinity, throughout the Heathen nations. Thus in the images of the deity among the Indians, we find an awful and terrific pow^r the ruling feature. Thousands of outstretched arms and In thfis latter point of view it is a work that cannot be too generally known, nor too attentively perused. The contrast which it exhibits be- tween the indifference of Protestantism and the zeal of popery, in those distant reg^ions, is striking-ly illustrative of the prevailing character of each. An establishment of eighteen military chaplains, of whom not more than twelve are at any one time in actual appointment, — with three churches, (one at Calcutta, one at Madras, and one at Bombay,) constitutes the en- tire means of religious instruction, for the vast extent of the British em- pire in the East : whilst, at the various settlements and factories at Ben- fioolen, Canton, and the numerous islands in that quarter in the possession of Britain, not a single clergyman of the English church is to be found, to perform the rite of baptism, or any other Christian rite whatever. British armies also, have been known to be not unfrequently in the field without a chaplain: and it is said, that Marquis Cornwallis was indebted to the ser- vices of a British officer for the last solemn offices of interment. The con- sequence (as Dr. Buchanan states) has been, that " all respect for Chris- tian institutions has worn away ; and that the Christian sabbath is now no otherwise distinguished than by the display of the British flag" ! ! ! So that '♦we seem at present," he says, "to be trying the question, whether re- I.IGIOM BE NECESSARY FOR A STATE: wliethcr a remote commercial empire, having no sign of the Deity, no type of any thing heavenly, may not yet maintain its Christian purity, and its political strength, amidst Pa- gun superstitions, and a voluptuous and unprincipled people." The effect also of this want of religious instruction. Dr. Buchanan describes to be such as might naturally be expected, — a general spread of profligacy amongst our own people ; and a firm belief amongst the natives, that ** the ENGLISH HAVE NO RELIGION." Now in what way does Dr. Buchanan describe the exertions of the ro- MisH CHURCH to propagate its peculiar tenets ? An establishment of three archbishops and seventeen bishops, with a proportional number of church- es and inferior clergy, is indefatigably employed in sending through the East, and particularly through the dominions of Protestant Britain, that form of religious faith, which Protestants condemn as perniciously errone- ous. Jn Bengal alone, he states there are eight Romish churches, besides four Armenian, and two Greek : and it affords matter of melancholy reflec- tion, th^t we are compelled to derive a consolation under the consequences of our own religious apathy, from the contemplation of those beneficial ef- fects which Dr. Buchanan ascribes to the influence of this Romish esta- )3lishment, in its civilizing operation on the minds of the Asiatics. The sentiments which an acquaintance with these facts must naturally i^xcite in the minds of such as retain any sense of the value of true religion, make it particularly desirable that this work should be known to all; espe- cially to those who have the power to promote the means of rectifying the dreadful evils which it authenticates. To a religious mind the perusal of the work must undoubtedly be distressing. But'^from the j^loom which the darkness of Pagan superstition, joined to the profligacy ot European irre- ligion spreads over the recitals it contains, the pious heart will find a relief in that truly evangelical production of pastoral love, presented in Archbi- shop Wake*s primary charge to the Protestant missionaries in India; and yet more in that delightful picture which is given of the church of Mala- bar : — a church, which, as it is reported to have been of apostc^ic origin, carries with it to this day the marks of apostolic simplicity ; and which presents the astonishing phenomenon of a numerous body of Hindoo Chris- 76 PREVALENCE OF hands, generally filled with swords and daggers, bows and arrows, and everj instrument of destruction, express to the terrified worshipper the cruel nature of the god. The col- lars of human scidls, the forked tongues shooting from ser- pents' jaws, the appendages of mutilated corses, and all the other circumstances of terrific cruelty which distinguish the black goddess, Seeva, Haree, and other of the idols of Hin- dostan, {Maurice's Ind Antiq. pp. 182, 2513, 327, 381, 382, 856, 8/57, 882.) sufficiently manifest the genius of that re- ligion which presented these as objects of adoration. To the hideous idols of Mexico, one of which was of most gi- gantic size, seated upon huge snakes, and expressly denomi- nated TERROR, (Clavig. lib. vi. sect. 6.) it was usual to present the heart, torn from the breast of the human victim, and to insert it, whilst yet warm and reeking, in the jaws of the blood-thirsty divinity. (Ibid. lib. vi. sect. 18.) The supreme god of the ancient Scythians was worshipped by tians, exceeding- both in their practice and their doctrines, the purity of any Christian church since the age of the apostles. " Such are the heresies of this church," said their Portuguese accusers, that " their clergy mar- ried wives ; that they owued but two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper; that they denied tran substantiation ; that they neither invoked saints nor believed in purgatory ; and that they had no other oiders or names of" dignity in the church than bishop or deacon.'* Such was found to be the state of the church of Malabar in the year 1599, and such there is good reason to believe, had been its state from its foundation in the ear- liest times of Christianity. (See Dr. Jiuchanari's Memoir^ pp. 1 — 8, 12, 18, 55—62, 75 — 79.) To the question which Popery triumphantly proposes to tht' Protestant, "where was your religion before luther ?** the answer, "in the bible," derives now an auxiliary from this most important and interesting f'Ct. 1 should deem it necessary to apologize to the reader for this digression respecting the contents of Dr. Buchanan's publication, were 1 not convinced that in drawing attention to its subject, I am doing a real service to Chris- tiaiiity. As a most valuable Appendix to this publication, I must beg leave also to i-( commend to the reader the xviith article of the 1st volume of the Quarterly lieview. The impious policy that would impede the introduction of ihe (Christian religion into India, is there treated as it deserves. The fasiiionitble sophistry which had for a time prevailed upon this subject, is most happily exposed by the Reviewer. And with no common talent and address, it is an nswerably proved, to be no less the interest than the dnty of the conqueror to spread the light of the gospel far and wide through the regions of Hindustan. Melciv Tctv^oia-i X.XI x^vetoi^ tXccovrott. Hesiod, in like manner, (Efy. Kcct H/u,. 338.) applies the term in such a sense as cannot be misunderstood. Having declared the certainty that the wicked would be visited by the divine vengeance ; he pro- ceeds to recommend sacrifice, as amongst the means of ren- dering the deity propitious AAAoXf <5*^ G-Trov^ijTt ^vea-a-ire tXacKta-exi . Plutarch makes use of the word, expressly in reference to the anger of the gods, e|/A«s-«c-^«c/ ro fAfjui^x rtn hit. That the words t?ixi!'}ceT0xt, t^^xcf^i, &c. carry with them the force of rendering propitious an offended deify, might be proved by various other instances from the writers of antiquity : and that in the use of thie terms «T«r^oT<«cr«* or «tT«T«aT<«r^5, K 82 PREVALENCE OF HUMAN SACRIFICES. xcc6ci^f4.cc, 'Tce^i'^iifA.ct, and (px^tt^enceg, the ancients meant to convey the idea of apiacular sacrifice averting the anger of the gods, he who is at all conversant with their'writings needs not to be informed. The word ys-e^i-^?,f^» particularly, Hesychius explains by the synonymous terms, ccvriXvr^ov, a.vrf^vxo^ : and Suidas describes its meaning in this remarkable manner, Ovruq fweAfyev yA6r)votioi\ ra y.u.r' evtuvrov o-vve^ovri zrecvrav xctKcf (this Schleusner affirms to be the true reading) — tti^i-^vi^u rfca^ yeva, r,rot cam^tu koh cc-sroXvr^aTi^. Kent ovrui tvsQoi}^>>ov tj; GocXxora-ri, ac-ccDei Tuj Yloc-n^uvi 6vtiuv ec-srorivvvvrt^. Nor is the idea of propitiatory atonement more clearly expressed by the Greek, than it is by the Latin, writers of antiquity. The words placare, propitiare, expiare, litare, placamen, piaculum, and such like, occur so frequently, and with such clearness of application, that their force cannot be easily misapprehended or evaded. Thus Horace, (lib. ii. sat. 3.) Prudens placavi sanguine Divos : and (lib. i. Ode 28.) Teque piacula nulla resolvent : and in his second Ode, he proposes the question, cui dabit partes scehfs expiandi Jupi- ter? (" to which," says Parkhurst whimsically enough, " the answer in the poet is, Apollo — the second person in the hea- then trinity.'*) Caesar likewise, speaking of the Gauls, says, as has been already noticed, Pro vita hominis nisi vita ho- minis reddatur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur. Cicero, {pro Fonteio^ x.) speaking of the same people, says, Si quando aliquo metu adducti, deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funes- tant. The same writer (De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 6.) says, Tu autem etiam Deciorum devotionibus placatos Deos esse censes. From Silius Italicus and Justin, we have the most explicit declarations that the object of the unnatural sacrifices of the Carthaginians, was to obtain pardon from the gods. Thus the former, (lib. 4. lin. 767, Sec.)— Mos fult in popuUs, quos condidit advena Dido JPoscere caede Deos veiiiatUj ac flagrantibus aris (Infandum dictu) parvos imponere natos — And in like manner the latter, (lib. xviii. cap. 6.) expresses himself: Homines ut victimas immolabant : et impuberes aris admovebant ; pacem sanguine eorum exposcentes, pro quorum vita Dii rogari maxime solent. Lucan also, referring to the same bloody rites, usual in the worship of the cruel gods of the Saxons, thus speaks of them, {PharsaL lib. i. lin. 44,% &c.) Et qulbus immitis placatnv sanguine diro Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Hesus, Et Tbaramis Scythise non mitior ara Dianjo — THE MULTIPLIED OPERATION, &C. ^3 Virgil likewise, (JEw. ii. lin. 116.) Sangvhie placastis ventos, et vJrgine csesa, Sani^uine quserendi reditus, anhndque litanduin Argoiica Suetonius relates of Olho, (cap. 7.) Per omnia piaculorunt genera, manes Galbne propitiare tentasse. And Livy (lib. vii. cap. ii.) says. Cum vis morbi nee humanis consiliis, nee ope divina levaretur, ludi quoque scenici, inter alia c(£lestis ir(Z placamina institui dicuater : and the same writer, in another place, directly explains the object of animal sacrifice ; Per dies aliquot, hostise majores sine litatione cgesae, diuque noii impetrata pax Deum. The word litare is applied in the same manner by Pliny, {De Viris Illiist. Tidl. Host.) Dum Numam sacrificiis imitatur, Jovi Elicio litare non potuit; fulmine ictus cum regia conflagravit. This sense of the word might be confirmed by numerous instances. Servius, {JEn, iv. lio. 50.) and Macrobius, (lib. iii. cap. 5.) inform us, tha it implies, " facto sacrificio placare numen :" and Stephamis says from Nonius, that it differs from sacrificare in this, that the signification of the latter is, veniam petere^ but that of the former, veniam impetrare. But to produce all the authorities on this head were end- less labour: and indeed to have produced so many might seem to be an useless one, were it not of importance to enable us to appreciate with exactness the claims to literary pre- eminence, set up by a writer, who on all occasions pronounces ex cathedra ; and on whose dicta, advanced with an authori- tative and imposing confidence, and received by his followers with implicit reliance, has been erected a system, embracing the most daring impieties that have ever disgraced the name of Christianity. If the observations in this number, of the length of which I am almost ashamed, have the effect of proving to any of his admirers, the incompetency of the guide whom they have hitherto followed with unsuspecting ac- quiescence, I shall so far have served the cause of truth and of Christianity, and shall have less reason to regret the trou- ble occasioned both to the reader and to myself, by this pro- lix detail. No. VI. ON THE MULTIPLIED OPERATION OF THE DIVINE ACTS. Page 21. (/) — This thought we find happily conveyed by Mr. Pope, in his Essay on Man : " In human works, tho* laboured gn with pain, ** A. thousand movements scarce one purpose g-ain j " Tn God's one single does its end produce ; *' Yet serves to second too, sgme other use-'*— 84 DtlSTIOAL REASONING In the illustration of this part of my subject, I have been much indebted to the excellent -Sermons of the Bishop of London, on the Christian doctrine of Redemption : and also to the sixth letter of H. Taylor's Ben MordecaVs Apology — a work, which though it contains much of what must be pro- nounced to be erroneous doctrine, is nevertheless, in such parts as do not take their complexion from the tinge of the author's peculiar opinions, executed with acuteness, learning, and research. No. VII. DEISTICAL REASONING INSTANCED IN CHUBB. Page 22. (g) — The objection stated in the page here re- ferred to, is urged by Chubb, in his reasoning on Redemp- tion, The species of argument here employed, is a favourite one with this deistical writer. He applies it on another occasion, to establish a conclusion, no less extraordinary, than that the conversion of the Jews or Heathens to Christianity was a matter of little consequence, either as to the favour of God, or their own future safety ; for, adds he, if they were virtuous and good men, they were secure withotit such conversion; and IF they were bad, vicious men, they were not secured by it ! ! ! {Posthumous Works, vol. 2. p. 33.) Thus with the simple apparatus of an if and a dilemma, was this acute reason er able, on all occasions, to subvert any part of the system of revelation against which he chose to direct his attacks. The AOS noY STfl was never Avanting to this moral Archimedes ; and the fulcrum and two-forked lever were always ready at hand, to aid the designs of the logical mechanician. Yet this man was one of the enlightened in his day. And even at the present time there is good reason to think that he is held in no small estimation by those who claim to be distinguish- ed by that appellation, amongst the professors of Christianity. For in the treatises of Unitarian and oilier philosophic Chris- tians of these later times, we find the arguments and opinions of this writer plentifully scattered ; and at the same time all ostentatious display of the source from which they are de- rived, most carefully avoided : — circumstances, from which their serious reverence of the author, and the solid value they attach to his works, may reasonably be inferred. Now, as this is one of the oracles from which these illumi- nating teachers derive their lights, (without however confess- ing it,) it may afford some satisfaction to the reader, who may not have misemployed time in attempting to wade through the swamp of muddy metaphysics which he has left behind INSTANCED IN CHUBB. 85 him, to have a short summary of his notions concerning Chris- tianity laid before him. Having altogether rejected the Jewish revelation, and pro- nounced the New Testament to be a " fountain of confusion and contradiction ;" and having consequently affirmed every appeal to scripture to be " a certain way to perplexity and dissatisfaction, but not to find out the truth :" he recommends our return from all these absurdities to " that prior rule of action, that eternal and invariable rule of right and wrong, as to an infallible guide, and as the solid ground of our peace and safety." Accordingly, having himself returned to this infallible guide, he is enabled to make these wonderful disco- veries — 1 . That there is no particular Providence ; and that, consequently, any dependence on Providence, any trust in God, or resignation to his will, can be no part of religion ; and, that the idea of application to God for his assistance, or prayer in any view, has no foundation in reason. 2. That we have no reason to pronounce the soul of man to be imma- terial, or that it will not perish with the body. 3. That if ever we should suppose a future state in which man shall be accountable, yet the judgment which shall take place in that state, will extend but to a small part of the human race, and but to a very few of the actions which he may perform : to such alone, for example, as affect the public weal. Such are the results of reason triumphing over scripture : and such is the wisdom of man when it opposes itself to the wisdom of God ! — Yet this strange and unnatural blasphemer of divine truth declares, that the work which conveys to the world the monstrous productions of insanity and impiety above cited, (and these are but a small portion of the entire of that description,) he had completed in the decline of life, with the design to leave to mankind " a valuable legacy,'' conducing to their general happiness. The reader will hard- ly be surprised, after what has been said, to learn that the same infallible guide which led this maniac to revile the Jew- ish and Christian scriptures, and to condemn the apostles and first publishers of Christianity as blunderers and impostors, prompted him at the same time to speak with commendation of the religion of ^ Mahomet* " Whether the Mahometan * It deserves to be noticed, that a complacency for the religion of Maho- met, is a character by which the Uberality of the Socinian or Unitarian is not less distinguished than that of the deist. The reason assigned for this by Mr. Van Mildert is a just one. Mahometanisnn is admired by both, be- cause it sets aside those distinguishing doctrines of tlie gospel, the divinity of Christ, and the sacrifice ufion the cross ,- and prepares the way for what the latter are pleased to dignify with the title of Natural Religion, and the former with that of Rational Christianity.— Tan Mildert^s Boyle Lect. vol. i. p. 208. The same writer also truly remarks^ (p. 202) that, besides exhibit- '86 DEISTICAL REASONING, ^C. revelation be of a divine original or not, there seems (says he) to be a plausible pretence, arising from the circumstances of things, for stampinvere not en- TreipvKuii 0505. Hierocl. f This position he exhibits thus, in language which will be intelligible to mathematicians only. " The ratio of G to M-f-q, is different from that of G to M — q : and yet G remains unaltered." — To the opponents of the ar- gument, this formula of its exposition will no doubt afford ground rather of jocularity than of conviction. For of men capable of maintaining a con- trary opinion, there can be no great hazard m pronouncing, that they ^e not mathematicians. THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. 8i> joined for the perfection, it would be permitted to the weak- ness of our nature. We should be betrayed into it, if we thought it sin ; and pious ejaculations would escape our lips, though we were obliged to preface them with, God forgive me for praying? — To those (she says) who press the objec- tion, that we cannot see in what manner our prayers can be answered, consistently with the government of the world ac- cording to general laws : it may be sufficient to say, that prayer being made almost an instinct of our nature, it cannot be supposed bat that, like all other instincts, it has its use : but that no idea can be less philosophical, than one which implies, that the existence of a God who governs the world, should make no difference in our conduct ; and few things less probable, than that the child-like submission which bows to the will of a father, should be exactly similar in feature to the stubborn patience which bends under the yoke of ne- cessity. Remarks on Wakefield's Inquiry, p. 11 — -14. See also the excellent remarks of Doctor Percival to the same purport, cited in the Appendix to this volume. No. IX. ON THE GRANTING OF THE DIVINE FORGIVE- NESS THROUGH A MEDIATOR OR INTERCESSOR. Page 23. (i)— See H, Taylor's Ben Mord, 5th Let- ter : in which a number of instances are adduced from the Old Testament, to show that God's dealing with his crea- tures is of the nature here described. Thus we find, that when God had declared that he would destroy the entire na- tion of Israel for their idolatry at Horeb, {Numb. ch. 14.) and again, for their intended violence against Caleb and Joshua, {Deut. ch. 9.) yet upon the intercession of Moses, he is said to have forgiven them. In like manner, for the sake of ten righteous persons, he would have spared Sodom. {Oen. xviii. 32.) In remembrance of Abraham, Is^iac, and Jacob, and for their sakes, he is represented as being mer- ciful to their posterity, {Gen. xxvi. 24.) — He forgave Abi- melech also upon the prayer of Abraham, {Gen. xx. 7.) and the friends of Job, upon the solicitation of that patriarch, {Job xlii. 10.) — and, what renders these two last instances particularly strong is, that whilst he declares the purpose of forgiveness, he at the same time expressly prescribes the mediation by which it was to be obtained. To quote more of the numerous instances which the Old Testament sup- plies on this head, must be unnecessary. What has been urged will enable us to form a true judgment of that extra- ordinary position, on which Dr. Priestley relies not a little, {Hist, of Cor. vol. 1. p. 156.) viz. that "the declarations L 90 THE DIVINE F0RGITENE8S of divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, through all the books of scripture, without the most distant hint of any regard being had to the suffer- ings or merit of any being whatever.'^ Very different indeed were the sentiments of the piou* writer referred to in the last number. He not merely ad- mits the contrary of this position to be founded in the facts of revelation ; but he maintains the abstract reasonableness of the principle, with a force and feelii'g that must render his remarks upon this head particularly acceptable to the read- er. If it be asked, he says, what influence our prayers can have upon the state of others ; what benefit they can derive from our intercessions ; or whether we can conceive, that God, like weak men, can be persuaded by the importunity of one person, to bestow upon another blessings which he would not else have bestowed r the proper answer is to be derived from the consideration, that it is by no means necessary to suppose that the treatment which beings shall receive, de- pends in all cases, solely on what they are in themselves. This, without doubt, is what the universal Governor chiefly regards ; but it is not all. And though there are some be- nefits of such a nature, that no means can obtain them for beings who have not certain qualifications, there are other benefits which one being may obtain for another, or for which he may be indebted entirely to the kind offices of his fellow- creatures. An advantage may become proper to be granted to another, in consequence of some circumstances he may be in, or some relations in which he may stand to others, which abstracted from such circumstances and relations, would not have been proper. Nothing more frequently happens in the common course of events. The whole scheme of nature seems, indeed, to be con- trived on purpose in such a manner, as that beings might have it in their power in numberless ways, to bless one another. And one great end of the precarious and mutually depend- ent condition of men, appears plainly to be, that they might have room and scope for the exercise of the beneficent affec- tions. From this constitution of things it is, that almost all our happiness is conveyed to us, not immediately from the hands of God, but by the instrumentality of our fellow-be- ings, or through them as the channels of his beneficence, in such a sense, that had it not been for their benevolence and voluntary agency, we should have for ever wanted the bless- ings we enjoy. Now with respect to prayer, he asks. Why may not this be one thing that may alter a case, and be a reason with the divine Being for showing favour ? Why, by praying for one GRANTED THROUGH INTERCESSION. 91 another, may we not, as in many other ways, be useful to one another ? Why may not the universal Father, in considera- tion of the humble and benevolent intercessions of some of his children for others, be pleased often, in the course of his Providence, to direct events for the advantage of the per- sons interceded for, in a manner that otherwise would not have been done T — No truly benevolent and pious man (he adds) can help lifting up his heart to the Deity in behalf of his fellow-creatures. No one whose breast is properly warm- ed with kind wishes to his brethren about him, and who feels within himself earnest desires to do them all possible good, can avoid offering up his kind wishes and desires to the com- mon benefactor and ruler, who knows what is best for every being, and who can make those we love infinitely happy. Ill reality, (he contends) supplications to the Deity for our friends and kindred, and all in whose welfare we are concern- ed, are no less natural than supplications for ourselves. And are they not (he demands) also reasonable J* What is there in them that is not Avorthy the most exalted benevolence ? May it not be fit, that a wise and good being should pay a regard to them ? And may not the regarding and answering them, and in general, granting blessi:igs to some on account of the virtue of others, be a proper method of encouraiiing and honouring virtue, and of rewarding the benevolence of beings to one another ? Perhaps, (he adds) there may not be a better way of encouraging righteousness in the creation, than by making it as much as possible the cause of happiness, not only to the agent himself, but to all connected with him : since there is no virtuous being, who would not, in many cir- cumstances, choose to be rewarded with a grant of blessings to his fellow-beings rather than himself. That our prayers for others may be attended with benefi- cial effects upon their condition, he considers also to be a prevailing sentiment : otherwise, wherefore should we feel ourselves impelled to offer them? Our immediate view in praying must be to obtain what we pray for. This, which i^ true as applied to prayers on our own behalf, must be also true of our supplications for others. We cannot mean, in addressing to the Deity our desires for others, merely to ob- tain some benefit to ourselves. And this in itself proves, he adds, that the effect of prayer is not merely to be estimated by its tendency to promote our moral and religious improver ment. At the same time I cannot but lay before the reader the edifying and delightful representation given by the author, in another place, of the beneficial influence of inter cessionary prayer on the mind of him w ho offers it. *' No one caa 92 THE DIVINE FORGlVliINESS, &C. avoid feeling how happy an effect this must have in sweeten- ing our tempers, in reconciling ns to all about us, and causing every unfriendly passion to die away wilhiii us. We cannot offer up prayers to God for our feliow-men, without setting them before our minds in some of the most engaging lights possible ; as partaking of the same nature with ourselves, lia- ble to the same w ants and sufferings, and in the ifame helpless circumstances ; as children of the same father, subjects of the same all-wise government, and heirs of the same hopes. He who prays for others wilh understanding and sincerity, must see himself on the same level wilh them; he must be ready to do them all the good in his power ; he must be pleas- ed wilh whatever happiness they enjoy; he can do nothing to lessen their credit or comfort ; and fervent desires will na- turally rise within him while thus engaged, that his ow^n breast may be the seat of all those good dispositions and virtues, w hich he prays that they may be blessed w ith. Resentment and envy can never be indulged by one, who, whenever lie finds himself tempted to them, has recourse to this duty, and sets himself to recommend to the divine favour the persons w ho excite within him these passions. No desire of retalia- tion or revenge, nothing of unpeaceableness, ill nature, or haughtiness, can easily show itself in a heart kept under this guard and discipline. How is it possible to use him ill, for whom we are constant advocates with God? How excellent a parent or friend is he likely to make, who always remembers before God the concerns and interests of his children and friends, in the same manner that he remembers his own ? Is there a more rational way of expressing benevolence than this? or a more effectual way of promoting and enlarging it? Nothing is more desirable or more delightful than to feel our- selves continually under the pov/er of kind affections to all about us. ^Vould we be thus happy ? Would we have our hearts in a constant state of love and good-will ? Would we have every tender sentiment strong and active in our breasts? — Let us be constant and diligent in this part of devotion, and pray continually for others, as we do for ourselves," {Price's Four Dissertations, pp. 207, 221— -227, 237— 239.) Such was the language of a man, who, whilst (unlike Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian associates) he really possessed, and by the habits of his studies daily strengthened the powers of accurate thinking, had not rationalised away those just ilnd natural sentiments, which belong to the truly religious character, and which, whilst the highest exercises of mere intellect cannot reach, its soundest decisions cannot but ap- prove. At the same time, how deeply is it to.be deplored^ ON unitarians; or rational disbenters. 93 that, in certain of his theological opinions, such a man should have departed widely from the truth of scripture ! I have willingly permitted myself in this extract to wander beyond what the immediate subject demanded: because amidst the thorny mazes of polemics, the repose and refresh- ment which these flowers of genuine piety present, would, I apprehend, afford to the reader a satisfaction not less tha» they had yielded to myself. No. X. — ON unitarians ; or rational dissenters. Page 23. (fc) It is obvious, that the sect to which I here allude, is that known by the title of Unitarians : a title, by which it is meant modestly to insinuate, that they are the only, worshippers of One God. From a feeling similar to that which has given birth to this denomination, they demand also to be distinguished from the other non-conformists, by the appellation of Rational Dissenters. Mr. Howes has observed, {Critical Observ. vol. iv. p. 17.) that the term Unitarian has been used with great vagueness, by the very writers who arrogate the name : being applied by some to a great variety of sects, Arians, Ebionites, Theo- dotians, Sabellians and Socinians ; to any sect, in short, which has pretended to preserve the unity of the Deity better thau the Trinitarians according to the council of Nice: whilst by others, and particularly by Dr. Priestley, it is attributed exclusively to those who maintain the mere humanity of Christ. On this account, Mr. Howes proposed to substitute the word Humanist, as more precisely expressing the chief principle of the sect intended : and this w ord he afterwards exchanged for Humanitarian, Mr. Hobhouse and other Unitarians hav- ing adopted that appellation. {Crit. Obs. vol. iv. p. 91.) — However, as 1 find the latest writers of this description pre- fer the denomination of Unitarian, I have complied with their wishes, in adopting this term throughout the present work ; perfectly aware, at the same time, of the impropriety of its appropriation, but being unwilling to differ with them merely about names, where so much attention is demanded by things. For a full account of the doctrines of this new sect, (for new it must be called, notwithstanding Doctor Priestley's laboured, but unsubstantial, examination of " Early Opin- ions,") the reader may consult the Theological Repository, the various theological productions of Dr. Priestley, and par- ticularly Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilberforce^s Trea- tise. Indeed, this last publication presents, on the whole, so extraordinary a system, s^nd conveys so comprehensive a view 94 UNITARIANS DISTIN6UISHED of all the principles and consequences of the Unitariaw scheme, not to be found in any other work of so small a compass ; that I think it may not be unacceptable, to subjoin to these pages, a brief abstract of it as described by the author. A summary of the tenets of this enlightened sect may furnish matter of speculation^ not merely curious but instructive to those who are not yet tinctured with its prin- ciples ; and to those who are, it may perhaps suggest a salu- tary warning, by showing it in all its frightful consequences. Unitarianism, it is true, has not yet made its way into this country, in any digested shape ; but wherever there are found to prevail, a vain confidence in the sufficiency of human rea- son, and a consequent impatience of authority and control, with a desire to reject received opinions, and to fritter away by subtle distinctions, plain and established precepts ; there the soil is prepared for its reception, and the seed is already sown. No. XI. ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN UNITARIANS AND SOCINIANS. Page 23. (/) The doctrine stated in the text, is that maintained by all the Socinian writers. It may be found so laid down (Theol. Rep. vol. i.) in the first article, written by Dr. Priestley, under the title of Clemens. It is however to be noted, that Doctor Priestley, his follower Mr. Belsham, and others of the same theological opinions, disclaim the title of Socinian; and desire to be distinguished by that of Uni- tarian, for the reason assigned in the preceding number. Mr. Belsham goes so far as to say, {Review, &c. p. 227,) that his " Creed is as far removed from that of Socinus, as it is from the peculiar doctrines of Mr. Wilberforce." Indeed, to do Socinus justice, it must be admitted that the Creed of the Unitarian differs materially from his. He had not reach- ed the acme of modern illumination. He had not sufficient penetration to discern the various mistakes in the application of scripture, and the numerous errors in reasoning, commit- ted by the evangelists and apostles, which have been detected and dragged to light by the sagacious Unitarian. He had not discovered that Christ was the human offspring of Joseph and Mary. He had not devested our Lord of his regal as well as his sacerdotal character, and reduced him to the con- dition of a mere prophet. He had weakly imagined that by virtue of his regal office, Christ possessed the poAver of de- livering his people from the punishment of their sins. But Doctor Priestley has rectified this error. In his Hist, of Cor. (vol. i. p. 272.) he expressly points out the difference be- FROM S0CINIAN8. 95 tween himself and Socinus on this head. " It immediately follows," he says, " from his (Socinus's) principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death eould not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men. lie was, however, far from abandoning the ' doctrine of Redemption^ in the scripture sense of the word, that is, of our deliverance from the guilt of sin by his gos- pel, as promoting repentance and reformation ; and from the -punishment due to sin, by his power of giving eternal life to all that obey him. — But indeed^ifGod himself freely forgives the sins of men upon repentance, there could he no occasion, properly speaking, for any thing farther being done, to avert the punishment with which they had been threatened.** This passage, whilst it marks the distinction between the Socinian and the Unitarian, fully opens up the scheme of the latter. But on this system, it may be curious to inquire, in what light the death of our blessed Lord is represented. Dr. Priestley (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 39.) gives us this infor- mation. — " Christ being a man, who suffered and died in the best of causes, there is nothing so very different in the occa- sion and manner of his death, from that of others who suffered and died after him in the same cause of Christianity, but that their sufferings and death may be considered in the same light with his.*' — This extraordinary assertion exactly agrees with what is recorded of Solomon Eccles, a great preacher and prophet of the Quakers ; who expressly declares, " that the blood of Christ was no more than the blood of any other Saint." {Leslie's Works, fol. vol. ii. p. 195.) — Thus strange- ly do the philosophy of Doctor Priestley, and the fanaticism of the Quaker, concur with that which both would pronounce to be the gross absurdity of Popery. For if the death of Christ be viewed in the same light with the death of any other martyr, the invocation of the Popish saints may appear a consequence not so revolting to Christian piety. That the lines of error, in their manifold directions, should sometimes intersect, if not for a certain length of way coincide, is not however matter of surprise. But, the death of Christ being treated in this manner by Doctor Priestley and his Unitarian followers, one is naturally led to inquire what their notions are of his state subsequent to his resurrection. Mr. Belsham (Review, &c. p. 74.) gives us satisfaction on this head. The Unitarians, he says, here entirely differ from the Socinians ; for that the latter hold the ^' unscriptural and most incredible notion, that since his resurrection he has been advanced to the govern- ment of the Universe : but a consistent Unitarian, acknow- ledging Jesus as a man in all respects like to his brethren, 96 THK GORRUPTiON OF regards his kingdom as entirely of a spiritual nature." We are not, however, to suppose our blessed Lord altogether banished from existence ; for this gentleman admits again, (p. 85.) that he is " now alive," somewhere, " and without doubt employed in offices the most honourable and benevo- lent;" — in such, of course, as any of his brother-men, to whom he is above described as in all respects similar, might be engaged. — On this, and other such wild blasphemies of this sect, as represented by 3Ir. Belsham^ see the Appen- dix. No. XII. ON THE CORRUPTION OF MAN's NATURAL STATE. Page 24. (m) They who may wish to see this subject extensively treated, will find it amply discussed in Leland's work on the Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Re- velation, In Mr. Wilberforce*s Practical View also, we meet with a description of the state of unassisted nature, dis- tinguished not less unhappily by its truth, than by its elo- quence. After a forcible enumeration of the gross vices into which the heathen world, both ancient and modern had been sunk ; and this not only amongst the illiterate and the vulgar, but also amongst the learned and the refined, even to the decent Virgil, and the philosophic Cicero ; he proceeds in the fol- lowing animated tone, to examine the state of morals among those who have been visited by the lights of the gospel. *'But," " says he, "you give up the heathen nations as indefensible ; and wish rather to form your estimate of man, from a view of countries which have been blessed with the light of revelation. — True it is, and with joy let us record the concession, Christianity has set the general tone of mo- rals much higher than it was ever found in the Pagan world. She has every where improved the character, and multiplied the comforts of society ; particularly to the poor and the weak, whom from the beginning she professed to take under her special patronage. Like her divine Author, " who sends his rain on the evil and on the good," she showers down un- numbered blessings on thousands who profit from her bounty, while they forget or deny her power, and set at liought her authority. Yet, even in this more favoured situation, we shall discover too many lamentable proofs of the depravity of man. Nay, this depravity will now become even more apparent, and less deniable. For what bars does it not now overleap? Over what motives is it not now victorious? Consider well the superior light and advantages v*'hich we en- STATE, 9^ joy, and then appreciate the superior obligations which are imposed on us. Consider well," &c. "Yet ill spite of all our knowledge, thus powerfully en- forced and pressed Iiome upon us, how liltle has been our pro- gress in virtue ? It has been by no means such as to prevent the adoption in our days of various maxims of antiquity, W'hich when well considered, too clearly establish the depra- vity of man." Having adduced several instances in proof of this assertion, he thus proceeds ; " But surely to any who call themselves Christians, it may be justly urged as an as- tonishing instance of human depravity, that we ourselves, who enjoy the full light of revelation; to whom God has vouchsafed such clear discoveries of what it concerns us to know of his being and attributes; who profess to believe that in him we live, and move, and have our being ; that to him we owe all the comforts we here enjoy, and the offer of eter- nal glory purchased for us by the atoning blood of his own Son : that we, thus loaded with mercies, should every one of us be continually chargeable with forgetting his authority, and being ungrateful for his benefits ; with slighting his gra- cious proposals, or receiving them at best but heartlessly and €oldly." " But to put the question concerning the natural depravity of man to the severest test ; take the best of the human sjyecieSf the watchful, diligent, self-denying Christian, and let him decide the controversy ; and that, not by inferences drawn from the practices of a thoughtless and dissolute world, but by an appeal to his personal experience. Go with him into his closet, ask him his opinion of the corruption of the heart; and he will tell you, that he is deeply sensible of its power, for that he has learned it from much self-observation, and long acquaintance with the workings of his own mind. He will tell you, that everij day strengthens this conviction ; yea, that hourly he sees fresh reason to deplore his want of sim- plicity in intention, his infirmity of purpose, his low views, his selfish unworthy desires, his backwardness to set about his duty, his languor and coldness in performing it : that he finds himself obliged continually to confess that he feels within him two opposite principles, and that he cannot do the things that he would. He cries out in the language of the excellent Hooker, " The little fruit which we have in holi- ness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had him in our debt books ; our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, and pardon our offences P^ {fVil=> berforcp\s Practiced View, p. 28 — 37.) M 93 4'HE CORRUPTION OF Such is the view which a pious and impressive writer has? given of what, all who reHect must acknowledge, to be the true condition of man. Another writer, not less pious and impressive, (Mrs* Hannah More,) has, with her usual pow- ers of eloquence, presented the same picture of the moral and religious history of the world, in her admirable Stric- tures on the Modern S if stem of Female Education, To ob- servations similar to those of Mr. Wilberforce on the doc- trine of human depravity, she adds this remark. " Perhaps one reason why the faidts of the most eminent saints are re- corded in scripture is, to add fresh confirmation to this doc- trine. If Abraham, 3Ioses, Noah, Elijah, David, and Peter sinned, who, shall we presume to say, has escaped the universal taint?" (H. More's Works, vol. iv. pp. 330, 331.) How easily is this question answered by the follower of Priestley : — or I may add, Cstrange as the combination may appear,) of Wesley ! The former produces his philosopher, the latter his saint, in refutation of such unworthy and dis parading notions of human nature. They differ indeed in one material point. The one contends, that by his own vir- tuous resolutions he can extricate himself from vicious pro^ pensities and habits ; v/hilst the other is proud to admit, that the divine favour has been peculiarly exerted in his behalf, to rescue him from his sins. The one denies, that he was ever subject to an innate depravity : the other confesses that he was, boasts even of its inveteracy, but glories that he has been perfectly purified from its stains. But both are found to agree most exactly in that vain self-complacency which exults in the reflection that they *' are not ^^ as other men are ;" and in the arrogant presumption that they are lifted * The contemptuous lang-viag-e, wliicli the over-weening Methodist is too apt to employ, with respect to all who are not within his sanctified pale, but more especially with respect to the clerg-y of the establishment, afiords but too strong a justification of this char^^e, as it applies to him. The clergy- are uniformly with relig'ionists of this description, *'dumb dogs," " watch- men who sleep upon their posts," " priests of Baal," •* wolves in sheep's clothing," &c. &c. Indeed Mr. Whitefield informs us in his works, (vol. iv.p. 67.) that " Mr. Wesley thought meanly of ^Ibraham, and, he believes of David also :" whilst, of Mr. Wesley himself we are told, that ** wherever he went, he was received as an apostle ;" and that " in the honour due to Moses he also had a share, being placed at the head of a great people by liim who called them," &c. HanipsorCs life of Wesley, vol. iii. p. o5. Cokeys life of Wesley, p. 520.) — Mr. Wesley has taken care to let mankind know, that Methodism *' is the only religion worthy of God:" {Hamps. vol. iii. J). 30.) and the miracles which repeatedly attested his divine mission for the propagation of this religion, he has most copiously recorded through- out his Journals — Whoever wishes to form a just idea of the pernicious ex- travagances of this arch enthusiast, and of his followers, will find ample Satisfaction in Bishop Lavington's Enthusias'in of jMtthodtsts and Papists -compared, (a book, which B. Warburton, in one of his private letters to his. 99 'above that corruption of nature from which the more humble and more deserving Christian feels himself not to be exempt. In the philosophising Christian all this is natural and con- sistent. But in the Methodist, (I speak of the Arminian Methodist, or follower of Wesley,) it is altogether at vari- ance with the doctrines which he professes to maintain. Ac* curacy of reasoning, however, is not among the distinctive marks of this latter description of religionists. A warm fancy, with a weak intellect : strong passions, and vehement conceit, almost always go to the composition of the charac^ ter. That such qualities should find many minds of conge- nial aptitude, is a thing not to be wondered at. And there- fore, that this mixture of fanaticism, hypocrisy, vanity, and ignorance, should be widely spreading in both * countries, ig perfectly natural. It is however to be lamented that such a mischievous cor- ruption of true religion should receive countenance from any of its real friends : and it is matter equally of surprise and concern, that a system, which no longer covertly, but openly and avowedly, works in continued hostility to the established religion, has not met with more effectual resistance from those who may be supposed to take an interest in the well-being of the establishment. On the contrary, examples are not want- ing of cases in which the clergy have been set aside in the work of religious instruction; whilst men, who uphold the Wesleyan chimera of perfection, who openly reject the f Liturgy and Articles, and oppose the doctrines of thej friend Hard, very unfairly describes, as " a bad copy of StlUingfleet*s fa- mous book of the Fanaticism of the Church of Rome") and in the later publication of JVott's Religious Erithusiasm considered. * At the anriual conference of the preachers in the Wesley connexion, held at Bristol in July 1808, the number of Methodists of that connexion in Great Britain and Ireland alone, was stated to exceed 151,000, that is^ more by above 8000 than in the year preceding-.— At the succeeding annual conference, which took place at Manchester, in the July of the last year, the number of the same connexion, throughout the two islands, has been stated to have received within the year an increase of nearly 7000, (of which the increase in Ireland alone has been 1300) making the whole to amount very neai-ly to 158,000 ; whilst the numbers of the society in the West Indies and America, have at the same meeting been stated to excee^J 173,000. f The treatment which the Liturgy and the Articles have experienced from Mr. Wesley, is, I apprehend, very little understood by the generality of those wlio are disposed to look with complacency upon the sect of which he has been the founder. Professing to adopt the Liturgy of the Church of England, he has framed one for his followers, differing from it in many and essential particulars. He confesses indeed that he has made some slight al- terations ; which he enumerates in such a way as would naturally induce the supposition that tlic difference is altogether unimi)ortant : whilst, in truth, he has not only newly modified the common prayer, and nearly abolished the whole of the baptismal office ; but, besides mutilating above sixty of the 100 THE CORRCPTION OF established Church, have been deemed lit objects of prefer- eiice to the recognized religions teachers of the land. Psalms, has discarded thirty-four others, and newly rendered many of the remainder. Qf the Psulms which he has discarded, six at least are admit- ted to be eminently prophetic of our Saviour, of his incarnation, his sufter- ing-s, and his ascension ; whilst tlie reason assigned for the expurgation is, their being" " improper for the mouth of a Christian congregation ! !" But this is not all, the Kubrick and the appointed lessons are in most places al- tered ; and the Catechism, and the two Creeds, (the Nicene and Athanasian) totally discarded. Of these last mentioned alterations, it is also particular- ly to be observed, that Mr. Wesley gave to his followers no notice whatever; whilst the former were represented by him as of a nature altogether unim- portiiftt: so that the ignorant amongst his adherents were led to imagine that they were not materially departing from the forms of the establishment, when in truth they were altogether drawn away from the offices of the Church. — To complete the whole, Mr. Wesley provided his Communion, also with a new set of Articles, reducing the number from thirty -nine to twenty-five ; and making such changes in those which he retained, as he found mos-t convenient. Not to dwell too long upon this subject, suffice it to adduce two instances of omitted Articles, from which the spirit that go- verned the wliole may easily be divined. The eighteenth Article, which pronounces that " Eternal salvation is to be obtained only by the name of Christ;'* and the fifteenth, which asserts that " Christ alone was without sin," are two of those which the founder of Methodism has declared to be unfit objects of a Christian's belief. Thus it appears that the Socinian is not the only sectary that would degrade the dignity of Christ. — Such are the people from whom' certain weak mem.bers of the establishment apprehend no mischief — On the points which have been here noticed, see particularly JS'ott's Relig. Erdh. p. 150—167. It may be satisfactory to the reader to know exactly what are the Articles and Psalms that have been rejected by Mr. Wesley. — The Articles rejected are, the third, eighth, the greater part of the ninth, thirteenth, fifteenth, se- venteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-sixth, much of the twenty-seventh, t%ve?ity -ninth, thirty-third, and three others of the less important ones at the end. Tliose marked in Italics are more particu- larly to be noticed. The Psalms rejected are, the 14th, 21st, 52d, 53d, 54th, 58th, 60tli, 64th, 72d, r4th, 78th— 85d, 87th, 88th, 94th, 101st, 105th, 106th, 108th— 110th, 120th, 122d, 129th, 132d, 134lh, 156th, 137th, 140th, I49th. The general character of the rejected Articles and Psalms will pretty clear- ly establish what has been alleged throughout Number XI I. as to the na- ture of the opinions which Mr. Wesley and his followers maintain, or at least of the doctrines which they reject. The pamphlet published by Mr. Hare, in refutation of the charges against the Methodists, contamed in the former edition of this work, (a pamphlet which reflects credit upon its author for the ingenuity more than for the fairness with which he treats his subject,) reached my hands too late for a revision of its arguments at the time when I was preparing the above Number for the press. The new matter, however, which had been introdu- ced into that Number, joined to the list now given of the rejected Articles and Psalms, and assisted by the avowals of opinion made by Mr. Hare him- self, on the part of those whose cause he espouses, may possibly be consider- ed as superseding the necessity of a more specific reply. It is but fair to add, that certain inaccuracies, (that one especially of ascribing to Mr. Wes- ley what belonged to a letter of Mrs. E. Ilutton,) I have corrected, although at the expense of cancelling two leaves : and I return Mr. Hare my thanks for enabling me to make the due corrections ; although they certainly have not been suggested in that pure spirit of Christian meekness, which belongs to the cliaracter of Christian perfection, so fan^liarly claimed by him for Ms brethren of the Wesley conne^xion. man's natural state. lOi Agilnst abuses such as these, and particularly against the apen outrages upon decency and upon the rights of the es- tablishment, of which many of this wild and fantastic sect have been guilty, I am happy to say, that some respectable members of the national church have lifted their voices in ,^ both countries. Amongst these I allude with particular plea- sure to my respected friend and brother academic, Dr. Hales : and I allude to him the more willingly, not only because he has with much ability and good temper combated and con- futed the extravagant dogmas of sinless perfection and mi- racidous impulses , which are the distinguishing tenets of this sect ; but because he has, in opposition to their wild rhapso- dies, exhibited such a portrait of the true Christian, and of the nature of that perfection which it is permitted him in this life to attain, as is strictly warranted by scripture, and highly edifying iQ contemplate. I therefore here subjoin it, both as being naturally connected with the present subject, and as being calculated to afford satisfaction and improvement to the Christian reader. " The perfect Christian^ according to the representation ®f holy writ, is he, who as far as the infirmity of his nature will allow, aspires to universal holiness of life ; uniformly and habitually endeavouring to * stand perfect and complete in all the will of God,' and to * fulfil all righteousness,' in humble imitation of his Redeemer : who daily and fervently prays for * increase of faith,' like the apostles themselves ; and strenuously labours to * add to his faith, virtue ; and to virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, temperance ; and to temperance, patience ; and to patience, godliness ; and to god- liness, brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness, charity.' Such is the assemblage of virtues necessary to constitute- the character of the perfect Christian ; ever aiming at, tJiough never attaining to, absolute or sinless perfection, in this pre- sent state of trial, probation, and preparation for a better; and meekly resting all his hopes of favour and acceptance with God, not on his own defective and imperfect righteous- ness, but on * the free grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus :' * for by grace we are saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God ; not of works, that no one should boast.' " — Methodism Inspected y pp. 30, 31 . — This is the language of reason and of * scripture, * Doctor Stack also uses a language of like sobriety and scriptural cor- rectness, in those passages of his very useful Lectures on the Jlcts, and on the Romans, in which he has occasion to si)eak of the influence of tlie Holy Spirit. See particularly pp. 35, 56, of the former work, and p. 148 — 150, ot" the latter. Attend also to the excellent observations of the B. of Lincoln, on the degree of purity attainable by the Christian, and the nature of the endeavours which he i^ to make after perfection.'. Etem. of ChriH. Thtoi. vol. i1, p. 285. 1(H2 THE CORftUPTlON OF by which the Christian, though ever aspiring to a higher and a better nature, is still reminded of that nature which belongs to him, and against the infirmities of which he can never either relax in vigilance, or remit in exertion. How strongly contrasted with such language are the dogmas alluded to in page 101, and the authorities adduced in their support ! That the nature of those dogmas, and the extent to which they are maintained, may be the better understood, I must here detain the reader with a few passages from the writings of Mr. Wesley. As possessing the advantages of education, talents, and knowledge of mankind, in a degree which places him much above the level of those who have succeeded him in the Methodist ministry, he may well be supposed not to have propounded the opinions of the sect ia a shape more extravagant than that in which they are em* braced by his followers-. And first, on the subject of mira- culous manifestations and impulses in the forgiveness of sins and assurance of salvation, he tells us : " God does now as aforetime give remissions of sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost to us ; and that always suddenly ^ as far as I have known, and often in dreams, and in the visions of God." {Hampson's Life of Wesl. ii. 81.) — Again: *' I am one of many witnesses of this matter of fact, that God does now make good this his promise daily, very frequently during a representation (how made I know not, but not to the outward eye,) of Christ, either hanging on the cross, or standing on the right hand of God." {Hamps. ii. 55.) — Again : " I saw the fountain opened in his side — we have often seen Jesus Christ crucified, and evidently set forth before us." {B. Lavingt. vol. i. part. i. p. 51.) — And Coke, in his Life of Wesley, says, that " being in the utmost agony of mind, there was clearly represented to him Jesus Christ pleading for him with God the Father, and gaining a free pardon for him." — Secondly, as to the tenet of perfection, Mr. Wesley affords us the fol- lowing ample explanation. — " They" (the purified in heart) " are freed from self-will : as desiring nothing, no not for a moment, but the holy and perfect will of God ; neither sup- plies in want, nor ease in pain, nor life, nor death, but conti- nually cry in their inmost soul. Father, thy will he do7ie.** " They are freed from evil thoughts, =^^ so that they cannot * That he, who could use such lanj^uage as tliis, would feel it necessary to reject the fifteenth Article of the Church, as the reader is already appriz- ed Mr. Wesley did, will not appear surprising" on a perusal of that article. *• Christ, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He came to be a lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made should take away the sins of the world : and sin, as St. .lobn »aith, was not in him. JBut all we the rest, although baptized and Inrn a^ain 103 Pilfer into ihem^ lio not for an instant. Aforetime, (L e. when only justified) v, hen an evil thought came in, they looked up, and it vanished away : but now it does not come in ; there being no room for this in a soul which is full of God. They are fre^d from wanderings in prayer : they have an unction from the Holy One, which abideth in them, and teacheth them every hour what they shall do, and what they shall speak." — {Pref. to 2d vol. of Wesley^ s hymns, Hamps. iii. 52. and Coke's Life of fVes, pp. 278, 344.) These extracts from the writings of the father of Method- ism, fairly open up to us the two great fundamental doctrines of the sect: viz. 1. That the assurance of forgiveness and of salvation, arise from a sudden infusion of divine feeling, conveyed by some sensible and miraculous manifestation of the Spirit : and 2d. That the true believer attains in this life such perfection as to be altogether free from sin, and even from the possibility of sin. Holding such doctrines, it is not at all wonderful that the Wesleyan Methodist is indifferent about every other. Mr. Wesley fairly says upon the subject of doctrines, " I will not quarrel with you about any opinion; believe them true or false P' {Third Appeal, p. 135.) In another place he confesses, " the points we chiefly insisted upon were, that Orthodoxy, or Right Opinions, is at best a very slender part of religion,* if it can be allowed to be any fn Christ, yet offend in many things : and if Kve say ive have no sin, ive deceive ourselves, and the tnith is not in W5.'* Such is the doctrine of the Established Church ; and such is the direct contrary of the doctrine which Mr. Wesley and his followers hold upon the subject of this article: for which reason they have with perfect consistency rejected it from their code of Christian belief. And, for the same reason, the cry of the party is every where loudly raised against every work that intimates tlie corruption of man's nature, in the language of the Article. As to the rejection of the eighteenth Article, Mr. Wesley's language has not been so explicit, as to enable us to pronounce upon the precise ground of that rejection with perfect certainty. But when we consider that in that article there is contained a condemnation of the assertion, " that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth ;" and that it is at the same time affirmed, that " Holy Scripture doth set out unto us, oniy the vame of Jesus C'Amf, whereby men must be saved:" and when at the same time we recollect, that " the name of Jesus Christ" implies certain belief .and doctrines respecting the nature of the Saviour and the religion Which he has taught; whilst Mr. Wesley considers doctrines, or right opinions, to be of little value, and holds tiie religious yee/««^j which distinguish the true ]Methodist to be the only sure pledge and passport of salvation : — when we compare these things together, we seem to run no great risk in concluding, that this article was condemned by the founder of Methodism, as clearly marking, that religious opinions were by no means a matter of indifference ; that on the contrary, just notions concerning Christ were requisite for salva- tion; and that for the want of these, no association with any particular sect or religious description whatever could make compensation. * On tiiis favourite position of Mr. Wesley, Bishop Warburton justly re- .inarksj that here is a complete separation between reason and religion. 104 THJE CORRUPTION' OF MAn's NATURAL STATE. jmrt of it at alV !!! — This, it must be admitted, is an ex- cellent expedient for adding to the numbers of the sect. A perfect indifference about doctrines, and a strong persuasion that the divine favour is secured, whilst the fancy of each individual is counted to him for faith, — are such recom- mendations of any form of religion, as can scarcely be re- sisted. But what can be more mischievous than all this ? ^Vhat more destructive of true religion ? The sound princi- ples of Christian doctrine disparaged, as of no value to the believer : and the serious feelings of Christian piety carica- tured, and thereby brought into general disrepute : whilst the sober and regulated teaching of the national clergy is treated with contumely and contempt ; and separation from the national church deemed a decisive criterion of godly sin- cerity ! — In the contemplation of such a state of things, it seems as if one were surveying the completion of the follow- ing prospective description given to us by Sir Walter Raleigh. "When,'* says he, "all order, discipline, and church go- vernment shall be left to newness of opinion and men's fan- cies ; soon after, as many kinds of religion will spring up as there are parish churches within England: every contentious and ignorant person clothing his fancy A^ith the Spirit of God, and his imagination with the gift of revelation : inso- much as when the truth, which is but one, shall appear to the simple multitude, no less variable than contrary to itself, For when reason is no long-er employed to distinguish right from ivrovg opinions, relig-ion has no farther connexion with it. But reason once sepa- rated from religicn, must not piety degenerate either into nonsense or mad- ness ? And for the fruits of grace, what can remain but the froth and dregs of enthusiasm and superstition ? In the first ages of Christianity, the gloi-y of the gospel consisted in its being a reasonable service. By this it was dis- tinguished from the several modes of Gentile religion, the essence of which consisted in fanatic raptures, and superstitious ceremonies ; without any articles of belief, or formula of faith : right opinion being, on the principles of the Pagan priesthood, at best, but a very slender parK^f religion, if any part of it at all. But Christianity arose on different principles. St. Paul considers right opinion as one full third part of religion, where speaking of the three great fundamental principles on which the Christian church is erected, he makes truth to be one of them. The fruit of the Spirit is in all GOODNESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, and TRUTH. — So different was St. Paurs idea, from tliat entertained of Christianity by Mr. Wesley, who comprizes all in the tiem birth, and makes believing to consist entirely 'Wi feeling. On the whole, therefore, we may fairly conclude, (with Warburton) that that wisdom whicli devests Christianity of truth and reason, and resolves its es- sence rather into mental and spiritual sensations, than tries it by moral de- monstration, can never be the tvi.^doni tuhich is frotn above, whose first cha- racteristic attribute impurity' The same writer truly adds, that if Mr Wes- ley's position be well founded, the first Reformers of religion from the er- rors of popery have much to answer for : who, for the sake of right opinion, at best a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all, occasioned so much turmoil,and so many revolutions in civil, as well as in religious sys- tems. — See Warlmrton*s Principles of jVat. and Eiv, lieligion, vol. i. p. 263 I THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, &C. 10& Uie faith of men will soon after die away by degrees, and all religion be held in scorn and contempt." — Hist, of the World, B. II. ch. V. sect. K No. XIII. ON THE MISREPRESENTATION OP THE DOC- TRINE OF ATONEMENT BY UNITARIANS* Page 25. (n) — On this subject Dr. Priestley, {Hist, of Cor, vol. i. p. ]5*3.) thus represents the arguments of the Orthodox. " Sin being an oflence against an infinite Beingy requires an infinite satisfaction, which can only be made by an infinite person ; that is, one who is no less than God him- self. Christ, therefore, in order to make this infinite satis- faction for the sins of men, must himself be God, equal to God the Father." — With what candour this has been select- ed, as a specimen of the mode of reasoning, by which the doctrine of atonement as connected with that of the divinity of Christ, is maintained by the established church, it is need-* less to remark. That some few indeed have thus argued, is certainly to be admitted and lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it needed not the acuteness of Dr. Priestley to discover. On their own principle, the reply is obvious, — that sin being committed by a finite creature, re- quires only a finite satisfaction, for which purpose a finite per- son might be an adequate victim. But the insinuation that our belief in the divinity of Christ, has been the offspring of this strange conceit, is much more becoming the determined advocate of a favourite cause, than the sober inquirer after truth. Our mode of reasoning is directly the reverse. The scriptures proclaim the divinity of Christ ; and so far are we from inferring this attribute of our Lord from the necessity of an infinite satisfaction, that we infer from ity both the great love of our Almighty Father, who has " spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all ;" and the great heinousness of human guilt, for the expiation of which, it was deemed fit that so great a being should suffer. The decent manner in which Mr. Belsham has thought proper to repre- sent the orthodox notion of the atonement is, that man could " not have been saved, unless one God had died, to satisfy the justice, and appease the wrath of another.'* {Re- view, &c. p. 221.) This is language with which I should not have disgraced ray page, but that it may serve to show how dangerous a thing it is, to open a door to opinions that can admit of treating subjects the most sacred with a fevity which seems so nearly allied to impiety. 106 DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE No. XIV. ON THE DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE MANIFEST* ED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. Page 2.5. (o) — Perhaps I may he charged with havinp; made a distinction in this place, which gives an iini'air repre- sentation of Unitarians, inasmuch as they also profess to de- rive their arguments from scripture. But whether that pro- fession be not intended in mockery, one might be tilmost tempted to question ; when it is found, that in every instance, the doctrine of scripture is tried by their abstract notion of Tight, and rejected if not accordant ; — when by means of figure and allusion, it is every where made to speak a language the most repugnant to all fair, critical interpretation ; until emptied of its true meaning, it is converted into a vehicle for every fantastic theory, which under the name of rationaly they may think proper to adopt: — when in such parts as propound gospel truths of a contexture too solid to admit of an escape in figure and allusion, the sacred writers are charged as bunglers, producing " lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings," {Dr. Priestley^ s \2th Letter to Mr. Burn) and philosophy is consequently called in to rec- tify their errors : — when one writer of this class (Steinbart) tells us, that " the narrations," (in the New Testament) " true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion ;" and again, that " Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affec- tions, partial to one people, and hating all other nations :" — when another, (Semler) remarking on St. Peter's declaration, that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, says, that " Peter speaks here according to the con- ception of the Jews," and that " the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revela- tions :" (Dr. Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Ch. Hist. No. 3. pp. 66, 71.) — when a third (Engedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New Testament, as written with " con- cise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories ;" and Gagneius glories in having given " a little light to St. Paul's darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected:" — when we find Mr. Evanson, one of those able commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Review, ike. p. 206, assert, {Dissonance, &c. p. i.) that " the evangelical histories contain gross and irreconcileable contra- dictions," and consequently discard three out of the four, retaining the gospel of St. Luke only, at the same time draw- BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. 107 Ing his pen over as much of this, as either from its inf elicit i/ of style, or other such causes happens not to meet his appro- bation : — when we find Dr. Priestley, besides his charge against the writers of the New Testament before recited, re- present in his letter to Dr. Price, the narration of Moses concerning the creation and the fall of man, as a lame account ; and thereby meriting the praise of magnanimity bestowed on him by theologians, equally enlightened : — when finally, not to accumulate instances where so many challenge attention, we find the gospel openly described by Mr. Belsham, {Re- view^ &c. p. 217.) as containing nothing more than the deism of the French Theo-Philanthrope, save only the fact of the resurrection of a human being ; (see Appendix) and when, for the purpose of establishing this, he engages that the Uni- tarian writers shall prune down the scriptures to this morcd system and this single fact, by showing that whatever sup- ports any thing else is either " interpolation, omission, false reading, mistranslation, or erroneous interpretation," {Review^ pp. 206, 217, 272.) — when, I say, all these things are consi- dered, and when we find the Bible thus contemned and re- jected by the gentlemen of this new light, and a new and more convenient gospel carved out for themselves, can the occasional profession of reverence* for scripture, as the word of God, be treated in any other light than as a convenient mask, or an insulting sneer ? * The fathers of the Socinian school are as widely distinguished from their followers of the presept day, by their modesty and moderation, as by their learning and their talents. Yet, that it may be the more plainly dis- cerned how remote the spirit of Socinianism has been at all times from the reverence due to the autliority of scripture, I here subjoin, in the words of two of their early writers, specimens of the treatment which the sacred volume commonly receives at their hand. — Faustus SocinuSf after pronoun- cing with sufficient decision against the received doctrine of the Atonement, proceeds to say, " Ego quidem, etiatnsi non setnel, sed sxpe id in eacris mo- nimentis scriptum extaret ; non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem.'* Socin. Opera, torn. ii. p. 204- — And with like determination, Smalcius affirms of the Incarnation ; " Credimus, etiamsi non semel atque iterunit sed satis crebro et disertissime scriptum extaret Deum esse hominem Return, multo satius esse, quia hjec res sit absurda, et sanse rationi plane contraria, et in Deum blasphema, modmn. aliquem dicendi comminiscit quo ista de Deo dici possint, quam istd simpliciter ita ut verba sonant intelligereP (Homil. viii. ad cap. 1. Joh.)--Thus it appears from these instances, joined to those which have been adduced above, to those which have been noticed at the end of Number I. and to others of the like nature which might be multiplied from writers of the Socinian school without end ; that the most explicit, and precise, and emphatical language, announcing the doctrines which the pliilosophy of that school condemns, would, to his disciples, be words of no meaning ; and the scripture which adopted such language, but an idle fable. J^on persuadebis etiamsi persvaseris, is the true motto of tlie Unitarian. And the reader, I trust, will not think that I have drawn too strong conclusions upon this subject in the three last pages of the first num- ber, when he finds the proof of what is there advanced sti-engiheninsf s? powerfully us we proceed. i%^ -HEATHEJr NOTIONS OF MERIV It might be a matter of more than curious speculation, to frame a Bible according to the modifications of the Unitarian commentators. The world would then see, after all the due amputations and amendments, to what their respect for the sacred text amounts. Indeed it is somewhat strange, that men so zealous to enlighten and improve the world, have not, long before this, blessed it with so vast a treasure. Can it be that they think the execution of such a work would impair their claim to the name of Christians ? Or is it rather, that even the Bible so formed, must soon yield to another more perfect, as the still increasing flood of light poured in new knowledge ? That the latter is perhaps the true cause, may be inferred, as well from the known macrnanimily of thos© writers, which cannot be supposed to have stooped to the former consideration, as from Dr. Priestley's own declarations. In his Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, (Part 2. p. 33 — 35.) he informs us, that he was once " a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect.'* Afterwards, he adds, he " be- came an high Arian, next a low Arian, and then a Socinian, and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses or any other Prophet," And after all, he tells us, {Def. of Unit* for 1787, p. 111.) that he *' does not know when his creed will be fixed." Mr. Belsham having set out and ended at the same point with Dr. Priestley ; it is not improbable that he has gone through the same revolution : and that he, and others who have enjoyed the same progressive illumination, would equally with Doctor Priestley still contend for the freedom of an unsettled creed, is not perhaps too violent a presumption. Now, as every step, in such an indefinite pror gross, must induce a corresponding change of canon, it is not wonderful that they whose creed is in a perpetual state of variation, and whose Bible must be, like their abianac, suited only to a particular season, should not have attempted any fixed standard * of the Sacr^33 which we commonly translate as making atone- Ifnem^is, as he says, found to be applied in the Old Testa- ment, in its general sense, to all means used for procuring any benefit, spiritual or temporal, at God's [hands, whether for ourselves or others, such as obedience, a just life, sacri- fices, prayers, intercessions, self-denials, &c. &c. He there- fore thinks himself justified in extending to all these, that particular species of atonement which is effected by sacri- fice : and thereby is enabled to pronounce the sacrifice of Christ to be a ground of atonement, without taking in a sin- gle idea that truly and properly belongs to sacrifice, or sa- crificial atonement. And so, he triumphantly concludes, (Script. Doctr, &c. No. 152.) that he has made put the sa- SCHEME OP ATONEMENT. Ill crificc of Christ to be " truly and properly, in the highest manner, and far beyond any other piacular and expiatory, to make an atonement for sins, or take them away ; not only to give us an example, not only to assure us of remission, or to procure our Lord a commission to pubhsh the forgiveness of sin : but moreover to obtain that forgiveness, by doing what God in his wisdom and goodness judged fit and expedient to be done, in order to the forgiveness of sin." But in what, according to this explication, consists the ef- ficacy of Christ's sacrifice, and how has it made atonement for sin? — He informs us himself, (JiTfi/, &c. No. 148.) Obe- dience, or doing the will of God, was the sacrifice of sweet smelling savour, which made atonement for the sins of the world : in this sense, that God, on account of his (Christ's) goodness, and perfect obedience, thought fit to grant unto mankind the forgiveness of those sins that were jmst ; and farther, erected a glorious and perfect dispensation of grace, exceeding any which had gone before, in means, promises, and prospects, at the head of which he set his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. &c, — Thus then, the obedience of Christ was the sacrifice : and the benefits procured to us by that obedience, constitute the atonement effected by it. And the nature of these benefits, and the way in which they are wrought out for us by Christ's obedience, as we find them ex- plained by this writer, will help us to a just view of the true nature of that which he calls our atonement. " Truth required," says he, (7%, &c. No. 149.) 'Uhat grace be dispensed in a manner the most proper and probable to produce reformation and holiness. Now this is what our Lord has done. He has bought us by his bloody and pro- cured the remission of sins, as what he did and suffered was a proper reason for granting it, and a fit way of conveying and rendering effectual the grace of God," ike, — "Now, (he says,) this could be done no otherwise, than by means of a moral kind, such as are apt to influence our minds, and en- gage us to forsake what is evil, and to work that which is good," &;c. — <' and what means of this sort could be more effectual than the heavenly and most illustrious example of the Son of God, showing us the most perfect obedience to God, and the most generous goodness and love to men, re- commended to our imitation by all possible endearments, and engaging considerations ?" — And again, he says, {Script. Doctr. No. 170.) "By the blood of Christ, God discharges us from the guilt, because the blood of Christ is the most powerful mean of freeing us from the pollution and power of sin,^' — and he adds, "it is the ground of redemption, as it i^ a^ mean of sanctification? — What then means the blood 112 of Christ? — "not a mere corporeal substance; in whic!i case, as he says, it would be of no more value in the sight of God, than any other thing of the same kind : nor is it to be considered merely in relation to our Lord's death and sufferings, as if mere death or suffering could be of itself pleasing and acceptable to God :'* no, the writer informs us, {Key, &c. No. 146.) that the " blood of Christ is his perfect obedience and goodness: and that it implies a character/' which we are to transcribe into our lives and conduct. And accordingly he maintains, (Script, Doctr. No. 185.) that " our Lord's sacrifice and death is so plainly represented, as a powerful mean of improving our virtue, that we have no sufficient ground to consider it» virtue and efficacy in any other light.'' To what then, according to this writer, does the entire scheme of the Atonement amount ? — God being desirous to rescue man from the consequences and dominion of his sins, and yet desirous to effect this in such a way as might best conduce to the advancement of virtue, thought fit to make forgiveness of all sins that were past a reward of the merito- rious obedience of Christ : and by exhibiting that obedience as a model for universal imitation, to engage mankind to follow his example, that being thereby improved in their virtue, they might be rescued from the dominion of sin : and thus making the example of Christ a " mean of sanctification," redemp- tion from sin might thereby be effected. — This, as far as I have been able to collect it, is a faithful transcript of the author's doctrine. And what there is in all this, of the na- ture of sacrifice or atonement, (at least so far as it affects those who have lived since the time of Christ,) or in what material respect it differs from the Socinian notion, which represents Christ merely as our instructor and example, 1 profess myself unable to discover. I have been thus full in my account of this writer's scheme, because by some strange oversight, and possibly from his artful accommodation of scripture phrases to his own notions, whejeby he is enabled to express himself in the language of scripture, his works have received considerable circulation, even among those whose opinions on this subject are of an opposite description. Nay, the erroneous tenets of this author have been conveyed in a collection of Theological •Tracts, some time since published by an able and learned prelate in the sister country : and the candidates for orders in this, are by authority enjoined to receive part of their theological instruction from his writings. — Those who wish to see the errors of this scheme more amply reviewed and refuted^ I refer to the examination of the doctrine in the SCHEME OP ATONEMENT. 118 Scripiure Account of Sacrifices, by Mr. Portal, and in the Criticisms on modern Notions of Atonement, by Dr. Richie: in the latter of which particularly, the fallacy of the author's principles, and the gross ambiguity of his terms, are exposed with no less truth than ingenuity. With respect to H. Taylor, who in his B. Mord. partly coincides with this writer in his explication of atonement, it is but justice to say, that he gives a view of the subject in the main materially different : inasmuch as he represents Christ's concern for mankind, and his earnest intercession recommended by his meritorious obedience, to be the ap- pointed means of his obtaining from God that kingdom which empowers him to dispense forgiveness, &c. — Whereas Dr. J. Taylor makes the obedience of Christ (with regard to such as have lived since his time) the means of redemption, as hehig the means of man's improvement in virtue: and so far from attributing any efficacy to Christ's obedience, as opera- ting through intercession, (to which, we find from scripture, God has frequently bestowed his blessings, see Number IX- pp. 89, 90.) he considers the intei*cessions and prayers of good men for others, in no other light than as acts of obedience, goodness and virtue. So that, in fact, the whole of his scheme, when rightly considered, (excepting only with re- spect to those who lived before Christ, in which part he seems inconsistent with himself, and on his own principles not easy to be understood) falls in with the notion of good works and moral obedience, as laid down by the Socinian. And here lies the secret of Mr. Belsham's remark, (^Review, &c. p. W,) that " Dr. Taylor has, in general, well explained these Jewish phrases'* (viz. propitiation, sacrifice, redeinption through Christ's blood, &c.) " in his admirable Key." — As Mr. Bel- sham rejects the notion of redemption by Christ, and of faith in Christ, in toto, (see Review, &c. pp. 18, 104, 145.) it is not difficult to assign the cause of this commendation. No. XVII. — -THE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT FALSELY CHAR- GED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OP PRONOUNCING ON THE NECESSITY OF CHRISt's DEATH. Page 28. (r) That men could not have been forgiven, un- less Christ had suffered to purchase their forgiveness, is no part of the doctrine of atonement, as held by the Church of England. What God could or could not have done, it pre- sumes not to pronounce. What God declares he has done, 1 hat merely it asserts : and on his express word alone is it founded. But it is to be remembered, that on this, as on many other occasions, that a priori reasoning, which so fre- O 114 tiftESUMPTION FALSELY IMPUTED quently misleads those who object to the doctrines of our Church, is imputed by them to us. Not being themselves in the habit of bowing with humble reverence to the sacred word, they consider not that we speak merely its sugges- tions :^ and that if we do at any time philosophize, it is but to follow, not to lead the meaning of scripture. To enter into the councils of the Almighty, and to decide what infinite wisdom must have determined, under a constitution of things different from the present, were a speculation not less absurd than it is impious. Of this, even the fcAV writers, whose lan- guage has, by a rigorous interpretation, been forced into a ground for the above charge against the doctrine of atonement, are perfectly innocent : for it never occurred to them to sup- * The language of Wltsius upon this subject is worth attending to. — " Supposito extare Revelationem de mysteriis, at inquiri in sensum ver- borum quibus ista Revelatio mihi exponitur : non est in ista inquisitione ita procedendum, ut primo rationem meam consulam, quid ea, in idearum ac no- tioniim suarum scriniis, rei de qua agitur simile aut adversum habeat, ut secundum eas quas ibi invenio notiones verba revelationis exponam, id unice operam dans, ut sensum tandem aliquem quanta maxima possum commodi- tate lis dem ; qui istis meis praenotionibus optime conveniat. Sed attenden- dumest ad ipsa verba, quid inomnibus suis circumstantiis significare aptanata sint, quidque secundum scripturse stilum significare soleant: atque hac via reperto sensu quem verba sine torsione per se fundunt, secure in eo acquies- cendum est, omniaque rationis scita subjicienda suntisti senayiquem iis me verbis docet Deus.'* To these observation he subjoins an example of the opposite modes of investigating the sense of scripture by the philosophizing and the humble inquirer, applying the former epithet to Socinus, and taking for the particular subject of investigation the passage in John i. 14. o Koycz rag^ iytvtTo. — " Socinus ita procedit : nihil invenit in toto raUonis suae pe- nu, quod ipsi reprzesentet, Deum ita humanae unitum naturse, ut ea unara cum ipso constituat personam ; ideoque talem conceptum absurdum Deoque injuriosum esse sciscit. Id supponit ad horutn verborum explicationem se accingena : idciroo omnes ingenii sul nervos intendit, ut sensum aliquem iis applicet, qui ab isthac assertione, remotissimus sit. Sollicitat verba singula^ sollicitat nexuin eorunifjlectit, torquety omnia agit, ne id dicere videantur qucd dicunt' Nos longe aliter procedendum existimamus. Accedimus ad banc pericopam simplici atque humili mente audituri atque accepturi quidquid Deo nos placeat docere. Consideramus verba in nativo suo significatu, et prout passim in sacris Uteris usurpantur; expendimus quid \oyoi notet secundum phrasin Johannis, quid yivicr^cth quid o-atg| : consideramus quomodo alibi de hac re sacrx litene loquantur. Ex his omnibus formamus sensum, quem re- cipimus humili fidei obsequio firmiterque apud animum nostrum statuimus, Filiunx Dei humanam naturam tarn arete sibi junxisse, ut idem et Deus et homo sit: et quamvis nostra ratio nihil unquam huic rei simili invenerit, ta- men earn verissimam esse, quia verba Dei hoc decent. Qui ita, ut S©cinus, instituunt, eos ex suo penti multain verbum Dei inferre necesse est: qud re ei insignis fit injuria. Qui uti nos, illi cogitationes suas ex verbo Dei hauri- unt, quibus rationis sux peniim locupletent, quod Deo gloriosum est." — Misc. Sacr. tom ii. pp. 591, 592. — If the spirit which governed Socinus, in his criti- cal investigation of the sacred text, has been fairly described by Witsius, in the passage which has just been cited, it must be unnecessary to add, that his followers of the present day have, in no re.spcv-:t, departed from the exam- ple of their master. TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMEIfT. 115 pose a constitution of things different from that which divine wisdom has appointed. When, therefore, Grotius, Stillingfleet, and Clarke, are charged (as they are in H, Taylor^s B. Mord. Let. 5.) with contending for " the necessity of a vindication of God's honour, either by the suffering of the offenders, or by that of Christ in their room," they are by no means to be consi- dered as contending, that it was impossible for God to have established such a dispensation as might enable him to for- give the sinner without some satisfaction to his justice, which is the sense forcibly put upon their words : but that, accord- ing to the method and dispensation which God's wisdom has chosen, there results a moral necessity of such vindication, founded in the wisdom and prudence of a Being, who has an- nounced himself to mankind, as an upright Governor, resolv- ed to maintain the observance of his laws. That by the necessity spoken of, is meant but a moral ne- cessity, or in other words, a. fitness and propriety, Dr. Clarke himself informs us: for he tells us, (Sermon 137. vol. ii. p. 142. fol. ed.) that "when the honour of God's laws had been diminished by sin, it was reasonable and necessary, in respect of God^s wisdom in governing the world, that there should be a vindication," &c. And again, (Sermon 138. vol. ii. p. 150.) in answer to the question, "could not God, if he had pleased, absolutely, and of his supreme authority, without any sufferings at all, have pardoned the sins of those whose repentance he thought fit to accept?" he says, "it becomes not us us to presume to say he had not power so to do :" but that there seems to be a fitness, in his testifying his indignation against sin : and that " the death of Christ was necessary to make the pardon of sin reconcileable, not perhaps absolutely with strict justice, (for we cannot pre- sume to say that God might not, consistently with mere pis- tice, have remitted as much of his own right as he pleased) — but it was necessary, at least in this respect, to make the pardon of sin consistent with the wisdom of God, in his good government of the world ; and to be a proper attesta- tion of his irreconcileable hatred against all unrighteousness." That the word necessary is imprudently used by Dr. 'Clarke and others, I readily admit ; as it is liable to be mis- understood, and furnishes matter of cavil to those who would misrepresent the whole of the doctrine. But it is evident from the passages I have cited, that so far from considering the sacrifice of Christ as a debt paid to, because rigorously exacted by, the divine justice, it is represented by Dr. Clarke, and generally understood, merely as a fit expedient, demanded by the wisdom of God, whereby mercy might be 116 THE NOTION OF MEDIATION safely administered to sinful man. Now it is curious to re- mark, that H. Taylor, who so warmly objects to this notion of a necessity of vindicating God's honour, as maintained by Clarke, &c. when he comes to reply to the deist, in defence of the scheme of Christ's mediation, uses a mode of reason- ing that seems exactly similar. " God, he says, (B. Mord. Let. 5.) was not made placable by intercession ; but was r^ady and willing to forgive, before, as well as after : and only waited to do it in such a manner as might best show his re- gard to righteousness,^^ — Is not this in other words saying, there was a fitness, and consequently a moral necessity/ that God should have forgiven sins through the intercession and meritorious obedience of Christ, for the purpose of vindi- cating his glory as a righteous Governor ? The profound Bishop Butler makes the following observa- tions upon the subject of this Number.— Certain questions (he says) have been brought into the subject of redemption, and determined with rashness, and perhaps with equal rashness contrary ways. For instance, whether God could have saved the world by other means than the death of Christ, consist- ently with the general laws of his government. And, had not Christ come into the world, what would have been the future condition of the better sort of men: those just persons over the face of the earth, for whom, Manasses in his prayer as- serts, repentance was not appointed. — The meaning of the first of these questions is greatly ambiguous ; and neither of them can properly be answered, without going upon that in- finitely absurd supposition, that we know the whole of the case. And perhaps the very inquiry, what would have foU lowed, if God had not done as he has, may have in it some very great impropriety, and ought not to be carried on any farther than is necessary to help our partial and inadequate conceptions of things. {Butler^s Analogy, p. 240.) — Such were the reflections of that great Divine, and genuine philo- sopher, who at the same time maintained the doctrjne of atonement in its legitimate strictness. Will it then still be said, that divines of the Church of England uphold, as a part of that doctrine, the position, that men could not have been saved, had not Christ died to purchase their forgiveness ? No. XVIII. ON THE MODE OF REASONING WHEREBY THE fiUFFICIENClf OF GOOD WORKS WITHOUT MEDIATION IS ATTEMPTED TO BE DEFENDED FROM SCRIPTURE. Page 29. (s) — Dr. Priestley enumerates a great variety of texts to this purpose in his 3d paper of the signature of Clemens. (TIhoL Repos. vol. i.) Dr. ^ykes, in the 2cl COMBATED AS -UNSCRIPTUBAL. 117 ch. of his Scripture Doctrine of Redemption, and H. Tay- lor, in his 5th and 6th Letters, (B. 3Iord.) have done the same. Dr. Priestley adds to these texts, the instances of Job, David, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, to show that on good works alo7ie dependence was to be placed for ac- ceptance ; and that the pardon of sin is every where in scrip- ture represented, as dispensed solely on account of man*8 personal virtue, w ithout the least regard to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever. A great display is constantly made of texts of this nature by all who oppose the received doctrine of atonement. But it is to be remarked, that as they all amount merely to this, that repentance and a good life are acceptable to God ; the inference derived from them can only have weight against that doctrine, when its supporters shall disclaim repentance and a good life as necessary concomitants of that faith in Christ's merits, whereby they hope to be saved : or when it shall be made to appear from scripture, that these are of them- selves sufficient. But do those writers who dwell so much on good works, in opposition to the doctrine of atonement, se- riously mean to insinuate, that the advocates of this doctrine endeavour to stretch the beneficial influence of Christ's death to the impenitent and disobedient ? — Or can it be ne cessary to remind them, that obedience and submission to the divine will are the main ingredients of that very spirit which we hold to be indispensable to the producing and per- fecting of a Christian faith ? And again, do they wish to io- fer, that because these qualities are acceptable to God, they are so in themselves, and independent of all other considera- tions? Is it forgotten, that whilst some parts of scripture speak of these as well pleasing to God ; others, and not less numerous, might be adduced to show, that beside these some- thing more is required ? Dr. Priestley indeed fairly asserts, that nothing more is required, and that the language of scripture every where represents repentance and good works as sufficient of themselves to recommend us to the divine fa- vour. {Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 155.) How then does he get over those declarations of scripture ? — He shall speak for himself. " It certainly must be admitted," he says, {Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 252.) "that some texts do seem to represent the par- don of sin, as dispensed in consideration of something else than our repentance, or personal virtue ; — and according to their literal sense, the pardon of sin is in some way or other procured by Christ." But he adds, that " since the pardon of sin is sometimes represented as dispensed in consideration of the suflferings, sometimes of the merit, sometimes of the re* 118 THE NOTION OF MEDIATION, &C. surrection, and even of the life and obedience of Christ : when it is sometimes Christ, and sometimes the Spirit that inter- cedes for us : when the dispensing of pardon is sometimes said to be the proper act of God the Father; and again, when it is Christ that forgives us : we can hardly hesitate in concluding that these must be severally partial representa- ttonSf in the nature of figures and allusions, which at proper distances are allowed to be inconsistent : — and from so vague a representation of a matter of fact, founded on texts which carry with them so much the air of figure, allusion and ac- commodation, reason and common sense, he says, compel us to appeal to the plain general tenor of scripture," which he pronounces to be in favour of the sufficiency of good works. — And thus a great part of scripture is swept away at one stroke, under the name of figure, allusion, &c. &c. And be- cause Christ is pointed out to us as the means of our salva- tion, in every light in which he is viewed, (for as to the Fa- ther and the Holy Spirit being spoken of, as also concerned in the work of our redemption, this creates no difficulty) reason and common sense compel us to pronounce him, as not connected with our salvation in any. This furnishes an additional specimen of the way in which scripture is treated by our modern rational commentators. A number of texts, enforcing a spirit of humble submission to God's will, which is by no means inconsistent with, but on the contrary includes in its nature a spirit of Christian faith, are taken literally, as not implying this faith, be- cause it is not expressly named. And then another set of passages, in which this faith is expressly named, and literally required, are set aside a^ figurative. And it is pronounced upon the whole, that common sense is to decide the matter. And thus by rejecting one set of passages entirely as figura- tive ; and then by explaining another set literally and indepen- dently, with which the former were connected, and would have perfectly coalesced, so as to afford a satisfactory and consistent meaning ; the point is clearly made out. Relying upon this method, which Dr. Priestley has discovered, of retaining whatever establishes his opinion, and rejecting what- ever makes against it, Mr. Belsham may indeed safely chal- lenge the whole body of the orthodox, to produce a single text that shall stand in opposition to his and Dr. Priestley's dogmas. But moreover, it has been v/ell remarked, that all such de- clarations in scripture as promise pardon to repentance, and are thence inferred to pronounce repentance of itself suffi- cient, as they were subsequent to the promise of a Redeemer, must be altogether inconclusive, even viewed in a distinct UNDISCOVERABLE OONNEXION, &C. 119 and independent light, inasmuch as it may have been in virtue of the pre-ordained atonement, that this repentance was ac- cepted. And as to the force of the word freely, on which not only Dr. Priestley relies very much, but also Dr. Sykes in his Scrip, Doctr, of Redemp. and H. Taylor in the begin- ning of his Sixth Letter, {B. Mord. ApoL) it is obvious, that nothing more is meant by passages that employ this expres- sion in describing God's forgiveness of sinners, than that this forgiveness was free with respect to any merits on the part of man, or any claim, which from repentance, or any other cause, he might be supposed to possess : since admitting such claim it would be not free, but earned. And in this very sense it is, that Dr. J. Taylor himself, in his Key, &c. (No. 67.) contends that the word free is to be understood : " the blessing of redemption being, as he says, with regard to lis, of free grace — that is, not owing to any obedience of oiirs.^* Any other application of the term, must make the word free synonymous with unconditional ; in which case forgiveness could not be a free gift, if repentance were required to obtain it ; that is, unless it were extended indiscriminately to the impenitent as well as the penitent. So that, in fact, the very use of the word free, as applied to God's forgiveness of men, is so far from supporting the opinion of the sufficiency of re- pentance in itself, that it goes to establish the direct contrary : clearly evincing that repentance can give no claim to forgive- ness. — See some excellent reasoning on this subject in the judicious discourses delivered at the Bampton Lecture, by Mr. Veysie, Serm. 6 and 7. No. XIX. THE WANT OP A DISCOVERABLE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE MEANS AND THE END, EQUALLY APPLIES TO EVERY SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. Page 30. (0 — Dr. J. Taylor illustrates this matter by a familiar parallel. {Key, &c. No. 151.) — To the question, " wherein is Christ's love and obedience a just foundation of the divine grace ?" he answers, that he knows not how to explain himself better than by the following instance. — There have been masters willing, now and then, to grant a rehx(pay must neces- sarily signify, take care that thy brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes before is not, that he hath done thee injury, but thou him: and this they derive from the force of the Hebrew word nxi transferred to the Greek verb, in the use of it by Jewish writers. In this sense of the words Kotrccxxarrscr^cci and ^iccXXxTretr^xiy as applied in the New * Tes- tament, all the Commentators concur. See Rosenmuller and Wall on 2 Cor. v. 20. and Whitby on the words where- ver they occur. Schleusner, in his excellent Lexicon, con- firms by several instances the explication of the terms here contended for : and Palairet, in his Observ. Philolog. in Nov. Test, Mat. v. 24. maintains, that this use of the terms is not confined to the Jewish writers, transferring the force of the verb nvi 1o the Greek expression, but is frequent among writers purely Greek: he instances Theano in Opusc, Mytholog. and Appian. Alexcmdr. de BelL Civil, and ex- plains it as an elliptical form, the words £/? x'^S'^ being under- stood. It is evident then, that the writers who have founded their objection against the propitiation of the divinity, on the use of the word reconciled in the New Testament, have attended rather to the force of the term, as applied in the language of the translation, than in that of the original. But, even without looking beyond the translation, it seems surprising that the context did not correct their error, clearly deter- mining the sense, not only in Matt. v. 24. where it is per- fectly obvious and unequivocal, as is shown in page 26 ; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19. in which the manner of reconciling the world /o (tO(/ is expressly described, viz. his not imputing iheir trespasses unto them, that is, his granting them forgive- jfiess. There are upon the whole but five places in the New Testament, in which the term is used with respect to God; * The application of the word .!tma-Qa.t is precisely the same, as is made by the Sevefitj>f in their translation of 1 Sam. xxix. 4. where they speak of David's appeasing the anger of Saul. Ev n-ivt AIAAAAFHiETAr ■Ti) 'Kyg/«) etuTou : Where%vith shall he reconcile himself to his tnaster P ac- cording' to our common vttrsion. Not surely, how shall he remove his own anger agaivst his tnaster ; but, how shall he remove his niastcr^s anger against Aim / how 'shall he restore himself to his m,aster*s favour ? If any additional instance had been wanting, to establish the use of the WQr4 '5p this sense apoug the Jewish writers, this one must prove decisive. TO BE RECONCILED TO GOD, &G. l23 Rom. V. 10. and xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20. Ephes il. IG. and Col. i. 20, 21. Whoever will take the troubl* of con* suiting Hammond and Whitby on these passages, will be satified, that the application is diametrically opposite to that for which the Socinian writers contend. There are but two places besides, in which the term occurs. Matt. v. 24. and 1 Cor. vii. 11. in both of which the application is clear. And it deserves to be particularly noticed, that Ur. Sykes, (^Script. Doctr. of Redemp. p. 57.) sinks the former pas* sage altogether, and notices the latter alone, asserting that this is the only one in which the v/ord is used, not in rela- tion to the reconciliation of the world to God : and this, af- ter having inadvertently stated in the preceding page, that there were two such passages. This will appear the less un- accountable, when it is considered, that the expression as ap- plied in Matthew, could be got rid of by no reiinement what- ever: but that the application in 1 Ci^rinthians, (not indeed in our translation which is not sufficiently explicit, but ex- amined in the original,) will appear as little friendly to hi* exposition, Hammond and Le Clerc have abundantly evin- ced by their interpretation of the passage. No. XXI. ON THE TRUE DISTII^CTION BETWEENi THE LAY- ING ASIDE OUR ENMITY TO GOD, AND BEING RECONCILED TO GOD. Page 31. (w) — It is well remarked In the Theological Repository, by a writer under the signature VeruSy^ that the laying aside our enmity to God must be a necessary qualification for, though without constituting the formal na- ture of, our reconciliation to God. This judicious distinc- tion places the matter in a fair light. That God will not re-, ceive us into favour so long as we are at enmity with him, is most certain ; but that thence it should be inferred that on laj^ing aside our enmity, we are necessarily restored to his favour, is surely an odd instance of /ogica/'deduction. No. XXII. ON THE PROOFS FROW SCRIPTURE, THAT THE SINNER IS THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE. Page 31. (.r)— Heb. x. 26, 27. For if we sin wilfuUi^ after that we have received the knowledge of the truths there * This writer I find to have heen the Rev. Mr. Brekell : a writer certain- ly deserving- of praise, both for the ability with which he conibated the so* phiatry of the heterodox, and for the boldness with wlijcU h« wrried the war into the very camp of the enemy. . / 124 THE SINNER THE OBJECT OF remainctli no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment ^ and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries : and again, For we know him that hath saidj vengeance belongeth imto me, I will recompense^ saith the Lord: and again, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God: and again, (Rom. v. 9, 10.) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him — for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through his Son, &c. In this last passage, it is not only clearly expressed, that we are from disobedience exposed to the divine displeasure, but also that the way whereby we are rescued from the effects of that displeasure, or, as is here held an equivalent form of ex- pression, reconciled to God, is by the death of Christ. To quote ail the passages that speak a similar language^ were a tedious task. Nor indeed was the voice of revelation V. anted to inform men that the sinner is the object of God's displeasure. Reason has at all times loudly proclaimed this truth : and in that predominating terror, that AeKri^etif^Liviecy which, as shown in Number V. has in every age and clime disfigured, Or rather absorbed the religion of the Gentiles, the natural sentiment of the human mind may be easily dis- cerned. What is the language of the celebrated Adam Smith on this subject? — " But if it be meant that vice does not appear to the Deity to be, for its own sake, the object of abhorrence and aversion, and what, for its own sake, it is fit and right should be punished, the truth of this maxim can by no means be so easily admitted. If we consult our natural sentiments, we are apt to fear, lest before the holiness of God, vice should appear to be more worthy of punishment than the weakness and imperfection of human nature can ever seem to be of reward. Man, when about to appear before a being of infi- nite perfection, can feel but little confidence in his owh merit, or in the imperfect propriety of his own conduct. In the presence of his fellow-creatures, he may often just- ly elevate himself, and may often have reason to think highly of his own character and conduct, compared to the still greater imperfection of theirs. But the case is quite different when about to appear before his infinite Creator, To such a being, he can scarce imagine that his littleness and weakness should ever seem to be the proper object either of esteem or of reward. But he can easily conceive how the numberless violations of duty, of which he has been guilty, should render him the object of aversion and punish' ment ; neither can he see any reason why the divine indig- THE DIA^NE DISPLEASURE. 125 nation sliould not be let loose without any restraint, upon so vile an insect, ag he is sensible that he himself must appear to be. If he would still hope for happiness, he is conscious that he cannot demand it from the justice, but that he must entreat it from the mercy of God, Repentance, sorrow, hu- miliation, contrition at the thought of his past conduct, are, upon this account, the sentiments which become him, and •eem to be the only means which he has left for appeasing that wrath which, he knows, he has justly provoked. He even distrusts the efficacy of all these, and naturally fears, l&st the wisdom of God should not, like the weakness of man, be prevailed upon to spare the crime, by the most importu- nate lamentations of the criminal. Some other intercession^ some other sacrifice, some other atonement, he imagines, must be made for him, beyond what he himself is capable of mak- ing, before the purity of the divine justice can be reconciled to his manifest offences. " The doctrines of revelation coincide, in every respect, with those original anticipations of nature; and, as they teach us how little we can depend upon the imperfection of our own virtue, so they show us, at the same time, that the most powerful intercession has been made, and the most dreadful atonement has been paid, for our manifold trans- gressions and iniquities,^* (Theory of Moral Senti- ments, p. 204—206.) Such were the reflections of a man, whose powers of thinking and reasoning will surely not be pronounced inferior to those of any even of the most distinguished champions of -the Unitarian school, and. whose theological opinions cannot be charged with any supposed tincture from professional ha- bits or interests. A layman, (and he too the familiar friend of David Hume,) whose life was employed in scientific, po- litical, and philosophical research, has given to the world these, sentiments as the natural suggestions of reason. ^<' Yet these ♦ When these observations were before committed to the press, I was not aware, that the pious reflections, to which they particularly advert, are no longer to be found, as constituting a part of that work from v/hich they have been quoted. The fact is, that in the later editions of the Theory of Moral Sentiments^ bo one sentence appears of the extract which has been cited above, and which I had derived from the first edition, the only one that I possessed. This circumstance, however, does not in any degree aifect the truth of what had been said by the author, nor the justness of the sentiments which he had uttered in a pure and unsophisticated state of mind. It evinces indeed, that he did not altogether escape the infection of David Hume's so- ciety ; and it adds one proof more to the many that already existed, of the danger, even to the most enlightened, from a familiar contact with infidelity. How far Adam Smith's partiality to Hume did ultimately carry him, may easily be collected, from his emphatical observations on the character of his deceased frierd, to which I shall have occasion to direct the re«der*s atten- tion in another pajrt of this volume. 126 SACRIFICE PRESCRIBED, &C. are the sentiments which are the scoff of sciolists and wit* lings. — Compare these observations of Adam Smith with what has been said on the same subject in Numbers IV. IX. and XV. No. XXIII. INSTANCE FROM THE BOOK OF JOB OF SA- Page 31. (?/) — It was not without much surprise, that after having written the sentence here referred to, I found on reading a paper of Dr. Priestley in the Thcol. Rep. (vol. i. p. 404.) that the Book of Job was appealed to by him, as furnishing a decisive proof, not only, " that mankind in his time had not the least apprehension that repentance and reformation alone, without the sufferings or 77ierit of any being whatever, would not sufficiently atone for past offences :" but that " the Almighty himself gives a sanction to these sentiments.'* Let the Book of Job speak for itself: — The Lord said to Elipliaz the Temanite, my wrath is kindled against thee and thy friends : for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath — Tfierefore take iinlo you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and off'er up for yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my servant Job shall pray for you ; for him will I ac- cept, lest I deal with you after your folly. (Job xlii. 7, 8.) If this be not a sufficient specimen, we are supplied with an- other in ch. i. 4, 5. in which it is said, that after the sons of Job had been employed in feasting. Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt- offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, it may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually. — I leave these without comment, to confront the assertions of Dr. Priestley, and to demonstrate the value of his representations of scripture. I shall only add, that in the very page in which he makes the above assertions, he has quoted from Job a passage that im- mediately follows the former of those here cited. No. XXIV. ON THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE DIVINE JUS- TICE. Page 3-2. (s)— Dr. Priestley (^Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 417.) asserts, that " Justice in the Deity can be no more than a modification of that goodness or benevolence, wliich is his tiOhi: governing principle:^* from which he of course infers, that " under the administration of God, there can be no oc- casion to exercise any severity on penitent offenders ;" or in THB DIVINE JUSTICE. 127 other words, that repentance must of itself, from the nature of the Deity, cancel all former offences ; and that the man who has spent a life of gross vice and audacious impiety, if he at any time reform, shall stand as clear of the divine dis- pleasure, as he who has uniformly, to the utmost of his power, walked before his God in a spirit of meek and pious obedience. This is certainly the necessary result of pure benevolence : nay, the same principle followed up, must exclude punishment in all cases whatever ; the very notion of punishment being incompatible with pure benevolence. But surely it would be a strange property of justice, call it, with Dr. Priestley, a modification of benevolence, or whatever else he pleases, to release all from punishment, the hardened and unrelenting offender, no less than the sincerely contrite, and truly hum- bled penitent. But in his use of the term justice, as applied to the Deity, is not Dr. Priestley guilty of most unworthy trifling ? Why speak of it as " a modification of the divine benevolence,'* if it be nothing different from that attribute ; and if it be different from it, how can benevolence be the " sole go- verning principle" of the divine administration ? — The word justice then is plainly but a sound made use of to save ap- pearances, as an attribute called by that name has usually been ascribed to the Deity ; but in reality nothing is meant by it, in Dr. Priestley's application of the term, different from pure and absolute benevolence. This is likewise evi- dent, as we have seen from the whole course of his argument. Now could it be conceded to Dr. Priestley, that the whole character of God is to be resolved into simple benevolence, then the scheme which by rejecting the notion of divine dis- pleasure against the sinner, involves impunity of guilt, might fairly be admitted. But, as it has been well remarked, " if rectitude be the measure and rule of that benevolence, it might rather be presumed that the scheme of redemption would carry a relation to sinnevs, in one way as objects of mercy, in another as objects of punishment ; that God mi(rht be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in the Re- deemer." See the 2d of Holmes^s Four Tracts, in which he confirms by parallel instances the use of the word xxi as applied in the above passage by Whitby in his paraphrase. — • On the subject of this Number at large, see also Numbers IV. XXII, and Balguy's Essay 07i Redemption. 12U 'iEXT I^ JOHN, DESCRIBING No. XXV. ON THE TEXT IX JOHN, DESCRIBING OCk LORD AS THE LAMB OP GOD, WHICH TAKETU AWAT THE SINS OF THE WORLD, Page 32. (a) — What efforts are made to get rid of those parts of scripture that lend support to the received doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ, is evident from the remark made on this passage by the ingenious author of Ben Mordecai's Apology, " The allusion here," he says, " seems to be made to the 53d chapter of Isaiah, but the Lamb is not there considered as a Lamb to be sacrificed, but as a Lamb to be sheared,^' (Let. 7. p. 794. 2d ed. 8vo.) — Now, upon what principle this author is enabled to pronounce, that the allu- sion in this place is made to the Lamb spoken of in Isaiah, rather than to the Paschal Lamb, or to the Lamb, which under the Jewish law was offered daily for the sins of the people, it is dffficult to discover. His only reason seems to be, that in admitting the reference to either of the two last, the notion of sacrifice is necessarily involved ; and the grand object in maintaining the resemblance to a Lamb that was to be sheared, not slain, was to keep the death of Christ out of view as much as possible. But of the manner in which scripture is here used to sup- port a particular hypothesis, we shall be better able to form a right judgment, when it shall have appeared that the refer- ence in John is not made to Isaiah ; and also, that the Lamb in Isaiah is considered as a Lamb to be slain. The latter is evident, not only from the entire context, but from the very words of the prophet, which describe the person spoken of, (liii. 7.) to be " brought as a Lamb to tlie slaughter ;^^ so that one cannot but wonder at the pains taken to force the application to this passage of Isaiah, and still more at the peremptory assertion that the Lamb here spoken of was a Lamb to 1^ sheared only. It is true in- deed, there is subjoined, and as a sheep before her shearers is dmnh : but if Mr. Wakefield's remarks on Acts viii. 32. in which he contends that the word translated shearer, should have been rendered slai/er, be a just one, the objection va- nishes at once. Retaining, however, the clause as it stands in the present version, that which follows, — so he openeth not his mouth, — clearly explains that the character intended to be conveyed by the prophet in the whole of this figurative representation, was that of a meek and uncomplaining resig- nation to suffering and death. And this also shows us that the passage in Isaiah could Rpt have been the one immediately referred to by John; be- OUR LORD AS THE LAMB OF GOD, &,C. 129 cause in it the Lamb is introduced but incident alli/f and as furnishing the only adequate resemblance to that character^ which was the primary object of the prophet's contempla- tion : whereas, in the Baptist's declaration that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; the reference must naturally be to a Lamb before described, and understood as possessed of some similar or corresponding virtue, such as St. Peter alludes to when he says, (1 Peter i. 18, 19.) Fe were redeemed — with the precious blood of Christy as of a Lcimb witliout blemishi In this an allusion is evidently made to a lamb^ whose bloody under the Jewish law, bore analogy to that of Christ : that is, either to the Paschal Lamb, by the sprinkling of whose blood the Israelites had been delivered from destruction ; or to the lamb that was daily sacrificed for the sins of the people, and which was bought with that half shekel which all the Jews yearly paid, £15 Xvr^ov rtis "^v^t}!; ccvruv, e^iXuTxcr^sct src^t rav i^v^a^f avraiv, as the price of redemption of their lives, to make an atone- ment for them, (Exod. xxx. 12, 14j 16.) With a view to this last, it is, that St. Peter most probably uses the ex- pressions. Ye were not redeemed rvith silver and gold — but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb, &c. i. e. it is not Ijy a Lamb purchased with silver and gold that you have been redeemed, but by Christ, that truly spotless Lamb, which the former was intended to prefigure ; who, by shedding his blood, has effectually redeemed you from the consequences of your sins; or, as the Baptist had before de- scribed him, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world ; and, as St. John, who records these expressions of the Baptist, again speaks of him in the Apocalypse, (v. 9.) the Lamb which had been slain, and by its blood redeemed men out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and na- tion, or in other words, that had taken away the sins of the world. The author indeed admits, (what it it was impossible for him to deny,) that in the Apocalypse, Christ "is spoken of as a Lamb that was slain ;" but then he says, that " he is not spoken of as a vicarious sacrifice, for the Jews had no sacrifices of that nature." (Vol. ii. p. 7»9.) Be it so for the present : it is clear however, that the Ijamb to which the allusion is made in the figurative representations of Christ in the New Testament, is a Lamb that was slain and sacrificed; and that nothing but the prejudices arising from a favourite hypothesis could have led this writer to contend against a truth so notorious, and upon grounds so frivolous . Q 182 asserted in the fullest manner, and would have been more fre- quently referred to. We are here furnished with an instance of the most expeditious and effectual method of evading the authority of scripture. — First, overlook a considerable majo- rity, and particularly of the strongest texts, that go to sup- port the doctrine you oppose: in the next place assert, that of the remainder a large proportion belongs to a particular writer whom you think proper to charge with metaphor, alle- gory, &c. &c. then object to the residue as too few on which to rest any doctrine of importance : but lest even these might give some trouble in the examination, explode them at once with the cry of figure, &c. &c. — This is the treatment that scripture too frequently receives from those who choose to call themselves rational and enlightened commentators. There are two texts, however, on which Dr. Priestley has thought fit to bestow some critical attention, for the purpose of showing that they are not entitled to rank, even wiCh those few that he has enumerated, as bearing a plausible resem- blance to the doctrine in question. From his reasoning on these, we shall be able to judge what the candour and justice of his criticisms on the others Avould have been, had he taken the trouble to produce them. The two texts are, Isai. liii. 10. Jfhen thou shall make his soul an offering for sin : and 2 Cor. V. 21. He made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we mighl he made the righteousness of God in him. Against the first he argues from the disagreement in the versions, which he observes, may lead us to suspect some corruption in our present copies of the Hebrew text. Our translation, he says, makes a change of person in the sentence — HE hath put him to grief — when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, &c. in which, he adds, it agrees with no ancient version whatever. In the next place he asserts, that the Syriac alone retains the sense of our translation, and at the same time remarks, that this ver- sion of the Old Testament is but of little authority. He then gives the reading of the clause, by the Seventy and the Ara- bic, If ye offer a sacrifice for sin, your soul shall see a long- lived offspring. He concludes with the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, which is different from all. And from the whole he draws this result, that the uncertainty as to the true read- ing of the original must render the passage of no authority. (T/ifo/. i?fj?. vol. i. p. 127.) But the real state of the case is widely different from tliis representation: for 1. Our translation does not absolutely pronounce upon the change of person, so ss to preclude an agreement with the ancient versions. 2. The Syriac is not the only version that retains the sense of ours: the Vulgate, AS A SACRAFICE FOR SIN. 133 which Dr. P. has thought proper to omit, exactly correspond- ing in sense. 3. The Syriac version of the Old Testament, so far from being of Utile authority^ is of the very highest. 4. The concurrence of the LXX and the Arabic is not a joint but a sing-Ze testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be little more than a version of the '^ LXX, and conse- quently can lend no farther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX at the time when this version 7vas made : and that it does not even authenticate the reading of the LXX at an early day, may be collected from the Prolegom. of Walton^ and KennicoVs State of the Hehr. Text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jona- than is remarkable (as Bishop Lowth states in his Prelim. Dissert.) *' for a wordy allegorical explanation," so that an exactness of translation is not here to be expected. And lastly, the apparent differences of the versions, may be ex- plained by, and fairly reconciled to, the present reading of the Hebrew text. These several points will be best explained by beginning with the last. The state of the Hebrew text, as it stands in all our present bibles, at least in such of them as I have con- sulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Ken- nicot, Doederlein, &c. and scarcely undergoing any variation, however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies exa- mined by Kennicot and De Rossi, is as follows : rD"D^ I^K^ j?"»r n«T it&'3j tDWii O'tyn at?. Now these words as Ihey stand, manifestly admit of a two-fold translation, according as the word lD^Il^h is considered to be of the second person masculine, or the third person feminine; vis. when thou shall 7nake Ids soul an offering for sin, or when his soul shall make an offering for sin : and though, with Ludovicus de Dieu, our present translation of the bible has followed the former in the text, yet has it with Cocceius, IMontanus, Ju- nius and Tremellius, Castellio, and almost every other learn- ed expositor of the bible, retained the latter, inserting ii. in the margin, as may be seen in any of our common bibles. It deserves also to be remarked, that in the old editions of our English bible, (see Malthewc's, Cranmer^s or the Great Bi- hie, and Taverner's ; see also the bibles in the time of Eliza- beth, viz. the Geneva and Bisliop^s bibles ; see all in short that preceded Jameses translation,) this latter reading is the only one that is given ; and it should be observed, (see New- come's Historic. View, p. 105,) that one of the rules pre- scribed to the translators employed in the last named version, * See Bishop Loiiith's Preliminary Dissert, to his Translation of Laiah — and Walton's Polyglot Prolegom. 15.— also Kemucofs State of the Jlcbr. Text. vol. ii. pp. 453, 454. 134 ^hich is the one now in use, was,-*—" that where a Hebrew oj •y critics ; some of whom are, I think, warped in their judgments, by literary, others by national, and more, I have reason to believe, by personal prejudices. But I may with confidence appeal to writings, whicii have long contributed to public amusement, and have often been honoured by public approbation : — ■ to the Life of Philip, and to the Translation of Deinosthenes, which the Letter-writer professes to have 7iot read, — to the judicious Dissertation upon Eloquence, which the Letter-vcriter did vouchsafe to read, before he answered it, — to the spirited Defence of that Dissertation which the Letier-i^^riter, probably, has read, but never attempted to answer. The Lfe of Philip con- tains many curious researches into the principles of government established among the leading states of Greece: many sagacious remarks on their in- testine discords : many exact descriptions of their most celebrated charac- ters, together with an extensive and correct view of those subtle intrigues, and those ambitious projects, by which Philip, at a favourable crisis, gra- dually obtained an unexampled and fatal mastery oyer the Grecian Repub. 138 language peculiar to the Jews ; and that the idiom is Hebrew or SyriaCj though the words be Greek." Michaelis also says, *' the language of the New Testament is so intermixed with Hebraisms, that many native Greeks might have found it dif- ficult to understand it." {Introd. to N. T. vol. i. p. 100.) Ludovicus Capellus, (in speaking of the Greek translators of the Old Testament, whose style, he says, is followed by the writers of the New,) asks the question, " Quis nescit, verba quidem esse Graeca, at phrases et sermonis structuram esse Hebraeam?" {Crit. Sacr. p. 522.) And Doctor Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertations, pronounces almost in the words of Capellus, " The phraseology is Hebrew, and the words are Greek, "^ The justice of these observations, as * Ernesti affirms, " Stilus Novi Testamenti recte dicatnr hebrao-gracus.** See p. 82, Inst. Interp. JV ov. Test. Indeed the observations of this writer (p. 73 — 88.) are particularly worthy of attention. If the reader should be desirous to see this curious and interesting subject of the style of the New Testament fully and satisfactorily handled, I refer him to the last named work; also to Michaelis's IVth chapter on the Language of the JVe'vi Testa- ment, (Introduction, &c. vol. i. p. 97 — 200) and particularly to Dr. Campbeir.s first and second Preliminary Dissertations to his Four Gospels, &c. At the same time, I must differ widely from Dr. Campbell, when he refers (as he does in p. 20. vol. i.) to the Bishop of Gloucester's Doctrine of Grace, for the best refutation of the objections against the inspiration of scripture de- rived from the want of classic purity in its language. I would on the con- trary direct the reader's attention to the Dissertation on the principles of IIu- ^nan Eloquence, in which the bold paradoxes of the Bishop are set aside, and the argument placed upon a sound and legitimate basis, by the learned Dr. Thomas Leland, formerly a Fellow of this University. The Bishop, it is well known, had held, that the nuant of purity in the writings of the New Testament, supplies in itself o. proof of their divine ori- ginal ,• and had defended this position upon reasons nearly subversive of every just notion of the nature of human eloquence. Dr. Iceland, on the contrary, with a due regard to the principles of eloquence, of taste, and of common sense, and in the direct maintainance of them all against the attacks of this formidable assailant, more discreetly and successfully contended for the truth of this proposition, that ** whatever rudeness of style may be dis- coverable in tJie writings of the New Testament, it can afford neither proof nor presumption that the authors were not divinely inspired." See p. 97, or rather indeed the whole of the judicious discussion from p. 88 to p. 118 of the Dissertation. This drew forth a reply in defence of the Bishop, which was distinguished more for point and sarcasm, than for ingenuity and strength. Suspicion early fixed upon Dr. Hurd as the author. The letters of Warburton and Hurd lately published, prove the suspicion to have been just. It appears also, that Warburton himself took considerable pains to have the pamphlet printed and circulated in Ireland, (Letters, &c. pp. 352, 354.) in the confident expectation that the 7mA Professor would be com- pletely put to silence, Tlie effect however was otherwise. The Professor returned to the charge with renovated vigour ; and by a reply, distinguished by such ability as ])roved to the opposite party the inexpediency of continu- ing the contest, closed the controversy. How complete in the public opin- ion was Dr. Leland's triumph over both his mitred opponents, may easily be collected from the fact, that howevir anxious to give extended circulation to the castigatory Letter before it received an answer, they both observed a profound silence upon the subject ever after; and that the Letter to Dr. Le- land, remaining unacknowledged by the author, was indrbted for its fsn ther AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 139 applying particularly to the expression in the present text, is evinced in numerous instances adduced by Hammond and publicity to the very person against whom it was directed, who deemed it not inexpedient, in a new edition of his tracts, to give it a place between the Dissertation which caused it, and the defence which it occasioned. The critical decisions of the day were decidedly in favour of Dr. Leland. A late Review pronounces, that Leland, " in the opinion of all the world, com- pletely demolished his antagonist." i^Edinb. Rev. vol. xiii. p. 358.) The Critical Reviews for July and November, 1764, contain some masterly pieces vjf criticism upon the Dissertation and the Letter. But in no work is there a more striking or more honourable testimony borne to Dr. Leland's supe- riority in this controversy, than in that which is entitled Tracts by Warburtoii and a Warburtonian ; particularly in the Dedication and Preface prefixed to the Tvio Tracts^ which the eloquent editor describes as *• Children, whom their parents were afraid or ashamed to acknowledge," and which he there- fore (compassionately it certainly cannot be said) determines to present to the public notice. Of these Two Tracts^ Dr. Hurd's well known Letter to Dr. Jortin, On the delicacy of friendships is one, and his Letter to Dr. Leland is the other : and on the subject of these tracts, by which, it is added. War- burton was most extravagantly flattered, Leland most petulantly insulted, and Jortin most inhumanly vilified, severe justice is inflicted upon the author, by the indignant vindicator of the two respectable characters that had been so unworthily attacked. General opinion has long appropriated this publi- cation to a name of no mean note in the republic of letters. Undoubtedly the vigour of conception, the richness of imagery, and the splendour of diction, displayed in those parts of the work which the editor claims as his own, are such as must reflect honour upon any name. At the same time, it is much to be lamented, that talents and attainments of so high an order as manifestly belong to the writer, should have been devoted to purposes so little congenial with the feelings of benevolence : and that the same spirit which pressed forward with such generous ardour to cast the shield over one reputation, should direct the sword with such fierce hostility against another ; and exult in inflicting the very species of wound, which it was its highest glory to repel. The eulogium pronounced upon Dr. Leland^ I here seize the opportunil}'- of extracting from tliis performance. It is sketched by the hand of a mas- ter, and is too creditable to the memory of the individual, to be passed over by any one who takes an interest in what relates either to the man, or to the University of which he was an ornament. " Of Leland, my opinion is not, like the Letter-writer's, founded upon hearsay evidence ; nor is it deter- mined solely by the great authority of Dr. Johnson, v.ho always mentioned Dr. Leland with cordial regard and with marked respect. It might, perhaps, be invidious for me to hazard a favourable decision upon liis History rf Ire- land ; because the merits of that work have been disputed ])y critics ; some of whom are, I think, warped in their judgments, by literary, others by national, and more, I have reason to believe, by personal prejudices. But I may with confidence appeal to writings, whicii have long contributed to public amusement, and have often been honoured by public approbation : — to the Life of Philips and to the Translation of Demostheuesy which the Letter-Kvriter professes to have 7iot read, — to the judicious Dissertation upon Eloquence^ which the Letter-vcrittr did vouchsafe to read, before he answered it, — to the spirited Defence of that Dissertation which the Letier-roriter, probably f has read, but never attempted to answer. The Lfe of Philip con- tains many curious researches into the principles of government established among the leading states of Greece: many sagacious remarks on their in- testine discords ; many exact descriptions of their most celebi-ated charac- ters, together with an extensive and correct view of those subtle intrigues, and those ambitious projects, by which Philip, at a favourable crisis, gra- dually obtained an unexampled and fatal mastery oyer the Grecian Repub. 140 €HRIST*S DEATH DESCRIBED, &C. Whitby in locum. And to this very text, the passage from Isaiah, which has just been discussed, bears an exact corresr pondence : for, as in that his soul, or life, was to he made Oi^N, ocf.tx^rict, or as the LXX render it, -xe^i uf^x^nxg, a sin- offering,-'^ so here Christ is said to have been made uf^ct^rtx, a sin-offering ; and/or us, as it must have been from what is immediately after added, that he knew no sin. For the exact coincidence between these passages, Vitringa (Isai. liii, 10.) deserves particularly to be consulted. Among other va- luable observations, he shows, that -pre^i cc/Au^nxg, vTn^ eif^x^rtxi, and uicx^rtxy are all used by the Greek writers, among the Jews, in the same sense. Several decisive instances of this in the New Testament, are pointed out by Schleusner, on the w^ord uf^x^Tix. lies. In the Translation of Demosthenes, Leiaiul unites the man of taste with the man of learning-, and shows himself to have possessed, not only a competent knowledge of the Greek langfuag-e, but that clearness in his own conceptions, and that animation in his feelings, which enAbled him to catch the real meaning-, and to preserve the genuine spirit of the most perfect orator that Athens ever produced. Through the Dissertation upon Eloquence^ and the Defence of it, vie see great accuracy of erudition, great perspicuity and strength of style, and, above all, a stoutness of judgment, which, in traversing the open and spacious walks of literature, disdained to be led captive, either by the sorceries of a self-deluded visionary, or the decrees of a self-created despot.'* Tracts by Warburton aiul a VVarburtoniany pp. 193, 194 — In the very year in which these observations on 13r. Leland's literary character were given to the public, three volumes of his Sermons issued from the Dublin press ; and, though posthumous, and consequently not touched by the finishmg hand of the author, they exhibit a .specimen of pulpit eh>qnence, not vinwnr'hy of the Translator of Demosthenes and the Ilistorian of Ireland. To these Sei'mons there is prefixed a brief but inter- esting and well-written life of the author, from which it appears that the amount of his literary productions exceeded what have been here enumera- ted. — The extract wlncli I have made from the Tracts, although I do not accede to its justice in every particular, being disposed to attribute soinevohat less to the Translation of Deviosthenes, and a vast deal more to the History of Ireland, yet I could not deny myself the gratification of noticing, in connex-> ion wiih the name of I-eland; not only as being highly creditable to tlie memory of a distinguished member of the University with which I am myself so elosely connected; but, as supplying one of the few instances in which a provincial writer of this part of the empire has obtained due honour in the sister coimtry. — In concluding this long note, which has been almost exclusively dedicated to Doctor Leland, I cannot forbear asking the question, whether it is to be ascribed to ignorance or to fraud, that in a recent London edition of his Translation of the Orations of Demosthenes, (viz. 1806.) his designation in the title is tiist of Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. Was the translation of the Greei orator supposed too good to ct»me from Ireland ,« or was it imagined that the knowledge of its true origin would diminish th6 profits of its circulation ? * In reference probably to the very words in this passage it i<5, that our Saviour declares, (Matt. xx. 28) that he gave t«v -^v^yiv Avm Kvrejv ^ecTfMqy a propitia- Hon, &c. see Number XX VL p. 130. Now in all these, the word atonement might with propriety have been used ; and as the reconciliation which we have received through Christ, was the effect of the atonement made for us by his death, words which denote the former simply, as ;caT«eA>.»y«, and words derived from the same root, may, when applied to the sacrifice of Christ, be not unfitly expressed by the latter, as containing in them its full import. No. XXIX. — 'ON THE DENIAL THAT CHRISt's DEATH IS* DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE AS A SIN-OFFERING. Page 32. (e) — I have, in the page here refej^red to, adopted the very words of Dr. Priestley himself, {Theoh Rep, v. i. 123.) Dr. Priestley, however, is far from ad- mitting the death of Christ to be of the nature of a sin-of fering. That it is but compared in figure to that species of sacrifice, is all that he thinks proper to concede. — H. Taylor, {Ben Mord. p. 811 — 821.) contends strenuously, and cer- tainly with as much ingenuity as the case will admit, in sup- port of the same point. — What has been urged in Number XXVII. upon this head, will however, I trust, be found suf- . ficient. At all events, it furnishes a direct reply to an argu- "^Vient used by the former of these writers, {Theol. Rep, vol. i. pp. 128, 129.) in which, for the purpose of proving that IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST DIED FOR US. 143 the " death of Christ was no proper sacrifice for sin, or the antitype of the Jewish sacrifices," he maintains, that " though the death of Christ is frequently mentioned or al- luded to by the prophets, it is never spoken of as a sin-offer- ing:^^ and to establish this position, he relies principally on his interpretation of Isa. liii. 10. which has been fully exa- mined and refuted in the afore-mentioned Number. In addition to what has been advanced in that Number upon the other text discussed in it, namely, 3 Cor. v. 2L I wish here to notice the observations of Dr. Macknight and Rosenmuller. The note of the former upon it is this: *' Af^ct^rtuv, a sin-offering. There are many passages in the Old Testament, where «/m.«^t/««, sin, signifies, a sin-offeringy Hosea iv. 8. They (the priests) eat up the sins (that is, the sin-offerings) of my people. — In the New Testament like- wise, the word sin hath the same signification, Heb. ix. 26, 28. xiii. 11." — To the same purport, but more at large, Pil- kington, in his Remarks, &c. pp. 163, 164. — Rosenmuller observes as follows, «« AfM^nct, victimapro peccato, ut Hebr. ZDt^x Levit. vii. 2. riKtan et nxDn, quod saepe elliptice ponitur pro nmn nar, ut IPs. xl. 7. Exod. xxix. 14. pro quo LXX. Msurpant ^re^i uf4.cc§Tt»i, so. ^uTtx, Levit. v. 8, 9, 11. alliisque locis. AUiis abstractum est pro concrete, et subaudiendum est *»re, pro: 6>$ ufMc^Tccvovrec f^ro/^jcfv, tractavit eum ut peccato- rem ; se gessit erga eum, uti erga peccatorem. Sensus est idem." No, XXX. ON THE SENSE IN WHICH CHRIST IS SAID IK SCRIPTURE TO HAVE DIED FOR US. Page 33. (/) — Dr. Priestley's remarks on this subject deserve to be attended to, as they furnish a striking speci- men of the metaphysical ingenuity with which the rational expositors of the present day, are able to extricate them- selves from the shackles of scripture language. Christ be- ing frequently said in scripture to have died for us, he tells us that this is to be interpreted, dying on our account, or for our benefit, " Or if, (he adds) when rigorously interpret- ed, it should be found, that if Christ had not died, 7ve must have died, it is still however only consequentially so, and by no means properly and directly so, as a substitute for us : for if in consequence of Christ's not having been sent to in- struct and reform the world, mankind had continued unre- lormed ; and the necessary consequence of Christ's coming was his death, by whatever means, and in whatever manner it was brought about : it is plain, that there was in fact, no other alternative but his death or ours ; how naturally then 144 IN" WHAT SENSE was it, especially lo writers accustomed lo the strong figura- tive expression of the East, to say that he died in our STEAD, without meaning it in a strict and proper sense?'* — Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 199. Here then we see, that had the sacred writers every where represented Christ as dying hi our steady yet it would have amounted to no more, than dying on our account, or for our heiufit, just as under the present form of expression. And thus Dr. Priestley has proved to us that no form of expres- sion whatever, would be proof against the species of criticism which he has thought proper to employ : for it must be re- membered, that the want of this very phrase, dying in our steady has been urged as a main argument against the notion of a strict propitiatory sacrifice in the death of Christ. To attempt to prove then, in opposition to those who use this argument, that when Christ is said in scripture to have died for us, it is meant that he died instead of us, must be in this writer's opinion a waste of time : since, when this is accom- plished, we are in his judgment only where we set out. As however, there have been some, who, not possessing Dr. Priestley's metaphysical powers, have thought this accepta- tion of the word for, conclusive in favour of the received doctrine of atonement, and have therefore taken much pains to oppose it, I will hope to be excused, if I deem it necessa- ry to reply to these writers. Dr. Sykes, in his Essay on Redemption, and H. Taylor, in his Ben Mord. pp. 786, 787. have most minutely exa- mined all the passages in the New Testament, in which the preposition for is introduced. And the result of their exa- mination is, that in all those passages which speak of Christ as having given himself for us, for our sins, having died for us, &c." the vrord for must be considered as on account of, for the lyenefit of, and not instead of. The ground on which this conclusion is drawn, as stated by the latter, is this ; that " if the doctrine be, that these things were done upon our account, or for our advantage, the word for will have the same sense in all the texts : but if the true doctrine be, that they were done instead of, the sense of the word will not be the same in the different texts." — But surely this furnishes no good reason for deciding in favour of the former doctrine. The word for, or the Greek words «vt/, v7re^, hec,7r£§t, of which it is the translation, admitting of different senses, may of course be differently applied, according to the nature of the subject, and yet the doctrine remain unchanged. Thus it might be perfectly proper to sa}^ that Christ suffered in- stead of us, although it would be absurd to say, that he suf- fared instead of our offences. It is sufficient, if the different CHRIST DIED FOR US. 145 applicaiions of the word cany a consistent ineaniiig. To (lie instead of uSy and to die on account of our offences, per- fectly a^ree. But this change of the expression necessarily arises from the change of the subject. And accordingly, the same difficulty will be found to attach to th*. exposition pro- posed by these writers : since the word for, interpreted on account of, i. e. for the benefit of, cannot be applied in the same sense in all the texts. For, although dying for our benefit, is perfectly intelligible, dying for the benefit of our offences is no less absurd than dying instead of our offences. The only inference that could with justice have been drawn by these writers is, that the word for does not neces- sarily imply substitution in all these passages, and that there- fore it is not sufficient to lay a ground for the doctrine which implies that substitution. But that, on the other hand, it is evident that it does not imply it in any, can by no means be contended : the word v-zrs^, being admitted to have that force frequently in its common application ; as may be seen in Plato Conviv. p. 1197. and again 1178. where wrohwKsiv vn-t^, is manifestly used for dying in stead, or place of another. — That the Greeks were accustomed by this expression to imply a vicarious death, Raphelius on Rom. v. 8. directly asserts ; and produces several indisputable instances from Xenophon, in which V7re§ and uvn have the force of substi- tution.^ In like manner, (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) when David saith concerning Absalom, r/5 ^ai] rev Sccvxtov ft« uvrt a-a, there is clearly expressed David's wish that his death had gone in- stead of Absalom's. * Tlaphelius's observations upon this subject are so valuable, that T ap- prehend his entu*e note will be acceptable to the critical reader. — " Rom. V. 8 T^rgg iffAODV dLTVibo-vi — id est amti, loco, vice, nostra tnortuus isty ut nos mortis poena liberareniur. Vicariam enim mortem hoc loquendi genere Graeci declarant. Neque Socinianis, qui secus inteipretantur, quenquam ex Graecis credo assensorem esse. Nostrze sentenlia: Xenophon adstipula- tur. Nam cum Seuthes pucrum formosum bello capuim occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, puerorum amator, se pro illius more deprecatorem, praeberet, rog-at Seutlies Episthenem; H kai i^ixot^ av, a ETrta-hvic, THEP TOTTOT AnoeANEIN : Vei/es7ie, mi Episthejies, pro hoc mori ? Cumque is nihil dubitaret pro pueri vita cervicem praebere, Seuthes vicis- sim puerura interrogat, n TraHTUiv etvrcv ANTI iKUva : nurn hu7ic ft^riri vs.o SE vellet? De Exped. Cyri, &c. Et Hist. Grace. &c. U^ouTraiv h o T^XTiViO-btLl, (TTCDliriV HTOS TcLVTel (TUVTC/UCe? ^T^itTTSCT^it/, CcO-Trip CtV TIC TOV THEP ATTOT AnOGANOT.VlENON TT^odv/um ^»roti,. Qumncne Jigesi- lulls dtJiunciasstt fore, vt, quicunque claret tquutn et arma et peritutn honii- mm, itnmunis esset a tnilitid : effecit, ut hmc non alitev onagna celeritate *ucerei:t, atque si quis alacriter aliquein stfo loco moritumni c/itareret. De Venat. p. 768. P^^VTixoy^o? th TrtCTgOi rnEPAnOQANilN, n-oa-aLvrne: «Tt/;^^6v iVKKax;, ccj-s /uovo; cptKOTrdteni^ Trotpx to/? 'Ehh'iiartv ttvo-yo^ivbnvat. Antilvcfius PRO PATRE inorti aese objiviens, tantum, glorice consecutus estfiit soUis apud GnecQs amans putris appellctur. — Et quid opus est aliis exemplis ? cum - 146 UNFOUNDED OBJECTION OF But indeed this force of the word neither can be, nor is denied by the writers alluded to. The actual application of the term then, in the several passages in which Christ is said to have died for us, to have suffered for us, &c. is to be de- cided by the general language of scripture upon that subject. And if it appears from its uniform tenor, that Christ submit^ ted himself to suffering and death, that thereby we might be saved from undergoing the punishment of our transgressions, will it not follow, that Christ's suffering stood in the place of ours, even though it might not be of the same nature in any respect, with that which we were to have undergone. No. XXXI. ON THE PRETENCE OF FIGURATIVE ALLUSION IN THE SACRIFICIAL TERMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Page 33. {g) — On the whole of this pretence o^ fiorur alive applications, whereby H. Taylor, {B. Mord.) Dr. Priestley, and others, endeavour to escape from the plain language of scripture, it may be worth while to notice a distinction which has been judiciously suggested upon this subject by Mr. Veysie. {Bampt. Lecture, Sermon 5.) — Figurative language, he says, does not arise from the real nature of the thing to which it is transferred, but only from the imagination of him who transfers it. Thus a man who possesses the quality of courage in an eminent degree, is figuratively called a lion; not because the real nature of a lion belongs to him, but be- cause the quality which characterizes this animal is possessed by him in an eminent degree : therefore the imagination con- ceives them as partakers of one common nature, and applies to them one common name. Now to suppose that language, if it cannot be literally interpreted, must necessarily be of the figurative kind here described, that is, applied only by way of allusion, is erroneous ; since there is also a species of language, usually called analogical, which though not strictly proper, is far from being merely figurative: the terms being transferred from one thing to another, not because the things are similar, but because they are in similar relations. And^the term thus transferred, he contends, is as truly signi- ficant of the real nature of the thing in the relation in which luculentissmum sit. Job. xi. 50. ubi mortuus dicitur Salvator vtts^ nt xtta. Quod quale sit, mox exponitnr, iv!t ju» okov to sQvoc cfTroKnTttt." Raphe- lit Annot. torn. ii. pp. 253, 254. How forcibly the word vrng is felt to imply substitntion is indirectly ad- mitted in the strongest manner even by Ujiitarians themselves: the satis- faction manifested by Commentators of that description, whenever they can escape from the emphal'cal bearing- of this preposition, is strikmg-ly evinced iti their late Version of the JVcw Testament. See their observations on Gal. i. 4. FIGURATIVE ALLUSION. 147 it stands, as it could be were it the primitive and proper word. With this species of language, he observes, scripture abounds. And indeed so it must ; for if the one dispensation was really intended to be preparatory to the other, the parallelism of their parts, or their several analogies, must have been such as necessarily to introduce the terms of the one into the ex- planation of the other. — Of this Mr. V. gives numerous in- stances. I shall only adduce that which immediately applies to the case before us : viz. that of " the death of Christ be- ing called in the New Testament, a sacrifice and sin-offering. This, says he, is not as the Socinian hypothesis asserts, ^^g-w- ratively, or merely in allusion to the Jewish sacrifices, but analogically^ because the death of Christ is to the Christian Church, what the sacrifices for sin were to the worshippers of the Tabernacle:" (or perhaps it might be more correctly expressed, because the sacrifices for sin were so appointed^ that they should be to the worshippers of the Tabernacle, what it had been ordained the death of Christ was to be to the Christian Church :) " And accordingly, the language of the New Testament does not contain mere fiortirative aWmiona to the Jewish sacrifices, but ascribes a real and immediate efficacy to Christ's death, an efficacy corresponding to that which was anciently produced by the legal sin-offerings." This view of the matter will, I apprehend, be found to convey a complete answer to all that has been said upon this subject concerning figure, allusion, &c. Indeed some distinction of this nature is absolutely neces- sary. For under the pretence of figure, we find those writers who would reject the doctrine of atonement, endeavour to evade the force of texts of scripture, the plainest and most positive. — Thus Dr. Priestley {Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 214.) asserts, that the death of Christ may be called a sacrifice for sin, and a r«?isom; and also that Christ may in general be said to have died in our stead, and to have borne our sins : and that figurative language, even stronger than this, may be used by persons who do not consider the death of Christ as having any immediate relation to the forgiveness of sins, but believe only that it was a necessary circumstance in the scheme of the gospel, and that this scheme was necessary to reform the world. — That however there are parts of scripture which have proved too powerful even for the figurative solu- tions of the Historian of the Corruptions of Christianity, may be inferred from this remarkable concession. " In this then let. us acquiesce, not doubting but that, though not perhaps ttt present, we shall in time be able, without any effoj't or straining, to explain all particular expressions in the apos- 148 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION tolical epistles," &c. {Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 279.)— -Here is a plain confession on the part of Dr. Priestley, that those enlightened theories, in which he and his followers exult so highly, are wrought out of scripture only by effort and strain- ing : and that all the powers of this polemic Procrustes, have been exerted to adjust the apostolic stature to certain pre- ordained dimensions, and in some cases exerted in vain. The reader is requested to compare what has been here said, with what has been already noticed in Numbers J, and XIV, on the treatment given to the authority of scripture by Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian fellow-labourers. No. XXXII. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THE SACRIFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FIGURATIVE, URGED BY H. TAYLOR AND DR. PRIESTLEY. Page 33. (h) — The several arguments enumerated in the page here referred to, are urged at large, and with the utmost force of which they are capable, in the 7th Letter of Ben MordecaV s A/pology, by H. Taylor. — Dr. Priestley has also endeavoured to establish the same point, and by arguments not much dissimilar. Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 1*21 — 136. No. XXXIII. ON THE SENSE ENTERTAINED GENERALLY BY ALL, AND MORE ESPECIALLY INSTANCED AMONGST THE JEWS, OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION, Page 33. (i) — The last of the three arguments here re- ferred to, is urged by H. Taylor, {Ben Mord. pp. 7^4, 785, 797.) as applied particularly to the notion of vicarious sacri- fice : but it is clear from the whole course of his reasoning, that he means it to apply to all sacrifice of a nature properly expiatory ; that is, in which by the suffering and death of the ?ictim, the displeasure of God was averted from the person for whom it was offered, and the punishment due to his of- fence remitted, whether the suffering of the victim was sup- posed to be strictly of a vicarious nature or not. Such a notion of sacrifice applied to the death of Christ, this writer ascribes to the engrafting of Heathenish notions on Jewish customs ; whereby the language of the Jews came to be interpreted by the customs and ceremonies of the Hea- then philosophers, who had been converted to Christianity. Whether this notion be well founded, will appear from the examination of the origin of sacrifice, in the second of these Discourses, and from some of the Explanatory Dissertations connected with it. But it is curious to remark how Dr. Priestley and this author, whilst they agree in the result, HEl.D BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 149 differ in their means of arriving at it. This author traces the notion of sacrifice strictly expiatory, to heathen inter- pretation. Dr. Priestley on the contrary asserts, that the Heathens had no idea whatever of such sacrifice. He em- ploys almost one entire essay in the Theological Repository, (vol. i. p. 400, &c.) in the proof, that in no nation, ancient or modern, has such an idea ever existed: and, as we have already seen in Number V, pronounces it to be the unques- tionable result of an historical examination of this subject, that all, whether Jews or Heathens, ancient or modern, learned or unlearned, have been " equally strangers to the notion of expiatory sacrifice ; equally destitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atonement. ^^ To pass over, at pre- sent, this gross contradiction to all the records of antiquity, how shall we reconcile this gentleman to the other? or, which is of greater importance, how shall we reconcile him to him- self? For whilst in this place he maintains that neither ancient nor modern Jews ever conceived an idea of expiatory sacri- fice, he contends in another, (ibid. p. 426.) that this notion has arisen from the circumstance of the simple religion of Christ having been " entrusted to such vessels as were the apostles:" for, adds he, " the apostles were Jews, and had to do with Jews, and consequently represented Christianity in a Jewish dress," — and this more particularly, " in the bu- siness of sacrifices." — Now, if the Jews had no notion what- ever of expiatory sacrifice, it remains to be accounted for how the clothing the Christian doctrine of redemption in a Jewish dress, could have led to this notion. It is true, he adds, that over the Jewish disguise, which had been thrown on this doctrine by the apostles, another was drawn by Chris- tians. But if the Jewish dress bore no relation to a doctrine of atonement, then the Christian disguise is the only one. And thus the Christians have deliberately, without any foun- dation laid for them, either by Heathens or Jetvs, superindu- ced the notion of an expiatory sacrifice, on the simple doc- trines of the Gospel : converting figurative language into a literal exposition of what was known never to have had a real existence 1 ! ! To leave however, this region of contradictions, it may not be unimportant to inquire into \\\c facts which have been here alleged by Dr. Priestley. And it must be allowed that he has crowded into this one Essay, as many assertions at va- riance with received opinion, as can easily be found compri- sed in the same compass on any subject whatever. He has asserted that no trace of any scheme of atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness, save repentance and reforma- tion, is to be discovered either in the book of Job; or in 150 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION the scriptures of the ancient or any writings of the modern Jews ; or amongst the Heathen world, either ancient or mo- dern. — These assertions, as they relate to Job, and the reli- gion of the Heathens, have been already examined ; the former in Number XXHI, the latter in Number V. An inquiry into his position, as it affects the Jews, with some farther particulars concerning the practices of the Heathen, will fully satisfy us, as to the degree of reliance to be placed on this writer's historical exactness. With respect to the sentiments of the ancient Jews, or in other words, the sense of the Old Testament upon the sub- ject, that being the main question discussed in these Dis- courses, especially the second, no inquiry is in this place ne- cessary : it will suffice at present to examine the writings of the Jews of later times, and we shall find that these give the most direct contradiction to his assertions. He has quoted Maimonides, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, Buxtorf, and Isaac Netto, and concludes with confidence, that among the mo- dern Jews no notion has ever existed, " of any kind of me- diation being necessary to reconcile the claims of justice with those of mercy:'* or, as he elsewhere expresses it, of "any satisfaction beside repentance being necessary to the forgive- ness of sin." {Theol. Rep, vol. i. p. 409 — 411.) — Now in direct opposition to this, it is notorious, that the stated con- fession made by the Jews in offering up the victim in sacri- fice, concludes with these words, let this (the victim) be my expiation.^ And this the Jewish writers directly interpret as meaning, " let the evils which in justice should have fall- en on my head, light upon the head of the victim which I now offer." Thus Baal Arach says, that " wherever the ex- pression, let me he another^ s expiation^ is used, it is the same as if it had been said, let me he put in his room^ that I may bear hisgttilt : and this again is equivalent to saying, let this act whereby I take on me his transgression, obtain for him his pardon.'^ In like manner, Solomon Jarchi (Sanhedr. ch. 2.) says, " Let us be your expiation, signifies, let us be put in your place, that the evil which should have fallen upon you, may all light on us : and in the same way, Obadias de Bartenora, and other learned Jews, explain this formula. Again, respecting the burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin, Nachmanides, on Levit. i. says, that " it was right that the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt : but that the Creator in his mercy hath accepted this victim from him as a vicarious substitute (nniDn,) and an atonement ("i33, that its blood should be poured out instead of his blood, and its * See the form of coufession in Maim, de Cult. Di, 516.) — Again, Dr. Priestley insinuates that the Jews could not con- sider this offering as a strict expiation, because that " when they themselves die, they pray that their own deaths may be considered as an expiation or satisfaction for their sins.'* — Dr. Priestley does not recollect that the atonement made at the day of expiation, extended only to the sins of the past year ; and that those which were committed after that day, must remain unexpiated until the day of expiation in the suc- ceeding year. The dying person had consequently to account for all the sins committed since the last preceding day of ex- piation. And as every natural ill was deemed by the Jews a penal infliction for sin, death was consequently viewed by them in the same light, and in the highest degree ; and there- fore it was reasonable that they should hope from it a full atonement and satisfaction for their transgressions. Thus we see, that even the authorities quoted by Dr, Priestley, as supporting his theories, are found to be in direct contradiction to them. And from this, and the numerous other instances, of his misrepresentation of ancient writers, which may be found in the course of these remarks, we may learn a useful lesson respecting his reports of authors in those voluminous writings, in v/hich he has laboured to convert the religion of Christ into a system of Heathen morality. I have, for this purpose, been thus copious on his representa- tions of the opinions of the modern Jews ; and without dwell- ing longer on this point, or adverting to Isaac Netto, who happened in a " very good Sermon'^ to speak with confidence of the mercy of God, without hinting any thing of mediation as necessary to satisfy his justice. {Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 411.) I turn back to what we are told three pages before, concerning Philo and Josephus. These writers, who were nearly cotemporary with our Saviour, Dr. Priestley informs us, furnish no intimation what- ever, in any part of their works, of " any ideas that have the least connexion with those that are suggested by the modern doctrine of atonement :" (pp. 408, 409.) and according to his usual practice, he produces one or two insulated passages from the voluminous works of these authors, to prove that their sentiments on the subjects of sacrifice, and of the divine placability, correspond with his own. Now were it true, with respect to Josephus, as Dr. Priestley asserts, that he suggests 160 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION no idea in any degree similar to the received notion of atone- ment, yet could this furnish no proof that he entertained no such idea, because he himself expressly informs us, (Ant^ Jud. lib. iii. cap. 9. sect. 3. p. 121. & cap. 11. sect. 2. p. 125 — vol. i. cd. Huds.) that he reserves the more minute examrna- lion of the nature of the animal offerings, for a distinct trea- tise on the subject of sacrifice, which has either not been written, or has not come down to us. But although the his- torian, in consequence of this intention, has made but slight and incidental mention of the nature of sacrifice ; yet has he said enough to disprove Dr. Priestley's assertion, having, in all places in which he has occasion to speak of the sin-offer- ing, described the victim as sacrificed in deprecation of God's wrath, and in siq^plicationof pardon for transgression. Tiot^cctrr^Tiq ufJLct^rnfjLarm is the expression he constantly employs on this subject :^ and in treating of the scape-goat, he calls it et'^or^oTFixTfjioi; koci Tru^xiTijTKi vre^ ctf4,oi^Tr,(A.ccrav. TSee p; 92, aS referred to in the note below.) And as to the distinction made by this writer, between the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, on the strength of which Dr. Priestley ranks him as an aux- iliary on the subject of the sacrificial import, it deserves to be remarked, that this, as far as it can be understood, seems not to be in any degree inconsistent with the commonly re- ceived notions of sacrifice, inasmuch as it relates rather to the sentiments of the offerers, than to the intrinsic nature of the things offered.f ^ But besides, we find in the very section in which this dis tinction is pointed out, an observation respecting a sacrifice offered by Cain, which, had Dr. Priestley permitted his eyes to wander but a few lines from the passage he has quoted, might have convinced him, that Josephus admitted, equally with the supporters of the present doctrine of atonement, the fropitiatory virtue of sacrifice : for, having related the mur- der of Abel by his brother, and God's consequent resent- ment against Cain, he adds, that upon Cain's *' offering up a sacrifice, and by virtue thereof, {h otvriii) supplicating him not to be extreme in his wrath, God was led to remit the punishment of the murder." Thus the wrath of God was averted by sacrifice; and that life, which, according to strict justice, was to be paid for the life which had been taken away, was preserved through virtue of the offering made. With * Xfcctf^^cv Ts iTi ■ra.g'j.:r;iMv -is-xxTmi^eit has indeed exercised upon the Jewish doc- trines an extraordinary degree of mystical refinement : he is also pronounced by some of the highest authorities, to have been entirely ignorant both of the language and customs of the Jews; and consequently to have fallen into gross errors in his representation of the doctrines of their religion.^ And yet from two detached passages in this author's writings, one of which is so completely irreleA^ant, that it were idle even to notice it, Dr. Priestley does not hesitate to decide upon the notion entertained by the Jews of his day respecting the nature of sacrificial atonement. He also asserts indeed, that in no part of his works does he suggest any idea, in the slightest degree resembling the modern notion of atonement. To hazard this assertion, is to confess an entire ignorance of the writings of this author : for on the contrary, so congenial are his sentiments and language to those of the first Christian writers on the subject of the corruption of man^s nature j the natural insufficiency of our best works, the necessity of an intercessor, a redeemer, and ransom for sin, together with the appointment of the divine Aords, for these purposes, that the learned Bryant has been led to conclude, that he must actually have derived these doctrines from the sources of evangelical knoAvledge. That he had indeed the oppor- tunity of doing so, from an intimate intercourse with St. Pe- ter, is attested by Hieronymus, {Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles.) Photius, {Biblioth, cv.) and Suidas, (Historic.) by whom, as well as by Eusebius, {Hist, Eccles. lib. ii.) it is affirmed, that the beautiful eulogium contained in this writer's treatise, riff E Bin ®w^. was pronounced on the apostolic Christians set- tled at Alexandria, who were the followers of St. Mark, the disciple of Peter. The arguments of Dr. Allix, however, in iiis Judgment of the Jewish Church, &c. (p. 76 — 83.) though they may justly be deemed invalid, as to the impossibility of Philo's intercourse with the first Christians, for which he contends in opposition to the above authorities, yet seem suf- ficient to warrant us in pronouncing, that however similar his notions and expressions may be to those of the early Chris- tians, they yet were not derived from Christian sources : and • See Photiiis Biblioth. cv. ed. 1635.— TAe*, Temp. Jos. Scali^. Animad. p*. , T. ed. 1§^8— and Grotms, in Mat. xxxvi. 18. IG2 PROPITIATORY EXPIATIOIf that consequently, they exhibit the doctrines of the Jewish church, such at least as they were held by the Jews of Alex- andria in his day. But to instance a few of the numerous passages in the works of this author, of the import above alluded to. — He informs us, (m^t ^vm^y, p. 217. ed. 1640.) that "man was made in the image of God" — that he was placed in a state of perfect happiness, (ibid. pp. 219, 220. & Noa*. i£f- AAAr/. pp. 56, 57.) — but that, "having disgraced and deformed this likeness by his fall from virtue, he likewise fell from hap- piness ; and from an immortal state, was deservedly doomed to misery and death," (Ue^t Evyev. p. 906.)— -that being now " naturally prone to vice," {ei. n^oty. Ka.;^ . p. 522.) and so degenerate, " that even his virtues are of no value, but through the goodness and favour of God," (ne^t ra to Xe/^ . p. 166.) — mankind are consequently obliged "to trust to this alone for the purification of the soul ; and not imagine, that they are of themselves capable, without the divine fa- vour and influence, to purge and wash away the stains which deform their nature." (ne^t rm Om^. pp. 1111, 1112.) And so great does he represent this corruption of the human mind as to exclaim, that " no man of sound judgment, ob- serving the actions of men, can refrain from calling aloud on the only Saviour God to remove this burden of iniquity, and by appointing some ransom and redemption for the soul, (Xvr^cc Kcct G-a^^oc KctrccSitg rtji '<^v^vi^,') to restore it to its original liberty." (jis^i ^vyx- A/«a. p. 333.) " For a race by na- ture thus carried headlong to sin," he pronounces " some mode of propitiation to be necessary," (ne^t vyx^. p. 465.) ■< — and for this purpose he says, " an advocate and intercessor for men," (iKsn^g m hum) has been appointed, viz. " the Divine Logos, that Archangel, the first-born Son of God, ordained by him to stand as a mediator (MsGc^ieg) between the creature and the Creator, acting as a surety to each party, etf^ipore^ei^ oy^v^^ivm) and proclaiming peace to all the world, that through his intercession men might have a firm faith in God :" {®si. U^ccy. KXuf. p. 509.) — that same Aay«?, who is also called by him " an High Priest, free from all sin ;" (Us^i ^vycth p. 466. and Ue^t rm Ovuf. p. 597.) of whose mediation he acknowledges the intercession of Aaron to have been but a type ; (ns^t vyuh p. 466. and Qsi u^ay, KA>?f . p. 508.) and whom he describes to be that " substitute and representation" of the Deity, (^vrruo^oi ©£«) through whom he is related in the Old Testament to have conversed with man. (nf^< rm Ovti§, p. 600.) — And when he speaks of that part of the Law wherein it is said, that the man of guilt should fly to an appointed city of refuge, and not be acquit- HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 163 ted till the death of the High Priest, he confesses {m^i ^vya,^. pp. 465, 466.) that by this the Levitical high priest cannot be literally meant, but that he must be in this case the type of one far greater: " for that the High Priest alluded to, is not a man, but the sacred Logos, who is incapable of all sin, and who is said to have his head anointed with oil:" and that the death of this High Priest is that which is here intended : — thus admitting the death of the Logos, whom he describes as the anointed, and allows to be typified by the Jewish high priest, to be the means of recovery from a state of spiritual bondage, and of giving liberty to the soul. It is true, he al- legorizes away this meaning again according to his usual custom. But whilst he refines upon the doctrine, he at the same time testifies its existence in his day. The reader will now judge whether this writer deemed *' repentance and good works svfficient for divine accept- ance," or whether he entertained " any ideas resembling those that are suggested by the modern doctrine of atone- ment." Dr. Priestley however contends, that he considered sacrifices but as gifts, and this he infers from the account given by him of the preference of AbePs sacrifice to that of Cain : viz. that " instead of inanimate things, he offered ani- mate ; instead of young animals, those that were grown to their full size ; instead of the leanest, the fattest," &c. Dr. Priestley should at the same time have stated that the whole of the account given by this writer of the history of Cain and Abel is one continued allegory : that by the birth of the two brothers, he understands " the rise of two oppo- site principles in the soul ; one, ascribing all to the natural powers of the individual, and thence represented by Cain, which signifies possession ; the other referring all to God, and thence denominated AheV^ (rif^* m u^ov^y. p. 130.) that this latter principle he also holds to be implied in the occupation of Abel, inasmuch "as by a tender of. sheep, is meant a controller of the brute powers of the soul ; and that Abel therefore, from his pious reference of all to God, is properly described as a shepherd; and Cain, on the con- trary, from the deriving all from his own individual exer- tions, is called a tiller of the ground." (Ibid. pp. 136, 137.) The sacrifice of Abel consequently denotes the offering of the pious and devout affections of the heart, this being "what is meant by the firstlings of the flock, and the fat thereof," (Ibid. pp. 137, 145, 154.) whilst that of Cain on the other hand represents an offering destitute of those af- fections, an offering of impiety, inasmuch " as the fruits of the earth import the selfish feelings ; there being Offered af tcr certain days, indicates the backwardness of the offerer ; i^4 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION and the fruits^ simply, and not the first-fruits, show thai the first honour was held back from the Creator, and given to the creature." (Ibid. pp. 137, 141, 142, 145.) And in this sense it is, that Abel is said by this writer, " neither to have offered the same things, nor in the same way ; but in- stead of inanimate things, animate ; instead of young and in- ferior animals, the matured and choicest :" in other words, that the most animated and vigorous sentiments of homage are requisite to constitute an acceptable act of devotion. In this light, the due value of Dr. Priestley's quotation from this writer, as applied to the present question, may ea- sily be estimated. But had Dr. Priestley looked to that part of this author's works in which he treats expressly of the animals offered in sacrifice, he would have seen that he describes the sacrifice for sin, as being the appointed means of "obtaining pardon, and escaping the evil consequences of sin," KXK6JV ot7rxX?iX'/rj — Kxxm ^vyt!-—'CCfAV»j^tccv cchKvifA.ccrm eiiTetijuce6)i o roTrof: emroc «/? tov ctTrnvTii ;^^cvov, xtyu o Qios Tcev S'uva./uiei>v' E*v Je /un TriTHKru'Ti auTos, fxi)Siili(rtt'Ti m nn^vyfAttroc etuTHy (Tio-Bi iTri^ci^utt Tolg ibvio-i, (Just. Mart Thirlb pp. 292, 293.) — Justin says that this passage was among the i'^hyn'Tit; odv i^nyna-itro EaS^uf ug rov vo/uov rov Trigi th ttao-^a: and hence Mr. Whitaker concludes {^Origin of Arianisiriy p. 305.) thiit it originally stood in Ezra vi 19 — 22. and probably between the 20th and 21st verses. It must however be confessed, that the reasons assigned by the learned Commentator on the passage here quoted by Justin, leave some reason to doubt its having existed in any genuine copy of the Old Testament. Grabe gives it as his opinion, that the sentence which Justin tlius testifies to have stood in the ancient copies of Ezra, is rather to be considered as having crept in from a marginal addition by some early Christian, than as having- h(t{in expunged from the later copies by Jewish fraud. 174 THE PASSOVER SHOWN, &,C. firm persuasion that we are about to humble and degrade him in this sign, and afterwards should place our sure trust and hope in him, then this place shall never be made desolate, saith the Lord of hosts : but if you do not believe in him, nor listen to that which he shall announce, ye shall be a derision to all nations." {Cudw. Int. Si/st. Disc. p. 16.) L'Enfant thinks the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7. are a direct allu- sion to the first sentence of the passage here cited — see Dod- dridge on 1 Cor. V. 7. AUix in his Judgment of the Jew. Cli, p. 333. says, that when John the Bajptist speaks of the Lamb which takes away the sins of the world, the type of the paschal lamb is alluded to : and that this appears the more clearly from two things taught amongst the Jews : 1. That the Shechinah delivered Israel out of Egypt: 2. That the Shechinah was typified by the paschal lamb. — But, in proof that the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, it is not necessary to resort to Jewish traditions. Scripture supplies the most decisive testimonies on the point. St. John and St. Paul both directly assert it, (John xix. 36. 1 Cor. v. 7.) and our liord himself seems to affirm it in his institution of the Eu- charist at the last supper. (Mat. xxvi. 26.) But whoever wishes to see this point fully examined, may consult WitSt CRcon. Fodd. de paschate ; or the selection from that work in Jennings Jew. Ant. vol. ii. p. 201 — 208. or a yet more brief, and perhaps not less satisfactory, review of the subject, in Beausob. & U Enfant' s Introd. p. 133 — 138. Dr. Priestley's mode of evading the force of the passage in 1 Cor. v. 7. as a proof that the death of Christ was a sa- crifice, has been stated in the beginning of this Number. I shall conclude it by noticing a different mode adopted by a celebrated fellow-labourer of his in the work of refining away the fair and natural meaning of scripture language, Dr. Sykes. In the words, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, a plain unbiassed understanding would find it difficult not to discover that the passover is affirmed to be a sacrifice; and that in some corresponding sense, Christ is said to be sa- crificed for us. Dr. Priestley, as we have seen, avoids the latter position by a direct denial of the former. Dr. Sykes on the other hand admits the former, and yet peremptorily rejects the latter. Now though Dr. Priestley's assertion, that the passover is not here pronounced to be a sacrifice, ma}^ appear sufficiently bold : yet the position that it is called a sacrifice, and that Christ is not in the same sentence said to be sacrificed, seems a flight of criticism still more worthy of our admiration. On what ground an exposition so extra- ordinary is founded, it is natural to inquire. Christ, we are. told, is called our passover, inasmuch as by his means our I TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD, &C. 175 Sins are passed over, just as by means of the paschal lamb the children of Israel were passed over in Egypt. So far is well. But how is he said to be sacrificed for us ? — why, by not being sacrificed at all ; but, by being compared to the paschal lamb which was a sacrifice 111 Here is true logic, and rational criticism. — If the reader should doubt this to be a fair representation of Dr. Sykes's argument, I refer him to the learned Doctor himself, Scripture Doctrine of Re- demption. No. 640. p. 220. In justification af what has been advanced in the prece- <3ing Number (p. 172.) on the signification of the word nD3, I subjoin the following observations. This Hebrew word which we translate Passover, was ren- dered by almost all the early interpreters in the sense which the English word implies; usimely, passing over, Josephus, who calls it TrecT^cty and sometimes ^«c-««, expressly affirms that the Hebrew word signifies vri^Qocciei, or passing over ; in commemoration of God's having passed over (vTre^^ug) the Hebrews, when he smote the Egyptians with his plague. (Ant. p. 65.) — Philo, in two distinct parts of his works, ex- plains the word by the term h»Qu.Ttiy which he uses unequi- vocally in the sense of passing over, i. e, from place to place, (fipera. pp. 392, 439.) And again, in p. 686. he employs the term ru, S'letQotTij^tx, the passings over, or from place to place. — Aquila in his version renders the word by vKt^QciTii, a passing over, using nearly the same term with Josephus. — And Jerome adopts the word transitus, as the just equivalent of the Hebrew. Thus far there appears a perfect agreement amongst the ancient versions ; affording at the same time a full justifica- tion of the phrase by which we render the Hebrew term in our common English bibles. Some Commentators however, and those of no mean note, for example, Vitringa and Lowth, Dathe and Rosenmuller, have raised doubts as to the pro- priety of the sense conveyed by the word passover, in ex- plication of the original term HDS. The difficulties that weigh with the two latter, are however of a nature to which I cannot help thinking these critics have attached an import- ance beyond what is justly due. That the Arabic language does not ascribe the sense of trafisitio to the word, seems by no means a proof that it cannot admit that meaning as these authors contend. (Dalh. and Rosenm. on Exod. xii. 11. and Dathe more fully, m Glass. Phil. Sacr. pp. 968, 969.) Objections drawn from the kindred dialects ought to 176 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD be admitted only in the case of such words as are in them- selves of doubtful signification, receiving no illustration either from corresponding passages, or from early versions. Very different is the case of the term in question. Not only as w^e have seen, do some of the earliest and most competent translators attribute to it the sense already stated, but seve- ral passages of scripture justify that sense by a correspond- ing use of the verb from which the word is derived. This will appear by considering the several verses of the twelfth chapter of Exodus, in which the institution of the passover is prescribed, and the reason of its designation by that term expressly assigned. The communication is first made to Moses by Jehovah. — 11. "It is the Lord's passover. (HD.) — 12. For I will pass f ni3;*i) through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt. — 13. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are : and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, (OoS;? ^nnoai) and the plague shall not be upon you for destruction whilst I smite the land of Egypt." — Again in verse 23. this com- munication of Jehovah is conveyed by Moses to the elders of the people in the following words : — " For the Lord will pass O^P) through to smite the Egyptians, and when he seeth the blood, &c. the Lord will pass over the door (nnsn S;? nin' nQ3i) and will not suffer the destruction (or de- stroying plague) to come into your houses to smite you." — — And lastly in the 27th verse, when Moses instructs them as to the manner in which they are to explain the rite to their descendants, he tells them that they shall say, " it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover (riDS nn?) who passed (HDi)) over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, w hen he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses." NoAV it is evident that if the verb nD3 has been rightly in- terpreted throughout these passages, the noun derived from it has been rightly explained. — Let us then here consult the versions. The Septuagint which uses the Hebrew term throughout for the nonn, (viz. 'n-oio-^x — and so through the Pentateuch ; but in Chron. (pscceK,) employs different words in rendering the verb. In verse 23, it renders by Trec^e^^sva-srxi, the very same word by Which it translates the verb "i^jr in the same verse. That the Seventy therefore admitted the word to bear the sense of transitus, or passing over, there can be no question. They have, it is true, translated the verb by the word o-y.eTret^af , in the 13th and 27th verses: but the sense in which they intend that word, may well be doubted when we find it employed by them in 1 Sam. xxiii. 36. to denote the tnmultvous and easier haste of David to TRANSLATED PASSOVEff. 177 accomplish his escape. If however we suppose it in this place to imply jrrotection or preservation) the Seventy have then substituted the effect of that act of passing: over, for the act itself: and felt themselves justified in doing so, as they had at the same time secured the word against abuse by giving (as has been mentioned) its literal acceptation. In like manner, we find that the other Greek translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and SymmachuSj have rendered the participle niD3 by v^re^Qcctmvy (passing ovei^) in Isa. xxxi. 5» where the term is commonly conceived to be used in direct reference to its application here. The LXX there use the term Tre^tTromcrercti, instead of which Ms. Pachom. reads •Ka^tQtio-erccty which Bisliop Lowth deems the true reading. There are versions however yet to be noted, which assign to the word nD3, as it occurs in Exod. xii. a sense different from that which we have hitherto assigned. In verse 11, the Targum and Persic both render the noun by pardon^ sparing mercy' Sacrificium propitiationis (Arab*) — Sacrif. pro. misericordid coram Domino (Ch.) — And again, verses 13, 23, -27, Syr. Arab. Pcrs. and Targ. render the verb in the same sense, that of sparing ; quod miserhts est. (Ch.) pro- pitiatus. {Syr. Arab.) with which, as we have hinted, thg c-KeTTscTe of the LXX possibly concurs. — The Complutensian, in deference to the above authorities, has interpreted the verb throughout this entire chapterby the words miserm,/)arcere. • and many respectable commentators have adopted the same interpretation. But how does this connect with the sense of pas's ing over, supported by the former versions ? Perhaps a little.attention to the radical meaning of the verb nD3 may point out that iconnexion. Fagius, in locum, says, that the primary signifi- cation of the verb nD3 is saltarey transilire; unde et claudwn Hebreei HDD appellant, quod cum ingreditur, quasi saltare et subsilire videtur. Hence he adds, the name is derived a salfn angeti devastatoris : and he adduces the authority of K. D. Kimchi to this head. That of R. Sol. Jarchi, adduced by Dr. Geddcs, is more precise. " Oblatio ista (agni pas- chalis) vocatur Pesach, propter saltum^ quo sanctus ille Benedictds transibat domos Israelitarum inter domes Egyp tlorum, et saliebat de Egyptio in Egyptium : Israelita autem intermedins incolumis relinquebatur.'* This primary sense of springing rapidlif, or with a bounds is that which is ad- mitted generally by Hebrew scholars, and seems undoubtedly to b^ the true one. If then we consider it in thl^ light, Jeho- vah, who is represented as carrying with him the destroying plague, in mercy to the Israelite passes rapidly over his hoKsp, and thf^rehv Fave> it from the dcstrugtiou which is X 178 l^RUB MEANING OF THE WORD borne along to the mansion of the Egyptian, on which it is allowed to rest and execute its fatal work. Thus the passing of Jehovah oner, (that is, his r«pirf/;y passing over) the houses of the Israelites, and the sparing, or showing mercy to the Israelites, become naturally connected : and therefore either might reasonably be used by interpreters, as the signification of the term in this part of scripture. From this view of the case, it appears, that Dr. Geddes, in his translation, and still more in his Critical Remarks, was not very far from a just idea of this subject : but unfortunate- ly for himself, (from a quaintness, a love of singularity, and a total destitution of taste, which always made what was even right appear wrong in his hands — nullum quod tetigit non deformavit) — he clothed this just idea in a dress so grotesque, that even he himself was afterwards brought to see and ad- mit the ludicrousness of the garb which he had fixed upon this part of holy writ. — It is curious enough to trace the origin of the ridiculous epithet skip-offering, which has been adopted by this translator, in the writings of one of the most elegant and classical of our Hebrew critics, the celebrated Bishop Lowth ; who expressly describes " the common no- tion of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites to be, that seeing the blood, he passed over, or skipped, those houses," &c. This last named critic, following the steps of Vitringa, hafr' in a note upon Isaiah xxxi. 5. given an explanation of the term nD3, with which the signification of the English word Pass-over is totally at variance. Both he and Vitringa admit the primary sense of the verb to be that of springing for- ward, or leaping forward, with rapidity, as it has b«en before explained ; and seem to have altogether adopted the exposi- tion of the word which we have quoted from Fagius. But. the notion entertained by these distinguished critics, that two agents were concerned in the preservation of the Israelites on the night of the passover, has led them to assign to the word, as applied in Exodus, the signification of covering, i. e. protecting by covering, (as Vitringa) or springing forward to cover and protect, (as Lowth.) " Here are manifestly'* (says the Bishop) " two distinct agents, with which the notion of passing over is not consistent ; for that supposes but one agent. The two agents are, the destroying angel passing through to smite every house ; and Jehovah the protector, keeping pace with him ; and who, seeing the door of the Is- raelite marked with the blood, the token prescribed, leaps forward, throws himself with a sudden motion in the way, opposes the destroying angel ; and covers and protects that TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 179 liouse against the destroying angel, nor suffers him to smite it." Here is undoubtedly an imposing picture of the transac- tion, presented to the imagination of the reader ; but certain- ly without any foundation, save what exists in the fancy of the writer. An inaccurate translation indeed of the 28d verse seems to afford some colour to this view of the transac- tion ; ^nh CDyn2-^ii xa"? n^na^Dn jn' ah), being rendered in our common version, *' And will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you." Rosenmuller attributes this wrong translation to the Septuagint. — " LXX verterfent a oMOfievm, secuti Judgeorum opinionem, tribuentium angelo cuidam, fati ministro, fulgura, pestem et similia hominibus^ fatalia: quod commentum et multi Christiani interpretes re- petierunt. Sed nil tale in textu." Schol. in Exod. xii. 23. Rosenmuller is undoubtedly right in asserting, that there is nothing whatever in the text to justify the idea of a second agent. Whoever reads over the entire chapter with any de- gree of care, will see, that the Jehovah who prescribes the rite, is himself the agent throughout, without the least inti- mation of any other being concerned. For as to the verse above referred to, its true translation, which I have given in a former part of this discussion, removes at once every sem- blance of support which it could be supposed to afford to the contrary opinion : the word n^nB^D, (the same which is used in the 13th verse as well as in the 23d,) signifying perdition vastatioy corrnptio, exterminatioy (as see Pol. Syn. also Vatahl, on Exod. xii. 13.) and the m*nsyDS 1^3 of the 13th verse, signifying exactly the same as the ^"jjaS n^n^ytD of the 23d, i. e. in both places, the destroying plague* Besides, it must be remarked, that the expression suffer in the 23d verse, which seems to imply a distinct agent who would enter the house of the Israelite if not prevented, has no authority from the original; the strict translation being " he will not give" or " cause," (p vh); the word jHi never being used in the sense of permitting, without the S marking the dative case of that to which the permission was granted : but the word t^'TWO not only wants the sign of the dative here, but has actually that of the accusative (nx) in MS. 69 of Kennicot's. It appears then, upon the whole, that the fancy of a two- fold agent indulged in by Vitringa, Lowth, and some other commentators, derives no support whatever from the text of Exodus : and therefore the objections, which that fancy alone suggested in opposition to the explanation which has been given of the word nD3, fall to the ground ; whilst the admis- sions of those writers, as to the primary acceptation of the IW 'fRUE MEANING OF THE WORD, kc. word, must be allowed to stand in confirmation of those very conclusions which they were desirous to overturn. The passage in Isaiah indeed which they were engaged in elucidating, in some degree naturally led them to the view of the subject which we have just noticed. The propliet hav- ing there described Jehovah as protecting Jerusalem, in like manner as mother birds protect by hovering over their young ; and this being impossible to be conveyed by a term which merely implied passing over, and which, so far from indica- ting an overshadowing protection, on the contrary necessarily induced an exposui'c of the defenceless young, and this only the more sudden the more rapid was the transition : the com- mentators deemed it indispensable to extend the meaning of the word HDD (here employed) beyond the latter sense, and to give to it such a signification as would admit the former ; and perceiving a strong similarity between the application of the term here, and to the deliverance in Egypt, they endea- voured to explain it in such a sense as would embrace both transactions ; and were accordingly led to that interpretation of the term which required the twofold agency of which we have spoken. But why recur upon every occasion to the primari/ sense of a word ? Are there not in every language numerous words, in which the derivative becomes the preva- lent and appropriate sense ? And if we suppose the deliver- ance from Egypt to have been alluded to by the prophet, (which, as well from the general similitude of subject, as particularly from the use of the terms nOB and S":fn which are conjointly used in speaking of the passover and its eiFect in Exod, xii. 27, seems scarcely to admit of doubt,) what could be more fit than to adopt that form of expression, which, from its familiar association with the deliverance from Egyp- tian bondage, had long been employed to designate that deli- verance without any reference whatever to its primary accep- tation. In other words, was it not most natural, that any providential preservation or deliverance of the Jewish peo- ple should be called by the word Pesachy the term used to denominate that recorded act whereby the first grekt preser^ vation and deliverance of Israel was effected? Might not then the prophet have properly and beautifully employed the word niD3, in the passage referred to, in the sense of God's acting again as a protector and deliverer of his people, in like manner as he had done at the time of the nos ? This gives new beauty to the original passage, and relieves the compa- rison between its subject and the deliverance in Egypt from all embarrassments ; whilst it retains all that attractive ima- gery, with which the prophet embellishes the original ide,a. The passage would then stand thus, MEANING OF ATONEMENT, &C; 301 As the motlier-hirds hovering over thtir young ; So shall Jvhovah, God of hosts, protect Jerusalem, Protecting and delivering, preserving- {as by a second Passover) and rescu- ing her. Bishop Stock, in his translation, has much disfigured the beauty of this passage; neither displaying taste in the ex- pression, nor judgment in the criticism. — Birds protecting the winged race, being neither elegant nor quite intelligible : and HOPPING round and over, which is rather an odd signlfi- tion of the word mD3, being a still odder reason for translating the word by flying round. Some have charged the Greeks with corrupting the original word niD3 Pesachi by writing it Tcoccr^ot j and have seemed to intimate that the word was so used by them as if it were de- rived from TTxa-x^a patior, intimating the sufferings of our Lord, of which the slaying of the passover was a type. That such an alhision may have sometimes been made as might afford some apparent justification to the charge, there seems reason to admit. (See Glass. Phil. Sacr. i. 692. also Greg. Nas. Serm. de Pasch. and Wolf. Cur. Phil. i. 365.) Yet the fact is, that the nD3 of the Hebrew is written xnOsJ, Pascha in the Chaldee, from which the 7r6t(rxc& of the Greek has immediately flowed. On the subject of the word passover, I shall add the follow- ing enumeration of its various applications. 1 . It signifies the passing over of Jehovah, who spared the Israelites when he smote the first-born of the Egyptians. 2. It signifies by a metonymy the lamb slain in memory of that deliverance. 3. It signifies the feast day on which the paschal lamb was slain — viz. the 14th of the first month. 4. and lastly, It s^ignifies the entire continuance and the whole employment of the festival, which commenced with the slaying of the lamb, and continued for seven days. No. XXXVI. ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANS- LATED ATONEMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Page 34. (m) — The meaning of the word '130, the original of the term atonement in the Old Testament, has been mo- delled, like that of other scripture phrases, so as to fall in with the theories of those who are more anxious that scrip- ture should speak their language, than that they should speak the language of scripture. The common artifice, by which the terms of revelation have been discharged of all appro- priate meaning, has been here employed with considerable effect. By a comparison of the various passages, in which the term gccurs, its most general signification is first explored; ia3 MEANIN6 OF ATONEMENT and in this generic sense it is afterwards explained, in all the particular cases of its application. The manner in whicli Doctor Taylor has exercised this strange species of criticism on the word atonement in his Scripture Doctrine, has been already noticed, p. 181 — 186. One or two additional re- marks, will more fully explain the contrivance, by which this writer has been enabled to shape this expression to his pur- pose. Having laid it down as a principle, ** that those passages in the Levitical law, in which atonement is said to be made for persons by sacrifice, supply not so many different in- stances of a known sense of the word atonement ; but are to be considered as exhibiting one single instance of a sense which is doubtful ;" {Script. Doct. ch. iv. § 69.) he pro- nounces (ch. v. § 70.) that " the texts which are to be exa- mined are those where the word is used extra-levitically, or with no relation to sacrifices; that we may be able to juds;e what it imports when applied to them." And agreeably to these notions he conducts his inquiry. Now what is this, but to pronounce first upon the nature of the thing unknown, and then to engage in its investigation ? The meaning of the term, in the several instances of its Levitical application, though as yet supposed unknown, is presumed to be the same in all : and this, notwithstanding these cases of its application must be as different as it objects; persons and things; moral and ceremonial, disqualifications. But not content with thus deciding on the uniformity of an unknown signification, he proceeds to discover the meaning of the term, in those passages which relate to sacrifice, by examining it in others, in which it has no suchrtlation. The result of this singularly critical examination is, that from 37 texts, which treat of extralevitical atonements, it may be infer- red, " that the means of making atonement for sin in different cases, are widely different, being sometimes by the sole good- ness of God, sometimes by the prayers of good men, some- times by repentance, sometimes by disciplinary visitation, sometimes by signal acts of justice and virtue : and that any mean whereby sinners are reformed and the judgments of God averted is atoning, or making atonement for their sins ;" (chap. 6. § 112.) What then follows respecting the Leviti- cal atonement ? Not that the word, which when used extra- levitically is taken in various senses according to the natural efficacy of the different means employed, is to be applied in its Levitical designation in a sense yet different from these, agreeable to the difference of means introduced by thq Le- vitical institutions. Quite the contrary. When specifically restricted to an appropriate purpose, it ceases to have any m THE OLD TESTAMENT. 183 distinguishing character : and the term, whose signification, when it had no relation to sacrifice, was tliversilied with the nature of the means and tJie circumstances of the occasion, is upon assuming this new relation pronounced incapable ol* any ucav and characteristic meaning. This argument furnishes a striking instance of that species of sophism, which from a partial concludes a total agreement. Having discovered, by a review of those passages which treat of extra-levitical atone- ments, that these and the sacrifices which were offered for sin, agreed in their effect ; namely, in procuring the pardon of sin, or the removal of those calamities which had been in- flicted as the punishment of it : the w riter at once pronounces the extra-levitical and the sacrificial atonements to have been of the same nature throughout, without regarding the utter dissimilarity of the means employed, and without consider- ing that the very question as to the nature of the atonement, is a question involving the means through which it was ef- fected. But whilst Doctor Taylor has thus endeavoured to over- turn the generally received notion of atonement, by an exa- mination of such passages as treat of those atonements v/hich were not sacrificial : Doctor Priestley professes to have care- fully reviewed all those instances of atonement which were sacrificial ; and from this review to have deduced the infer- ence, that the sacrificial atonement merely implies "the making of any thing clean or holy^ so as to be fit to be used in the service of God ; or when applied to a person fit to come into the presence of God: God being considered, as in a peculiar manner, the King and the Sovereign of the Is- raelitish nation, and as it were keeping a court amongst them." {Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 193.) Doctor Priestley, by this representation of the matter, endeavours to remove from view m hatever might lead the mind to the idea of pro-^ pitiating the Deity ; and by taking care to place the condi- tion of persons and things on the same ground, utterly dis- cards the notion of offence and reconciliation. But in order to effect this, he has been obliged wholly to overlook the force of the original word, which is translated atonement: as well as of that which the LXX have used as its equivalent. The term "^SD, in its primary sense, signifies to smear or coiner with pitch, as appears from Gen. vi. 14. and from this covering with pitch, it has been metaphorically transferred to things of a different nature ; insomuch that, in all the ST instances qf extra-levitical atonement adduced by Doctor Taylor, he asserts, that the word "i23 retains something: of this original sense, {Scrip. Dociriae, ch. vi. § 115.) and agreeably to this, h^ ^^•^ounces " atonement for sin to be 184 MEANING OF ATONEMENT the coveniig of sin." This position seems fully confirmed by Nehemiah, iv. 4.3. Psalm xxxii. 1. Ixxxv. 2. and other passages in Scripture, in which the a^rdon of sin is express- ed by its being covered, and the^MP;shraent of it by its not being covered. And Schindler, in hU Lexicon Pentoglol- ioiif having in like manner fixed the general ffigniiicalion of the word to be texity operulty modifies this generic significa- tion according to the change of subject, thns : — de facie, sen ira, -placavH, reconciliavit ; de peccato, remisit, condona- vit, expiavit ; de sordibus, expurgavlt : de aliis, absUUit, re- mo v if. Agreeably to this explanation of the word, in which He- brew critics almost universally concur, the LXX render it by £^tXxTKOfA,xi, to appease f or m3^ie j)r op it ioitSy ?Lnd the an- cient Latin by exorare, and sometimes deprecari: (see ^a- hatiefs Vet. ftal.) the concealing and removing from view whatever is offensive and displeasing to a person, being ne- cessary to reconcile him, and render him propitious. And indeed, in a sense agreeable to this, that of bringing into a state of concord and reconciliation, the word atonement it- self had been originally used by our old English writers ; with whom, according to Junius, Skinner, and Johmson, it was written al-one-menf, signifying to be at one, or to come to an agreement: and in this very sense we find it used by our own translators, in Levit. xvi. 16, 20. where speaking of the act v/hereby the high priest was directed to make atone- ment for the holy place, they immediately after call it recon* citing the holy place. But Doctor Priestley has not only neglected the original and strict signification of the term implying sacrificial atone- ment, and imposed upon it a sense which at best is but se- condary and remote, but he has also decided on a partial and^ hasty view of the subject, even as confined to the English translation : for surely, although it be in every case of atone- ment evidently implied, that the thing or person atoned for was thereby cleansed, and so rendered fit for the service of God ; it mnst likewise be admitted, that by this they were rendered pleasing to God, having been before in a state im pure and unfit for his service, and being now rendered ob- jects of his approbation and acceptance as fit instruments ot his worship. The fallacy of Doctor Priestley's interpreta- tion consists in this, that he assumes that to be the sole end of the atonement, which although an undoubted consequence from it, was inseparably connected with^ a^nt subservient to, another and more important effect: the atonement indeed purifying, so as to qualify for the service and worship of God; but this purification consisting in the removal of that which IN THE OLi> TESTAMENT. 185 unfitted and disqualified for such sacred purposes ; bringing what before was undeserving (he divine regard into a state of agreement with the divine purity, and rendering it the object of the divine approbation. To make atonement then to God, was to remove what was offensive ; and thus by con- ciliating the divine favour, to sanctify for the divine service* This general meaning of the expression, modified by the circumstances of its application, will lead us to its true value and force in each particular instance. Thus, in the atone- ments at the consecration of the tabernacle, altars, vessels, and priests; the several instruments and persons destined for the offices of worship, being in their natural state unwor- thy of this sacred use, were thereby purified from all natural pollution, and rendered fit objects of the divine acceptance. The same may be applied to those atonements appointed for restoring persons to the privileges of public worship, who had been disqualified by circumstances of external impurity^ such as were occasioned by natural infirmities, diseases, and accidental events. But whilst in these cases, in which moral character could have no concern, the purifying rite of atone- ment was enjoined, to render both things and persons worthy and approved instruments of the divine worship ; so in those where moral character was concerned, the atonement made by the sacrifice for sin, qualified the transgressor for the di- vine service, by removing what had been offensive from tha sight of him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity ; the repentance of the offender, aided by the pious observance of the enjoined rite, averting the divine displeasure, and ef- fecting a reconciliation with his offended Sovereign : whilst those who were guilty of a presumptuous and deliberate de- fiance of the divine authority, were cut off from all connexion with their God, and no atonement whatever allowed for their transgressions. Episcopius seems to state the case very sa- tisfactorily — " Sacrificia pro peccato, ea erant, quae offere- bantur ad impuritates expiandas, sive ese essent mora/e^, sive physicce aut potius cereraoniales. Morales impuritates vo- co, istas quae aniniorum sunt : id e^t, quae ciilpam aliquam ex animcie sive ignorantia, sive errore, sive imbecillitate ortam in se habent : impuritates enim, quae per superbiam, &c. con- trahebantur, sacrificiis expiari non poterant. Physicas sive ceremoniales impuritates voco, faeditates, sive macnlas illas corporis, qute nulla culpa hominis contrahi possunt; quale» sunt qucfi ex leprosi, mortui contractu," Sec. — Inst. TheoL Tjib. III. Sect. II. cap. iii. vol. i. p. 71. This view of the matter seems to give to the whole of the fievitical atonement a consistent and satisfactory meaoing. Y . Igg MEANING OF ATONEMENT The atonement in all cases, producing the effect of fitting for the divine service : — this, in such as involved no consi- deration of moral character, (as in the consecra:tion of inani- mate things, or the atonement for persons labouring under corporeal impurities,) could consist only in the removal of the external impurity, for in such cases this impediment alone existed : whilst in those, in which moral character was concerned, as in cases of sin, whereby man having incurred the displeasure of his God, had disqualified himself for the offices of his worship, the unfitness could have been removed only by such means, as at the same time removed that dis- pleasure, and restored the offender to the divine favour : — or in other words, the atonement was in such cases an act of propitiation. And to such cases it is, that it may be applied in the strict sense of the word reconciliation ; so that the doctrine of atonement^ as far as relates to sin, is nothing more than the doctrine of reconciliation. As to the manner in which the sacrifice for sin may be sup- posed to have operated to the effecting this reconciliation, this is of no concern to the present inquiry. That a recon- ciliation 7vas thereby effected, insomuch that the penalty of the transgression was remitted, and the offender restored to the privileges w'hich he had forfeited by his offence, is abun- dantly manifest. The instances in scripture in which the effect of the atonement is expressly described as the remo- val of the divine displeasure, are too numerous to be recited. Let a few suffice. — In Exod. xxxii. 30, 32. Moses address- ing the Israelites, after the great crime which they had com- mitted in Avorshipping the golden calf, says, ye have sinned a great sin ; and now I nill go up unto the Lord ; peradven- ture I shall wake an atonement for your sin : and these words he immediately after explains by his prayer to God, that he might forgive their sin. Again, we find a stop put to an infliction of punishment, by the atonement made by Aaron for the people, in the rebellion of Korah. And Mo- ses said, take a, censer ; and go quickly unto the congrega- tion, and make an atonement for thein ; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord, the plague is begun ; and Aaron took as Moses commanded him ; and made an atonement for the people — ^and the plague rvas stayed. Numb. xvi. 46, 47, 48. The atonement made by Phinehas, and the effect of it, are not less remarkable: God says of him, he hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, {while he was zealous for my sake among them) that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealously — he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of IsraeL Numb. XXV. 11, 13* MOSAIC ATONEMENTS, &C. 187 ^he instances of atonement here adduced, are iiot indeed of the sacrificial kind ; but they equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in cases of transgression, to be that of reconciling the offended Deity, by averting his displea- sure : so that, when the atonement for sin is said to be made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain, that the sacrifice was strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this con- clusion, we find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations for transgression of the divine commands, that the sin, for which atonement was made by those obla- tions, should he for given. "^ Doctor Priestley and H. Taylor have of late endeavoured to subvert this notion, by representing sacrifices merely as gifts, and atonement as nothing but a ceremonial purifying and setting apart from common use, for the divine service, without any idea whatever of propitiation : see Tlieol. Repos. vol. i. p. 199— -205. and B. Mord. p. 799—805. How far this theory is invalidated by the observations contained in the present number, it remains for the reader to judge. I shall only add, that Doctor Sykes, whose authority both these writers are in general very willing to acknowledge, does not hesitate to pronounce the sacrificial meaning of the word miSD atonement^ to contain the notion of propitiation ; de- riving it, as has been here done, from the original signification of the word "ISD to cover, that is, " to remove or take away anger or offence by so covering it that it may not appear:'* {Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 152, 158, 159.) and " to make atonement for sins,^^ he says, " is to do something by means of which a man obtains pardon of them." (p. 306.) How strongly the propitiatory import of the sacrificial atonement contended for in this note, was attributed to it by modern Jews, has been already amply detailed in Number XXXni. — In Doctor Laurence's Sermon on the Metaphori- cal character of the Apostolic Style, (pp. 17, 32.) there are some good observations on the Targum of Jonathan, tending to confirm the position that the ideas of atonement and of forgiveness, were held by the Jews in the time of our Sa viour as perfectly equivalent. No. XXXVII. ON THE EFFICACY OF THE MOSAIC ATONE MENT AS APPLIED TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. Page 34. (w) — For the purpose of reducing the sacrificial atonement to the simple notion of external purification, it * See Levit. iv. 20, 26, 31, 35. v. 10, 13, 16, 18. vi. 7. xlx. 22. Numb, XV. 25, 26, 28. Con.sult also Hallet's Notes anc\ Discourses, vol. ii p. 270—274. 188 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE has been thought necessary to deny the appointment of any expiation for the transgression of the moral law. It has been argued, that those sins and iniquities, for which it is in seve- ral instances expressly said ihaLi forgiveness was procured by the atonement, " do not in the language of the Old Testa- ment necessarily imply a deviation from moral rectitude, or a transgression of the moral law ; but are frequently used, when nothing more can be understood than a privation of that bodily purity, which the ceremonial law required ; as we read of the iniquity of the sanctuary, (Numb, xviii. 1.) and of the iniquity of the holy things, (Exod. xxviii. 38.) and as we find the ashes of the burnt heifer, though applied only for the purification of external uncleanness, expressly called * the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification (or sin ;' (Numb, xix. 7.) and in like manner, the oblation required from him who had recovered from a leprosy, a sin-offering : the un- clean person, though free from blame in a moral point of view, yet in the eye of the law being deemed a sinner," These observations, it is but fair to confess, are to be found in the pages of one of the ablest advocates of the doctrine of atonement. It is also urged, that the sins for which atone- ment were appointed, were at most but sins of ignorance ; to which scarcely any moral character could attach, and which deserved to be ranked in the same class with mere na- tural or accidental infirmities. This latter point is largely insisted on by writers, who oppose the received doctrine of atonement ; and is particularly enforced by a writer in TheoL Rep. vol. iii. who signs himself Eusebius ; and who professes to enter fully into an examination of the several cases of atonement recorded in the Old Testament. In reply to the first of these arguments let it be remarked, 1 . That the expressions so much relied on, iniquity of the holy things, iniquity of the sanctuary, mean merely the ^ro- fanation or improper use of the holy things, &c. so that the iniquity here refers to the persons making this improper use of the holy things, not to the things themselves : and thus the entire objection, derived from the use of this expression, falls to the ground. This appears as well from the force of the term in the original, which is translated iniquity ; as from the context of the passages referred to. The Hebrew word p>* being derived from nu^, the strict signification of which is to turn, or be turned, aside from the proper state or desti- nation, applies with peculiar propriety to the improper or profane use of the holy things of the sanctuary. And this sense is supported by the passages in which the expression occurs : the Priests bearing the iniquity of the sanctuary, (Nunab. xviii. 1.) and Aaron bearing the iniquity of the holy TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSIOlC. 189 things, (Ex. xxviii. 38.) manifestly relating, and being under- stood by every commentator to relate, to the care to be taken that no improper use or legal defilement should profane the sacred things ; inasmuch as in such case it would rest with Aaron and with the priests, to bear the punishment of, or make atonement for, such profanation. Thus Jarchi on Numb, xviii. 1. " Upon you I will bring the punishment of the strangers, that shall sin concerning the sanctified things that are delivered unto you.'* Houbigant translates the words in Numb, sustinebit sanctiiarii noxas : i. e. as he ex- plains it, reus erit delicti in sanctuarium'admissi — and in Exo- dus, swsci^jie^ maculas donorum. — See also Ainsworth, Pch- trick, Calmet, Le Clerc, Dathius, and in short, all the com- mentators who concur in this interpretation, and in like man- ner explain the passage in Exodus : see likewise Levit. xvi. 16—19. But as the word iniquity, thus applied to the sacred things^ will not prove that by si^i, in the Levitical law, nothing more was intended than external defilement; so neither will, 2. The application of the term sin and sin-offering to persons labouring under mere corporeal impurities. Respecting the case of the burnt heifer, in which though intended solely for the purification of external uncleanness, the ashes are ex- pressly called the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, it must be noted, that the argument here is chiefly derived from the words of the translation, without attending sufficiently to the original : the words in the Hebrew signify- ing literally, the ashes of the burnt sin-offering.^ Purifica- tion for sin then is not the language of the original ; and from this consequently nothing can be inferred. But admitting even that the corporeal impurities arising from leprosy, puer- pery, contact of the dead, and other such causes, are spoken of as sins committed by the persons labouring under them, in like manner as the direct and voluntary transgressions of the divine commands ; admitting that it is pronounced of the former equally as of the latter, that in virtue of the atone- ment, the sin which had been committed was forgiven them : admitting, that the sin-offering, on these occasions, looked solely to the uncleanness, without having any respect to the general sinfulness and unworthiness of the person seeking to be restored to the privileges of the public worship of God : and admitting, that in looking to the particular instance of un- cleanness, it could not have been intended ("as the latter Jews • See Mnsviorthy Patrick, and Dathct on Numb. xix. 17. also Richie's Pectil ,Doctr. vol i. p. 212, 19^ MOSAICAL AtONEMEJfTS APPLICABLE explain it, see p. 268,)* through that, to have referred to that original guilt incurring the penalty of death, from which this, and the other infirmities of man's nature had taken their rise ; or to some specific crime by which these bodily inflic- tions had been incurred :f — admitting, I say, all these things, (which however it would be extremely difficult to prove,) and consequently admitting that the terms sin and sin-offer- twfif, as applied to these, could merely signify external un- cleanness, and the appointed means of removing it ; yet can this furnish no inference whatever, affecting those cases, in which the disqualification to be removed by the sin-offering, is expressly stated to be, 7iot that of external uncleanness, but resulting from a transgression of the divine commands^ This, however it may be called a legal offence, cannot be thereby devested of its intrinsic nature, but must still inevit- ably remain a moral transgression. And when atonement is said to be made for sins committed against any of the com- mandments of the Lord, it must surely be a strange species of interpretation, that can confound such sins with mere ex- ternal pollution ; and the forgiveness granted to such of- fences, with the mere cleansing from an accidental impurity. It will appear yet more strange, when we come to notice un- der the next head, some specific violations of the moral law,, for which atonements were appointed. But it is contended, that those transgressions of the divine commands, for which atonements were appointed, were mere- ly sijis of ignorance: to which, as the writer in the Theol, Rep, pronounces, scarcely any moral character could attach ; and which therefore might justly be ranked in the same class with the former cases of accidental defilement. As this ar- gument has been a good deal relied on, it becomes necessary to consider more particularly the nature of those transgres- sions, for which atonements were appointed : and the force of that expression in the original, which has been usually under- stood as implying sins of ignorance. And 1. it must certainly be admitted, that sins of igno- Tance, in the direct sense of the word, are intended by the expression, since we find it expressly stated in some placeji that they wist it not ; and again, that the sins were done with- ont their knowledge, and were hidden from them, and had COTW^ to their knowledge after they were committed. (Levit. iv. 13, 14,23, 28. v. 2, 3, 17, 18. Numb. xv. 24.) Yet even here, the ignorance intended cannot have been of a nature * See also Ainsvsorth, on Numb. xix. 16. Lev. xii. 7. and xiv. 32, 34, 49. and Jennings^s Jeiu. Antiq. vol. i. p. 322. t See Episcopiii9, de lepra, Imt. Theol. L. III. sect. ii. cap. % § 33.— also p 354, of t1)is voluirie-. TO CASES OP MORAL TRANSGRESSIOlf* 19^1 absolute and invincible, but such as the clear promulgation of their law, and their strict obligation to study it day and nighty rendered them accountable for, and which was consequently in a certain degree culpable. Thus Houbigant, on Lev. iv. 2. Nos per imprudentiam, ut multi alii per err or em; melius quam Vulgatus, per ignorantiam. Nam leges per Mosen promulgatas, et ssepe iteratas, ignorare Israelitse non poterant, This is also agreeable to the general language of scripture ; in which, crimes said to be committed by persons, kutx ayioixi, in ignorance, are nevertheless represented strictly as crimes, inasmuch as that ignorance might have been removed by a careful and candid search after their duty ; and thus, being voluntary, their jgnorance itself was criminal. See Acts iii. 17. where the Jews, who crucified Christ, are said to have acted xccTx ecyvotxv. St. Paul also ascribes the enormous wick- edness of the Heathen world to the ignorance that was in them, Eph. iv. 18. And their vicious desires, St. Peter calls, ev ti) ayvoioc eTnOvf^iut^, lusls in ignoronce, 1 Pet. i, 14.* Thus then, even though the expression in the original were confined to sins of ignorance, yet would it not follow, that it meant such acts as were incapable of all moral character, and might be classed with mere corporeal infirmities to which the notion of punishment could not possibly attach. But, that the expression, beside sins of ignorance, includes likewise all such as were the consequence of human frailty and incon- sideration, whether comuiilted knowingly and wilfully or otherwise, will appear from considering the true force of the original term nn^, or nJB^, which, together with its root iiu, nasy, or iw, is found, in numerous passages of scripture, to signify the species of offence here described, in Opposition to that which involves a deliberate and presumptuous contempt of God's authority. Cocceius thus explains it — " Si, putantes licitum, fecerint illicitum, ignoranlid verbi : aut, si prcEoccii- patns egerit, quod novit esse ilUcitum." The word, he says, as it occurs in Numb. xv. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, is directly opposed to HDT T3, in verse 30, sinning with a high hand, that is, deliberately and presumptuously. He also explains it as implying a full and entire engrossment of mind and affection, producing a temporary oblivion of what is right: which is nothing more than the common effect of any passion which has taken strong hold of the mind. For this he instances Isai. xxvili. 7. In like manner Doctor Taylor, in his Con- cordance, understands the v/ord — "JJiy, to err, to do what is wrong, through ignorance, mistake, bad advice, or persuasion — ^or through the violence of some strong passion or offec- * See also Acts xvii. 30. Rom. x. '3. 1 Tim. I 1>. ancT mmiercUS other passages of the New Testament. X9*2 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPIilCARL^ Hon.'* Doctor Richie also, {Pecul. DocL vol. i. pp. 226, 227.) adduces a great number of passages to prove that the word in question denotes any sin, which doth not proceed from a deliberate contempt of authority, but from human frailty or infirmity only.'* See also Hammond, Le Clerc, and Rosenmidler, in Heb. ix. 7. — where they supply nume- rous instances to prove that both etyvoetv, and miy, are used in the sense here given, as extending to all sins that were not of the class of presumptuous, or such as by the law were neces- sarily to be punished with death. Rosenmuller adds, that for everi/ sin, except those to which death was annexed, atone- ment was made on the day of expiation. Now it is remark- able, that for the sins atoned for on that day, the very word which is used by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, (ix. 7.) is uyvoa^ccTx.'^ But, in fact, the opposition already * Schleusner in his Spicileg. Lexic. in Int. Grcec. V. T. p. 3. thus explains the words ttyvoia and ciyyoDfj^A. " Kyvoioe notat simpliciter pecco, sine ad- juncta notione ignorantice. Erravit Bielius, qui ctyvonv tantum ex ignoran- tid peccare notare dicit. Cf Sirac. v. 18, sc y.iycixee kai fxiK^a y.t ctyvou, fxn^t iv : h. e. nullum plane peccatum committe, nee grave nee ieve. Haee notio etiam ex Hebraicis verbis liW, CZJl^K, et 'HWy quibus ecyvouv in verss. grsec. respondet, apparet." — ** Ayvosfxttrcty peccata simplieiter. 1 Mace. xiii. 39. ubi cum vocabulo A^a§T»//stTa permutatur, (Cf Levit. xxvi. 39. ubi Hebrai- cum |T;? Aqu, ityvoidLv reddit) Locum e Philone hue facientem dedit el. Loesnerus ad Hebr. ix. 7. Sic etyvcef/.o\ii}> apud Xen. Hist. Grccc. I. 7. 10. simpliciter inique agere notat : ubi bene prsecipit S. R. Morus, verba apud Grsecos, vi originls scientiam aut insr.ip.ntlam exprimentia, uti in omnibus linguis, notare virtutes et vitia, quse illam scientiam et inseientiam, vei ne- cessario, vel plerumque sequi soleant." Loesner also remarks thus on the words, w^sg zavth hai -Tcev ^a kah ATNO- HMATflN, in Hebr. ix. 7- — "Apud Alexandiinos Interpp. locls pluribus etyvoiAc vel sLyvoyifActrct de peccatis et delictis quibusvis ad exprimendum He- braicum HNDn dici, ignotum esse harum literarum amantibus non potest. Adjungamus Philonem lib. de Plant. JVoe. p. 229. c scribentem, fit/cr/ar vTrofxiy-vno-Kaa^i Taj jxsts-av ArNOIA:S ts %cti S'tAfXii.gTici.^y victimae in memori- am revocant singulorum peccata et deli eta. The observations also of JJanzius on the word ayvo^iJ.ct'Tct in the afore- mentioned passage of Hebr. deserve particularly to be attended to. " Pec- rata qu2e expianda sunt, vocantur hie etyvotffAcLTA. Quae Sochiiaiiis baud alia sunt, quam quce vel ignoraiitid sive oblivione juris alicvjus ditini^ vel ex igno- rantid facti et circumsta?itiariim, veletiatn ex hmnand qiiddatn imbecillitate proficiscuntur. Equidem eoncedendum omnino est, ctyvoufxciTA bine inde in scriptis sacris ac profanis pro hujus generis extare peccatis. Quod autem et vohmtaria ac graviora baud raro denotet, satis superque docent dicta Psal. xxv. 7. ubi j;iyi3 (quod quam magnum designet peccatum, mox dicturi sumus) LXX redidderunt per Aj-vo/^tv. Hosese iv. 15. spiritualis Israelitarum scortatio per verbum rt^vosa, pro Ebraico nJT positum, exprimitur ; quae sane Ieve ac ex ignorantia commissum peccatum non fuit: prouti ex toto hoc capite satis clare apparet. Etiam Jud. v. 19, 20. pro quibusvis delictis idem vocabulum ponitur. Hinc et Syrus interpres pro ayvoi^/ucto-i Apostoli in loco citato, (viz. Hebr. ix. 7) posuit I /nV^tv) : qua voce quxvis desig- uantur peccata (vide Matth xviii. 35.) etianj iilud ab Adamo perpetratum (vid Rom. v. 16. sqq ) quod certe nee Ieve fuit, nee ex ignorantia commis- Sum. Imo ex collation© loci Lev. xvi- sole lucidius patetj hie sub voce 7etv TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 193 alliided to in Numb. xv. 27, 30. seems at once to decide the point. For there we find the sins implied by the word nj;ity directly opposed to sins of 'presumption : that is, to such as proceeded, not from human frailty, but from a deliberate and audacious defiance of the divine authority, which appears to be the true meaning oi presumptuous sins, as maybe collect- ed from Numb. xv. 30, 31. Exod. xxi. 14 — and v. 2. com- pared with xviii. 11. Deut. i. 42, 43. xvii. 12, 13. xviii. 22. and various other passages. See Pec. Dod. vol. i. pp. 229, 230. also Maim. Mor. Nev. part 3. cap. 1. And hence it appears, that so far as the force of the original term is con sidered, the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins, which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature ; and was withheld only from those which sprung from a presumptuous defiance of the Creator. The word etKHTtcJiy used by the LXX in the translation of the term, though it seems to imply an involuntary act, is yet by no means inconsistent with this exposition. The force of this term, as applied by the LXX, is evidently not incompa- tible with a perfect consciousness of the crime committed, and is used only in opposition to cKucnafg, by which they every where describe such an act as is entirely spontaneous and deliberate, which in the words of Episcopius is performed, plena voluntate ; or as he again explains it, w^hich is done wilfully^, and with a fixed and deliberate purpose of trans- gressing. {Inst. Theol. Lib. iii. sect. ii. cap. 3. § 9, 14.) Axi«riai then is not to be considered as denoting an act strict- ly speaking involuntary ; but as opposed to what was delibe- rate and ivilful : it is therefore applied with propriety to all sins of infirmity. The use of the word cxac-iai in Heb. x. 26, throws abundant light on the force of this expression. See Ainsworth on Lev. iv. 2. See also the authorities adduced by Eisner, Observat. Sacr. vol. i. p. 494. But 2dJy, the conclusion which has been here derived from the signification of the original word, is fully confirmed by the cases of atonement referred to in the text; since the offences there described are clearly such as can by no means be brought within the description of sins of ignorance; it Ayvon/^strm omnis generis contineri peccata. Slquidem ibi satis persplcue docetar, omnia peccata, in aiiniversario isto sacrificio expiari. Et quidem omnia ilia, qux supra vocibus p^', ^t^ys^ ac nULDH erant expressa. Atque sub se continent quidquid omnino venit sub />fccar£ nomine." The writer then proceeds from a strict investigation of the exact sense of these He- brew words, as well as from a copious enumeration of the opinions of the great Jewish doctors, to confirm his position, that in the word ttyyoit(j.itTa.y as used by the apostle, (Hebr. ix. 7".) sins of every dt9cripiion are indiscrimi-, nately alluded to. See Dwiz. Funct. Pont>f. Max. Tn Myt. .^nniv. in Meui' cheii't A'qv. Teat, ex Talm. p. 1007—1012. z |94 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABL^L being impossible that a man could deny, or keep back that which was entrusted to him by another; or take from another his property by violence or deceit; or deny upon oath, and withhold from the proper owner what he had found, without a consciousness of the guilt. Besides, it is to be observed that neither in these, nor in the case of the bond-maid, is it said that the sin was committed in ignorance : but, on the contrary, the very expressions used in the original, unequi- vocally mark a consciousness of crime in the several instances alluded to, as maybe seen particularly in Outram De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. xiii. § 4. where this point is fully established in opposition to Episcopius. These crimes indeed of fraud, perjury, violent injustice, and debauchery, the writer in the Theol. Rep. seems disposed to treat as venial offences, being criminal, as he says, hut in a low degree. (Vol. iii. p. 412.) But for the purpose of proving that no atonements were ap- pointed for transgressions of the moral law, it would be ne- cessary to show that these acts were not in any degree cri- minal : this hoAvever he has not attempted, and is conse- quently in the conclusion compelled to admit, (p. 414.) that the Levitical atonements extended to violations of the moral law. Sykes also, it must be observed, is obliged to confess, that the cases here alluded to, are cases of " known and open wickedness." (Scr. Doctr. of Redemp. p. 331.) Hallet expressly says, " it is certain that there were sacrifices un- der the law appointed to make atonement for moral evil, and for mora/ guilt; particularly for lyings theft, fraud, extortiony perjury, as it is written, Lev. vi. 1, 2, &c." — Notes and Discourses, vol. ii. p. 277^ 278. Now, that these atonements in cases of moral transgres- sion, involved a real and literal remission of the offence, that is, of the penalty annexed to it, will appear from considering not only the rigorous sanction of the Mosaic law in general, by which he rvho did not continue in all the words of the law to do them, was pronounced accursed, (Gal. iii. 10. Deut, xxvii. 26.) and consequently subjected to the severest tem- porary inflictions; but also the particular cases in which the piacular sacrifices are directly stated to have proci^red a re- lease from the temporal punishments specifically annexed to the transgression : as in the cases of fraud, false-swearing, Sec. which, with the punishments annexed by the law, and the repiission procured by the piacular oblation, may be seen enumerated by Grotius, (De Satisfact, Chr, cap. x.) and still more fully by Richie, (Pecul. Doct. vol. i. p. 232^2.32.) Houbigant also speaks of it, as a matter beyond question, that in such offences as admitted of expiation under the Mo- gajc l^w, a release from the temporal penalty of the trans- ♦to cases of moral transgression. 195 gression was the necessary result of the atonement : on Lev« V. 4, he describes the effect of the atonement to be, " ut post expiationem religione factam, non sit amplius le'gum ci- vilium poenis obnoxius." llallet ways, that the sacrifices " procured for the offender a deliverance from that punish- ment of moral guilt which was appointed by the law ;" and instances the case of thefl, in which though the offender was liable to be cut off by the miraculous judgment of God, yet the sacrifice had the virtue of releasing from that immediate death which the law had denounced against that particular sin. Not(S and Disc, p. 276 — 278. That the remission of sins obtained by the Levilical sa^ crifices was a remission only of temporal punishments, can- not weaken the general argument ; as the sanclions of the law under which the sacrifices were ofiered, were themselves but temporary. The remission of the penalty due to the! transgression was still real and substantial : the punishment was averted from the offender, who conformed to the appoint- ed right : and the sacrificial atonement was consequently in such cases an act of propitiation. The sacrifices of the law indeed, considered merely as the performance of a ceremo- nial duty, could operate only to the reversal of a ceremonial forfeiture, or the remission of a temporal punishment : that is, they could propitiate God only in his temporal relation to his chosen people, as their Sovereign : and for this plain rea- son, because the ostensible performance of the rite being but an act of external submission and homage, when not accom- panied with an internal submission of mind, and a sincere re- pentance, it could acquit the offender only in reference to that external law which exacted obedience to God as a civil prince. In such cases, the Jewish sacrifices, merely as le- gal observances, operated only to the temporal benefits an- nexed by the Levitical institution to those expressions of al- legiance : but, as genuine and sincere acts of worship and penitence, whenever the piety of the offerer rendered them «uch, they must likewise have operated to procure that spi- ritual remission and acceptance which antecedent to, and in- dependent of the Levitical ordinances, they are found in se- veral parts of scripture to have been effectual to obtain. The author of the Scriptural Account of Sacrifices, (p. 168.) thus reasons upon this subject. — "This people, (the- Jews) as to their inward state, were doubtless under the same control, both of the law of nature, and of the divine Providence, as they were before the law ; this having intro- duced no change in this respect. They were consequently entitled to the pardon of all their sins, of what nature soever, npon the same terms aa before." And then he goes on to I9B MOSAIC ATONEMENT APPLICABLE, &C* show, that with the sacrifices of the law, they continued to offer such also as had been customary in the Patriarchal times. And in proof of this, he adduces instances from the law itself, in which such sacrifices are referred to and recog- nized. They appear manifestly alluded to in the two first chapters of Leviticus, in which the language marks the of- fering to be of a purely voluntary nature, and merely pre- scribes the manner in which such an offering was to be made ; whereas, when specific legal and moral offences are to be ex- piated, the law commands the offering, and the specific na- ture of it. He adduces also the cases of David, and of Eli's house, to show that scripture supplies instance of " sacrifices offered out of the occasions prescribed by the law for avert- ing the divine displeasure upon the occasion of sin." (p. 173.) What this writer justly remarks concerning sacrifices distinct from those prescribed by the law, I would apply to all ; and consider the penitent and devout sentiments of the offerer, as extending the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifice to the full range of those benefits, which before the Levitical institution were conferred on similar genuine acts of worship. Nor let it be objected to this, that the apostle has pro- nounced of the Levitical offerings that they could not make perfect as pertaining: to the conscience. (Heb. ix. 9. x. 1.) The sacred writer here evidently speaks in comparison. He marks the inferiority of the figure to the substance : and the total insufficiency of the type, considered independently of that from which its entire virtue was derived, to obtain a perfect remission. It might indeed, he argues, by virtue of the positive institution, effect an external and ceremonial pu- rification, but beyond this it could have no power. The blood of bulls and of ccoats could not, of itself, take away sins. It could not render the mere Mosaic worshipper per- fect as to conscience. It can have no such operation, but as connected in the eye of faith with that more precious blood-shedding, which can purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. It could not, says Pierce, on Heb. ix. 9. " with reference to the conscience, make per- fect the worshipper, who only v/orshipped with meat and drink-offerings and washings, &c." — In this view of the sub- ject, the remarks contained in this Number, seem no way in- consistent with the languageof the apostle. , One observation more, arising from the passage of Ihe apostle here referred to, I would wish to offer. — In pointing out the inferiority of the Mosaic to the Christian institution, we find the writer, in the tenth chapter, not only asserting the inefficacy of the Mosaic sacrifice/or the full and perfect remission of sins, but taking considerable pains to prove it. VICARIOUS IMPORT OF, &C, 197 Now from this it seems, that the Jews themselves, so far from confining their legal atonements to the mere effect of ceremcy- nial purification, were too prone to attribute to them the vir- tue of a perfect remission of all moral guilt. Of this there can be no question as to the later Jews. Maimonides ex- pressly says in his treatise, De P(Bnit. cap. i. § 2. that " the scape-goat made atonement for all the transgressions of the lavir, both the lighter and the more heavy transgressions, whe- ther done presumptuously or ignorantly : all are expiated by the scape-goat, if indeed the party repent." I would remark here, that though Maimonides evidently stretches the virtue of the atonement beyond the limits of the law, (presumptuous sins not admitting of expiation,) yet he seems to have reason- ed on a right principle, in attributing to the sincere and pious sentiments of the offerer, the power of extending the efficacy of the atonement to those moral offences, which the legal sin-offering by itself could never reach. No. XXXVIII. ON THE VICARIOUS IMPORT OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. Page 35. (o) — I have, in the page here referred to, used the expression vicarious import, rather than vicarious, to avoid furnishing any colour to the idle charge made against the doctrine of atonement, of supposing a real substitution iu the room of the offender, and a literal translation of his guilt and punishment to the immolated victim ; a thing utterly in- comprehensible, as neither guilt nor punishment can be con- ceived, but with reference to consciousness, which cannot be transferred. But to be exposed \o sufferings in consequence of another's guilt ; and thereby, at the same time to represent to the offender, and to release liim from, the punishment due to his transgression, involves no contradiction whatever. In this sense, the suffering of the ariimal may be conceived a substitute for the punishment of the offender ; inasmuch as it is in virtue of that suffering, the sinner is released. If it be asked, what connexion can subsist between the death of the animal and the acquittal of the sinner, I answer without hesitation, I know not. To unfold divine truths by human philosophy, belongs to tl)ose who hold opinions widely differ- ent from mine on the subject of atonement. To the Chris- tian it should be sufficient, that scripture has clearly pronoun- ced this connexion to subsist. That the death of the animal could possess no such intrinsic virtue is manifest; but that, divine appointment could bestow upon it this expiatory power, will not surely be denied : and as to the fact of such appoint- ment, as well as its raferenre to that great event from which 198 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF this virtue was derived, the word of revelation furnishes abundant evidence, as I trust appears from the second of the Discourses contained in this volume. Now, that the offering of the animal slain in sacrifice, may be considered vicarious in the sense here assigned, that is, vicarious in symbol, (or as representing the penal effects of the offerer's demerits, and his release from the deserved punishment in consequence of the death of the victim) — seems to require little proof beyond the passages of scripture referred to in the text. If farther evidence should however be required, we shall find it in a more particular examination of that most solemn service of the yearly atonement, descri- bed in pp. 50, 51, of this volume. Mean time, it may be worth while to inquire, how far the arguments urged in opposition to the vicarious nature of the Mosaic sacrifices, will operate against this acceptation. And for this purpose, it will be sufficient to examine the objections, as stated by Sykes, and H. Taylor; inasmuch as the industry of the former, and the subtilty of the latter, have left none of the arguments of Socinus, Crellius, or the other learned antagonists of the doctrine of atonement, unnoticed or unimproved ; and the skirmishing writers of the present day have done nothing more than retail, with diminished force, the same objections. They are all reduced by Sykes and Taylor under the fol- lowing heads, 1. It is no where said in the Old Testament, that the life of the victim was given as a vicarious substitute for the life of him who offered it. 2. The atonement Mas not made by the death of the animal, but by the sprinkling of the blood at the altar. 3. No atonement could be made, where life was forfeited. 4. Atonements were made by the sacrifice of animals in some cases where no guilt ivas invol- ved. And 5. Atonements were sometimes made without the death of an animal, or any blood-shedding whatever. "^ — This is the sum total of the arguments collected by the industry of these writers, against the notion of the vicarious nature of sacrifice : and it must be remembered, that Sykes applies these to the idea, that " the taking away the life of the ani- mal was designed to put the offerer in mind of his demerits," no less than to the idea, that " the life of the animal was given in lieu of the life of the sinner ;" (pp. 79, 80.) so that they may fairly be replied to on the principle of atonement here contended for. NoAv, to the first of these objections it may be answered, that it is again and again asserted in the Old Testament, that in cases where punishment had been incurred, and even where * See Syies's Essay on S.icr. p. 121—141. Jien Mord. p. 797—799. and ■Crcll. contra Grot. cap. x. THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 199 (as we shall see hereafter) life itself was forfeited, the due oblation of an animal in sacrifice was effectual to procure the reversal of the forfeiture, and the pardon of the offender ; that is, the death of the animal was so far represented as standing in place of the offender's punishment, and in some cases even of his death, that through it, no matter how ope- rating, the offerer was enabled to escape. This however is not deemed sufficient. Some precise and appropriate phrase, unequivocally marking a strict vicarious substitution, is still required. But as a strict vicarious substitution, or literal equivalent, is not contended for, no such notion belonging to the doctrine of atonement, it is not necessary that any such phrase should be produced. The words, IDD, and am, in their sacrificial application, sufficiently admit the vicarious import ; and the description of the sacrificial ceremony and its conse- quences, especially in the instance of the scape-goat, posi- tively prove it ; and beyond this nothing farther can be re*- quired. But it is curious to remark, that both Sykes and Taylor, in their eagerness to demonstrate, that the sacrificial terms conveyed nothing whatever of a vicarious import, have urged an objection, which rebounds with decisive force against their own opinion. " The life of the animal," say they, " is never called, in the Old Testament, a ransom; nor is there any such expression, as Xvr^ov, ctvrtXvr^ovy ccvn-^pv^ov, equivalent, exchange, substitutes'^ &c. Essay on Sacr. p. 134. B, Mord, p. 197. — Now, not to speak of their criticisms on the expres- sions in the original, (particularly on the word 13D ) which merely go to prove that these words do not necessarily con- vey such ideas, inasmuch as being of a more extended signi- fication, they are not in all cases applied exactly in this scn^e: — an argument which Avill easily strip most Hebrew terms of their true and deiinite meaning, being, as they are denominated by Grotius, {De Satis. Chr. cap. viii. § 2, 3.) -yiroXvTvifjui — not to Speak, I say, of such criticisms, nor to urge the unfairness of concluding against the meaning of the ori- ginal, from the language used in the Greek translation ; have not these writers, by admitting that the words Xvr^ov, etvrtXvr^ov, &c. if applied to the Mosaic sacrifices, would have conveyed the idea of vicarious substitution, thereby established the force of these expressions, when applied in the New Testa- ment to the death of Christ, (Mat. xx. 28, Mark x. 46. 1 Tim. ii. 6.) which being expressly said to be a sacrifice for the sins of men, and being that true and substantial sacrifice, which those of the law but faintly and imperfectly represent- ed, consequently reflects back upon them its attributes and qualities, though in an inferior degree. ,200 TICARI0U8 IMPORT OF Again, secondlyy it is contended that the atonement was jiot made by the death of the animal, but by the sprinkling of the blood. — True ; and by this very sprinkling of the blood before the altar, it was, that according to ihe prescribed rites of sacrifice, the life of the animal was offered ; as ap- pears from the express letter of the law, which declares the life to he in the blood, and subjoins as a consequence from this, that it is the blood, (the vehicle of life, or, as it is called a few verses after, the life itself) that maketh an atonement for the soul, or life of the offerer. See Ainsworth, and Pa- trick, on Levit. xvii. 11. and for the concurrent opinions of all the Jewish doctors on this head, see Outram De Sacrif. lib, i. cap. xxii. § 11. — The rendering of the above verse of Leviticus in the Old Italic version is remarkable : Anima enim omnis carnis sanguis ejus est: et ego dedi eum vobis exorare pro animabus vestris ; sanguis enim ejus pro anima (xorabit. Sabatier, Vet. Ital, And even Dr. Geddes's translation is decidedly in favour of the sense in which the passage has been applied in this Number. " For the life of all flesh being in the blood, it is my will, that by it an atone- ment shall be made at the altar for your lives. ^^ But thirdly, the sacrifice could not have implied any thing vicarious, as no atonement could be made where life was for- feited. — There is no argument advanced by the opponents of the doctrine of atonement with greater confidence than this ; and there is none which abounds with greater fallacies. It is untrue, in point of fact ; it is sophistical in point of rea- soning: and it is impertinent in point of application, 1. It is untrue; for atonements were made in cases w^here without atonement life was forfeited. This appears at once from the passage of Leviticus last referred to ; which posi- tively asserts the atonement to be made for the life of the offerer: it also appears from the unbending rigour of the law in general, which seems to have denounced death against every violation of it, (see Deut. xxvii. 26. Ezech. xviii. 19 — 23. Gal. iii. 10. James ii. 10.) and in particular, from Ihe specific cases of perjury, (Levit, vi. 3.) and of profane swearing, (v. 4.) for which atonements were appointed, not- withstanding the strict sentence of the law was death, (Exod. XX. 7. — and Levit. xxiv. 16.) — see on this Grot. De Satisf. cap. X. § 3. HalUVs Notes and Disc. p. 275—278. and Richie's Pecvl. Doct. vol. i. pp. 245—249, 280, This lat^ ler writer, it is to be observed, though opposing the doctrine > of vicarious suffering, and wishing to avail himself of the ob- \ jection here urged, yet finds himself not at liberty to ad- vance farther than to state that it seldom happened that death was denounced against any offences, for which atone- ment was appointed. THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 201 : 2. It is sophistical; for from the circumstanfce of atone- rineiit not being appointed in those cases in whicli death was peremptorily denounced, it is inferred, that no atonement <;ouId be made where life was forfeited : whereas the true .statement of the proposition evidently is, that life was for- feited where no atonement was permitted to be made. It is true indeed, that death is not expressly denounced in those cases in which atonements were allowed ; but this was he- cause the atonement was permitted to arrest the sentence of the law, as appears particularly from this, that where the pre- scribed atonement was not made, the law no longer suspend- ed in its natural operation, pronounced the sentence of death. The real nature of the case seems to be this : the rigid ten- dency of the law being to secure obedience on pain of for- feiture of life ; all such offences as were of so aggravated a kind as to preclude forgiveness, were left under the original sentence of the law, whilst such as were attended with cir- cumstances of mitigation, were forgiven on the condition of a public and humble acknowledgment of the offence, by com- plying with certain prescribed modes of atonement. It should be remembered also, that the law was not given at different times, so as that its denunciations and atonements should be promulged at diff*erent periods ; both were an- nounced at the same time, and therefore in such cases as ad- mitted of pardon, the penalty being superseded by the atone- ment, the punishment strictly due to the offence is conse- quently not denounced, and can only be collected now from the general tendency of the law , from some collateral bear- ings of the Mosaic code, or from the inflictions which actu- ally followed on the neglect of the atonement. The whole strength of the present objection rests then upon this ; that we have not both the atonement prescribed, and the punish- ment denounced : that is, the punishment both remitted and denounced at the same time. But I have dwelt too long upon this ; especially w^hen 3dly, the whole argument is inapplicable. For even they wh» hold the doctrine of a vicarious punishment, feel it not ne- cessary to conten-d that the evil inflicted on the victim should be exactly the same in quality and degree, with that de- nounced against the offender : it depending, they say, upon the will of the legislator, what satisfaction he w ill accept in place of the punishment of the offender, see Oiitram De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xxi. § 1, 2, 9. But still less will this argu- ment apply, where vicarious punishment is not contended for, but merely an emblematic substitute, the result of insti- tution, and which in no respect involves the notion of a» equivalent. A A :?^ 202 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF Fourthly^ The atonement by animal sacrifice in cases not involving moral guilt, can only prove that there were sacri- fices which were not vicarious, inasmuch as there were some that were not for sin : but it by no means follows, that where moral guilt 7vas involved, the sacrifice was not vicarious. Now it is only in this latier case, the notion of a vicarious sacrifice is contended for, or is indeed conceivable. And accordingly it is only in such cases we find those ceremonies used which mark the vicarious import of the sacrifice. The symbolical translation of sins, and the consequent pollution of the victim, are confined to those sacrifices which were of- fered confessedly in expiation of sins, th'e most eminent of which were those offered on the day of expiation, and those for the high priest, and for the entire congregation, (Lev. xvi. 15—28. iv. 3—12. and 13—22.) in all of which, the pollution caused by the symbolical transfer of sins, is ex- pressed by the burning of the victim w ithout the camp : see Outr. De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xvii. §1,2. Thus it appears that the very mode of sacrifice, as well as the occasion of its be- ing offered, clearly ascertained the case of its various import. But it deserves to be considered whether even the cases of the puerpera, the leper,- and the Nazarite, on which, as they seem to imply nothing of crime, Sykes, and other writers of that class, lay so much stress, do not bear such a relation to sin as to justify the oblation of the animal sacrifice in the view here contended for. It deserves to be considered, whether the pains of child-bearing, and all diseases of the human body, (of which leprosy in the Eastern countries was deemed the most grievous,) being the signal consequences of that apostacy which had entailed these calamities on the children of Adam, it might not be proper on occasion of a deliverance from these remarkable effects of sin, that there should be this sensible representation of that death which was the desert of it in general, and an humble acknowledg- ment of that personal demerit which had actually exposed the offerer on so many occasions to the severest punishment. That this was the notion entertained by the Jewish doctors, with the additional circumstance of the imputation of actual crime in these cases of human suffering, has been already shown, pp. 154, 155. — see also Vitringa on Isa. liii. 4. There seems likewise good ground to think that the idea of distempers as penal inflictions for sins, was prevalent in the earliest ages, even among the heathen, see Harrises Com- ment, on the liiid. ch. of Isaiah, p. 235. also Martini as quo- ted by Rosenm. Schol. in Jesai. p. 909. The case of the Nazarite, it must be confessed, seems more difficult to be re- conciled to the principle here laid down. And yet, if with THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 203 liightfoot (JEfor. Hebr. in Luc. i, 15.) it be admitted, that *' the law of the Nazarites had a reference to Adam, while under the prohibition in his state of innocence," and that it was " designed in commemoration of the state of innocence before the fall," (an idea for which he finds strong support in the traditions of the Jews) it may seem not unreasonable to conclude, that the sacrifice offered by the Nazarite pol- luted by the dead, was intended to commemorate that death which was the consequence of Adam's fall from innocence, and which was now become the desert of sinful man. Anct thus the case of the Nazarite, as well as those of the puerpera and the leper, seems sufficiently reducible to the notion of sa- crifice here laid down. But let this be as it may, it is clear that to prove that a sacrifice may be vicarious, it is not ne- cessary to show that every sacrifice is so : no more than for the purpose of proving that there are sacrifices for sins, it is necessary to show that every sacrifice is of that nature. We come now to the fifth and last objection ; in which it is urged that atonements for sin being made in some cases without any animal sacrifice, but merely by an offering of flour ; by piacular sacrifice it could never be intended to im- ply the vicarious substitution of a life. To this the answer is obvious, that although no vicarious substitution of a life could be conceived, where life was not given at all : yet from this it cannot follow, that where a life was given, it might not admit a vicarious import. It should be remembered that the case here alluded to, was a case of necessity ; and that this offering of flour was accepted only where the offerer was so poor that he could not by any possibility procure an animal for sacrifice. Can then any thing be inferred from a case such as this, in which the offerer must have been altogether precluded from engaging in any form of worship, and shut out from all legal communion with his God, or indulged in this inferior sort of offering ? Besides, is it not natural to conceive that this offering of flour being indulged to the poor man in the place of the animal sacrifice, which, had he been able, he was bound to offer, he should consider it but as a substitute for the animal sacrifice ? And that being burnt and destroyed upon the altar, he might naturally conceive of it as a symbol and representation of that destruction due to his own de-* merits ? And to all this it may be added, that this individual might be taught to look to the animal sacrifices offered for all the sins of all the people on the day of atonement, for the full and complete consummation of those less perfect atone- ments which alone he had been able to make. These constitute the sum total of the arguments, which have been urged against the vicarious nature of the legal piacu- 204 IMPOSITION ON HANDS !ar atonements. How far they are conclusive against the no- tion of their vicarious import here contended for, it is not difficult to judge. It deserves to be noted, that in the exa- mination of these arguments, I have allowed them the full benefit of the advantage which their authors have artfully sought for them; namely, that of appreciating their value, pb applied to the sacrifices of the law considered independently of that great sacrifice, which these were but intended to pre- figure, and from which alone they derived whatever virtue they possessed. When we come hereafter to consider them, as connected with that event in which their true significancy lay, we shall find the observations which have been here made acquiring a tenfold strength. What the opinions of the Jewish writers are upon the sub- ject of this Number, has been already explained in Number XXXIII. Whoever wishes for a more extensive review of the testimonies which they supply, on the three points — of the translation of the offerer's sins, the consequent pollution of the animal, and the redemption of the sinner by the sub- stitution of the victim, — may consult Ontram De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. xxii. § 4 — 12. No. XXXIX. ON THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS UPON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. Page 35. (p) — The ceremony of the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim, has been usually considered in the case of piacular sacrifices, as a symbolical translation of the sins of the offender upon the head of the sacrifice ; and as a mode of deprecating the evil due to his transgressions. So we find it represented hy Abarbanelf in the introduction to his commentary on Leviticus, {De Veil. p. 301.) and so the ceremony of the scape-goat in Lev. xvi. 21. seems di- rectly to assert. And it is certain, that the practice of im- precating on the head of the victim, the evils which the sa- crificer wished to avert from himself, was usual amongst th© Jieathen, as appears particularly from Herodotus, Qlh.'u. cap. 39.) who relates this of the Egyptians, and at the same time asserts that no Egyptian would so much as " taste the head of any animal," but under the influence of this religious cus- tom flung it into the river. This interpretation of the cere- mony of the imposition of hands in the Mosaic sacrifice, is however strongly contested by certain writers, particularly by Sykes, (Essay on Sacrif^ p. 25 — 50.) and the author of the Scj'ipiure Account of Sacrifices, (Append, p. 10.) who contend that this ceremony was not confined to piacular sa- crifices, but was also used in those which were eucharisticaK ON THE HEAD OP THE VICTIM. 2,0i^ " in which commemoration was made, not of sins but of mer- cies :*- it was not therefore, say they, always accompanied with confession of sins, but with praise or thanksgiving, or in short, such concomitant as suited the nature and intention of the particular sacrifice. But in order to prove that it was not attended with acknowledgment of sin, in sacrifices not piacular, it is necessary to show, that in none but piacular was there any reference whatever to sin. In these, indeed, the pardon of sin is the appropriate object ; but that in our expressions of praise and thanksgiving, acknowledgment should be made of our own unworthiness, and of the general desert of sin, seems not unreasonable. That even the eucha- ristic sacrifices then, might bear some relation to sin, espe- cially if animal sacrifice in its first institution was designed to represent that death which had been introduced by sin, will perhaps not be deemed improbable. And in confirmation of this, it ijs certain, that the Jewish doctors combine, in all cases, confession of sins with imposition of hands. " Where there is no confession of sins," say they, " there is no imposi- tion of hands." See Outram De Sacr.Yih. i. cap. xv. ^ 8. But, be this as it may, it is at all events clear, that if the ce- remony be admitted to have had, in each kind of sacrifice, the signification suited to its peculiar nature and intention ; it necessarily follows, that when used in piacular sacrifices, it implied a reference to, and acknowledgment of sin : con- fession of sins being always undoubtedly connected with pia- cular sacrifices, as appears from Levit. v. 5. xvi. 21. and Numb. V. 7. The particular forms of confession, used in the different kinds of piacular sacrifice, are also handed down to us by the Jewish writers ; and are given by Outram (De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xv. § 10, 11.) The form prescribed for the individual presenting his own sacrifice, seems parti- cularly significant, " O God, I have sinned, I have done per- versely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done so and so. Lo ! now I repent, and am truly sorry for my misdeeds. Let then this victim be my expiation.'^ Which last words were accompanied by the action of laying hands on the head of the victim ; and were considered by the Jews, as we have seen from several authorities, in pp. 150, 151, to be equivalent to this ; " let the evils, which in justice should have fallen on my head, light upon the head of this victim. See Outram De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xxii. § 5, 6, 9. Now that this imposition of hands, joined fo the confessioa ©f sins, was intended symbolically to transfer the sins of the offerer on the head of the victim ; and consequently to point it out as the substitute for the offender, and as the accepted wedimn of expiation ; will appear from the bare recital of the 206 IMPOSITION OF HANDS ceremony, as prescribed on the day of expiation. Aaron shall lay bolh his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, pntting tliem upon the head of the goal — and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities,'' iScc. (Levil. xvi. 21, 22.) The sins of the peo- ple being thus transferred to the animal, it is afterwards re- presented to be so polluted, as to pollute the person that car- ried it away ; (Lev. xvi. 2G.) and by the entire ceremony, expiation is made for the sins of the people. ISow it is to be remarked, that this is the only passage in the entire scrip- ture, in which the meaning of the ceremony, of laying hands on the head of the victim, is directly explained: and from this one would naturally think, there could be no difficulty in understanding its true import in all other cases of piacular sacrifice. But the ingenuity of the writers above mentioned, is not to be silenced so easily. The goat, says Dr. Sykes, {Essay, p. 37.) was so polluted that it was not sacrificed, but sent away: " it was not, then, to transfer sins upon the sacrifice, that hands were laid upon the head of the victim : as men would not offer unto God what they know to be polluted." In this notion, of the pollution of the scape-goat rendering it unfit to be offered in sacrifice, H. Taylor concurs with Sykes. {Ben Mord. pp. 827, 828.) Now to the objection here urged it may be answered, 1. That the scape-goat was actually a |)«r^ of the sin-offering for the people, as is shown more particularly in page 50, and Number LXXl. and as is confessed by the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, (Append, p. 12.) who agrees with Sykes in the main part of his objection ; and as may be directly collected from Levit. Xvi. 5, 10. in which the two goats are called a sin-offering, and the scape-goat described as presented before the Lord to make an atonement with him. See Patrick on these verses. Secondly, Admitting even the scape-goat to have been en- tirely distinct from the sin-offering ; since the same ceremony, which is allowed by Sykes and H. Taylor to be a proof that the scape-goat was polluted by the translation of the people's sins ; namely, the person who carried it away being obliged to wash before he was again admitted into the camp; since, I say, this same ceremony was prescribed with respect to the bullock and the goat, which had been sacrificed as sin-offer- ings ; it follows, that they likewise were polluted ; and that therefore there was a translation of sins to the animals, that were actually sacrificed in expiation of those sins. Now this translation being accompanied with, is also to be considered ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 20? as expressed by the imposition of hands ; a ceremony which it was the less necessary specially to prescribe here, as thia was already enjoined for all cases of piacular sacrifice, ia Lev. ch. iv. — and that this ceremony did take place, we can have no doubt, not only from this general direction in the 4th chapter, but also from the express testimonies of the Jewish writers on this head, (Jinsiv. on Levit. xvi. 6, 11.) and from the description in 2 Chr. xxix. 23. of the sacrifice offered by Hezekiah, to make an atonement for all Israel.—^ They brought forth the he-goats for the sin-offering, before the king and the congregation, and they laid their hands vpon them — and the -priests killed them, &c. Thirdly, The entire of the notion, that what was polluted (as it is symbolically called) by sin, could not be offered to God, is founded in a mistake, arising from the not distinguish- ing between the natural* impurities and blemishes of the animal, (which with good reason unfitted it for a sincere and respectful expression of devotion,) and that emblematical defilement, which arose out of the very act of worship, and existed but in the imagination of the worshipper. It should be remarked also, that this notion of the defilement of the victim by the transfer of the offerer's sins, so far from being inconsistent with the Mosaic precepts, concerning the pure and unblemished state of the animal chosen for sacrifice, (Ex. xii. 5. Lev. xxii. 21. Numb. xix. 2. Mai. i. 14, &c.) as is urged by Sykes and II. Taylor, and by Dr. Priestley, (TheoL Rep, vol. i. p. 213.) seems absolutely to require and presuppose this purity, the more clearly to convey the idea that the pollution was the sole result of the translated defile- ment of the sinner. In like manner, we are told in the New Testament, that Christ was made a curse, and also sin (or a sin- offer ing)/or lis ; whilst, to make it more clear, that all thia was the effect of our sin, it is added that he knew no sin him- self. And indeed they who consider the pollution of the victim as naturally irreconcileable with the notion of a sacri- fice, as Doctor Priestley evidently does, would do well to attend to the Kxdec^f^ecTcc of the ancients, who, whilst they re- quired for their gods the reXeix 6vTtoc, the most perfect animals for sacrifice, (see Potter on the Religion of Greece, ch. iv. and Outr, De. Sacr. lib. i. cap. ix. § 3.) at the same time « The word in the original used to denote the perfect state of the animals to be offered in sacrifice is CD^DH, which Rosenm. explains by " perfectumy i. e. sine vitio et defectu corporis, sine segritudine et membrorum debilitate j id quod Grace. «t//a^ov, quod Alexandrini hie habent." Joscphus (Jintiq. lib. III. cap. X.) calls these animals oxoKKH^a icai kxtu /unSiv KixeeBn/uivct, entire andHuithout blemish. Herodotus also (Lib. II. cap. xlii ) testifies, that the animals offered by the Egyptians were of the like description : Tif,- xA9stg«c a^a-ivA? rm Com ««./ tk? woo-vKf ci TTAvn; AiyvTrrtoi Gvhti. 2j08 imIposition ok hands sought to appease them, by offering up human victims whom they had first loaded with imprecations, and whom they in consequence deemed so polhited with the sins of those for whom they were to be offered, that the word Kx6(t^(jLa. became synonymous to what was most execrable and impure, aiid with the Latins was rendered by the word scelus, as jf to mark the \ery extreme and essence of what was sinful. See Sfephanus on Kx^u^f^x, and Suidas on the words xx6x^f^x and ve^i-^tlf^x. It must be confessed, indeed, that the author of the Scrip. Account of Sacr. h^s gone upon grounds entirely different from the above named authoi-^. He positively denies that either the scape-goat, or the bullock, incurred any pollution whatever ; and maintains that the washing of the persons who carried them away, indicated no pollution of the victims, in- asmuch as the same washing was prescribed in cases of holi- ness, not of pollution. (App. p. 11.) But, besides that this author is singular in his notion that the scape-goat was not polluted, he proceeds altogether upon a wrong acceptation of those passages which relate to persons and things that came into contact with the sin-offering ; it being commonly transla- ted, in Lev. vi. 18. and elsewhere, he that toucheth them (the sin-offerings) shall be holy, whereas it should be rendered, as Wall properly observes, in quite a contrary sense, shall be SANCTIFIED, or CLEANSED, shall be under an obligation, or necessity, of cleansing himself, as the LXX understand it, ctytxrOuG-eTxt. See WalVs Critical Notes, Lev. vi. 18. where this point is most satisfactorily treated. Upon the whole then, there appears no reasonable objec- tion against the idea, that the imposition of hands, in piacular sacrifices, denoted an emblematical transfer of ^guilt ; and that the ceremony consequently implied the desire, that the evil due to the sinner might be averted, by what was to fall on the head of the victim. This receives farther confirmation * Dr. Geddes's authonty, vhen it happens to be on the side of orthodoxy, is not without its weight : because having no very strong bias in that direc- tion, thefe remains only the vis veri to account for his having taken it. I therefore willingly accept his assistance on this subject of the imposition of hands upon the head uf the victim. He renders Levit. i. 4. ^nd he shall lay his hand upon the head of the •victim, that it tnay be ati acceptable atonement for him,' And on the words, lay his hand^ &c. he subjoins this remark — " Thereby devoting it to God : and transferring, as it were, his own GUILT UPON THE VICTIM." A mere typical rite, (he adds,) derived^ probably, from the legal custom of the accusing witness laying his hand upon the head of the criminal. As to Dr. Geddes's mode of explaining the matter, I am indifferent. Valeat quantum. His admission of the emblema- tical transfer of guilt upon the victim, I am perfectly contented with : and in- deed his illustration, by the witness pointing out the object with whom the guilt lay, does not tend much to weaken the significancy of the action. ON THB HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 209 from the consideration of other parts of scripture, in which this ceremony of imposition of hands was used without any reference to sacrifice. In Levit. xxiv. 14, 15. we find this action prescribed in the case of the blasphemer, before he was put to death ; it being at the same time added, that who- iioever curseth his God, shall bear his sin : thus, as it were, expressing by this significant action, that the evil consequen- ces of his sin should /«// upon his head: and in these words, 3Iaimonides expressly says, the blasphemer w^as marked out for punishment by those who laid their hands upon his head, " thy blood be upon thine own head," (see Oiitram. De Sacr, lib. i. cap. XV. § 8.) " as if to say, the punishment of this sin fall upon thyself, and not on us and the rest of the peo- ple.** The expressions also in Joshua ii. 19. 2 Sam. 1. 16. Esth. ix. 25. Ps. vii. 16. and several other passages of the Old Testament, respecting ev'ih falling upon the head of the person to suffer, may give still farther strength to these ob- servations. It deserves to be remarked, that the sacrifice referred to ia the passage cited in the text, was that of a burnt-offering, or holocaust ; and as the language in w^hich it is spoken of, as being accepted for the offerer, to make atonement for him, obviously falls in with the interpretation here given of the ceremony of laying hands on the head of the victim, it ap- pears, that it was not only in the case of the sin-offering enjoined by the law, that this action was connected with an acknowledgment of sin, but with respect also to that kind of sacrifice which existed before the law ; and which, as not arising out of the law, is accordingly not now prescribed ; but spoken of in the very opening of the sacrificial code, as al- ready in familiar use, and offered at the will of the individual ; ff any man bring an offering — a burnt-sacrifice, Sec. — That the burnt-sacrifice was offered in expiation of sins, has indeed been doubted ; but so strongly is the reference to sin marked in the description of this sacrifice, that Dr. Priestley, on the supposition of its being a voluntary offering, feels himself compelled even to admit it as a consequence, " that in every sacrifice the offerer was considered as a sinner, and that the sacrifice had respect to him in that character," {Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 204, 205.) — a conclusion so directly subversive of his notion of sacrifices as mere gifts, that in order to escape from it, he is obliged to deny, in opposition to every com- mentator, that the burnt-sacrifice here spoken of was a volun- tary offering. Now, that the word, i:y"iS, should not be trans- lated, as it is in our common version, of his own voluntary will, I admit with Dr. Priestley, It should be rendered, as- appears from the use of the word immediately after, and ia Bb 210 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS Ot TMii other parts of scripture, as well as from the Greek, the Chat- dee, the Syriac, and the Arabic versions,/or his acceptance.'^ See Houbig. Ainws, and Purver^ But the present versioH of this word is far from being the strength of the cause. The manner in which the subject is introduced, and the entire of the context, place it bejond doubt, that the sacrifice spoken of, was the voluntary burnt-offering of an individual. And thus Dr. Priestley's argument holds good against himself, and he admits that in every sacrifice there was a reference to sin. On the expiatory nature of the burnt-offering, we shall see more hereafter, in Number LX V^H. No. XL. ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF OF THE PROPITIATORY NATURE OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, IN- DEPENDENT OF THE ARGUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR VICARIOUS IMPORT. Page 35. (\f Twc ;i(;,&'§^c> Kiti vTi^ov fjciToi rnv th fiia nKivrtiv m tcv ts K§cv» eirega- x-Ad-tt^u- ^ilCy (^ (TTl^Oi^l&C VUjUfiH?, AvofiC^ST KiyOjUiVUgy VICV S^*" /" *h^ Bishop, as well as Mr. Dodson, and irar present English version, departs from the uniformity of the preposition D, throughout this entire section. Propter laborem animas suae videbit. Vitr. — Propter has quos per- pessus est afflictiones. Dath. Propter labores ipsius. Roscnm. — So Crellius himself explains the word in his An- swer to Grotius, p. 25. — The LXX version of this book, which, (as has been already observed in p. 136, and is admit- ted also by Mr. Dodson, pref. p. vii.) is in many parts erro- neous and even absurd ; and from Avhich, Vitringa remarks on verse 11, " but little aid is to be looked for in this book," (see also the testimony of ZjvingUus in Glass. Phil. Sac. continued by Batter, p. 250.)~is here totally unintelligible : but tlie Vulgate renders the clause, pro eo quod laboravit animaejus: and the Doway, agreeably to this, translates; For that his soul has laboured, Sec. — in which it has the ad- vantage of the Protestant English versions. .(h) (Justify.) Justitiam adferet multis. Vitr. Justiii- «^ationem conciliabit multis. Cocc. — Justitiam dabit multis : L e. justificabit multos. Mic/mc?.— Justificabit ipse multos. A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 225 Viilg.^-Mr. Dodson indeed renders it, " turn many to right- eousness ;" and quotes the authority of Taylor^s Concorde and Dan. xii. 3. He cites Grotius also, who on this occasion is the less to be attended to, as he most unaccountably ap- plies the prophecy to Jeremiah, so as to render this sense of the word unavoidable. See Vitr. particularly on this word. Cloppenb. asserts, that the most usual signification of the word ynvn, as of the Greek ^oceciea, is to absolve^ to acquit : see Pole's Sj/n. Justification, he says, is opposed to con- demnationy and is a forensic term, signifying acquittal, Al- bert, on Rom. viii. 33. {Observ. Phil.) says of hxectota, it is a forensic term, implying a declaration of acquittal, of the person charged with any crime, and answers to the v/ord Xnvn. Parkhurst in like manner explains it as being a forensic term, implying to absolve from past offences, and correspond- ing to "invn, for which he says, the LXX have used it ii. this sense, in Deut. xxv. 1. 1 Kii!gs viii. 32. 2 Chr. vi. 23. Isai. V. 23. — he might have added Exod. xxiii. 7. Ps. Ixxxii. 3. Prov. xvii. 15. and many others which may be collected from Trommius and Calasio, The passage last referred to, places justification (pii'n, hKoitou,) in direct opposition to condemna- tion : — he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord. — Isai. 1. 8. supplies a strong example of the same opposition. See also Schleusner on ^kuiou, which corresponding to pv, is used, he says, " in a forensic sense : and signifies to be ac- quitted, to be pronounced innocent, and is put in opposition to xecTethicu^ec-Scct :" of which he furnishes several instances. (t) {For the punishment of their iniquities he shall bear.) Siquidem eorum peccata bajulavit : Fi^r.— Nam pro pecca- tis eorum satisfecit. Dath. Nam poenas eorum susiiinuit. Doederl. Et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit. Vulg, Peccata illorum ipse sustinebit. Old Italic as given by Au- gust. Sabat. in loc. Mr. Dodson contends against the propriety of the Bishop's translation ; and maintains that the words will bear no other meaning than " their iniquities he shall bear away.'' In this he considers himself supported by the authority of the Seventy, who render, Kcct rccq uftoc^- rioti ecvrm (Avraq AN012EI. He does not, however state, that Sym. translates the clause, t«5 cta-e^etet^ uvruv ecvrc^ YnENEFKEI J (Crit. Sac. torn. iv. p. 5300.) — and besides, as we shall see hereafter, the word ocv6t(pe^s<> yields him no support. Bi- shop Stock renders, " Of their iniquities he shall bear the jv eight :" in which he agrees with Rosenmuller, who says, De formula hac bene moiiuit Martini, peccata propter mala, quffi sibi adjuncta habent, ab Orientalibus ut grave onus re- prsesentari, quo premantur, qui iis se inquinaverint, in cujus D D 22(> THE DEATH OF CHRIST rei testimonium adducit locum Thren. v. 7. et ex Corano plura loca. Hinc apud Arabes, iiiquit, verbum, quod pro- prie est, grave onus sustinuit, dicitur pro, crimine gravatus Juit : itemque ,sarc ma vocabulum solenne est de crimiuibuH eorumque poenis. (k) {He bare, &c.) Peccatum multorum tulit. Vitr. Pro multorum peccatis satisfecit. Dath, Multorum poe- nas sustinuit. Doederl. — Peccata multorum tulit, Vulg. — Peccata multorum sustinuit. August. — pertulit. Ci/pr. — aud both add, after the LXX, et propter iniquitates eorura traditus est : Sabat. in loc. Mr. Dodson objects as in verse 11. and renders it, he took away the sins, &c. I hare thought it necessary to take this accurate survey of this celebrated prophecy ; and to state thus fully the va- rious renderings of the most respectable versions, and com- mentators ; lest any pretence might remain, that in deriving my arguments from this part of scripture, I had either un- guardedly, or uncandidly, built on any inaccuracy in our common English translation. The plain result of the whole is obviously this : — That the righteous servant of Jehovah, having no sin himself, was to submit to be treated as the vi- lest of sinners ; and having the burden of our transgressions laid upon him, to suffer on account of them ; and by offering up his life a propitiatory sacrifice, like to those under the law, to procure for us a release from the punishment which was due to our offences. And thus, from that prophet, justly called Evangelical, who was the first commissioned to lift up the veil that covered the mystery of our redemption, and to draw it forth to open view from beneath the shade of Jewish ceremonies and types, through which it had been hitherto but faintly discerned, we have a description of that great propitiatory sacrifice, whereby our salvation has been ef- fected, as plain as it is possible for language to convey it. That Christ is the person described by the prophet through- out this chapter, cannot with any Christian be matter of question. St. Matthew, (viii. 17.) and St. Peter, (1 Epistle ii. 24.) directly recognize the prophecy as applied to Christ: and yet more decisive is the passage, in Acts viii. 35. in which the eunuch reading this very chapter, and demanding of Philip, of whom speaketh the prophet this? it is said^ that Philip began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Indeed so evident and undeniable is the application to Christ, that Dr. Priestley himself, whilst he is laboriously employed in withdrawing from the support of Christianity A fBOPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 227; most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, (which, he says, Christians, by ^^ following too closely the ivriters of the New Testament," have been erroneously led to attribute to Christ, Theol. Rep. vol. v. p. 213.) yet pronounces it im- possible to explain this of any other but Jesus Christ, (p, 226.) and considers the application of it to Jeremiah by Gro- tius as not deserving a refutation. White also, who in his Commentary on Isaiah, professes to follow Grotius as his oracle, is yet obliged to abandon him in his explication of this prophecy, which he says cannot possibly belong to any other than Christ : and this he thinks so evident, that he concurs with A, Lapide, in pronouncing that " this chapter may just- ly challenge for its title, The passion of Jesus Christ, ac- cording to Isaiah," See also KennicoCs Dissert, vol. ii. p. 373. But whilst Christ is of necessity allowed to be the sub-^ ject of this prophecy ; the propitiatory sacrifice, which he is here represented as offering for the sins of men, is utterly rejected. And for the purpose of doing away the force of the expressions, which so clearly convey this idea, the adversaries of the doctrine of atonement, have directed against this part of scripture their principal attacks. What has been already advanced in Number XXVII. may show how impotent have been their attempts to prove that Christ is not here describ- ed, as an tDWii, or sacrifice for sin. And their endeavours to evince that this sacrifice is not likewise described as one truly propitiatory, we shall find to be equally unsupported by just argument, or fair and rational criticism. The usual method of proceeding has been, to single out one expression from this entire passage ; and by undermining its signification, to shake the whole context into ruins. The person who is made an otyK, or sin-offering, is said to bear the sins of many. Now, it is contended, that to bear sins,, signifies merely to bear them away, or remove them ; and that consequently, nothing more is meant here, than " the re- moving away from us our sins and iniquities by forgiveness."^ In support of this position, the application of the prophet's words by St. Matthew, (viii. 17.) and the force of the ex- pressions which in this prophecy are rendered by the words, bearing sins, are urged as unanswerable arguments. 1. It is said, that ** the words in the 4th verse, owr in- firmities he hath borne, and our sorrows, hehath carried them, are expressly interpreted by St. Matthew, of the miraculous cures performed by our Saviour on the sick : and as the tak- * B. Mord. p. 825. see also Taylor's Key, No. 162. Mr. Dodaon^t notes •n this chapter of Isaiah — and particularly Crell. JResp.ad, Grot. p. 24, &c. 228 THE DEATH OF CHRIST ing our infirmities, and bearing our sicknesses, cannot mcaH the suffering those infirmities and sicknesses, but only the l3earing them awaij, or removing them, so the bearing our iniquities is likewise to be understood, as removing them away from us by forgiveness." It must be owned that this passage of St. Matthew has given great difficulty to commentators. His applying, what the prophet seems to say of sins, to bodily infirmities ; and the bearing of the former, to the curing of the latter ; has created no small degree of perplexity. Some have, accord- ingly, contended,^ that St. Matthew has applied the prophe- cy merely in accommodation^ in which case he supplies no authority as to the precise meaning of the words of the pro- phet : othersf again, that the expressions admit that full and comprehensive signification, that will include both bodily and spiritual diseases, and which consequently received a twofold fulfilment: others J again, that Christ might be said to have suffered the diseases, which he removed ; from the anxious care, and bodily harassing, with which he laboured to remedy them, bearing them as it were through sympathy and toil ; and Bishop Pearce is so far dissatisfied with all of these ex- positions, that he is led to concede the probability, that the jpassage in Matthew is an interpolation. Now, if these seve- i-al commentators, acquiescing in the received, have proceed- ed on an erroneous acceptation of the passages in Isaiah and Blatthew ; we shall have little reason to wonder at the diffi- culties which they have had to encounter in reconciling the prophet and the evangelist. It must surely then be worth our while to try whether a closer examination of the original passages will not enable us to effect this point. For this purpose, it must first be observed, that all the commentators have gone upon the supposition, that the pro- phet, in the 4th verse, which is that quoted by St. Matthew, speaks only of the sufferings of Christ on account of our sins: into M'hich they have been led, partly by the Greek version, ro0oooi; and ia one passage it is even used to ex- press a yoke, (i.ai. x. 27.) LXX, ^yya?; sec Calas, and Kir- cher : see also Buxt. Cocc, and Schlndl. they seem decisive on the point. Buxtorf supplies several instances of the ap- plication of the word, from the Jerusalem Targum ; all of which coincide with the sense here contended for. Schin- dler quotes a remarkable use of the word, in the Syriac trans- lation of St. Mark, v. 26. it being there applied to the wo- man who is said to have suffered man^ things {Trxeac-u. ^oaa«) of the physicians. For other instances of a similar use of the word in the Syriac, see Schaaf's Test. Syriac. 1 Cor. xiii. 7. 2 Tim. ii. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 17. also Schaaf's Lexicon Syriac. on the word Wom . Now, when in addition to all these authorities, we find the Greek versions uniformly giving to the word, in this place, the sense of sustaining, or suffer- ing, (yxf^E/vev being, as we have already seen, the reading of Aq. Sym. and Theodot. and the LXX expressing both the noun and verb by the one word e^wurcct :) the Latin version also rendering it in like manner, (the old Italic as given by August, strictly following the LXX, pro nobis in doloribus est: the Vulg. Pagn. and Piscat. expressing the word by portavil ; Montan. and Tremell. by bajulavit ; Munst. by sustinuit ; and Castal. by toleravit :) and our own English translation supported in the same sense by the most eminent biblical scholars, Vitr. Lowth. Dath. Doederl. and Rosen- muller ; it is natural to inquire, what arguments have been used by those learned men, to whom Mr. Dodson refers us for his proof. But the reader will be surprised to find, that confidently as Mr. Dodson has appealed to them, they furnish no proof at all. Mr. Whiston merely translates the passage as Mr, Dodson has done, without advancing a single reason in sup- port of it: (see Boyle\s Lectures, fol. ed. vol. ii. pp. 270., 2PU.) Dr. Taylor {Key, &c. § 162.) only says, that b^O will admit the sense of carrying off, or away ; and in support of l^is, instances one solitary passage frora Isaivxlvi. 4- which A PROPITIATORY SACRIFIciE. 233 a single glance will prove not to convey this sense. "^ And as to Crellius, he even confesses that he cannot find in the Old Testament, a single instance of the use of the word S^D, in the sense of bearing away ; and is obliged to confine himself to the repetition of the argument of Socinus, derived from the application of this passage by St. Matthew to bodily diseases, which Christ could be said fo bear, only in the sense of bearing away.f But, to suppose this clause applied by St. Matthew to bodily diseases, is a petitio principii : the sense in which it was understood by the evangelist, being part of the ques- tion in dispute. And that it was differently understood and applied by him, will I trust presently appear. Thus we find these learned men, to whom Mr. Dodson has referred for a complete proof of the point he wishes to establish, fulfilling his engagement in a manner not very satisfactory. Mr. Whis- ton offers no proof. Dr. Taylor gives a single and inappli- cable instance. And Crellius begs the question, admitting at the same time the general language of Scripture to be against him. This may furnish a useful hint to uususpecting readers. — But to proceed. That this second clause in the 4th verse, relates not to Christ's removing the sicknesses, but to his actually bearding the sorrows of men, has, I trust, been sufficiently established. Let us now consider the corresponding clause in St. Mat- thew's quotation, rctq vocrm s^ctrxcev. This has commonly been referred, it must be confessed, to bodily diseases ; but whe- ther the occasion on which it is introduced, joined to the ^-ertainty that the preceding clause. is applied in this sense, may not have influenced to this interpretation of the words, is worthy of inquiry. That the word voTe^ is primarily ap- plied to bodily diseases, there can be no question. Dr. Ken- nicot contends {Diss. Gen. § 79.) that it is used here to ex- press diseases of the mind. In this he adopts the notion of Grot, on Mat. viii. 17. and certain passages both in the Old and New Testament, undoubtedly apply the word in this sense. Thus Ps. clii. verse 3. who forsriveth all thine ini^ quities ; rvho healeth all thy diseases. Wisd. xvii. 8. They that jyromised to drive away terrors and troubles from a sick * It is particularly remarkable also, that Dr. Taylor, in his Concordaiice^ has not only not adduced a single passage in which the sense of bearing otherwise than as a burden is conveyed ; but he actually explains the word in this sense : — *' to bear, or carry a burden^ as a porter." In the passage at present in dispute, indeed, he introduces the sense of bearing awaj/ .• but then he does this avowedly on the supposition, that this passage is to be ex- plained by tlic diseases spoken of by St. Matthew. t See Crell. Resp. ad Gr. p. 24. also Socin. JJe .Jes. Cltr. pars % pap. 4f. Opera, \.Qm. ii. p. 149. Ee 234 THE DEATH OF CHRIST soul. Also 1 Tim. vi. 4. He is proud, doting (or rather distracted, vo^ ? derived from it, is used tt) signify iiUKSipondw, saraina, &c. A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 23§ than that of bearing, or lifting as a burden : (see Steph, Concord.) The 4 passages which are adduced by Taylor, (Key, 162.) viz. Mark xiv. 13. Luke vii. 14. John xii. 6, and XX. 15. all of them imply this very idea : for even though the thing spoken of were eventually to be carried away, yet this necessarily requires that it should be carried or borne, as a burden. But what makes this objection the more ex- traordinary is, that the carrying away is not necessarily im- plied in any one of them: the carrying (bajulare, Vulg, and Tertull, and Cod, Brix,) the pitcher of water, which is spoken of in one ; and the bearing the dead man's bier, that is refer- red to in another ; conveying simply the idea of bearing. The two passages in John also, one relating to Judas bearing the bag, and the other to the taking away the body of Jesus, are by no means conclusive : the interpretation of carrying away, or stealing, what was put into the bag, though sup- ported by B. Pearce ai^d others, being but conjectural, and standing without any support from the Scripture use of the word : and lifting being all that is necessarily meant with re- spect to the body of Christ, although the consequence of that lifting was the carrying it away, and that our version attend- ing to the general sense more than to the strict letter, has rendered it, borne him hence, I will only remark in addition, that Dr. Taylor has con- trived to exhibit a much more numerous array of texts in sup- port of his sense of the word Cx^x^afy than those here exa- mined. He has cited not fewer than ten. But this is a sort of deceptio visus ; there being but the four above referred to in which the term occurs. The word eQecrcto-ev he had joined with two others, eXocQs and ccvjiveyjce, and pursued the investigation of them jointly : thus the text in which any of these words x^as contained, became necessary to be cited, and appeared to be applied to alL Whether this be an ac- curate mode of examining the signification of words, which may differ in meaning or force ; or whether it may not tend to make a false impression on the hasty reader, by present- ing to his vieiv a greater number of authorities than really exist, in support of a particular acceptation, it would not be amiss for those who are used to talk largely about candour to consider. This digression, though it somewhat retards the course of the argument, I thought it right to make, as perhaps there is nothing more useful than to put young read- ers on their guard against the arts of controversy. To pro- ceed. The use of the word ^xra^oj in the Old Testament, by the LXX, Sym. and Aq. confirms the acceptation here con- 236 THE DEATH OF CHRIST tended for, (see * Trom. Concord, and Biel.) Amongst profane writers also, we find additional authorities. Albert (^Observ. PhiL on Joh. xvi. 12.) supplies a strong instance from Epictetus. Raphelius likewise, (on John xx. 15.) al- though his mistake respecting the meaning of Mat. viii. 17. has led him to give the force of asportare to the word, ad- duces another equally strong from Polybius. In conformity with this acceptation also, we find Tremellius's and Schaaf's versions from the Syriac, and Beza's from the Greek, as well as the Vulg. and the Old Latin, render the word by portat ; the plain and direct meaning of which is to bear as a burden. It may be likewise remarked, that Rosenmuller, although embarrassed with the notion that vofh^ here implied bodily disease, is yet obliged by the force of the verb Qutcc1^6>, to apply it in the above signification, notwithstanding it makes little less than nonsense of the passage: oneri sanandi morbos nostros, humeros supposuit, is his explication of the words. If the remarks which have been made be just, the result of the whole is, that the prophet and the evangelist entirely agree. They use the same language, and in the same sense : and the translation which Bishop Low th has given, will, with a slight variation, accurately convey the sense of both. Our infirmities he hath borne (a.w?iy y) and our sorrons, he hath carried them : or as Dr. Kennicot translates both, Mor^ bos nostros abstulit, et wgritudines nostros portavit. And this last is very nearly the version of the Old Latin, a& e;iven by Tertullian, (see Sabatier on Isa. liii. 4.) ImbecU- litaies nostras avfert, et languores nostros portat; or as Ambros. jEgritudines nostras portavit: and it is accurately * It is to be observed, that it is not only the Concordance its.elf that is to be consulted, but more particularly, Jllontfaucon's Lexic. Gr^ec. ad Jfexapla, which Trommixis has placed at the end of his Concordance, and vhich is to be esteemed as a most valuable collection from the fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Of this Lexicon, as well as of the labours of Trommius, Biel has freely availed himself, in the compilation of his valuable Lexicon in LXXy ct alios Inter p. &c. From these works it will be seen, that Aquila has employed the words Qturmyy-a and CATA^ooi for the Hebrew Sdd in Exod. i. 11. and for DD^^ in Zech. xii. 3. — and that Symma- chus has applied it to the word 73D in Exod. i. 11. and Psalm Ixxx. 7.. Now these instances from Aquila and SyniTnachns are singularly important tipon the present occasion, because the original word which they have thus rendered, is the word ^730, which I have already endeavoured to show, un- equivocally implies tlie hearing of a burden; and also because the version of the former is eminently distinguished by its literal agreement with the original Hebrew, (as see particularly JJath. Opvsc Dissert, in Jiqtiil. p. 1— 15.) The words hlO and Set?-ct^a>, tlius appear exactly to correspond.— See also Siociius'^ Lexicon inJVox. Test, and Pa^or^a Creek Ltxicon^ edited ^y Sclioettgen. A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 237 conveyed by the old version of Coverdale, which Dr. Ken- nicot (Diss. Gen. p. 45. note a.) does not scruple in many instances to prefer to our present English translation, He only TAKETH AWAY OUT INFIRMITE, and BEARETH OUT PAiNE.^ Thus are Isaiah and Matthew perfectly reconciled: the first clause in each, relating to diseases removed ; and the second, to sufferings endured. For it should be re- marked, in addition to what has been already said, that £A«^e and eQec^ota-e in Matthew, bear to each other the proportion of the verbs ^m and S:iD in Isaiah : the former in each of these pairs being generic, 5roAwo-;jiK,ov, and extending to all modes of taking, or bearing, on, or away : and the latter being specific, and confined to the single mode of bearing, as a burden- And now by the same steps by which the prophet and the evangelist have been reconciled, we find the original objec- tion derived from St. Matthew's application of the prophecy completely removed : since we now see, that the bearing, applied by the evangelist to bodily disease, is widely differ- ent from that which the prophet has applied to sins ; so that no conclusion can be drawn from the former use of the word, which shall be prejudicial to its commonly received sense in the latter relation. One point yet, however, demands explanation. It will be laid, that by this exposition, the prophet is no longer sup- posed to confine himself to the view of our redemption by Christ's sufferings and death ; but to take in also the consi- deration of his miraculous cures : and the evangelist, on the other hand, is represented as not attending merely to the cures performed by Christ, with which alone he was imme- diately concerned ; but as introducing the mention of his suf- fering for our sins, with which his subject had no natural con- nexion. Now to this I reply, first with regard to the prophet, that it is not surprising, that so distinguishing a character of the Messiah, as that of his healing all manner of diseases with a word ; and one, which this prophet has elsewhere (xxxv. 5.) depicted so strongly that our Saviour repeats his very words, {Batfs Diss. 2d. edit. p. 109.) and refers to them in proof that he was the Messiah; (Mat. xi. 4. and Beausobre * The late Principal Campbell, has, I find, been led by a close examina- tion of the subject to the translation of the evan.^elist which has been here contended for : "He hath himseif cxk^ieu off our infirmities, and EORNE our DISTRESSES " In his note on the passage, he falls, indeed, into the common mistake of supposing that St. Peter and St Matthew refer to the same part of the prophecy of Isaiah ; remarking, that " we should rather call that the fulfilment of the prophecy, which is mentioned 1 Pete? ii, 34."— — Campbell's Four Gospels, vol. iii. p. 66. and vol. iv. p. 7^. *238 THE DEATH OP CHRIST in loc.) — it is not, I say, surprising, that this character of Christ should be described by the prophet. And that it should be introduced in this place, where the prophet's main object seems to be to unfold the plan of our redemption, and to represent the Messiah as suiFering for the sins of men, will not appear in any degree unnatural, when it is considered that the Jews familiarly connected the ideas of sin and dis- ease ; the latter being considered by them the temporal-^ punishment of the former. So that he, who was described as averting, by what he was to suffer^ the penal consequences of sin, w^ould naturally be looked to, as removing, by what he was to perform, its temporal effects : and thus the men- tion of the one would reasonably connect with that of the other ; the whole of the prophetic representation becoming, as Kennicot happily expresses it, " Descriptio Messiae bene- volentissime et a2;entis et patientis," (Diss, Gen. § 79.) That the evangelist, on the other hand, though speaking more immediately of the removal of bodily diseases, should at the same time quote that member of the prophecy, which related to the more important part of Christ's office, that of saving men from their sins, will appear equally reasonable, if it be recollected, that the sole object, in referring to the prophet concerning Jesus, was to prove him to be the Mes- siah ; and that the distinguishing character of the Messiah was, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, (Luke i. 77.) So that the evan- gelist may be considered as holding this leading character primarily in view ; and, at the same time, that he marks to the Jews, the fulfilment of one part of the prophecy, by the healing of their bodily distempers, or as Dr. Taylor well ex- presses it, represents our Lord, as acting one part of his saving work described by the prophet, he directs their atten- tion to that other greater object of our Saviour's mission, on which the prophet had principally enlarged : namely, the procuring forgiveness of their sins by his suffering. And thus, the present fulfilment of the prophecy was, at the same time, a designation of the person, and a pledge of the future more ample completion of the prediction. Grotius, notwith- * For abundant proof of tlus, see Whitby on Mat. viii. 17. and particu- larly on ix. 2. See also Groiius, Beaxtsobre, and liosentnul/eVf on Mat. ix. 2. Brusius on the same, Crit. Sac. torn. vi. p. 288; and Doederl. on Isa. liii. 4. Martivd also on the same passag-e observes, " Ipsa vero dicendi formula interpretanda est ex opinione constante turn populorum antiquiorum omnium, tum maxime Orientalium, qua graviores calamitates quascunque, sive illze morbis et corporis cruciatibus, sive allis adversitatibus contineren- tur, immediate ad Deum, peccatorum vindicem refeiTe, easque tanquarn poenas ab irato numine inflictas, considerare solebant." 5e« liosemnuller on Isaiah liii. 4. A FROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 239 atanding he has fallen into the common error, respecting the word irbn in Isaiah, and the supposition that St. Peter and St. Matthew refer to the same part of the prophecy, deserves particularly to be consulted on this passage of Matthew. Cocceius also, in his Lexicon, (on the word h^D) gives this excellent explanation ; " he hath taken on himself (suscepit) our sorrows or sufferings, eventually to bear them away, as he has now testified by the carrying away our bodily distem- pers." If it should be asked, why, if it were a principal object with the evangelist to point out the great character of the Messiah as suffering for sins, he did not proceed to cite those other parts of the prophecy, which are still more explicit on that head ; I answer, that having to address himself to those who were perfectly conversant in the prophecies, he here, as elsewhere, contents himself with referring to a prediction, with the particulars of which he supposes his readers to be familiarly acquainted ; merely directing them to the person of whom it treats, and then leaving it to themselves to carry on the parallel between the prophecy and the farther verifi- cation in Jesus. On St. Matthew's peculiar mode of citing . the prophecies, see some excellent observations of Dr. Town- son. Disc, iv. Sect. ii. § 5. and Sect. iv. § 3. If, after all that has been said, any doubt should yet re- main, as to the propriety of thus connecting together, either in the prophet or the evangelist, the healing of diseases and the forgiveness of sins, I would beg of the reader to attend particularly to the circumstance of their being connected to- gether frequently by our Lord himself. Thus, he says to the sick of the palsy, when he healed him, thy sins be for- given thee. (Mat. ix. 2.) And, that bodily diseases were not only deemed by the Jews, but were in reality, under the first dispensation, in many instances, the punishment of sin, we may fairly infer from John v. 14. where Jesus said to him whom he had made whole : Sin no more, lest a worse thiufr come unto thee. It should be observed also, that what in Mark iv. 12. is expressed, and their sins should be forgiven them, is given in Mat. xiii. 15. and I should heal them. See also James v. 15. and Isaiah xxxiii. 24. and observe the male- dictions against the transgressors of the law in Dent, xxviii. 21. See also, in addition to the authors named in p. 238, Orot. on John v. 14. Glass. Phil. Sac. a Dath. p. 972, and Le Clerc, and particularly Pole^s Syn. on Mat. ix. 2. I have dwelt thus long upon this head, because there is no point on which the adversaries, not only of the doctrine of atonement, but of that of the divine inspiration of the evan- gelistH, rely more triumphantly, than on the supposed dis- 240 THE DEiiTH OF CHRIST agreement between St. Matthew, and the prophet from whom he quotes in the passage before us. We come now to th« riECOND head of objection; namely, that the words in the original, which are rendered by bearing sins, do not admii the signification of suffering for them: but are, both in this prophecy, and elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, un- derstood in the sense of taking them away. The two words, which are used by the prophet to express hearing sin, are, as we have seen, p. 221, S^D in the 11th verse, and ^m m the 12th. Let us then inquire in what sense these words are used in other parts of the Old Testament. The word Nsyj, it is true, as we have already seen with respect to the 4th verse, is often applied in the signification of hear- ing away ; but being (like the word hear m English, which has no less than 38 different acceptations in Johnson's Diet.) capable of various meanings, according to the nature of the subject with which it is connected ; so we find it, when joined with the word sin, constantly used throughout scripture, either in the sense oi forgiving it, on the one hand; or of sustaining, either directly or in figure, the penal consequences of it, on the other. Of this latter sense, I find not less than 37 instances, exclusive of this chapter of Isaiah ; in all of which, bearing the burden of sins, so as to be rendered liable to suffer on account of them, seems clearly and unequivocal- ly expressed. In most cases, it implies punishment endured, or incurred : whilst in some few, it imports no more than a representation of that punishment, as in the case of the scape- goat, and in that of Ezechiel lying upon his side, and thereby bearing the iniquity, i. e. representing the punishment "^due to the iniquity of the house of Israel. But in no one of all this number can it be said to admit the signification of carry- ing away, unless perhaps in the case of the scape-goat. Lev. xvi. 22. and in that of the priests, Ex. xxviii. 38. and Lev. X. 17. and of these no more can be alleged, than that they may be so interpreted. See on these at large, p. 241 — 246. To these instances of the word ii.m, connected with NCDH, p;% sins, iniquities, &c. may fairly be added those in which it stands combined with the words nsin, nn^D, disgrace, re- proach, shame, &c. of which there are 18 to be found: and in all of them, as before, the word is used in the sense of enduring, suffering. The idea therefore of a burden to hi sustained, is evidently contained in all these passages. Of the former sense of the word, when connected with sins, in- iquitics, offences, either expressed or understood, namely, that of forgiving, there are 22 ; in all of which cases, the. ♦ See J^e'ii;coine, Muns. Vatabl. and Clarius on Ezech, iv. 4, 5. A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 241 nominative to the verb f^i^J is the person who was to grant forgiveness. To forgive then, on the part of him, who had the power so to do ; and to sustain, on the part of him, who .>vas deemed either actually or figuratively the offender, seem to exhaust the significations of the word XK'J, when connected with sins, transgressions, and words of that import. In conformity with this induction, Schindler (Lex. Pentag, in Xiyj, No. III.) affirms, that this verb, when joined with the word si7i, always signifies either to forgive it ; or to bear it, i. e. to suffer for it : remittere, cotidonare ; vel lucre, dare pcBuas, Now it has been commonly taken for granted, and Socinus even assumes it as the foundation of his argument, {De Jes. Chr. part 2. cap. 4.) that this signification of forgiveness, which evidently is not the radical meaning of the word, has been derived from the more general one of bearing away, removing. But this seems to have had no just foundation : bearing away, necessarily implying something of a burden to be carried, it seems difficult to reconcile such a phrase with the notion of that Being, to whom this act of forgiveness is attributed, throughout the Old Testament. May not the word have passed to this acceptation, through its primary sense of bearing ; namely, suffering through patience, en- during, or bearing with ? And it is remarkable that Cocceius, at the same time that he complies with the general idea, of referring the signification of the word in the sense of /orgiv- ing sin to its acceptation of tollere, auferre, admits, that " in this phrase is contained the notion of bearing ; ferundi, i\em\)e ]per patient iam.^* (^Lexic. on iWi Number IX.) It is certain that the mercy of God is represented throughout scripture, as being that of long-suffering, and of great pa- tience. See Ps. Ixxxvi. 15. and particularly Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7. and Numb. xiv. 18. where this very character is joined with the word mi, as that under which the Deity is represented as forgiving iniquity. And it is deserving of remark, that in the verse following the passage in Numbers, the forgiveness expressed by the word xtyj, is described to be of that nature that implies patient endurance, for it is said, as thou hast for- given, nnxa^J, this people, from egypt even until now. Agreeably to this reasoning, Houbigant translates the word icti?c£ by the Seventy, for the Hebrew NB'J, s.upplied a proof that they understood the original wor-d in the sense of leaving away, then must they have understood Levit. ix. 22. in the sense of Aaron's bearing away his handy and Numb. xxiv. 2. in the sense of Ba~ laa7ii^s bearing AviKY his eyes ; for in both of these places have they ren- dered i^SJ'J by i^d-tocc. But this, it is clear, would make actual nonsense of those passages : the sense being manifestly that of lifting vp in both. In this sense, indeed, it will be found upon examination, that the word t^nigco has been applied by the LXX, in every case where it has been substituted for the Hebrew Nl^i throughout the Bible : the only places where it has been so used, being these which follow. — Gen. xsix. 1. Exod. xxviii. 38. Lev. ix. 22. Numb. xxiv. 2- Jer. li. 9. Ezech. i. 19, 20, 21. iii. 14. x. 16. ^x. 15, 23. Dan, ii,35. Zech. v. / A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 243'' The word j<*♦ the word used by Svmmacbiis is ufpai^tn. iJ44 • *HE DEATH OF CHRIST ' 0. where the original is nSo, condono. And thus, no argu- uient arises in favour of the signification of bearing away. But moreover the sense of the word u A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 245 &€. There, the Jews are ordered not to eat blood, and the reason is assigned ; for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make atonement (ii3DS, for the making atonement) /or your souls, &c. Now, because the word yoii happens to lie nearest to the verb 13dS in this sentence, are we to infer, that the persons spoken to, were to make the atonement, and not the blood, which though it happens to be placed farthest from the verb, is yet the subject evidently carried through the whole sentence, and is immediately after pronounced to be that which made the atonement? Yet this is the reasoning applied to the former passage, which is precisely parallel. Indeed I cannot help thinking, that the whole of this pas- sage in Lev. X. 17. has been hitherto misunderstood; and although, independent of the explanation which I am going to offer, the sense of the word bear which I contend for, seems already sufficiently established : yet since this is an interpretation which appears generally to have been over* looked, I must beg to propose it here. Moses rebukes the sons of Aaron, because they had not eaten the sin-offering, as he had before commanded should be done, in the 6th chap- ter. Now, in that chapter he had directed, that the offering for the priests should 7iot be eaten, but entirely consumed with fire, (verse 23.) but that the sin-offering for the people^ should be eaten by the priests (verse 26.) In the 9th chap- ter we find Aaron, under the direction of Moses, presenting a sin-offering for himself, and another for the people ; but, in- stead of obeying Moses's commands respecting the sin-offer- 4ng for the people by eating it, he had burned it, as well as the sin-offering for himself. This is the occasion of Moses's displeasure, (x. 16.) and he reminds the sons of Aaron (verse 17.) that the goat being the sin-offering /or the people, being appointed to bear the iniquity of the congregation, (not that of the priests,) it should therefore have been eaten. The force of the passage then is not God hath given it you to (eat, that by so doing ye might) bear (away) the iniquity of the congregation, &c. but, God hath given you it (to eat, it be- ing the offering appointed to bear, or as is the strict transla- tion) for the bearing (in whatever sense the sacrifice was usually conceived to bear) the iniquity of the congregation. This seems the most obvious and intelligible construction of- this passage ; and if this be admitted, it is evident that this text furnishes no support to the opinions of those who object to the sense of the word bear, contended for in this Number. As little support will the remaining text supply, which rr lates to the scape-goat, Lev. xvi. 22. That the scapp-G^oal. was represented as going into the.wilderRo^S; whilst ho ^yw- 246 -^ THE DEATH OF CHRIST bolically bore the sins of the people, which had been laid upon him, is certain; and that he consequently bore them awai/, is equally certain ; but that it thence follows, that the word used to express his bearing those sins, must of itself signify to bear away, seems an unwarrantable conclusion. Their being borne away, was a necessary consequence of the goat's going away, whilst the symbolical burden lay upon his head, and therefore proves nothing as to the meaning of the word here rendered to hiar. Any word which implied the sustaining a burden in any way, might have here been equally applied, unless it at the same time conveyed the no- tion of standing still under the burden, of which, language (as far as I know) does not supply an instance. So that, in fact, the argument here seems to amount to this : that the word hear, leads the mind to bearing away, 7vhen the word away is connected with it: — a position not necessary to combat. It deserves also to be remarked, that the Seventy have not here used any of those terms, which might be supposed to countenance the sense of bearing away. Ay«^£f6>, ocrotpe^a, ufpcci^ea, f|st/f6>, which Dr. Taylor, and those who adopt his notions, are so desirous of bringing forward on other occa- sions, as proving the Septuagint interpretation of «iyj in that sense, are all rejected by the LXX in this case ; in which, if bearing away was intended, these, or some word which might mark that meaning would most naturally have been adopted : and the Xxf^Qotta, by which Niyj is constantly rendered by the LXX in tho.se cases where the actual sustaining of sins and their consequences is concerned, is the term employed. We have now seen what is the full amount of Dr. Taylor's objections against our account of the scripture acceptation of the word »xiyj, when applied to sins. The three instances, whose value we have just considered, being all that he is able to oppose to a collection of 34 passages, which unequivocally apply the word itmis/imeni o/ their iniquities. The force of the word S^D, then, will not admit of question : and if any additional strength were wanting to the argument concerning the verb ^^i^J, this word S:3D standing connected with iniquity in the 11th verse, exactly as xiy: is with sin in the r2th, would abundantly sup- ply it. That Ntyj indeed, in all cases where the sense of forgiveness is not admissible, has the force of Sdd when used in relation to sins, will readily appear on examination. Their correspondence is particularly remarkable, in the parallel ap- plication of the two words in the passage of Lamentations just cited, and in those of Numb. xiv. 33. and Ezech. xviii. 19, 20. in which i^m is used to express the sons' bearing the wickedness of their fathers, in precisely the same sense in which S:2D is applied in the former. These two words then, am and to, being clearly used in the common sense of bearing sins, in the 11th and 12th verses of this chapter of Isaiah, it remains yet to ascertain, what is the scripture notion conveyed by that phrase. Now, this is evidently in all cases, the suffering, or being liable to suffer, some infliction on account of sin, which in the case of the offender himself, would properly be called punishment. This I take to be the universal meaning of the phrase. The familiar use of the words jW, n^^DH, iniquity, sin, for the pun- ishment^^ of iniquity ; or, as I would prefer to call it, the * See 2 Kings vii. 9. and Zech. xiv. 19. and besides all the ancient com- mentators, consult Bishop Loixth on Isai. xl. 2. Br, Blayney on Jer. li. 6. and Primate JVeviCome on Hos x. 13. — the last of whom subjoins the re- jnnrk, that ** this particular metonymy, of the cause for the effect, was na- tural among the Jews, whose law abounded with temporal sanctions, which Ood often inflicted." ■^. A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 249 suffering due to iniquity; fully justifies this explication of the phrase , and so obtrusive is its force, that we find this meaning conceded to the expression even by Sykes, (Kssay on Sac. p. 146*) Crellius, {Resp. ad Grot. p. 20.) and Soci- iius himself. {De Jes. Chr. pars ii. cap. 4.) But, although the phrase of bearing sin is admitted by all to mean, bearing the punishment or consequences of sin, in the case where a man's own sin is spoken of, yet it is denied that it admits that significatiouj where the sin of another is concerned: see Scrip. Ace. of Sacr, p. 14*2. Now, in an* swer to this, it is sufficient to refer to the use of the expres- sion in Lament, v. 7. compared with Jer. xxxi. 29, 30. and to the application of it also in Ezech. xviii. 19, 20. and in Numb. xiv. 33. In all of these, the sons are spoken of as hearing the sins of their fathers : and in none can it be pre- tended, that they were to bear them in the sense of bearing them away, or in any other sense than in ihdX oi suffering for them : and the original term employed to express this, is S^D in the passage in Lamentations, and «b?3 in all the rest. Dr. Blayney translates the passage in Lamentations, Our fathers have sinned, but they are no more, and we have UNDERGOPfB THE PUNISHMENT OP THEIR INIQUITIES. Datho renders the expression, both here and in Ezechiel, by luere peccata ; and at the same time affirms, (on Jer. xxxi. 29.) that the meaning of the proverb adduced both in Jeremiah and Eze- -chiel is, " that God punishes the sins of the fathers in the children." The proverb, to Which he alludes, is that of the fathers having eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth being set on edge. The time is approaching, Jeremiah says, in which this shall not be any longer, bid every man shall DIE FOR HIS OWN INIQUITY. And this time, he subjoins, is to be under the new covenant, which was to be made with the Jewish people, and which was to diffi^r from that which pre- ceded, in that God was not, as hitherto, to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, but to visit each individual for his own transgressions. The same subject is more largely and explicitly treated by Ezechiel. The proverb used by Jeremiah is repeated by this prophet ; and as Primate Newcome observes, is well ren- dered by the Chaldee. " The fathers have sinned, and the sons are smitten." This, he says, refers to the second com- mandment ; and on the peculiar principles of the Jewish dis- pensation, he admits the reasonableness of it as a judicial infliction. Dr. Blayney, indeed, thinks otherwise, although he has expressly translated the passage in Lamentations, We have undergone the punishment of their iniqitities. — Tjiis seems not consistent. Yet he peremptorily rejects t^he Vx G -250 THE DEATH OF CHRIST notion of this as a judicial infliction. Had Dr. Blayney^ however, considered that the penalties thus inflicted, were such as belonged to the old covenant, namely temporal, he would have seen no difficulty in this dispensation, as affecting the equity of God's proceedings ; nor would he have been reduced to the inconsistency of calling that a. punishment, in one place, which be contends cannot be a judicial infiictioR in another. Let us follow the prophet a little farther : — he declares, as Jeremiah had done, that this shall no longer be. The judi- cial dispensation of the new covenant shall be of a different nature. In future, the soul that sinneth, it shall die — if a man be just he shall live; but if he hath done abominations, HE shall surety die; his blood shall be upon him (upon his own head) and yet ye say, why? doth not the soif BEAR the iniquity OF THE FATHER? The prophct replies ; True, but this shall no longer be ; 7vhen the son hath done judgment and justice he shall surely live. The soul that sin- neth, IT shall die; the son shall not bear(i\..S, Otfyi^ai:) yOj] *Qio]o :vpOT2i3 rr<^^^ Wpmn Et portavit peccata ■nostra oTnnia, et sustulit ilia in corpore mo ad cmcem. Here the word >\2a> portabat quasi pondus. is unequivocal and decisive. — N. B. ^ScAacj/" has leur dered the Syriac, cum corpore sua,- whilst it more naturally adipit* the iieiKlering", jn corpore siio, agreeably to the common translation, H H 5E5^ THE DEATH OP CHRIST The observations contained in this Number, will enable us to form a just estimate of Dr. Priestley's position ; that nei- ther in the Old Testament, nor in those parts of the New, where it might most naturally be expected, namely, in the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, as recorded in the Gospels and Acts, do we find any trace of the doctrine of atonement. On this Dr. Priestley observes, with no little confidence, in the Theol. Rep, vol. i. p. 327 — 3^3. and again, in his Hist, of Cor,\o\. i. p. 158 — 164. Surely, in answer to such an assertion, nothing more can be necessary, than to recite the prophecy of Isaiah, which has just been examined, and in which it is manifest that the whole scheme of the doc- trine of atonement is minutely set forth : so manifest, indeed^ that notwithstanding his assertion, Dr. Priestley is compelled to confess, {Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 530.) that " this prophecy seenis to represent the death of Christ, in the light of a satis- faction for sin." But the emptiness of the position is not more clearly evin- ced by this, and other parts of the Old Testament which might be adduced, than by the language of our Saviour and his apostles, in those very parts of the New Testament to which this writer chooses to confine his search, the Gospels and Acts, For, when the angel dedares to Joseph, that his name shall be called Jesus^for he shall save his jyeople from their sins, Mat. i. 21. when John, who was sent to announce the Messiah, and to prepare men for his reception, and from whom a sketch at least of our Saviour's character and the nature of his mission might be expected, proclaims him the Lamb of God, which takeih away the siiis of the world ; (Joh. f. 29.) thus directing the attention of his hearers to the notion of sacrifice and atonement : (see Number XXV.) when we fiitd St. John (xi. 50, 6\, 52.) relating the saying of Caiaphas, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people, AND THAT THE WHOLE NATION PERISH NOT; and remarking on this, that Caiaphas had said this under a prophetic im- pulse, for that Jesus should die for that nation, a^d not for THAT NATION ONLY, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God, that were scattered abroad: when we find our Lord himself declare, that he came to give his life a ransom for many, (Mat. xx. 28.) and again, at the last supper, an occasion which might be supposed to call for some explanation of the nature and benefits of the death which he was then about to suffer, using these remarkable words; This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, (Mat. xxvi. 28.) w^hich words Dr. Priestley himself admits {Theol. Rep* vol. i. pp. 345, 346.) to imply, " that the death of Christ in some respects resem- I A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. £59 bles a sin-offering under the law" when, I say, these pas~ fiages are to be ibund, all referring, more or less directly, to the notion of atonement : when it is considered also, that this notion of atonement was rendered perfectly familiar by the law ; and when to these reflections it is added, that the prophecy of Isaiah, to which reference is made in some, pos- sibly in all of these, had, by describing Christ as a sin-offer- ing, already pointed out the connexion between the atone- ments of the law, and the death of Christ : there seems little foundation for the assertion, that nothing whatever appears in the Gospels or Acts, to justify the notion of atonements But admitting, for the sake of argument, that no instance to justify such a notion did occur, what is thence to be infer- red 1 Are the many and clear declarations on this head, in the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, to be pro- nounced surreptitious 1 Or, have these writers broached doc- trines, for which they had no authority ? Let Dr. Priestley take his choice. If he adopt neither part of the alternative^ his argument goes for nothing. But why, it may still be urged, are not the communications upon this subject, as frequent and forcible in the Gospels and Acts, as in the epistles ? Why did not our Lord himself un- fold to his hearers, in its fullest extent, this great and import- ant object of his mission? — Why, I ask in return, did he not, at his first coming, openly declare that he was the Messiah? Why did he not also fully unfold that other great doctrine, which it was a principal (or as Dr. Priestley will have it, Hist, of Cor. vol. i, p. 175. the sole) " object of ^lis mission to ascertain and exemplify, namely, that of a resurrection and a future state?" The igihorance of the Jews at large» and even of the apostles themselves, on this head, is noto- rious, and is weil enlarged upon by Mr. Veysie, {Bampt. Led. Serm. p. 138 — 198.) There seems, then, at least, as much reason for our Lord's rectifying their errors, and sup- plying them with specific instructions on this head, as there could be on the subject of atonement. But besides, there appears a satisfactory reason, why the doctrine of atonement is not so fully explained, and so fre- quently insisted on, in the discourses of our Lord and hii^ apostles, as in the epistles to the early converts. Until it was clearly established that Jesus was the Messiah ; and un- til, by his resurrection crowning all his miraculous acts, it was made manifest, that he who had been crucified by the Jews, was iiij who nas to save them and all mankind from their sins, it must have been premature and useless to explain, how this was to be effected. To gain assent to plain facts, Jras found a sufficient trial for the incrediility and rooted pre m. THE DEATH OF CHRIST judices of the Jews, in the first instance. Even to his tm- mediate followers, our Lord declares, / have many things to say to yon, bnt ye cannot bear them now : John xvi. 12. And accordingly, both he, and they afterwards following his exam- ple, proceeded by first establishing the fact of his divine mission, before they insisted upon its end and design, which involved matters more difficult of apprehension and accept- ance. Besides, it should be observed, that the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, were generally addressed to per- sons, to whom the ideas of atonement were familiar, whereas the epistles were directed to those who were not acquainted with the principles of the Mosaic atonement ; excepting only that addressed to the Hebrews, in which, the writer solely endeavours to prove the death of Christ, to fall in with those notions of atonement, which were already familiar to the persons whom he addressed. But Dr. Priestley is not content to confine himself to those parts of scripture, where a full communication of the doctrine of atonement was least likely to be made. Having from long experience learned the value of a confident asser- tion, he does not scruple to lay down a position yet bolder than the former ; namely, " that in no part either of the Old or New Testament, do we ever find asserted, or explained, the principle on which the doctrine of atonement is founded: but that, on the contrary, it is a sentiment every where abounding, that repentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to recommend us to the favour of God." (^TheoL Rep. vol. i. p. 263.) How little truth there is in the latter part of the assertion, has been already considered in Num- bers IX. and XVni. That the former part is equally des- titute of foundation, will require but little proof. The en- tire language of the epistles is a direct contradiction to it. The very prophecy which has been the principal subject of this Number, overturns it. It is in vain that Dr. Priestley endeavours to shelter this assertion under an extreme and exaggerated statement of what the principle of atonement is ; namely, ^< that sin is of so heinous a nature, that God cannot pardon it without an adequate satisfaction being made to his justice." It is an artifice not confined to Dr. Priestley, to propound (he doctrine in these rigorous and overcharged terms ; and, at the same time to combat it in its more moderate and quali- fied acceptation : thus insensibly transferring to the latter, the sentiment of repugnance excited by the former. But, that God's displeasure against sin is such, that he has or- fJained that the sinner shall not be admitted to reconciliation mi] favour, but in virtue of that great sacrifice which has A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 261 Ijeen offered for the sins of men, exemplifying the desert of guilt, and manifesting God's righteous abhorrence of those sins, which required so severe a condition of their forgive- ness : that this, I say, is every where the language of scrip- ture, cannot possibly be denied. And it is to no purpose that Dr. Priestley endeavours by a strained interpretation, to remove the evidence of a single text, when almost every sentence that relates to the nature of our salvation conveys the same ideas. That text, however, which Dr. Priestley has laboured to prove in opposition to the author of Jesus Christ the Mediator, not to be auxiliary to the doctrine of atonement, I feel little hesitation in restating, as expla- natory of its true nature and import. Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de- clare his righteousness for the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God : to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and (i. e. al- though) the jusTiFiER of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom* iii. 25, 26.^^ * I had, in the former editions of this work, adopted Primate Newcome's explanation of the v^ord (fiKsnoa-uvH ; conceiving- the idea of justification, or ine- tliod of justification, to be better calculated than that of righteousness, (the term employed by the common version,) to convey an adequate sense of the orig-inal. On perusing* the observations of Mr- Nares, in his Itonarks on the Unitarian Version of the JVew Testament, p. 150 — 153. I am now indu- ced to alter my opinion : being fully satisfied, that that learned and ingeni- ous writer has caught the true spirit of the original passage; and that the object of the inspired reasoner is not so much to show how, in the method adopted for the remission of sins, tnercy was to be displayed, as how, notwith- standing this display of mercy, ^ws^ice was to be maintained. In either view^ the sense undoubtedly terminates in the same point, the reconciling with each other the two attributes of mercy and justice ; but the emphasis of the argument takes opposite directions ; and that, in the view which Mr, Nares has preferred, it takes the right direction, must be manifest on con- sidering that, in the remission of sins, mercy is the quality that immediately presents itself, whilst justice might seem to be for the time superseded. On this principle of interpretation, the sentence will stand thus. Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the manifesta- tion of his JUSTICE (his just and rigliteous dealing) concerning the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God : for the iiianifestation, at this time, of his justice, that Iw might Ae just, and (i. e. although) the justi- riER of hiori that believeth in Jesus. The justice of the Deity, or his regard, to what his righteous and just, is thus declared not to have been departed from in the scheme of redemption : this scheme bearing a two-fold relation to sinners, in such a manner, that whilst it manifested the Tnercy of God, it should at the same time in no degree lay a ground for the impeachment of his justice. This view of the case will be found exactly to agree with what has been already advanced at p. 127. The reader who will turn to the Jin- notations of Diodati, p. 117, will be pleased with the observations which tie will there find upon this subject. Having been led by the discussion of this text to the mention of Mr. Kares's work, I cannot avoid expressing my regret, that the present edition has travelled thus far on its way to the public eye without those aids, vvhich an earlier appearance of that valuable performance would have secured to, 2§^ THIS PEATH or CHRIST, &C. To argue here, as is done by Dr. Priestley and others, that the word ^4.A. STim. iv. 8. Adoc. xix. 2. t264 THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN. this subject. They represent the death of Christ, not as & 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 show 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 they admit of such application. Upon the whole, the opposers of the proper sacrifice of Christ, on the ground of necessary inefiicacy, are reduced to this alternative ; — that no proper sacrifice for sin ever exist- ed, and that consequently, in no sense whatever, not even rn 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 figura- tive : 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 oi 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. Lau- rence, in the discourse which he has lately published on The Metaphorical Character of the Apostolical Style, has thrown out some valuable ideas, which well deserve to be considered. No. XLIV. ON THE NATURE OF THE SiVCRIFICE FOR SIN. Page 36. (w) — I have not scrupled to adopt this definition, as it stands in the 2d vol. of Theol. Rep. Numb. 1. to the judicious author of which paper I am indebted for some va- luable reflections on this subject. On the true nature of the sacrifice for sin, see also HalleVs 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 par- ticularly worthy of attention. OOCTfelNE OF ATONEMENT CONDtJCIVE, &C. 265 No. XLV. ON THE EFFECT OP THE DOCTRINE OF ATONE- MENT IN PRODUCING SENTIMENTS FAVOURABLE TO VIR- TUE AND RELIGION. Page 37. (x) — 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, aiid of the evil and demerit of sin," excited by the scheme of redemption here maintained, are " sentiments of power- ful 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^' mer- cy : 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 ininds, 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 pro- duce upon the minds of men, impressions as powerful as the habitual fear of offending ? That the desire of happiness acts upon us but through the medium of present inquietude ; that we seek after it only in the degree in which we feel uneasy from the want of it : and that fear is in itself, however remote its object, an instant and perpetually acting stimulus. Dr. Priestley is too well acquainted with the nature of the human mind not to admit. And, I apprehend, he would consider that civil government but badly secured, which rested upon no other support than that of gratitude and the hope of re- ward, rejecting altogether the succour of judicial infliction. But besides, in comparing the effects upon the human mind, of gratitude for the divine mercies, and fear of the divine justice, it is to be remembered, that one great advantage, which we ascribe to the latter, is this ; that those humble feelings, which the apprehension of the great dement of sin • Bishop Watson, in speaking- of that arro{jant and dogmatical theology, that decrees t!ie 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 iiis nature ; but we do not know whether the requisition of an atonement for transgression may not be an evianation of his injinite "nwrcy, rather than a deinandof his inji- ■lile justice. We do not know, wiiether it may not be tiie very best nieanii of preserving the innocence and happiness not only of us, but of all other frea :ind intelligent beings. We do not know, whether the suffering of an inno- cent person, may not be productive of a degree of good, infinitely surpass- ing* the evil of such sufferance; nor whether such a quantum of good could, Hy any other meansj have been produced."— ■T'-a-o Jpolo^i^e, 8tc. pp 466>46f. I I *2C6 DOGTRIISFE OP ATONEMENT CONDUCIVHj &G. and of the punishment due to our offences must naturally excite, dispose us the more readily to place our whole reliance .on God, and not presuming on our own exertions, to seek in all cases his sustaining aid. Farther,. admitting that the bulk of mankind, (who, after all, and not merely ingenuous minds, are, as Doctor Priestley confesses, " the persons to be wrought upon,") were as strongly influenced by love of the good- uess of God, as by fear of his justice, it by no means follows, that " the doctrine of atonement must lose in one way what it gains in another :" because it is not true, that " the fear of the divine justice must sink our ideas of the divine mercy." On the contrary, the greater the misery from which men have been released, the greater must be their gratitude to their deliverer. And thus, whilst the divine rectitude rendered it unavoidable, that the offender should be treated in a different manner from the obedient ; the mercy which devised a me> thod, whereby that rectitude should remain uninfringed, and yet the offender forgiven, cannot but awaken the strongest feelings of gratitude and love. Dr. Priestley however contends, that even the advantage ascribed to the doctrine of atonement, namely, that of excit- ing apprehensions of the divine justice and of the evil and de- merit of sin, does not strictly belong to it; "for that severity .should work upon men, the offenders themselves should* feel it." Now, this I cannot understand. It seems much the same as to sa^-, that in order to feel the horror of falling down a precipice, on the edge of which he hangs, a man must be actually dashed down the steep. \Vill not the danger produce sensations of terror? And will not the person who snatches me from that danger, be viewed with gratitude as having rescued me from destruction? Or is it necessary that I should not be saved, in order to know from what I have been .saved.'' Can any thingimpress us witha stronger sense of God's hatred to sin, of the severe punishment due to it, and of the danger to which we are consequently exposed if we comply iiot with his terms of forgiveness, than his appointing the sa- criiice of his only begotten Son, as the condition on which * The " ne non tlmere quidem sine allquo tiniore possimus" of Tully. seems an idea quite inconceivable to Dr. Priestley. — On this subject I beg to direct the reader's attention to the words of the late Bishop Porteus, and particularly to the striking" and beautiful expression in tiie concluding- clause, takt-n from Scott^s Christian Life. — V By accepting- the death of Christ in- stead of ours, by laying- on him the iniquity of us all, God certainly g-ave us ihe most astonishing- proof of his mercy : and yet, by accepting- no less a sacrifice than that of his own Son, he has, by this most expressive and trr- inendous act, sig-nified to the whole world such extreme indig-nation at sin, jis may well alarm, even while he saves us, and make us tremble at his sctc- rity, even i:chil€ Vic are xvithin the art/is of his ^nercy.^' Portcus's Sermon;^, li. p. 56, MOBAIC SACRIFICES NOT DERIVED, &C. 267 alone he has thought it right to grant us forgiveness ? Do we not in this see every thing to excite our tear T do we not see every thing to awaken our gratitude ? No. XLVI. OPf THE SUPPOSITION THAT SACRIFICE ORIGINATED IN PRIESTCRAFT. Page 43. {y) — Some of those objectors, who call them- sjelves enlightened, but whose opinions would scarcely deserve notice were it not to mark their absurdity, have sagaciously conjectured, that sacrifice was the invention of priestcraft. Morgan (Moral. Phil. p. 236.) and Tindal, (Christ, as old as the Great, p. 79.) exult in this discovery. But, in the elevation of their triumph, they have totally forgotten to in- form us, who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel : or, if we consent to set aside the history of that first sacrifice, in compliance with the dislike which such gentlemen enter- tain for the book in which it is contained, we have still to learn of them, in what manner the fathers and heads of families, (by whom, even Morgan himself confesses, sacrifices were first offered,) contrived to convert the oblation of their own flocks and fruits into a gainful traffic. And indeed, after all, the priests, or as he calls them, " holy butchers," whom Tindal wittily represents, " as sharing with their gods, and reserving the best bits for themselves," seem to have possessed ai very extraordinary taste : the skin of the burnt-offering among the Jews, (Lev. vii. 8.) and the skin and feet among the hea- thens, (Pott. Antiq. vol. i. book ii. ch. 3.) being the best bits which the priests cunningly reserved for their own use.";^' Such impotent cavils, contemptible as they are, may yet be considered of value in this light : they imply an admission, that the invention of sacrifice on principles of natural reason is utterly inconceivable : since, if any such principles could be pointed out, these writers, whose main object is to under- mine the fabric of revelation, would gladly have resorted to them, in preference to suppositions so frivolous and absurd. No. XL VII. ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES ORIGINATED IN HUMAN INVENTION. Page 43. (s) — Anv)ng the supporters of this opinion, there are undoubtedly to be reckoned many distinguished names : Maimonides, 11. Levi Ben Gerson, and Abarbanel, amongst the Jews : and amongst the early Christians, Justin * See Belany's Revel. Exfim. vol. i. pp. 86, 87. and KcnnigotU 'J'^^vb 7?/.j ^^rt. pp. 2Q4, 205. 268 HOSAie SACRIFICES NOT DERIVE^ Martyr, the author of the questions and answers to the Or-. thodox in his works, Irenseus, Tertullian, Chrysostom,- Theo- doret, and Cyril of Alexandria ; who all concur in pronoun- cing the divine institution of the Mosaic sacrifices to have been an accommodation to the prejudices of the Jewish peo- ple, who had been trained up in the practice of sacrifice among the Egyptians ; to whom Porphyry attributes inven- tion of sacrifice, whilst others ascribe its origin to the Pheni- cians. To the above names are to be added, of later date, those of Grotius, Spencer, and Warburton. But to suppose that these most solemn rites of worship should have been ordained by a God of infinite wisdom and purity ; by a God who presents himself to the Jews in the character of a King jealous of his glory ; merely in compli- ance with the absurdities of pagan superstition, seems a notion little worthy of the names that have been mentioned. To imagine also, that the sacrifices of the patriarchs could have received the divine approbation, without the authority of di- vine institution, is to contradict the general tenor and express language of Scripture ; which supplies various instances, in which God resented, and severely punished, every species of mill-worships (as for example, in the case of Nadab and Abihu, who were struck dead for burninsc incense with strange fire,) and which expressly condemns, in Mat. xv. 9. and Co- loss, ii. 22, 23. that shMS^ntrKsta, which sprung from the de- vices and inventions of men. Spencer, indeed, who has most laboriously defended this notion of the human invention of sacrifices, in his book De Leg. Hebr. has endeavoured to prove, (lib. iii. diss. ii. cap. 4. sect. 2.) that St. Paul speaks of ^will-worship without * An argument, which has been used by Spencer in support of this opinion, ileserves particularly to be expf>sed. In speaking of" tite notion of the sa- crifice of Abel having been the consequence of a divine institution and command, he thus expresses himself : " Sententia hsec erroris inde mani- festa est, quod hoc ipso in commate, (Heb xi. 4.) ilUus oblata, non debita, sed cTfligit, ab Apostolo appellentur r nam imie patet, Abelis oblationem e pio voluntatis proprise motu, potius quam legis alicujus praescripto prodiisse." Spenc Be Leg Hebr. ii. 769 — Here it is directly contended, that the autho- rity of the writer to the Hebrews gives support to the assertion that the oflferingof Abel was purely voluntary; and this is deduced from the force of the term Secret employed by that writer in the passage of the epistles above referred to. But the leamed author is altogether inexcusable in drawing such a conclusion: inasmuch as it can hardly be supposed, that he was unaware of the sense, in which the writer to the Hebrews has r.pplied the term effflgst, in every other passage, in which it occtu's throughout the epistle ; namely, as referring to oblations under the Mosaic law, which con- sequently were the result of specific institution, and in which no one part even of the ceremonial of the oblation was left to the free choice of the of- ferer. Nor can it easily be believed, that the author could have been igno- rant, that in above seventy passages of the Old Testament the word (Twgst is used by the JLXX for the Hebrew p'lp; in every one of which passages near- FROM HUMAN INVENTION. 269 disapprobation. In this, however, he is completely answered by ^ Witsius : and with respect to the circumstance of resem blance between the Jewish religion and those of the ancient heathen natioiffe, on which the reasoning of this author through the entire of his voluminous work is founded, Shuckford as- serts, that so far is it from justifying the infierence which he has drawn, namely, that God had instituted the one in imita- tion of the other, that the direct contrary is the legitimate conclusion : inasmuch as " no one ceremony can be produced, common to the religion of Abraham or Moses, and to that of the heathen nations, but that it may be proved, that it was? used by Abraham or Moses, or by some of the true worship- pers of God, earlier than by any of the heathen nations." {Connexion, &c. vol. i. p. 317.) It is to be remarked, that to those who have been already named, as supporting the hypothesis of the human invention of sacrifice, are to be added, in general, the writers of the popish church ; who, in order to justify their will-worship, or appointment of religious rites without divine institution, allege the example of the patriarchs in tlie case of sacrifices, and the approbation bestowed by God upon these acts of worship, though destitute of the sanctions of his command. One writer of that church, (a writer, however, whom she will not be very ambitious to claim) has indeed carried this point yet farther: inasmuch as he contends not only for the human invention of sacrifice, but for its mere human adoption into the Jewish ritual without any divine sanction or authori- ty whatever. The words of this writer, which I confess I think worth quoting, merely for the same reason for which the Spartan father exhibited his drunken Helot, are these. — - ** That the Supreme Being would imperiously require of mankind bloody victims, and even point out the particular animals that were to be immolated upon his altar, it is, to me, highly incredible ; but that superstition, the child of igno- rance and fear, should think of offering such sacrifices, it is not at all wonderful : nor need we think it strange, that Mo- ses, although a wise legislator, in this indulged the humour ly, the oblation under the prescription of the Levitical ritual is intended to be conveyed ; and indeed the word p'^p is the most general name for the sacrifices under the Mosaic law. Ste what is said on this word in Number 3LXII — The true and obvious reason why the writer to the Hebrews uses the term • S09. The ob- servations which this extraordinary writer, who wishes to be distinguished, by the title of a Catholic Christian, subjoins to the ])assage above re- ferred to, will serve still farther to show the true nature of his claims to that denomination. — " This name, (he says, alluding" to the name Jehovah) I think, he (Moses) must have learned 'in Midian: that he could not learu it in Egypt, is clear from this, that the name was not known there before he announced it as the name of the God of the Hebra-cs ,- and Jehovah himself is made to say, on mount Sinai, that he had never till then manifested him- self by that name : but that the name before that was known in Midian, nay, that it was the name of the Deity whom Jethro principally, or perhaps exclusively worshipped, to me appears very probable from several circum- stances." Having enumerated these circumstances, which enable him to pronounce that Moses had put a gross falsehood into the mouth of Jehovah \ipon this subject, he concludes thus; " From all this I think it probable, that the name Jehovah was known in Midian, Moab, and Syria, before the mission of Moses ; and that Moses may have borrowed it thence. — Those Viho literally believe luhat is related in the third chapter of Exodus, will sneer at this remark ; and they are welcome so to do : 1 will never be angry with any one for believing cither too inu ch or too little.^* Now if we follow this writer to his Remarks upon the third chapter of Exodus, we shall learn what it is that he considers as believing just enough. Moses, in that chapter, informs us of *' the angel of the Lord, appearing to him in a fiame of lire out of the midst of a bush ; — and of the divine mis- sion then expressly conveyed to him by God himself speaking out of the burning bush, and describing liimself as " the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." — Now what says Dr. Geddes on this ? " That in his apprehension, there might, in this particular apparition, be no other angel or messenger, tlian an uncommon luminous appearance in a bush of briers ; which attracted the attention of Moses, and might be considered by him as a divine call to return to Ksjypt, for the purpose of delivering his brethren from their iroii bondage." Then having />;ot)C£f the propriety of calling this himinous appearance in the bush of briers, the arigel of th& Lord, and even God himself, from the passage in the Psalmist, " The Lord maketh the winds his messengers, and flames of fire his ministers ;" and recollecting the necessity of explaining how this luminous appearance, or flaming angel, was enabled to hold in the name of the Most High, a long and distinct conversation with Moses, he boldly faces about, and meets the dif- ficulty at once.—" But can it be believed, that the whole dialogue contained int.hisand the following chapters, is founded upon the single phenomenon of a fiery meteor, or himinous appearance in a bush of briers ? What m&y I FROM HUMAN INVENTIOJT- 271 And again this same enlightened expositor of holy writ unfolds, much to the credit of the Jewish legislator, the great advantages attending his imposition of Egyptian ceremonies appear credible or incredible to others, I know not : but 1 know, that / can helieve this, sooner than believe that God and Moses verbally conversed together in the manner here related^ on the bare authority of a Jewish historiany who 'lived no one can ivell tell ivhen or vohere : and =cvho seems to have been as fond of the m,arvellous as any Jew of any age. But let every one judge for him- self, as he has an undoubted right to do ; and telieve as much, or as little as pleaseth him My belief is tny oivn" Such is Dr. Geddes*s enlightened view of this part of scripture, on which the claim of the Jewish legislator to a divine mission is founded. He states indeed, with a modesty truly becoming, that his belief upon the subject is purely his ovm. So I will venture to add for him, it will ever remain. For although some may be found, whose reach of philosophical reflection may just serve to enable them with Dr. Geddes to reject the narrative of Moses as a fabrication, and his pretensions to a divine mission as an imposture ; jet, that nice, discriminating taste in miracles that could catch the fla- vour of a nearer approach to credibility in the case of a burning bush of bri- ers carrying on a long conversation in the name of the Almighty, than in the case of that great Being directly communicating his will, and issuing his commands to one of his intelligent creatures, respecting a great religiou's dispensation to be introduced into the world by human agency, — is likely to secure to Dr. G. an eminence in singularity from which he is in no great danger of experiencing the slightest disturbance. I cannot however yet dismiss this subject, and still less can I dismiss one so serious with an air of levity. However ludicrous, and however con- temptible the wild fancies, and the impotent scoffs of this traducer of scrip- ture truths may be, yet the awful importance of that sacred book with which he has connected himself in the capacity of translator, (a treacherous one in every sense of the word) bestows upon his labours by association a con- sequence, which (barely) rescues them from present neglect, though it can- not operate to secure them from future oblivion. In the declaration of hiis c-reed, \Pref to Crit. Rem. p. vi.) and in the vindication of himself from Uic charge of infidelity, he affirms " the gospel of Jesus to be his rehgious code ; and his doctrines to be his dearest deUght:" he professes himself to be "a sincere, though unworthy disciple of Christ." " Christian (he says) is my name, and C«//io//c my surname. Rather than renounce these glori- ous titles, I would shed my blood :" &c. Now in what does this Catholic Christianity consist ? Xot merely as we have seen in denying the divine mission of Moses, and in charging the messenger of that dispensation whicJi was the foreninner of Christianity, with the fabrication of the most gross and infamous falsehoods, but in attributing to our Lord himself a participa- tion in those falsehoods, by their adoption and application to his own pur- poses in his conferences with the Jews. For the establishment of this, it will be sufficient to appeal to our Lord's solemn attestation to the truth of Moses's narrative of the transaction alluded to. " And as touching the dead that they rise ; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush (God sfake unto him, saying, lam the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Mark xii. 25.) What the Catholic Christianity of Dr. Geddes amounts to, may be sufficiently inferred fiom the comparison of this single passage with the positions which he maintains in direct opposition to the authority of our Lord himself. But it will appear still more satisfactory from a short summary of his ser- vices in the cuuse of holy writ, presented to us by the pen of an accurate and judicious writer, in the pages of a well-known periodical publication. — " I'he method taken by this' Catholic Christian, of strengthening the foun- datioi^of the faith f»i* Chri'.'itiTins, seems very extraordinary. For it consists ^^ MOSAIC SACRIFICES WOT DERIVED as matter of divine ordinance upon his people. " This con- cession must have been extremely agreeable to a sensual, grovelling people. The transition from the habits which in tearin.? up all the foundations v^hich the learning-, and the pl^y of the di- vines of former ages had been employed to lay. It would perhaps be doing more justice to his great enterprize, to say, that it is an attempt to tear up the foundations which the Spirit of God has laid. He attacks the cre- dit of Moses in every part of his character ; as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. Whether Moses was himself the writer of the Pentateuch, is, with Dr. G. a matter of doubt. But the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns his narrative with Actions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way ; and at other times dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the Fall, a mere Mythos, in which nothing but the imagination of Commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing Devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a f^ble, he asserts, intended for the purjwse of persuading the vulgar that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication He had the art to take advantage of rare but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the gulph of Suez, he per- suaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea ; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fic- tion. In the delivery of the decalogue, he took advantage of a thunder storm, to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon moimt Si- nai ; and he counterfeited the voice of God by a person in the height of thtf storm, speaking through a trumpet. He presumes even that God had no immediate hand in delivering the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage. The story of Balaam and his ass has had a parallel in certain incidents of Dr. Geddes^s own life. The laws of Moses are full of pious frauds. His animal sacrifices were institutions of ignorance and superstition. The con- quest of Canaan was a project of unjust ambition, executed with cruelty; and the morality of the Decalogue itself, is not without its imperfections. — - — In the end he comes to this very plain confession. *' The God of Mo- ses, Jehovah, if he really be such as he is described in the Pentateuch, is not the God whom I adore, nor the God whom I could love, &c." {Brit. Critic, vol. xix. pp. 3, 4.) Such are the views of the Hebrew scriptures entertained by the man who undertook to be their translator; and who to these qualifications for the task, superadded those of a low and ludicrous cast of mind, a vulgar taste, and an almost total unacquaintance with the idiom of the English language. Whether then upon the whole, I have dealt unjustly by this writer, in ex- emplifying his profane ravings, by the brutal intoxication cf the Spartan slave, and in conceiving the bare exhibition of the one to be sufficient like that of the other, to inspire horror and disgust ; 1 leave to the candid reader to determine. If however, any taste can be so far vitiated, or any judgment so weak, as to admit to serious and respectful consideration, that perversion cf the sacred volume which he would dignify with the title of a translationj^. I would recommend at the same time a perusal of the learned and judi- ^^ cious strictures upon that work contained in the XlVth and XlXth volumes " of the Jotirnal from which the above extract has been n»ade, a Journal to which every friend of good order, and true religion in the community, must feel himself deeply indebted. As a powerful antidote against the poison of the work, Br. Graves^s Lectures on the four last books of the PentcUn'ch.. I PROM HUMAN INVENTIOJf. 27i3 tliey had contracted in Egypt was an easy one. The object of their worship was changed, but little of its mode ; FOR IT 18 NOT NOW A QUESTION AMONG THE LEARNED, whether a great part of their ritual were not derived from that nation." [Geddes^s Preface to Genesis, p. xiii.) Thus easily is the whole matter settled by this modest, cautious, and pious Commentator. Now what says Dr. Priestley npon this question which has been so completely set at rest by the learned J* " They who suppose that Moses himself was the author of the institutions, civil or religious, that bear his name, and that in framing thenl he borrowed much from the Egyptians, or other ancient na- tions, MUST NEVER HAVE COMPARED THEM TOGETHER. Otherwise they could not but have perceived many circum- stances in which they differ most essentially from them all." He then proceeds through a dissertation of some length to point out the most striking of those difFererkces : and among these he notices the sacrificial discrepancies as not the least important. " Sacrificing (he says) was a mode of worship more ancient than idolatry or the institutions of Moses ; but amona; the heathens various superstitious customs were introduced re- specting it, which were all excluded from the religion of the Hebrews." Having evinced this by a great variety of in- stances, he observes ; " As Moses did not adopt any of the heathen customs, it is equally evident that they borrowed nothing from him with respect to sacrifices. With them we find no such distinction of sacrifices as is made in the books of Moses, such as hnrnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass- offerings, and peace-offerings, or of the heaving or waving of the sacrifices. Those particulars therefore he could not have had from them, whether we can discover any reason for them or not. They either had their origin in the time of Moses, or, which is most probable, were prior to his time and to the existence of idolatry." — " Lastly, (he remarks) among all the heathens, and especially in the time of Moses, human SACRIFICES were considered as the most acceptable to the gods ; but in the laws of Moses nothing is mentioned with greater abhorrence ; and it is expressly declared to have been a principal cause of the expulsion of the idolatrous in- habitants of Canaan. The right of the Divine Being to claim such sacrifices is intimated by the command to sacrifice wliilst embracing much larger, and more important objects, may be most usefully applied. In this valuable performance, the authenticity and truth of the Mosaic history are established; the theological, moral, and political principles of the Jewish law are elucidated ; and all are, with ability and Miccessi, vindicated against the objections of infidels and gainsayers. K K fi74 MOSA.IC SACRIFICES NOT DERIVED Isaac, but it was declined, and a ram substituted in bis place. Also, when the Divine Being claimed the first-born of all the Israelites in the place of those of the Egyptians which were destroyed, none of them were sacrificed, but the service of the Levites was accepted instead of them : and whereas there were not Levites enow for that purpose, the rest were re- deemed by the sacrifice of brute animals, which evinced the determination of the Divine Being, in no case to accept of that of men.'* He finishes the entire disquisition by saying, " It may now, surely, be concluded from this general view of the subject, that the two systems, viz. that of Mosesy and that of the heathens^ were not derived from each other : and the supe- riority of that of Moses is so great, that considering his cir- cumstances and those of his nation at the time, w^e cannot err in pronouncing, that they could not have had any hu- man, BUT MUST HAVE HAD A DIVINE ORIGIN. NoV CttH any thing he said of Mr. Langles and others, who assert that the books of Moses were copied, or in any other way derived from the works of other eastern nations, more fa- vourable than that they had never read them.^'^ Such is Dr. Priestley's opinion upon the subject, on which Dr. Geddes comforts himself with having the unanimous suf- frage of the learned in his favour. In truth the absurdity of Dr. Geddes's notions on this subject, exposed as they have so frequently been when advanced by other infidel writers, (for with such I must beg leave to class this CaZ/io^ic trans- lator of the " BOOKS HELD SACRED,") I should not have deemed entitled to any specific refutation, but I could not resist the opportunity of confronting him with a brother critic, equally removed from the trammels of received opinions, and equally intrepid in exercising the right of free inquiry in the face of whatever consequences might result. — When Greek meets Greek — There is another writer also, for the purpose of confronting whose opinions, with those of Dr. Priestley, I have been the more desirous of making the foregoing extracts from this au- thor's Dissertation : and that is no other than Dr. Priestley himself. Whoever will be at the trouble of perusing his po- sitions relative to sacrifices contained in Number V. of this • ^ Dissertation iii ii'hich are demonstrated the Originality and superior JExcellcnce of the Mosaic Institutions, contained in Dr. Prlestley*s J^otes on all the Books of Scripture^ vol. i. p. 373—400. See also the pre- ^^ face, p. xii. in which Dr. P. uses these words : ** The divine mission ol? Moses and that of Jesus are inseparably connected ; and the religion of the Hebrews and that of the Christians are parts of the same scheme ; so that the separation of them is impossible. That Ur. Geddes, and some others^' should have been of a different ojiinion, appears to me most extraordinary.**^ FaOM HUMAN INVENTION. 275 work ; and also his observations on their origin alluded to in the Number which follows this, will have no small reason to be surprised at the orthodox complexion of the arguments which have just been cited. For the striking inconsistency which will present itself upon such a comparison, it may not perhaps be difficult to account. I am willing (and with much satisfaction in the reflection) to believe, that, as Dr. Priestley approached the close of life, and was enabled by being with- drawn from the fermentation of controversy and party to view these awful subjects with the calmness, deliberation, and BCfiousness which they demand, his religious opinions might have undergone some change, and made some approach to that soberer interpretation of scripture which at an earlier period he had M^ith almost unaccountable pertinacity resisted. i think I discover strong signs of this in the comparative mo- deration of his last workjiVo^e* on all the books of Scripture; but especially in the Dissertation on the Originality and superior excellence of the Mosaic Institutions, from which I have made the foregoing quotations; and which, (although I cannot concur in the entire of its contents,) I would strongly recommend, as containing a judicious summary of the inter- nal evidence of the divine origin of the Mosaic institutions. No. XL VIII. SACRIFICES EXPLAINED AS GIFTS BT VARIOUS WRITERS. Page 40. (a) Spencer maintains this theory of sacri' fice: De Leg. Hebr. lib. iii. diss. ii. cap. 3. sect. 1, 2. pp. 762, 763. Mr. Coventry, in the 5th discourse of his Philem, and Hydasp. pp. 91, 92. 108, 109. adopts the same idea, clothing it, in his manner, with circumstances tending to dis- parage and vilify the entire rite. The author of the Scrip- ttire Account of Sacrifices proposes, what he deems a differ- ent theory ; but which is distinguished from this by a line so faint, as scarcely to be discerned. Religious gifts, he says, should be kept carefully distinct from gifts weakly pre- sented to God, as men would offer gifts to one another : and he explains sacrifices to be " sacred gifts of things received first from God, and presented back to him for an external ex- pression of g^ratitude, acknowledgment, faith, and every pious sentiment.'* (p. 78 — 82. and Postsc, p. 21.) This notion, however, seems to have no just connexion with any species of sacrifice, but the eucharistic. And however the sentiment of gratitude might have led to an offering of things inanimate, it could not have suggested the idea of the slaying of an ani- mal, as was done by Abel at the beginning. Besides, this notion of sacrifice includes the idea of property, ajad is con* 276 SACRIFICES CONSIDERED AS sequcnlly not conceivable, without adniittiiig an actual expe- rience of the gratifying effect produced by gifts upon men : and thus it falls under the objection urged in Number LI. against the idea of gifts in general. Dr. Priestley has adopted a similar theory, asserting that sacrifices arose from anthropomorphitical notions of God, and are to be considered originally as gifts of gratitude. Like the last named author, he endeavours to support his notion, from the practice of gifts of homage to great persons in early times ; and like him, he considers of course an offer- ing for sin, as differing in 710 respect from any other sort of oblation. The progress of the rite of sacrifice, as growing out of the notion of gifts, he has traced in a circumstantial and elaborate detail, (77t. Rep. vol. i. p. 195 — 201.) which, whoever wishes to be convinced of the utter improbability of the theory in its most plausible colouring, may take the trouble to consult. H. Taylor, {B. Mord. p. 799 — 804.) in like manner, de- duces sacrifices from the notion of gifts ; pronouncing them to have been nothing but free-will offerings of the first-fruits of the earth, or fold : and he expressly defines sacrifice to be " a sacred gift, set apart to God, whereby the sacrificer show- ed his readiness to part with his property to religious uses, and thereby openly and publicly manifested his worship of God." He thus totally excludes the received notion of atonement : and agreeably to this, he subjoins, that " atone- ment and propitiation had no other meaning or design, than to purify or sanctify^ or set apart, any person or thing to the service of God, by separating them from common use." It is evident, that every explication here given of Xhe theory of gifts, carries with it the idea of a bribe to God, to procure his favour. In some, it is disguised under the ap- pearance of an expression of gratitude, or homage : but this is evidently the essential ingredient, especially in all such sa- crifices as were of a deprecatory nature. But, that such a notion was neither likely to obtain in the days of the first recorded sacrifice, nor has any connexion with the ideas known to be universally attached in later days to animal piacular sacrifice, it will not require much thought to disco- ver. No. XLIX. SACRIFICES CONaiDKRED AS FEDERAL RITES. Page 40. (6) — Sykes, in his Essay on Sac. p. 59. ex- plaiiis sacrifices, as " federal rites ;" and represents them as "implying, the entering into friendship with God^ or the re- FEDERAL RITES. -22^7 ttewal of that friendship, when broken by the violation of former stipulations :" and in p. 7 '3. he says, that the origin of sacrifices may be accounted for on the supposition, " that eating and drinking together, were the known ordinary sym,T bols of friendship, and were the usual rites of engaging in co* venants and leagues ;" this mode of entering into friendship, and forming leagues with each other, being transferred by the ancients to their gods : and in confirmation of this, he ad- duces instances from Homer, "Virgil, Max. Tyr. and others, to show, that they imagined that their gods did actually eat with them, as they ate with their gods. Thus, according to Sykes, Cain and Abel must both have eaten of the offerings which they brought : and this indeed, he positively asserts, p. 1 79. But not only have we no authority from scripture to presume this, but, as we shall see in Number LII, there is good reason to suppose directly the contrary. It should follow also from this theory, that all those who offered sacrifices, antecedent to the 3Iosaic institution, must in completion of the ceremony have feasted upon the offer- ing. Of this, however, no intimation whatever is given in scripture. Jacob, indeed, is said to have called his brethren to eat bread ; but it by no means follows, that this was part of the sacrificial ceremony. That he should invite hii^ friends to partake in the solemnity of the sacrifice, and after- wards entertain them, is perfectly natural, and conveys no notion whatever of feasting with God at his table. But, be- sides, the holocaust, or burnt-offering, was such as rendered it impossible that the sacrificer could feast upon it; the whole of the animal being consumed upon the altar : and that ani- mal sacrifices, both before, and a long time after the flood, were of this kind, is generally acknowledged, {Scrip. Ace, of ^ac. Postsc. p. 32.) This difficulty, indeed, Sykes en- deavours to evade, by saying, that the holocaust being depre- catory, and offered on account of sins, it was to be entirely consumed by the offerer, and no part reserved for his own use, in confession that he did not think himself worthy to be admitted to eat of what was offered to God. {Essayy p. 232.) But now, if holocausts were the first sacrifices, it will scarcely be admitted, that an institution which for many ages after its commencement, absolutely precluded the possibility of feast- ing upon what was offered, should yet have taken its rise from that very idea. And besides, if the renewal of friend- ship, to be expressed by the symbol of eating with God, were the true signification of the sacrifice, to what species of sacrifice could it more properly apply, than to tliiit whose precise object was rtconciliationl* -27B SACRIFICES CONSIDERED AS It deserves to be remarked, that almost all the instance* by which Sykes supports his theory, are drawn from early heathen practices. Now, it is notorious, that animals unfit for food, were sacrificed in several parts of the heathen world. Thus, horses were sacrificed to the sun ; wolves to Mars ; asses to Priapus ; and dogs to Hecate. Besides, it is not easy to conceive, had eating and drinking with God been at any time the prevalent idea of sacrifice, how a custom so ab- iiorrent from this notion, as that of human sacrifice, could ever have had birth. Nor will it suiSice to say, that this was a gross abuse of later days, when the original idea of sacri- fice had been obscured and perverted. {Essayy p. 347.) The sacrifice of Isaac, commanded by God himself, was surely not of this description : and it will not be asserted, that this was a sacrifice intended to be eaten ; nor does it appear, that Abraham had prepared any meat or drink-offering to accom- pany it— U. Mord. p. 814. Upon the whole of Dr. Sykes's reasoning in support of this theory, it may be said, that he has transposed cause and ef- fect, and inverted the order and series of the events. For whilst, from the custom of contracting leagues and friend- ships by eating and drinking at the same table, he deducea the practice of feasting upon the sacrifice, and thence con- cludes this to be the very essence and origin 6f the rite, he seems to have taken a course directly opposite to the true one ; inasmuch as, in the first sacrifices, no part being re- served, it was not until long after the establishment of the rite, when many were invited to partake in the sacrifice, that feasting became connected with the ceremony ; and having thus acquired a sacred import by association, it was probably transferred to compacts and covenants amongst men, to be- stow solemnity upon the act. See Scrip. Ace. of Sacr. Postsc. p. 83. — Whoever wishes to see a full and perfect re- futation of this theory of Dr. Sykes, may consult the 2d appendix of Dr. Richie's Criticism upon Modern Notions of Sacrifice. It must indeed be confessed, that names of still higher au- thority are to be found on the side of the opinion which Sykes has adopted. Mede and Cudworth, in the course of their respective arguments to establish the Eucharist as a federal rite, had, long before the age of this writer, maintain- ed the doctrine which he contends for : and in this they were followed, and their reasonings repeated by Dr. Waterland, in his Natvre, Obligationy and Efficacy of the Christian Sacrament considered. The main strength of the argument 28 marsj^alled by Mede in the four following reasons, which FEDERAL RITES. 279 the reader from the great celebrity of that writer, will natu- rally be desirous to see, " First, Every sacrifice, saith our Saviour, Mark ix. 49. is salted with salt. This salt is called, Levit. ii. 13, the salt of the covenant of God; that is, a symbol of ihe perpetuity thereof. Now if the salt which seasoned the sacrifice were sal foederis Dei, the salt of the covenant of God, what was the sacrament itself but epulum foederis, the feast of the cove- nant ? Secondly, Moses calls the blood of the burnt-of- ferings and peace-ofFerings, wherewith he sprinkled the chil- dren of Israel when they received the law, The blood of the covenant which the Lord had made with them : this is, saith he, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, Exod. xxiv. 8. — Thirdly, But above all, this may most evidently be evinced out of the 50th psalm, the whole argu- ment whereof is concerning sacrifices: there God saith, verse 5. Gather my saints together unto me, which make covenant with me by sacrifice: and verse 16, of the sacrifices of the wicked. Unto the wicked, God saith, what hast thou to d6 to declare my statutes, and take my covenant in thy mouth, see- ing thou hatest instruction, &c. — Fourthly, I add in this last place, for a further confirmation, that when God was to make a covenant with Abram, Gen. xv. he commanded him to offer a sacrifice, verse 9, Offer unto me (so it should be turned) a heifer, a she goat, and a ram, each of three years old, a tur- tle dove, and a young pigeon. All which he offered accord- ingly, and divided them in the midst, laying each piece or moiety one against the other ; and when the sun went down, God, in the likeness of a smoking furnace and burning lamp, passed between the pieces, and so (as the text says) made a covenant with Abram, saying. Unto thy seed will I give this land, &c. By which rite oi passing between the parts, God condescended to the manner of men.'* The author then pro- ceeds to show, that this custom of dividing the sacrifice and passing between the parts was usual with the Gentiles, and not unknown among the Jews: and upon the whole concludes, as a matter decisively established, that sacrifices were in their Mature and essence ^^ federal feasts, wherein God deigneth to entertain man to eat and drink with or before him, in token of favour and reconcilement." {Works of Joseph Mede, p. 170— -172.) The opinions and arguments of a divine so learned, and a reasoner so profound as Joseph Mede, should not be approach- ed but with reverence : yet upon close examination it must be evident that this great man has here arrived at a conclu- sion not warranted by his premises. For, as to his first ar- gument, it manifestly proves no more than this, that the 280 Biaiiop warburton's theory, &;c. Jewish sacrifices, which were all offered under and in refeur ence to the covenant which God had originally made with the Jews, (Lev. ii. 13. and Ex. xxiv.) were always accompanied with that which w as considered to be a symbol of the perpetuity of that coveni>nt. In this there was evidently nothing yV(/era/, nothing which marked the entering into a present covenant, or even the renewing of an old one, but simply a significant and forcible assurance of the faithfulness of that great Being with whom the national covenant of the Jews had been ori- ginally entered into. If this reasoning be just, and I apprehend it cannot be con- troverted, the whole strength of the cause is gone : for the re- maining arguments, although they undoubtedly establish this, that some sacrifices were of the nature o{ federal rifes, yet they establish no more : so that the general nature of sa- crifice remains altogether unaffected. In those cases also, ivhere the sacrifice appears to have had a federal aspect, the true state of the matter is probably this, that where there was a covenant, there was a sacrifice also to give solemnity and obligation to the covenant, sacrifice being the most solemn act of devotion, and therefore naturally to be called in for the enforcement of the religious observance of any compact en- gaged in. Thus, the sacrifice being but the accompaniment of the covenant, does not necessarily partake of its nature. In other words, although it be admitted, that where there was a covenant there was also a sacrifice ; it by no means follows that wherever there was a sacrifice there was also a cove- nant. That some sacrifices therefore had a federal relation, {>roves nothing as to the nature of sacrifice in general : and the conclusion which we had before arrived at remains, con- sequently, unshaken by the reasons which have been adduced by Mede. — Bishop Pearce's Two Letters to Dr, Waterland may be read w ith advantage upon this subject, although they contain many particulars in which the reflecting reader will probably not concur. No. L. — BISHOP warburton's theory of the origin OF sacrifice. ♦ Page 40. (c) — Bishop Warburton (Div. Leg. B. ix. ch. 2.) represents the whole of sacrifice as symbolical. The offerings of first-fruits he holds to be an action expressive of gratitude and homage: and in this w-ay he accounts for the origin of such sacrifices as w^ere eucharistic. But aware of the insuffi- ciency of the theory, which places the entire system of sa- crifice on the ground of gifts, he proceeds to explain the na- GIFTS NOT THE ORIGIN OP SACRIFICE. 281 iUte of expiatory sacrifice in the manner described in the page to which this Number refers. It is to be lamented, that an ingenious writer, of whom I have had occasion in another place to speak in terms of com- mendation, should, in his view of the Bishop's opinions upon this subject, have permitted himself to give support to that which is certainly not among the most tenable of his lord- ship's notions ; namely, the idea of the human origin of sacri- 1[ice. This too (though probably not so intended by the ai*- tJior,) has been done in a way which has a powerful tendency to mislead the unwary reader : the professed object being to exhibit an impartial enumeration of the arguments on both sides of the question, whilst in truth a preponderating weight has been studiously cast in favour of one. I allude to Mr. Pearson's Critical Essay ; in the ivth section of which, the reasoning of Spencer and Warburton, in defence of the hea- thenish origin and subsequent divine adoption of the rite of sacrifice, are treated with a complacency which they but ill deserve. The reasonings themselves, as they are elsewhere in this work largely considered, I shall not here stop to con- sider. No. LI. THE SUPPOSITION THAT SACRIFICES ORIGINATED IN THE IDEA OF GIFTS ERRONEOUS. Page 40. {d) — Dr. Rutherforth, in a communication to Dr. Kennicot, collects from Gen. iv- 20. that the introduction of property, or exclusive right, amongst mankind, is not to be fixed higher than the time of Jabal, the eighth from Adam. He is there said to have been the father, or first inventor of njpD : that is, says Rutherforth, not as we translate it, the fa- ther of such as have cattle, (for he was clearly not the first of such, Abel having been a keeper of sheep long before,) but of ^nt;a^e property; the word n:pn signifying strictly possession of any sort, and being so rendered in the Syriac version. {Kennic. Two Dissert. App. p. 252 — 254.) In addition to this it may be remarked, that the word nJpD seem^ to have been applied to cattle, merely because cattle were, in the earliest ages, the only kind of possession ; and that when there is nothing in the context to determine the word to that application, it can be considered only in its original and proper sense, namely possession. But whether this idea be right or not, it is obvious that a <:ommunity of goods must have for some time prevailed in the world ; and that consequently the very notion of a gift, and all experience of its effect upon me-.i, must have been for a I'^'nc^th of time unknown. And if the opinion be riijht, that h h 282 DATE OF THE PEnMISSIO?f sacrifice existed before Abel, and was coeval with the fall ; it becomes yet more manifest, that observation of the efficacy of gifts could not have given birth to the practice, there be- ing no subjects in the world upon which Adam could make such observation. Besides, as Kennicot remarks, ( Two Diss. p. 207.) " no being has a right to the lives of other beings, but the Creator or those on whom he confers that right ;" if then God had not given Abel such a right, (and that he did not confer it even for the purposes of necessary food, will ap- pear from the succeeding Number,) even the existence of the notion of property, and the familiar use and experience of gifts, could not have led him to tako away the life of the animal as a gift to the Almighty ; nor, if they could have done so, can we conceive, that such an offering would have been graciously accepted. No. LII. ON THE DATE OF THE PERMISSION OF ANIMAL FOOD TO MAN. Page 40. (e) — The permission of animal food evidently appears from scripture to take its date from the age of Noah: the express grant of animal food then made, clearly evincing that it w^as not in use before. This opinion is not only founded in the obvious sense of the passage. Gen. ix. 3. but has the support of Commentators, the most distinguished for their learning, and candid investigation of the sacred text.=^ But, as ingenious refinements have been employed to torture away the plain and direct sense of scripture upon this head, it becomes necessary to take a brief review of the arguments upon the question. Two grants were made ; one to Adam, and one to Noah. To Adam it was said. Gen. i. 29, 30. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is vpon the face of all the earth; and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree, bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat ; and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. Again, to Noah it is said, Gen. ix. 3. Every moving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you; EVEN AS THE GREEN HERB HAVE I GIVEN YOU ALL THINGS. Now, whilst the obvious inference from the former of these passages is, that God's original grant of the use of his creatures for food, was confined to the vegetable crea- tion ; the conclusion to be drawn from the latter is found to * See Munst. Vatah. Clar. Crot. and Xf Clerc, on Gen. ix. 3. also Shuckf. Conntx. vol. i. p. 81. and Kennic Txvo J)iss. p. 70. OF ANniAL FOOD. 283 be precisely similar, inasmuch as, had animal food been before permitted for the use of man, there had been no occasion for the specific grant to that purpose now made to Noah. And, in perfect agreement with this reasoning, we find the scrip- ture history of the period antecedent to the flood, entirely si- lent concerning the use of animal food. Dr. Sykes, however, can see nothing in the first grant to Adam, " but a general declaration of a sufficient provision for all creatures ;" nor in the second to Noah, " but a command to slay before they ate flesh:" flesh having from the first been used for food. {Essai/, &c. pp. 177, 178.) In support of these extraordinary positions, he employs arguments not less extraordinary. 1. He contends that the former grant is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations ; for that, as some crea- tures were not formed for iiving on herbs, and some herbs were of a poisonous quality, the grant cannot be supposed to extend to even/ green herb ; and hence he infers, that the grant cannot be interpreted as enjoining or prohibiting any particular species of food; and that consequently animal food may be included, (p. 1G9 — 171.) But it seems rather a strange inference, even admitting the existence of noxious vegetables at the time of the grant, that because it must m propriety be limited to a certain description of the things ge- nerally permitted, it might therefore be extended to a class of things never once named ; or that, because a full power was giv«n to man over a// herbs, to take of them as he pleased for food, whilst some would not answer for that purpose, the dominion given was not therefore to relate to herbs, but ge- nerally to all things that might serve for human sustenance. But 2. He maintains, that, at all events, this grant of herb and tree for the food of man, does not exclude any other sort of food, which might be proper for him. And to establish this, he endeavours to show, (p. 171 — 177.) that the decla- ration to Noah did not contain a grant to eat animal food in general, but only some particular sorts of it, such as are in- cluded 4n the word B'Di, by which he understands creeping things, or such animals, as are not comprehended under the denominations of beast and fowl; so that, admitting this to be a grant of something new, it was yet by no means incon- sistent with the supposition, that sheep, oxen, goats, and such like animals had been eaten from the first. Now, this di- rectly contradicts his former argument. For if, as that main- tains, the grant to Adam was but a general declaration of abundant provision, and consequently leaving man at full li- berty to use all creatures for food, why introduce a permis- sion at this time respecting a particular sp.^cie3 of cieatures ? 254 UATE Oif THE FBRMISSION But besides, ddi does not imply a particular species of animals, but denotes a//, of whatever kind, that move. That this is the true acceptation of the word may be collected from Cocceius, and Schindler, as well as Nachmanides, (who is quoted by Fagius, Crit. Sac. on Gen. i. 29.) and the sc- veral authorities in Pole^s Syn. on Gen. xix. 3. and so mani- fest does it appear from the original in various instances, that it requires no small degree of charity, not to believe, that Dr. Sykes has wilfully closed his eyes against its true mean- ing. His words are particularly deserving of remark. " Throughout the law of Moses, it is certain, that it (WD'^) never takes in, or includes, beasts of the earth, or birds of the air, but a third species of animals different from the other two :'* and this third species he conjectures to be, *' all such, either fish or reptiles, that not having feet glide along." (p, 173.) Now the direct contrary of all this is certain: and had Dr. Sykes, in his accurate survey of the entire law of Moses, but allowed his eye to glance on the words contained in Gen. vii. 21. he probably would not have been quite so peremptory. All flesh died, that moveth (tynin) upon the earth ; both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of everi/ creeping thing, iy^^') that creepeth (]^niyn) upon the earth. Here the creeping things are specially named, and included, together with all other creatures, under the general word tJ'D'i, And it is particularly deserving of notice, that in the xith ch. of Levit. in which the different species of ani- mals are accurately pointed out, those that are properly call- ed creeping things, are mentioned no less than eleven times, and in every instance expressed by the word piy : and yet from this very chapter, overlooking these numerous and de- cisive instances. Dr. Sykes quotes, in support of his opinion, the use of the word ts-'D'i, in the two following verses : Neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing Ix'^^) that moveth (piy^T\) upon the earth, verse 44. — . And again, this is the law of the beasts, and of the fowls, and of every living creature that moveth (t&'Dnn) in the ivaters, verse 46. Hele, because the word 170*1, which is <3i descrip- tion of all moving things, (as has been shown a})ove, and may be proved from various other instances, — see Jenn. Jew. An liq. vol. i. p. o06.) is found connected witii reptiles and fishes, it is at once pronounced to be appropriate to them, notwithstanding that through the entire chapter, whose obT ject it is carefully to distinguish the different kinds of ani- mals, it is never once used in the numerous passages refers ring specially to the reptile and fishy tribes, as their proper appellation, and is translated in these two verses by the I^XX in its true generic sense, Kivai^civ^, that moveth. f}o OP AJflMAL FOOD. 28j> that Dr» Sykes might with as good reason have inferred, that, because creeping things are occasionally called living creatures, living creatures must consequently mean creeping ihinsrs. To say the truth, if Dr. Sykes had been desirous to discover a part of scripture, completely subversive of his interpretation of the word I^Di, he could not have made a happier selection than the very chapter of Leviticus to which he has referred. But, to leave no doubt, that the grant made to Noah was a permission for the first time of animal food, we find an express description of the manner in which this sort of food was to be used, immediately subjoined : But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof shall ye not eat. Now, if animal fo6d had been before in use, this injunction seems unaccount- able, unless on the supposition, that it had been the practice, before the flood, to feed on the flesh of animals that had been duly killed for the purpose ; and Dr. Sykes's argument, which maintains, that this prohibition merely tended to pre- vent the eating such animals as died of themselves, or the eating the animal without having duly killed it, must rest en- tirely on the presumption, that such had been the practice before. But on what ground he has assumed this, he has not thought proper to inform us : and the certainty, that, before the flood, animals were killed for sacrifice, seems not consist- ent with the supposition. It is curious to observe that this argument adduced by Sykes, falls in with one of the strange conceits of the Jewish Rabbins : it being a tradition of theirs, that there were seven precepts handed down by tlie sons of Noah to their posterity, six of which had been given to Adam, and the seventh was this to Noah, " about not eating flesh, which was cut from any animal alive." See Patrick^s Pre- face to Job — also Jenning''s Jew, Antiq, vol. i. p. 147. It must be confessed, however, that arguments, of a nature widely different from these of Sykes, have been urged in op- position to the interpretation of the several grants to Adam, and to Noah, contended for in this note. Heidegger, in his Historia Patriarch. Exercit. xv. § 9. vol. i. maintains, that the passage, Gen. i. 29, 30. is to be thus translated : Behold, I have given yon every herb bearing seed. Sec. (to you it shall be for meat); nay also, every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the earth, and every thing that creepeth upon the earthy wherein there is life, with every green herb for meat. This translation he defends, on the ground of the occasional use of the preposition S, in the inclusive, or copulative sense; whence he holds himself justified in explaining it here, as the mark of the accusative, not of the dative case. In support of this ac- ceptation, he also produces some names highly distinguished :286 BATE OF THE PERMISSION in the annals of sacred criticiism, viz. Capellus, Cocceius, and Bochart. And to reconcile this interpretation with the grant to Noah, which seems inconsistent with the idea, that the right to animal food Iiad been conveyed before the time of that pa- triarch, he considers this second grant l)ut as a repetition of the first to Adam, and that the words, even as the green herb have I given you all things^ are not to be understood, as con- veying now, for the first time, a right to the use of all crea- tures, similar to that which had been before granted with respect to the herbs and fruits, but merely as confirming the grant formerly made, of the green herb and of all living crea- tures, without distinction. Now, although the particle S, is used in some few parts of 5^cripture, in the sense here ascribed to it by Heidegger, yet if we^examine the instances in which it is so applied, (all of which maybe seen atone view in Noldius Concord. ParticuL .E6r. pp. 398, 401.) we shall find, that it stands in those cases comoined and related in such manner as to give a new modifi- cation to its general and ordinary meaning. But surely, in the present case, no such modifying relation exists. On the contrary, the A^ery frame and analogy of the sentence, seem to determine the word to its usual dative signification. Ha- ving occurred twice in the 29th verse, and in both places ma- nifestly in this sense, (CDdS, to you,) it then immediately fol- loArs in direct connexion, and this connexion marked most unequivocally by the copulative particle i, (y'^^>) so as to de- termine unavoidably the continuance of its application in the same sense. The word mx, likewise, succeeds to the clauses enumerating the animal tribes in the 30th verse, precisely in the same manner, in which it followed that relating to the hu- man kind, in the preceding verse ; and as, there, it is admitted to be the mark of the accusative, specifying the things allot- ted to the sustenance of the human species; so here, it is evi- dently to be used in the same sense, specifying those things that are appointed for the support of the 5rw/e creation. This analogy, however, Heidegger is compelled by his interpreta- tion to overturn ; and whilst he allows to the word this signi- fication through the whole of the preceding verse, he here abruptly and arbitrarily changes its application, and attributes to it the force of with, which is necessary to make sense of the passage, according to his mode of translating it. How then does the matter stand? In two passages exactly corresponding, and immediately connected, the preposition 7, and the particle rn«, are arbitrarily applied in different senses, to make out the translation of Heidegger : whilst on the com- monly received interpretation, the analogy is preserved throughout, and the same uniform meaning is attributed to of ANIMAL FOOP. '^^7 each particle in the corresponding clauses. Indeed the ver- sion contended for by Heidegger is upon the whole so violent and unnatural, that it requires but to read the passage in the original, to be convinced that it is inadmissible; and perhaps nothing but the respectability of the names that appear in its support, could justify its serious investigation. One advan- tage however manifestly attends the notice of it in the present discussion. It proves that the learned writers, who defend this interpretation, consider the commonly received version as utterly irreconcileable with the notion, that the first grant to Adam conveyed the permission of animal food. For if any of the arguments used by Dr. Sykes, and others, to show that it eould be so understood, were deemed by these writers to have any value, they surely would not have resorted to this new and unwarrantable translation in support of that position. In addition to what has been said, it may be proper to re- mark, that this new version of Gen. i. 29, 30. is so far from receiving any countenance from the Jewish writers, that they are nearly unanimous in the opinion, that the right of eating flesh was not granted, until the time of Noah. See particu- larly AbenesrUj and Sol, Jarchl, in their annotations on this part of scripture. Heidegger also confesses, that the Christian Fathers, nearly without exception, concur in the same opinion. Hist, Patriarch, Exercit, xv. § 3. Objections however, are drawn from the history of Abel's sacrifice; and from the distinction of animals into clean and unclean, antecedent to the flood. It is said, that Abel's sacri- fice having been of the firstlings of his flock, and it never ha- ving been customary to offer any thing to God, but what was useful to man, it may fairly be concluded, that animals were used for food even in the time of Abel. Heideg, Hist, Pair, Exer. XV. § 25. — To this the reply is obvious : that the prin- ciple here laid down is accommodated to particular theories of sacrifice : to such as place their origin and virtue in the no- tk)n of a gift to the Deity, or of a self-denial on the part of the offerer; and therefore the argument presupposes the very thing in question, namely the origin and nature of sacrifice. But, besides, the conclusion will not follow, even admitting the principle; since Abel's flock might be kept for the advan- tages of the milk and wool, and thus what he offered was use- ful to himself. Nor to this can it reasonably be objected, that by the practice of the law, the male firstlings were offered, and that therefore Abel's offering could have deprived him only of the wool, the use of which might not yet have been learned : for it cannot with propriety be contended, that the first and more simple form of sacrifice should be explained by 388 DATE OF fUB PERMISSION the usage of succeeding and far distant times, and by the com* plicated system of the law of Moses. But again it is urged, that the distinction of creatures intd clean and unclean, (Gen. vii. 2.) proves animal food to have been in use before the deluge, inasmuch as such distinction can be conceived only in reference to food. To this it has been answered by Grotius,^ that the distinction was made proleptically, as being addressed by Moses to those who were familiar with this distinction afterwards made by the law : and again, by Jennings, {Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 151.) that such a tiistinction would naturally be made, from the difference ob- served to exist between the animals, without any reference to food ; or that, though the use of them for food were held in view, the distinction might have been first made at the time of entering the ark, when we find it first mentioned, and a greater number of those that were most fit for food then pre- served, merely because God intended to permit the use of them in a very short time. But reasonable as these answers may appear, may it not be thought more satisfactory, to con- sider this distinction as relating originally, not to food, but to sacrifice : those creatures which were sanctified to the service and worship of God, being considered pure : whilst those that were rejected from the sacrificial service, were deemed unfit for sacred uses, or unclean ; and agreeably to this idea, the word denoting unclean throughout the law, kd£3, is put in op- position not only to nnD, clean, but to lin"^, holi/.f The dis- tinction then of clean and unclean animals before the flood, is admissible upon the principle of the divine institution, or ev^n of the existing practice of sacrifice, without supposing the permission of animal food before the time of Noah. In conformity v>ith the above reasoning, we find the first use to which this distinction is applied in scripture, is that of sacrifice ; Noah having taken of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offer ings,% (Gen. viii. 20.) Besides, it is to be remembered, that the distinction into clean and unclean with respect to food, was entirely a different institution, from the distinction into clean and tin- clean, with respect to sacrifice. (See Patrick and Ainsw. on Gen. vii. 2-) Dr. Kennicot's remark on this subject is de^ serving of notice. " Although the distinction of beasts into clean and unclean was not registered until we come down to Deuteronomy, (xiv. 3.) yet," he says, " this is no reason * De Ven. Chr. Jlel. lib. v. § 9.— see also Spencer Be Leg. Hebr. lib. i. cap, V. $ I. f See Cocceius and Parkhurston the word NDD. % See Po[. Synop. on Gen. vii. 2. compare also Gen. xv. 9. witli Jamesons DOie thereon. LANGUAGE DERIVED, &C. 289 why we should not suppose it introduced by God, at the same time that he instituted sacrifice : for whoever considers care- fully will find, that the law isr in part a republication of ante- cedent revelations and commands, long before given to man- kind." {Two Dissert, pp. 217, 213.- — comp. Ainsw, on Gen. vii. 2.) Witsius considers the distinction of beasts into clean and unclean, so manifestly to relate to sacrifice^ in the time of Noah, and to have originated from divine institution, that he even employs it as an argument in support of the divine appointment of sacrifice before the flood. {Miscell. Sacr, lib. ii. diss. ii. § 14.) Heidegger also, though he contends for the use of animal food in the antediluvian world, yet ad- mits the distinction of animals into clean and unclean, to have been instituted by divine authority, in reference to sacrifices before the flood. Hist. Pair, Exercit. iii. § 52. tom. 1. No. LIII. ON THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. l^AGE 40. (/) — " The first use of words appears from scripture to have been to communicate the thoughts of God. But liow could this be done, but in the words of God ? and how could man understand the words of God, before he was taught them?" The apostle has told us, tlmi faith comethby hearing, and hearing by the word of God: thus clearly pro- nouncing all knowledge of divine things, and consequently all language relating to them, to have had its origin in revelation. But it is not only with respect to things divine, that revela- tion appears to have supplied the first intimations of language. In terms relating to mere human concerns, it seems to have been no less the instructress of man. For in what sense can we understand the naming of every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, brought before Adam for this purpose by God : but in that of his instructing Adam in the manner whereby they were in future to be distinguished ? To sup- pose it otherwise, and to imagine that Adam at the first wa3 able to impose names on the several tribes of animals, ia either to suppose, that he must from the first have been able to distinguish them by their characteristic marks and leading properties, and to have distinct notions^ of them annexed * In speaking of the necessity of a distinct notion being associated to each term indicating a class or species, it is not meant to imply, that, to render generic terms significant, appropriate abstract notions must be an- nexed. That notions cannot be entertained by the mind ; or rather, that they involve a contradiction subversive of their existence, the very argu- ments and illustrations employed by Mr. Locke in their support and expla- nation, are sufficient to demonstrate. See particularly Locke's Essay^ B. iv. ch. vii. § 9. It has been fully and conclusively established by that most ac- curate of metaphysical reasoners, Berkeley, that what is calle4 a generai M M 29Q I.ANGUAGE DERIVED to their several appellations; or, that he applied sounds at random, as names of the animals, without the intervention oi' such notions. But the latter is to suppose a jargon, not a idea, is nothing but the idea of an individual object, annexed to a certain term, which attaches to it a more extensive signification, by recalling to the mind the ideas of other individuals, which are similar to this one in certain characters or .properties. This explanation of the nature of Uiii'cersals, which has been commonly ascribed to Bishop Berkeley, who has undoubt- edly unfolded and enforced it in the most intelligible and convincing man- ner, is however of much earlier origin. The distinction of A'o^ninalist and Realist iS knowTi to have been clearly marked in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, under the teaching of Uoscelin, and his pupil Abelard. The Cy- nics and Stoics also of early times, maintained opinions, which entitle them to be ranked of the former class : and, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Du- gald Stewart, who follows the authority of Brucker, in placing Aristotle among the Realists, there certainly are to be found in the writings of that philosopher, the elements of those just notions concerning Universals,whick have been adopted by the Nominalists. Of Roscelin, we are told by Brucker, (Hist. Phil. vol. iii. p. WT.) that he maintained the position, " IJniversalia, nee ante rem, nee in re existere, nee ullam habere realem existentiam, sed esse nuda nomina et voces, qui- bus rerum singularium genera denotentur." This opinion of Roscelin, that UniversaU were merely viords or names, was strenuously supported, with some small alteration not very distinctly intelligible, by his follower Abe- lard: and was no less strenuously opposed by the Realists, who contended, that Universals hare an actual existence in rerum natura, and that their boundaries are accurately determined by appropriate essences, according to which nature has classed the individuals of the respective species. That the authority of Aristotle was erroneously claimed by the latter ; and that, on the contrary, the views of the Stagirite w^ere favourable to the Nominal- ists, Dr. Gillies has taken laudable pains to demonstrate. In his valuable Analysis of a pnrt of the writings of that philosopher, he has satisfactorily proved, that by general terms, Aristotle meant only to express the result of the comparison of different individuals agreeing in the same «//of, or ap- pearance, without the supposition of any correspondent ^e«era/ ideas exist- ing in the mind : or, in other words, that a general term was conceived by him, to stand as a sign for a number of individuals, considered under the same aspect, and from certain resemblances ^signed to the same class. See Dr. Gillies*9 yiristotle, vol. i. p. 66—72. How perfectly this corresponds with the clearest views of modern meta- physics, is manifest at a glance : and it cannot but afford peculiar satisfac- tion to all who feel a reverence for exalted genius, to find, that after the un- worthy disparagement, which for a length of time has been so laboriously cast upon the great name of Aristotle, the honourable homage of a rational coincidence in his opinions, not merely on this, but on an almost endless va- riety of important subjects, has been the result of the most enlightened in- quiries of later days. It has been singularly the fate of the Greek philoso- pher, to be at one time superstitiously venerated, and at another contemptu- ously ridiculed ; without sufficient pains taken either by his adversaries or his admirers, to understand his meaning. It has been too frequently his misfortune to be judged from the opinions of his followers, rather tlian from his own. Even the celebrated Locke is not to be acquitted of this unfair treatment of his illustrious predecessor in the paths of Metaphysics ; whilst perhaps it is not too much to say of his well known Essay, that there is scarcely to be found in it, one valuable and important truth concerning the operations of the understanding, which may not be traced in those wri- tings against which he has directed so much misapplied raillery ; whilst, at ihe same- time, they exlubit ro*ny rich results of deep thinkings which FROM DIVINE II^STRtJCtlON. 291 Jauguage : and the former implies a miraculous operation on the mind of Adam, which differs nothing in substance from the divine instruction here contended for. have entirely escaped his perspicacity. Indeed, it may be generally pro- nounced of those who have within the two last centuries been occupied in the investigation of the intellectual powers of man, that had they studied Aristotle more, and (what would have followed as a necessary consequence) reviled him less, they would have been more successful in their endeavours to extend tlie sphere of human knowledge. * To return to the subject of this note, — it must be observed, that to the two difterent and opposite opinions on the nature of Universals already al- luded to, namely, that of the jYotninalists, and that of the Jtealists, there is to be added a third and intermediate one,^hat of the Conceptual ists, so called from their distinguishing tenet, that the mind has the power of form- ing general conceptions by abstraction : This sect is represented by Brucker, as a modification of that of the Nominalists. " Nominales, deserta paulo Abelardi hypothesi, universalia in notionibiis, atque conceptibus mentis, ex rebus singularibus abstractione formatis, consistere statuebant ; unde Cori' ceptuales dicti sunt.'* Hist. Phil. vol. iii. p. 908. — With this sect Mr. Locke is ranked by Dr. Reid, {Essays on the Intell. Potoers, vol. ii. p. 146.) and in the justness of this allotment, Mr. Dugald Stewart acquiesces ; at the same time he observes, that, from tlie inaccuracy and inconsistency of Mr. Locke's language, there is no small difficulty in assigning to him liis true place ; or i-ather, indeed, in determining whether he had any decided opinion on the question in dispute, (Elements of the Philosophy of the Hw ^nan JMindf-pp. 191, 192.) It certainly cannot be contended, that Locke has conveyed liis meaning upon this subject with clearness or consistency ; yet no doubt can possibly exist, as to the class to which he properly belongs. His placing the essences of the species altogether in the abstract ideas form- ed by the mind, indisputably determines him to the standard of the Con- ceptualist ; notwithstanding that the incompatibility of the elements of his abstract idea, (Essay, B. ii. ch. xi. § 9. and B. iv ch vii. § 9.) and the ad- mitted necessity of the na^tie, to bestow upon the idea its unity, that is, in other words, its existence as an id^a, {Essay, B. iii. ch. v. § 10.) mark the indistinctness of his views upon this subject ; and ought, if he had examined his own notions consequentially, to have led him to adojjt the party of the JVoTninalist. From what has been said, it appears upon the whole, that the JVominalist and the Conceptualist, whilst they concur in rejecting the notion of the He- alist, " that Universals belong to things, and that general terms denote cer- tain genera and species establisiied in nature by appropriate essences," — at the same time differ from each other essentially in this ; that whilst the one attributes universality solely to terms, and the other to certain abstract ideas expressed by those terms, the latter admits the possibility of reason- ing on general subjects vdthont the mediation of language, and the former maintains the indispensable necessity of language, as the instrument of thought in all general speculations. If, with Bishop Berkeley, we are obliged to deny the possible existence of an abstract idea, there can be no difficulty in determining to which of these two opinions we must yield onr assent. In the sign alone, and in its poten- tial application to a class of individual objects, is universally to be found ; and consequently by language only, (meaning by this, the use of signs at large,) can we conduct our reasoning one single step beyond the individual object. There is, upon this subject, an excellent remark made by an ele- gant and perspicuous writer, which I cannot forbear transcribing. " Whe- ther it might not have been possible for the Deity to have so formed us, that we might have been capable of reasoning concerning classes of objects, without the use of signs, I shall not take upon me to determine. But this 392 LANGUAGE DERIVED Indeed, even abstracting from the information llius given iii scripture, those who have well examined this subject have been utterly at a loss to conceive any other origin of language than divine institution. Whitby considers this so complete- ly evident, that he thinks it forms in itself a clear demonstra- tion, that the original of mankind was as Moses delivered it, from the impossibility of giving any other tolerable account of the origin of language. {Sermons on the Atlrib. vol. ii. p. 29.) Bishop Willianis,*in his 2d Sermon, (Boyle Led. vol. i. p. 167.) affirms, that though Adam had a capacity and organs admirably contrived for speech, yet in his case there was a necessity of his being immediately instructed by God, because it was impossible he should have invented speech, and words to be spoken so soon as his necessities required. Dr. Beattie endeavours to prove the human invention of language to be impossible, {Theory of Lang. 8vo. p. 101.) And Doctor Johnson is so decidedly of this opinion, that he holds inspi- ration to be necessary to inform man that he has the faculty of speech, " which I think, says he, he could no more find out without inspiration, than cows or hogs would think of such a faculty." Mr. Wollaston contends, {Relig. of Nat. pp. 122, 123.) that language is the indispensable instrument* we may venture to affirm with confidence, that man is not such a being-," — " It would be vain for us, in inquiries of this nature, to indulge ourselves in specu- lating- about possibilities. It is of more consequence toremark the advantages which we derive from our actual constitution ; and which, in the present in- stance, appear to me to be important and admirable: inasmuch as it fits mankind for an easy interchange of their intellectual acquisitions ; by im- posing on them the necessity of employing, in their solitary speculations, the same instrument of thought which forms the established medium of their communications with each other." — See p. 190, of Ele'incnts of the Philosophy of the HumaJi J)iind, by Dug aid Steiaart. * In the preceding note, the necessity of language, as the Instrument of thought and reasoning, was particularly adverted to. In the judgment of many profound thinkers that necessity is recognized. Lavoisier, in the pre- face to his Elennaits of Chemistry^ expresses his coincidence in the maxim of Condillac, that " we think only through the medium of words :'' and that ** the art of reasoning is nothing more than a language well arranged." (^Kerr's Translation, p. xiv.) Plato describes thinking as conducted by men- tal speech, to S'lcttQua-bctt xoyovy ov avth -Tr^og ntvrnv n -^^X^ Su'^i^yjTAi: and in the philosophy of the Sreeks, reason and ixords are denominated by one and the same term \oyog. — Now, if this be just ; if language be, in truth, the in- dispensable instrument of reasoning; is it too much to affirm, that language could not have been discovered by reasoning; or in other words, that the operations of reasoning could not have effected that, by which alone its ope- rations are conducted ? According to the Conceptaalist indeed, who holds that the mind can con-' template its own ideas independently of words, the invention of language by the exertion of thought, is by no means inconceivable ; since, on tliis hypo- thesis, reasoning may precede language, and therefore may minister to its discovery. And yet, when considered somewhat closely, it may not perhaps appear a very easy matter to imagine the practicability of such. a process FROM DIVINE INSTRUCTION^. 293 of thought : and even Herder, who has laboured to prove lan- guage not to have been of divine appointment, admits that without it reason cannot be used by man. Reasoning-, it is manifest, can be conducted only by propositions or affirm- ations, either verbal or menial. A proposition affirmin^ij of any individual thing that it is itself, or that it is not another, is (^could we even suppose the mind in its first sta^e of thinking- capable of forming such a proposition,) not to be ranked among-st the class of affirmations which belong to reasoning. The power of distinguishing individual objects pertains to the faculty of perception, and is necessary to reasoning, but can form no part of it. No- thing individual then being an attribute, every affirmation which can make a part of reasoning demands the existence of a general sign. The forma- tion of general signs must therefore precede all affirmation, and consequent- ly every exercise of the reasoning faculty. The conceptualist who asserts, that general signs are supplied by the general ideas with which abstraction furnishes the mind, must of course contend, that the exercise of the power of abstraction must be antecedent to every act of reasoning. Now, in the first place, it cannot but be deemed extraordinary, that the very faculty, which is pronounced to be the distinguishing characteristic of the rational species, should be called into action previous to the exercise of reason. If such a faculty can be exerted before the use of reason, why not exerted u'zV/t- out it ? And in that case, why should not the tribes of irrational animals, whose perceptions of individual objects may be as distinct as those in the jninds of men, pass from those individual perceptions to universal ideas, if auch transition can be made without the exercise of reason ? — But again, not to dwell upon this consideration, (since it may be pretended that it is abstraction itself which in its consequence produces rationality,) if we in- quire what it is that can put an unreasoning mind upon this process of ab- straction ; a process allowed by all to be difficult, and represented by some in such a light as makes it appear to embrace contradictions ; it will not be very easy to give an answer. In contemplating things by classes, it is true, we both expedite the acquisition of knowledge, and facilitate its communica- tion. But can these ends act upon a mind, which has not yet begun to rea- son ^ Can the anticipations of knowledge become a motive, where it has not yet been learned, what knowledge is : or can the desire of communica- tion constitute an incitement, where the very notion of the subject matter to be communicated has never yet been conceived ? For it must be remem- bered that as we are now speaking of language as subsequent to reasoning, and of reasoning as subsequent to abstraction, we must conceive abstraction to be exerted, without any notion actually acquired either of reasoning or language, or any direction or forecast suggested by a reference to either. Abstraction, in short, in this view of the case, is a random and unintelligible movement, which is excited by no design, proposes no object, and admits no regulation. So irrational a foundation for a rational superstructure cannol be deliberately maintained. Dr. Price, whose system imposed on him the necessity of upholding the existence of abstract ideas, as " essential to all the operations of the under- standing, and as being implied in every act of our judgment," felt himself at tlie same time obliged, from the foregoing considerations, to deny that such ideas can be acquired by any mental process, such as that of abstraction. Were abstract ideas (he observes) formed by the mind in any such manner, ** it seems unavoidable to conceive, that it has them at the very time that it is supposed to be employed 'vnfor7ning them. Thus, from owy particular idea of a triangle, it is said we can form the general one: but does not the very reflection said to be necessary to this, on a greater or lesser triangle, imply that the general idea is already in the mind ?** {Revieiv of the principal diffi- culties in morals, p. oT-) The learned Cudworth, in like manner, speaking of the understanding as an artificer that is to fabiicate abjstract notions out 294 LANGPAGB DERIVED Now, if language be necessary to the exercise of reason, it clearly cannot have been the result of human excogitation : or, as it is put by Dr. Ellis in his Inquiry/, &c. language cannot be contrived without thought and knowledge ; but the mind cannot have thought and knowledge till it has language ; therefore language must be previously taught, before man could become a rational creature ; and none could teach him but God. {Scholar Armed, yo]. i. p. 140.) Locke's prin- ciples concerning the nature of language, although he did not see his way with sufficient clearness to lead him to the right of sensible ideas, demands whether, "when this artificer goes about his work, he knows what he is to make of them beforehand, and unto what shape to bring them. If he do not, he must needs be a bungUng workman : but if he do, he is prevented in his design, his work being already done to his hand : for he must needs have the intelligible idea of that whieh he knows or understands, already within himself." {Treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, pp. 220, 221.) Mr. Harris also is led, as he says, by the common account of the mode in which our ideas are generated in the mind, " to view the human soul in the light of a crucible, where truths are produced by a kind of logical chemistry." Hermes, pp. 404, 405. These writers are accordingly forced into the gratuitous supposition, of a distinct faculty for the ori^n of abstract ideas in the human mind. This Dr. Price pronounces to be the " faculty whose natural object is truth." {Rev. p. 37.) And Cudworth, from whom he has largely drawn, and whose mysterious solution of this difficulty he does not altogether reject, ascribes the origin of our abstract ideas to a certain " perceptive power of the J^oetical part of the soul, which, acting by itself, exerts from within the intelligible ideas of thihgs virtually contained in its own cognoscitive power, that are universal and abstract notions, from which, as it were, looking dovinviards, it compre- hends individual things." Treatise, pp. 217, 218. Mr. Harris again accounts for the existence of abstract ideas, by a " connective act of the soul, by means of which, by an energy as spontaneous and familiar to its nature us the see- ing of colours is to 5ie eye, it discerns at once what in many is one ; what in things dissimilar and different, is similar and the same ••" and this " con- ntcting or unifying power" of the mind, he makes to be the same with that which discerns truth ■ and by means of this alone it is, that he considers, that individuals themselves can become the objects of knowledge; in which be seems to coincide with the mystical notions of Cudworth. See Herm,ts, p. 360—372. Into such extraordinary straits, and unjustifiable assumptions, have these learned and able writers been drawn, whilst they maintained the existence of universal ideas, and at the same time found it impossible to accede to the notion of their production by the process of abstraction. They would have reasoned more justly, if from the impossibility of acquiring universal ideas by such a process, they had inferred that no such ideas do actually exist in the mind ; and that the general, abstract notion, which is at the same time to include all and none of the circumstances of individual existence, is a fic- tion which never can be realized. They would have arrived at a conclusion still more comprehensive and important, if they had drawn this farther con- sequence ; that there is not in nature any Universal really existing ; and that since no idea can be other than the idea of an individual, to terms alone tjan a universal or general nature be ascribed. — From all which it must fol- low as a necessary result ; that without language neither can knowledge be acquired, nor reasoning exerted, by the human intellect : and that since lan- guage must precede these, it cannot have been discovered by them, ami therefore cannot be deemed the offspring of human invention^ 1 FROM DIVINE INSTRUCTION. 2'95 conclusion, the last named writer proves to be perfectly cor- respondent to the above reasoning. (Ibid, pp. 138, 139.) And in an able work published at Berlin by Siismilchius m 1766, the same principles are successfully applied to esta- blish the same conclusion ; namely, that the origin of language must have been divine. Even Hobbes admits, that " the first author of speech was God himself, that instructed Adam how to name such creatures as he presented to his sight." (Le* viath. ch. iv. p. 12.) From the impossibility of conceiving how language could have been invented, some have been led, in opposition to all just reasoning, to pronounce it innate. ^^ Many even of the ancients, totally unaided by revelation, were obliged to con- fess, that the discovery of this art exceeded all human powers. Thus Socrates, in the Cratylus of Plato, is represented as, saying, " the first names were framed by the gods:" and in the same work we are told, that " the imposition of names on things, belonged to a nature superior to that of man," and that it could " pertain only to him, who hath a full discernment of their several natures." — PoL Syn* on Gen. ii. 19. Stil- ling, Orig, Sac. B. i. ch. i. § 3. — and Euseb, PrcBp. Evang, lib. xi. cap. 6. It must be remarked, that they who hold the opinion, that language is of mere humian invention, are for the most part obliged to proceed on suppositions of the original state of man, totally inconsistent with the Mosaic history. Thus, amongst the ancients, Diodorus Siculus, {Bibiioih, lib. i.) Vitruvius, {De.Archit, lib. ii. cap. 1, 2.) Lucretius, &c. ground their reasonings upon an idea, (derived from the atomic cosmogony of Moschus, Democritus, and Epicurus, which represented human beings as springing from the earth like vegetables,) that men first lived in woods and caves like brute beasts, utter- ing only cries and indistinct noises, until gradual associatioa for mutual defence, brought with it at length conventional signs for communication. And the respectable and learned, though strangely fanciful, author of the Origin and Progress of Language, who is among the latest that have written in defence of this opinion, is compelled to admit, that the inven- tion of language is too difficult for the savage state of man ; and accordingly he holds, that men having been placed origi- nally in a solitary and savage state, must have been associated for ages, and have carried on some common work, and even framed some civil polity, and must have continued for a con- • See Shuckf. Connex. vol. i. p, 109. and also an essay oF Coimt de Fraula, {Mem. de I' Acad. Imper. and Roy. Brussels, vol. 14.) in which languajje is represented as an instinctive (quality of man, constituting: a part of his very creation. 296 LANGUAGE DERIVED siderable length of time in that state, so as ultimately to ac- quire such powers of abstraction as to be able to form general ideas, before language could possibly be formed. Now whe- ther such theories, in supposing a mute emergence from savage barbarism to reflecting civilization, and a continued associa- tion^ without an associating tie, prove any thing else than their own extravagance; and by the prodigious difficulty and delay which even they attach to the invention of speech, w hether they do not give strong confirmation to the Mosaic account, which describes man as destined for the immediate enjoyment of society, and consequently instructed in the art of speech; it is for the reader to judge. Other writers again, Condillac, (in his IRssay on the Origin of Human Knowledge) Batteaux, (in his Principles ofLitera- ttire) and Gebelin, (in his Monde Primitify) maintain, that man is not by nature the mntum pecus he is represented by the Scotch philosopher: but that sounds, either excited by passions, or produced by imitation, would necessarily be form- ed, so as to constitute an inarticulate language ; which would ultimately suggest the idea, and supply the elements of more perfect speech. The transition however from the simple sound to the diversified articulation, is still a wide chasm in each of these solutions. And whilst the range of the passions seems on the one hand to present a limit, which the powers of communication, derived from that source, cannot be conceived to transcend : the various sounds and motions in nature must, on the other, be admitted to exhaust the models, which alone could draw forth the imitative powers of the human voice. So that according to these theories, single tones, or cries, either excited by some passion or formed in imitation of some natural sound, must in all just reasoning fill up the measure of human language. It is not easy then to discover any advantage pos- sessed by these theories, over that of Lord Monboddo, and the ancient Epicurean Philosophers. The latter but represent the human kind originally placed in the condition of brutes ; • Dr. Blair, in his Lectures on Rhetoric^ (vol. i. p. 71.) makes the following just and apposite observations — *' One would think, that in order to any lan- guage fixing and extending itself, men must have been previously gathered together in considerable numbers : society must have been already far ad- vanced : and yet, on the other hand, there seems to have been 'iX\. absolute ne- cessity for speechy previous to thefortnation of society. For, by what bond could any multitude of men be kept together, or be made to join in the prosecution of any common interest, until once, by the intervention of speech, they could communicate their wants and intentions to each other ? So that, either how society could form itself, previously to language, or how words could rise into a language, previously to society formed, seem to be points attended with equal difficulty. And when we consider, &c. difficulties increase so much upon us on aU hands, that there seems to be no small reason for refer- j-ing the first origin of all language to divine teaching or inspiration." FROM DIVINE INSTRUCTION. 297 tlie former seem careful to provide that it should never rise above that condition. As it may be matter of curiosity, to know in what manner these writers endeavour to explain the transition from mere vocal sounds to articulate speech, it may be proper to subjoin here a specimen taken from one of them, by no means the least distinguished in the literary world, the Abbe De Con- dillac. He admits the operation to be extremely tedious, for that " the organ of speech (in grown persons) for want of early use, would be so inflexible that it could not articulate any other than a few simple sounds: and the obstacles 7vhich prevented them from pronouncing others^ would prevent them from sus- pecting that the voice was susceptible of any further variation.'* Now it may be fairly asked, would not these obstacles for ever prevent any articulations, or even sounds, beyond those which the passions might excite, or other sounds suggest ? How is this difficulty, which has been fairly admitted by the author, to be removed? He shall answer for himself. The child, from the pliancy of its vocal organs, being freed from the obstruc- tions which incapacitated the parent, will accidentally fall upon new articulations in the endeavour to communicate its desire for a particular object ; the parent will endeavour to imitate this sound, and affix it as a name to the object, for the purpose of communicating with the child : and thus by repeat- ed enlargements of articulation in successive generations, lan- guage would at length be produced.* * It should be remarked, that were even all that Is here contended for ad- mitted to be practicable, lang-uag'e in the true sense of tlie word is not yet attained. The power of designating* an individual object by an appr<5priate articulation, is a necessary step in the formation of language, but very far removed indeed from its consummation. Without the use of general signs, the speech of man would differ little from that of brutes^ and the transition to the general term from the name of the individual is a difficulty which re- mains still to be surmounted. Condillac, indeed, proposes to show, how this transition may be made, in the natural course of things. " Un enfant appelle du nom d'Arbre le premier arbre que nous lui montrons. Un second arbre qu'il voit ensuite lui rappelle la mcme id. Ant. vol. i. p. 313. OBJECTED TO ERRONEOUSLY. 309 the Israelites concerning the sacrificial rites, after he had led them out of Egypt. The passage in Jeremiah, say they, re- fers to the transaction at Marah. (See particularly Kenn, Two Diss. pp. 153. 209.) The Jews, when they had arri- ved here, three days after they had left the Red Sea, mur- mured at the bitterness of the waters ; a miracle was wrought to sweeten them, and then God made a statute and ordinance for them, and proposed to them in exact agreement with what is here said in Jeremiah, to obey him, to give ear to his com- mandments, and keep his statutes, and that he would in turn be their protector. (Ex. xv. 25, 26.) Now, this having been some time before the formal institution of the sacrificial rite at Mount Sinai, and the Jews having always dated the be- ginning of the law from this declaration at Marah, the Jew- ish doctors maintain it to be true in fact, that God did not first enjoin their code of sacrificial observances, but com- manded them concerning moral obedience ; and thus under- stand the form of expression in Jeremiah, as we do that of St. Paul, Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression; (1 Tim. ii. 16.) that is, Adam was not first deceived, and was not first in the transgression, but Eve. The meaning of the passage in Jeremiah would then be, that as God had not, in the first instance, enjoined to the Jews their sacrificial ritual, after he had led them out of Egypt ; so they were not to attach to the observance t)f all its minutiae, a superiority over moral obedience, but the con- trary, the latter having been first commanded.^ This ex- planation agrees in substance with the former : and from both it manifestly appears, that this passage has no relation to the original institution of animal sacrifice. The whole of this subject is fully and ably treated by Mede, who sums up his entire argument in these words. " Accord- ing to one of these three senses, are all passages in the Old Testament, disparaging and rejecting sacrifices, literally to be understood: namely, when men preferred them before the greater things of the law ; valued them out of their degree, as an antecedent duty ; or placed their efficacy in the naked rite, as if aught accrued to God thereby ; God would no longer own them for any ordinance of his ; nor indeed in that dis- guise put upon them were they." Mede^s Works, pp. 352, 353. * See Maim. Moreh. JSTev. pars. ili. cap. 32. ap. fin. — Kennicoi's Tivo Diss. pp. 153. 209.— andJfn«. /ew. .i/j?. vol. i. p. 312. ^li iVo. LVIII.-^ON THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL, AS EVINCING THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. Page 42. (m) — Hallet considers this single fact as supply- ing so strong an argument on the present question, that he does not hesitate to pronounce it, a demonstration of a divine institution. For, he says, Abel's sacrifice could not have been acceptable, if it had not been of divine appointment, ac- cording to that obvious maxim of all true religion. In vain do they worship Go d^ teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark vii. 7.) Thus, says he, Abel must have wor- shipped God in vain, had his sacrificing been merely a com- mandment of his father Adam, or an invention of his own. And to make this matter more evident, he asks, why we do not now offer up a bullock, a sheepj or a pigeon, as a thank-of- fering after any remarkable deliverance, or as an evidence of our apprehensions of the demerit of sin. The true reason is, because we cannot know that God will accept such will-wor' ship, and so conclude that we should herein worship God in vain. As Abel then did not sacrifice in vain, it was not will- worship, but a divine appointment. To this, he adds, the want of a right to slay animals before the flood, unless conferred by God for this very purpose of sacrifice, gives yet farther con- firmation. Hallet on Ilebr. xi. 4. Dr. Richie remarks, that the divine acceptance is not con- fined to the sacrifice of Abel, but that we find it extended also to others offered under the patriarchal dispensation. Thus, God is said to have smelted a sweet savonr, (a strong expres- sion of his acceptance,) when Noah offered his burnt-offering. Job's care, likewise, to offer burnt-offerings for his children, is mentioned as an eminent effect of piety, and with particular marks of approbation. (Job, ch. i.) And the honourable men- tion, which is made of the sacrifices offered by other pious men in this period of the world, leaves no room to doubt of their having been likewise graciously accepted by God. It is, moreover, to be observed, that the oblation of some of those early sacrifices, was expressly ordered by God himself: as the burnt-offering of Abraham, (Gen. xxii.) and those which were offered by the three friends of Job. (Job xlii.) Now that it is more natural to think, that God would order and accept of, the performance of a mode of worship, which had been in- stituted by himself, thail that he would thus countenance one, which had been the product of mere human invention, is a thing which will not bear much dispute. See Dr. Richie's Pec. Doct. vol. i. pp. 149, 150. Indeed, whoever wishes to «ee the subject of the divine institution of sacrifices satisfac- A DIVINE INSTITUTIOH. 31J torily treated, may consult the last named work, p. 186 — 151. to great advantage. See also Barringtoii*s Misc, Sac. toK iii. p. 67 — 71. and Heideg. HisL Patr. Exercit iii. $ 32, 53-. torn. i. This last writer considers the ef^Tv^ta-fAe^y or the burning of the sacrifice by fire from heaven, a decisive proof of a divine institution : and that the patriarchs were favoured with this infallible sign of the divine acceptance of their sacrifices, the language of scripture, he thinks, leaves us no room to doubt. That it was by this sign that it was known that the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, is the almost unanimous opinion of the Fathers. And in this the Jewish Doctors concur: as see^ Ahen Esra and Jarchi on Gen. iv. 4. Theodotion translates the verb in this verse, evtTrv^Krev : a translation, with which even Julian was satisfied. It is certain, that this manifestation of the divine power was. vouchsafed in later times. The sacrifice of Abraham, Gen. XV. 17. supplies a striking instance of it. And if ShuckfordV reading of TJ^a (to kindle), instead of ^^V (to pass), be admit- ted, this passage becomes in itself decisive of the point. (^Con- nexion, &c. vol. i. p. 298.) But if we look to the period under- the law, we shall find this the usual method* of signifying the- divine acceptance of the sacrilice. Hence, to accept a burntn sacrifice, is called in the Hebrew, Ps. xx. 3. to turn it into ashes. The reliques of this are to be found even in the heathen traditions. Thus Servius on ^n, xii. 200. says, " Amongst the ancients fire was not lighted upon the altar, but by prayer they called down fire from heaven which consumed the offer- ing." From these, and other arguments not less forcible, every Commentator of note had been led to pronounce in favour of the idea, that the acceptance of the sacrifice was testified, from the beginning, in the miraculous manner here described.! That the fire which consumed the sacrifice, was a flame which issued from the Shechinah, or glorious visible presence of God, is the opinion of Lord Harrington; see Mis- cell. Sacr. vol. iii. Dissert, ii: " On God's visible presence." But be this as it may, the fact of this divine fire consuming the sacrifice seems to be established : and the inference from this$ fact in favour of the divine institution of sacrifice cannot easily be overturned. • See Lev.ix. 24. Judg. vi. 21. 1 Kings xviii. 38. 1 CIir.xKi.26. 2Clir, vU. 1, &c. t See Fagiut^ Grotius, Le dcrc, Ain^^. Patrick, XartiesolU Dathe^ Rostn- 'Waller, &c. on Gen. iv. 4. 312 THE HISTORY No. LIX. ON THE HISTORY AND THE BOOK OF J OB, Page 42. (n) — There is no one part of the sacred volume, which has more exercised the ingenuity of the learned, than the book of Job. Whether it contain a true history or a fabu- lous relation ? If true, at what time and place Job lived? And what the date and author to be assigned to the work? — These are questions, which have given birth to opinions so various, and to controversies so involved, that to enumerate all, and to weigh their several merits, would far exceed the compass of the present work. But to take a brief review of the opinions of the most distinguished critics, and to elicit from contend- ing arguments the probable result, whilst necessary to the subject of our present inquiry, cannot fail to furnish matter of interesting investigation. I. On the first of the questions above stated, there have been three opinions: one, pronouncing the poem to be a real narrative: a second, holding it to be a mere fictitious relation, intended to instruct through the medium of parable: and the third, adopting an intermediate idea, and maintaining the work itself to be dramatic and allegorical, but founded upon the his- tory of real characters and events. Among the many distinguished names which support the first opinion, are to be reckoned, in later times, those of Span- heim, Sherlock, Schultens, Bishop Lowth, Peters, and Ken- nicot: to these perhaps may be added that of Grotius, who, though he contends that the work is a poetic representation, yet admits the subject to be matter of true history. In de- fence of this opinion, the work is considered as supplying strong intrinsic evidence : the general style and manner of the writer betraying nothing allegorical, but every where be- speaking a literal relation of actual events ; entering into cir- cumstantial details of habitation, kindred, and names; and adhering with undeviating exactness to those manners and usages, which belong to the age and country, of which it seems to treat. The reality of the person of Job is also at- tested by the prophet Ezechiel, who ranks him with two other real and illustrious characters ; and by the apostle James, who proposes him as a character particularly deserving of imita- tion. Concurrent traces of profane history too, supply addi- tional confirmation, as may be seen in Mr. Gray's account of the book of Job ; so that, as this judicious writer properly ob- serves, " it has every external sanction of authority, and is stamped with every intrinsic mark, that can characterize a genuine relation." AND BOOK OF JOB. 313 In direct opposition to this, is the system of Maimonides ; •which, representing the whole as a parabolical and fictitious relation, has been adopted successively by Le Clerc, and Michaelis. The arguments of the first of these writers have been fully replied to by Codurcus ; those of the second by Peters ; and those of the last have received some judicious animadversions from the pens of Mr. Gray and Dr. Gregory. The arguments commonly urged in support of this hypothesis, are derived from certain circumstances of intrinsic improba- bility : such as the miraculous rapidity with which the calami- ties of Job succeeded ; the escape of precisely one servant to bear the news of each disaster ; the destruction of 7000 ^heep at once struck dead by lightning ; the seven days si- lence of the friends of Job ; the highly figurative and poetic style of dialogue, which never could have taken place in ac- tual conversation. These are what Peters calls the little ex^ ceptions of Le Clerc to the truth of the history ; and might some of them deserve attention, were we neither to admit a su- pernatural agency in the transactions, nor a poetic rapidity in the narrative rejecting the cottsiderationof unimportant particulars. An objection, however, of greater moment, is derived from the conversation of Satan with the Almighty : and to this Michaelis adds others which he claims as his peculiar in- vention, deduced from the name of Job ; from the artificial regularity of the numbers ; and from internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Of these last named, perhaps the two former might well be ranked among the little exceptions : the derivation of the name of Job from a word which signifies rcpenfmice, being at best but conjectural ; and even were it certain, making nothing against the reality of the person, names having been frequently given in ancient times, from circumstances which occurred at an advanced period of life, of which numerous instances appear in holy writ : and as to the regularity of the numbers ; the years of Job's life, his children, his sheep, his camels, his oxen, and his asses, being all told in round numbers, and all exactly doubled in the years of his prosperity ; it is obvious to remark, that it would ill s^it the fulness and elegance of poetic^ narration to descend to the minutise of exact numeration ; and that, as to the precise duplication^ it is but a periphrasis growing out of the former enumeration, intended merely to express that the Lord gave to Job twice as much as he had before. The two remaining objections require more particular con- sideration. And first, as to the incredibility of the conversa- * The poem, perhaps, strictly 8peakingy may be said not to begin until the third chapter ; that which precedes being narratioji. Bat the narratioij, a^^reeably lo the lofty style of the East, is itsdf of noeUcal elevation. < 314 THE HISTORr tion, which is related to have taken place between the Al- mighty and Satan, it may be observed, that this and the assem- blage of the celestial intelligences before the throne of God, should be considered as poetic, or as Peters with more pro- priety expresses it, prophetical personifications, in accommo- dation to our limited faculties, which are abundantly autho- rized by God himself in holy scripture, and are perfectly agreeable to the style, wherein his prophets have been fre- quently commanded to deliver the most solemn and important truths. Thus the prophetic visions of Isaiah, (ch. vi.) of Ezech. (ch. i.) of St. Paul, (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4.) and of St. John, (Rev. iv. 1, 2.) represent the proceedings of Providence, in like reference to our powers and modes of conception : and the vision of Micaiah, (1 Kings xxii. 19 — 23.) and that of Zecha- riah, (ii. 13. iii. 1.) supply cases precisely parallel in every respect. Farmer justly remarks on this subject, that such " visions or parabolical representations, convey instruction as truly and properly, as if they were exact copies of outward objects."* And indeed if the introduction of Satan be ad- mitted as an argument against the truth of the history, it should lead us equally to reject the narrative of our Lord's temptation, as an unfounded fiction. If, however, the opinion of Dathe (which has also the support of Herder, Eichhorn, and Doederlein,) be well founded, all difficulty arising even from this circumstance is removed ; inasmuch as the evil SPIRIT is not, according to his interpretation, intended; but one of the angelic ministers, whose peculiar office it was to ex- plore and try the real characters of men, and to distinguish the hypocrite from the sincerely pious. The objection, derived from the internal inconsistencies and contradictions of the work, is thus stated by Michaelis : Job, who could not have been advanced in years himself, up- braids his friends with their youth ; (xxx. 1.) yet these very men exact reverence from Job as their junior, speaking of themselves as agred men ^ much older than \\\'& father ^ (xv. 10.) and are expressly described by Elihu, (xxxii. 6, 7.) as men to be respected for their hoary age. {NotcB et Epimetra. pp. 178, 179.) This argument Michaelis admits to be the grand strength of his cause, and to this Dr. Gregory's reply is satis- factory, so far as the meaning of the passage, xxx. 1. is con- cerned ; in which there certainly appears no relation to the friends of Job, but merely a general complaint, bewailing the degraded state to which himself had fallen ; and contrasting with that high respect which he had in former days expe- * Inquiry into the TemptatioUy p. 164 — attend to this writer's observations, — also to Chappel. Comment. Prtef. p. xiv. and particularly to F€ter9*9 Crit. Diss. p. 113—122. and Taylor*s Scheme of Scr, Div. ch. xxi. AND BOOK OF JOB. 815 rienced, — when even the aged arose and stood up, when princes refrained talking, and the nobles held their peace, — his present abject condition, when even those that were YOUNGER than him, and who were of such mean descent that he would have disdained to hfive set their fathers with the dogs of his flock, (by which he could not possibly have in- tended his three friends,) now held him in derision. But I apprehend Dr. Gregory's criticism on ch. xv. 10. — namely, that by the words, with us (1^3,) is meant with us in opinion — is not at all supported by the genius of the Hebrew, nor by parallel usage. 1 think it is evident both from this and the passage, xxxii. 6, 7. that the friends of Job, or some of them, were aged. But in the true meaning of the word iy'ty% which seems to have been hit off by Chappelow alone of all the commentators, w^ shall find a complete solution of the difficulty. This word, as Chappelow remarks, on Job xii. 12. and xxxii. 6. does not merely imply age, but the wisdom which should accompany age. It may perhaps not improper- ly be expressed in our language, by the single term sage. Taking the word in this sense, no inconsistency whatever ap- pears: for then the thing denied by Job to his friends, in xii. 12. claimed by themselves in xv. 10. and ascribed to them by Elihu, in xxxii. 6, 7. will be, not length of years, but those fruits of wisdom, which years should have produced. It should also be noted, that in xv. 10. the words are in the sin- gular number; so that in strictness, no more than one amongst them is here spoken of, as advanced in age beyond the years of Job. Indeed an inconsistency so gross and obvious, as this which is charged against the book of Job by the German professor, cannot be other than seeming, and founded in some misapprehension of the meaning of the original. Admitting even the poem to be fabulous, he must have been a clumsy contriver, who could in one place describe his characters as young, and in another as extremely aged, when urged to it by no necessity whatever, and at full liberty to frame his narrative as he pleased. And this want of comprehension should least of all have been objected by those critics, who, in supposing the work to have been composed in an age and coun- try different from those whose manners it professes to describe, are compelled upon their own hypothesis, to ascribe to the writer an uncommon portion of address and refinement. But supposing the narrative to have a foundation in truth, the third hypothesis, which represents this as wrought up into an allegorical drama, remains to be considered. This strange conceit was the invention of Warburton. He considers Job, his wife, and his three friends, as designed to personate the Jew- ish people on their return from the captivity, their idolatrous iilb* THE HISTORY wives, and the three great enemies of the Jews at that peHod^ Sanballat, Tobiah, and Gesheni. This allegorical scheme has been followed by Garnet, with some variations, whereby the history of Job is ingeniously strained to a description of the Jewish sufferings, during the captivity. The whole of War- burton's system, " the improbabilities of which,", as Peters observes, "are by no means glossed over by the elaborate rea- soning and extravagant assertions of the learned writer,*' is fully examined and refuted by that ingenious author, in the first eight sections of his Critical Dissertation. The arguments by which this extraordinary hypothesis lias been supported, are drawn from the highly poetic and figurative style of the work, whence it is inferred to be dra- matic : and from the unsuitableness of particular actions and expressions to the real characters, which at the same time correspond to the persons whom these characters are suppo- sed to represent, whence it is inferred to be allegoricaL But, from the first nothing more can fairly be deduced, than that the writer has not given the precise words of the speak- ers, but has dressed out the dialogue with the ornaments of poetry in a manner which Dathe truly tells us is agreeable to the customs of the country, in which the scene is laid : it be- ing used to represent the conferences of their wise men on philosophic questions, in the most elevated strain of poetic diction. (See Dath. on Job, ch. iii.) And as to the second, it cannot appear to a sober reader in any other light than that of a wild and arbitrary fancy. Bishop Lowth declares, that he has not been able to discover a single vestige of an allegorical meaning, throughout the entire poem. It requires but a sound understanding to be satisfied, that it has no such aspect. And at all events, this strange hypothesis rests al- together upon another ; namely, that the book was written in the age of those to whom it is supposed to bear this allego- rical application. If then, as we shall hereafter see, there be no just ground for assigning to the work so late a date, the whole of this airy fabric vanishes at once. II. The history of Job appearing now, on the whole, io be a true relation, the second question comes to be consider- ed, In what age and country did he live ? As to the place of Job's residence there seems to be little difficulty. Com- mentators are mostly agreed in fixing on Idumaea, a part of Arabia Petraa. Kennicot {Remarks on Select PassageSf p. 152.) considers Bishop Lowth as having completely proved this point. Codurcus had long before maintained the same opinion : (Prcef. ad Joh^) and Dathe and the modern German commentators give it their support. The position of the land of Uz, (see Lam. iv. 21.) the residence of Job, and of AND BOOK OF JOB, 317 the several places named as the habitations of his friends, seems to ascertain the point with sufficient precision. Chil- (hen of the East, also appears to be a denomination applicct- ble to the inhabitants of that region, (see Lowth. Proilect. xxxii.) and is even pronounced by Dathe to have been ap^ propriate. The only objection deserving notice, that can be raised against this supposition, is drawn from the great distance of Idumaea from the country of the Chaldeans, who, living on the borders of the Euphrates, could not easily have made de- predations on the camels of Job. And this has been thought by some a sufficient cause for assigning to Job a situation in Arabia Deserta, and not far from the Euphrates. But, asj Lowth replies, Avhat should prevent the Chaldeans, as well as the Sabeans, a people addicUd to rapine, and roving about at immense distances for the sake of plunder, from wandering through those defenceless regions, and pervading from Eu- phrates even to Egypt? And on the other hand, what proba- bility is there that all the friends of Job, residing in and near Idumgea, should be instantly informed of all that had happen- ed to Job in the desert of Arabia, and on the confines of Chaldea, and repair thither immediately after the transaction? Shuckford's arguments concur with these of Lowth ; and are fully satisfactory on this head. See Connex, B. vii. vol. p. 138. See also Gray on the book of Job, note (r). The LXX likewise describe the land of Uz as situated in Idumsea : and Job himself they consider an Idumsean, and a descend- ant of Esau. (See Append, of the LXX.) The Mohamme- dan writers likewise inform us that he was of the race of Esau. See Sale's Koran, ch. 21. vol. ii. p. 162. With respect to the age of Job, one thing seems generally admitted; namely, its remote antiquity. Even they who contend for the late production of the l)ook of Job, are com- pelled to acquiesce in this. Grotius thinks the events of the history are such as cannot be placed later than the so- journing of the Israelites in the wilderness, Praf. ad Job, Warburton, in like manner, admits them to bear the marks ef high antiquity: and Michaelis confesses the manners re- presented to be perfectly Abrahamic, such as were common to all the seed of Abraham, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Idu- maeans. (lYof. ep Epim. p. 181.) Some of the principal circumstances, from which the age ©f Job may be collected, are these which follow. 1. The ge- neral air of antiquity which is spread over the manners re- corded in the poem, of which Michaelis as above referred to, has given strildng instances. 2. The length of Job's life, which seema to pjace him in the patriarchaf times. 3. The 318 THE HISTORY allusions made by Job to that species of idolatry alone, which by general confession was the most ancient, and which, as Lowth observes, {Lectures on Sacred Poetry, Greg. ed. vol. ii. p. 355.) is a decisive mark of the patriarchal age. 4. The nature of the sacrifice offered by him in conformity to the di- vine command ; namely, seveu oxen and seven rams, similar to that of Balaam, and suitable to the respect entertained for the number seven in the earliest ages.* This, though, as Mr. Henley observes, the ancient practice might have been continued in Idumaea after the promulgation of the f Mosaic law, is far from being, as he asserts, destitute of weight; inas- much as the sacrifice was offered bi/ the command of God ; w^ho, although he might be supposed graciously to accommo- date himself to the prevailing customs, before the promulga- tion of the Law, yet cannot be imagined after he had prescri- bed a certain mode of sacrifice to the Israelites, to sanction by his express authority, in a country immediately adjoining, a mode entirely different, and one which the Mosaic code was intended to supersede. 5. The language of Job and his friends, who being all Idumteans, or at least Arabians of the adjacent country, yet converse in Hebrew. This carries us up to an age so early, as that in which all the posterity of Abraham, Israelites, Idumaeans, and Arabians, yet continued to speak one common language, and had not branched into different dialects. J 6. Certain customs of the most remote antiquity are alluded to by Job. He speaks of the most an- cient kind of writing, by sculpture. His riches also are reckoned by his cattle. And as to the word r^D^iifp, which is translated Si piece of moneys there seems good reason to un- derstand it as signifying a lamb. This word occurs but in two other parts of scripture. Gen. xxxiii. 19. and Josh. xxiv. 32. and in both of these it is ap- plied to the purchase of a piece of ground by Jacob, who ia on that particular occasion represented as rich in flocks, and as driving with him large quantities of cattle: and according- ly, the Targum of Onkelos, the LXX, Jerome, Pagninus, and the learned Jew Aben Ezra, have all of them rendered the word lamb, or sheep. In order to force the word to the sig- nification of a piece of money, it has been pretended that the coin bore the impress of a lamb. Upon this conjecture, and a passage in Acts vii. 15, 16, which can give it no support, is * SeeJablonski Panth. JEgypt. Proleg.\i. 53.-59. Univ. Hist. B. iii. ch. xxxvii. sect. 3. also Ains. on Lev. iv. 6. and Numb, xxxiii 1. t See Mr. Henley's note in Dr. Gregory's translation ofLowth's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 356. ^ See Loxvth. De Sacr. Poes, Prxl. xxxii. p. 311. also Gray on Job, note a3. AND BOOK OF JOB. 319 the entire interpretation built. ^ Now the notion of a stamped coin, as Dalhe remarks, (on Job xlii. 11.) is inadmissible in an age so early as that of Jacob. The way of payment in silver in the time of Abraham, we know to have been by weight, or shekels uncoined : and what authority have we to pronounce, that stamped money was in use in the time of Ja- cob? The money which was put into the sacks of Joseph's brethren, seems to have been the same as in the time of Abraham, being called SDD r^nnv, strictly bundles of silver, (Gen. xlii.. 35.) an expression not likely to be applied to coin- ed pieces of money. And indeed no expression, indicating such pieces of money, seems to occur in any of the early booksr of the Bible. Junius and Tremellius on Gen. xxxiii. 19.f speak of sheepy as the ancient medium of traffic ; and pro- nounce the word nD'iyp to be peculiar to the Arabians and an- cient Canaanites. This, and the remark of Codurcus, " that as pecunia was first called from pecus, so Keschita, which first signified pecM5, was afterwards transferred to signify pecunia,^* tend to confirm our reasoning. For if a sheep was the most ancient medium of traffic, and was in the earliest times ex- pressed by the word Keschita, whilst its subsequent transfer to denote pecttnia is but conjectural, there can be but little difficulty as to the conclusion. See also an elaborate disserta- tion on the word by Costard : in which he shows, that the first stamping of money with any effigies, was of a date se- veral centuries later than the time of Jacob, not having been known before the time of Cyrus. {Inquiry into the mean- ing of the word Kesilah, p. 12, &c.) If this opinion be right, the point is decided. At all events it should be remember- ed, that if Keschita must signify a piece of money, the only age, beside that of Job, in which we find the word applied in scripture, is the age of Jacob. That no such coin was known of under the Mosaic dispensation, is shown by Hodges, in his Eliliu, p. 242. I have dwelt thus long upon the investigation of the true meaning of this word, as well because the interpre- tation of it, as a stamped piece of money, seems to have been too easily acquiesced in by commentators in general ; as be- cause I would not presume to differ from the received trans- lation without the most careful examination. * See Cocc. Lex. — Calas. Concord. — Drnsius, and Grotius^ and Hodges'* a Elihu, on Job xlii. 11. also Hatmn. and Whitby, on Acts vii. 15, 16. f Geddes, in his Critical lieinarks, truly observes, on the word PnD'lS'p in this passage, that " most interpreters, after Sept. have understood it of iaml)s, more particularly ewe-lambs. So equivalently (he adds) all the an- cient versions. Some have imagined (he says) that it was a piece of money with the figure of a lamb on it : which is highly improbable, as coined money is of a much later date.'* 320 THE HISTORY From the above considerations, the great antiquity of Job seems to be an unavoidable consequence. To specify the exact time at which he lived is a matter of greater difficulty, but of inferior importance. Eusebius places him before Moses tiro whole ages : and in this concurs with the opinion of many of the Hebrew writers, who (as Selden observes) de- scribe him as living in the days of Isaac and Jacob. That the judgment of the eastern nations does not differ much from this, may be seen mHottinger^s Smegma Orientale, p. 281. (See Pah'ick's Pref, to Job.^ Shuckford is of opinion that he was cotemporary with Isaac. {Connex. B. vii. vol. ii. p. 127.) Spanheim {Hist, Job, cap. ix, p. 285.) places him be- tween the death of Joseph and the departure from E2;ypt. But whoever wishes to See the most probable and satisfactory account, may consult the table of descent given by Kenni- cot, {Remarks, cScc. p. 152.) in which Job is represented as cotemporary with Amram the father of Moses ; Eliphaz the Temanite, who was the fifth from Abraham, being cotempo- rary with both. Mr. Heath agrees with this account, in placing the death of Job about fourteen years before the Exodus. Ill, The third and last question now comes to be consider- ed : namely, what date and author are to be assigned to the book of Job. That the poem is as ancient as its subject, and that Job was not only the hero but the author of the work, is the opinion of many distinguished commentators. The ob- jections brought against this opinion are derived from marks of later times, which it is said are to be discerned in the work, and which are copiously summed up iand largely insisted on by Mr. Heath. 1. It is urged that there is frequent allusion to the laws of Moses. — On the directly opposite presumption it had been pronounced, that the book could not have been written at a late period, for the benefit of the Jews ; inasmuch as there is not to be found in it " one single word of the law of Moses, nor so much as one distant allusion to any rite or ceremony of the law,"* The instances adduced by Heath, in support of his position, are taken from Job iii. 19. and xli. 14, and xxxi. 28. the two first of which, in speaking oi maniimission and eternal servitude, allude, as he says, to the law in Exod. xxi. 2 — 6. concerning the release of the Hebrew servant in the seventh year, and the ceremony of piercing the ear where an eternal servitude was consented to : and the third, in de- scribing idolatry as a crime to be punished by the judge, must, as he thinks, relate to the Mosaic dispensation ; " the laws of * See SherlocFs use of Proph. Diss. ii. p. 207. see also Loixth. Praiect .xxxii. p. 312^ AND BOOK OF JOB. 321 tlie Mosaic polity being the only ones in the world which punished idolatry." (Essay towards a new Version, p. 129.) As to the two first instances, the resemblance is so imaginary, or rather so truly chimerical an idea, as not to deserve an answer ; if the reader, however, wish to see one, he will find it in Mich. Not. et Epim. p. 189. To the third, which has also the authority of Warburton and Mr. Locke, it may be re- plied, that scripture decides the point ; as it informs us, that Abraham was called from Chaldea on account of the increase of idolatry, to raise a people for the preservation of the worship of the true God : so that the allusion to the exertion of judicial authority against idolatry, was most naturally to be expected from a descendant of this patriarch, and it may be added, from one not far removed. See LowtWs Lectures, &c, Greg, ed. vol. ii. pp. 3.^)4, '^55. also Michael. Not. et Epim. p. 190. •and especially Peters, Crit. Diss. Pref. p. iii — xii. where this point receives the most ample examination. 2. It is contended, that there are allusions not only to the laws, but to the history, of the Jewish people. But these allusions, as stated by Heath, are so extremely fanciful, as in the opinion of Michaelis to require no farther refutation than the bare reading of the passages referred to. {Not. et Epim. pp. 191, 192.) Some of the same kind had been urged by Warburton, {Div. Leg. B. vi. § ii. vol. iii. p. 494 — 499.) and proved to be futile and visionary by Peters. (Crit. Diss. p. 28 — 36.) Indeed these points have been so completely can- vassed, that we may now with confidence pronounce, as Sher- lock had done before, (Use of Proph. p. 297.) that there is no one allusion, direct or indirect, either to the law or to the history of the Jews, that can be fairly pointed out in the book of Job. But 3. It is maintained, both by Heath and Warburton, that the use of the word Jehovah determines the date of the book to be later than the age of Moses : God not having been known by that name until he appeared to Moses, as he him- self declares, in Exod. vi. 3. This, however, is evidently a misapprehension of the meaning of the passage in Exodus: it being certain that God was known to the patriarchs Abra- ham and Jacob, by the name of Jehovah ; that he calls him- self by that name in speaking to them ; and is so called hy them again expressly.^ The sense of the passage then must be, not that the name was unknown to all before Moses, but its true signification ; that is, the nature and properties of the self-existent Being, expressed by that comprehensive name jehovah, which in the original signifies, according to * See Gen. xiv. 22. Xv. 2, 8, 7. xxiv. 3. xxviii. 13, 16. and xxxU- 9. ^22 THK HISTORY Le Clerc, and almost all the commentators, faithful and stead- fast, making things to he, that is, fulfilling all his promises, which he began to accomplish in the time of Moses. By this name then, in its true sense, God certainly was not known, or as Peters renders it, was not distinguished, before the time of Moses.* This objection may consequently be set aside. Nor will the 4th objection, derived from the mention of Satan, be found to have greater weight. The evil being, it is contended both by Heath and Warburton, was not ^nown to the Jew s in early days ; and the word Satan never occurs until a late period of their history, as a proper name ; in which light it is said to be here necessarily used, as being preceded by the emphatic article n, jDDn, i. e. the adversary. But that the doctrine of an evil spirit was not unknown to the Jews at an early day, is evident from the history of Ahab, in which mention is made of it as a thing familiar, and in a man- ner precisely similar to the present case. Indeed the history of the fall could scarcely be made intelligible to them without that doctrine ; and Warburton himself admits, (B. vi. § 2. vol. ii. p. 533.) that the notion of an evil principle had pro- bably arisen " from the history of Satan misunderstood, or imperfectly told, in the first ages of mankind." In the next place the word Satan,! was clearly not unknown to the early Jews, as appears from the use of it in Numb. xxii. 22. in the story of Balaam. We find it also in 2 Sam. xix. 22. 1 Kings v. 4. xi. 14, 23, 25. Psalm. Ixxi. 13. cix. 20, 29. But if it be asserted, that it is used in those several places, but as a common appellative, yet still, neither will it follow, that the na^ne might not have been used, as the Being was certainly * See VatabluSf Dath. and Rosenm. in locum — also Peters* s Pref. to Crh. Diss. p. xii — xvi. and Bishop Kidder's Comm. one particular sameness of expression, which Kennicot thinks he discovers in the Pentateuch and Job, namely, the frequent use of the future for the preterite ; if this were indeed a peculiarity confined to these* two parts * The learned critic has been obliged to confess on subsequent considera- tion, that the conversion of the future into the preterite by the 1 prefixed, is not strictly confined to the Pentateuch and the book of Job ; and he himself adduces instances of a similar usage from Judges and Isaiah : and thus in truth does away the force of his own observation. He adds, however, in support of his first position, that " this idiom, being seldoin found elsewhere, and being found so often, and within so few verses, both in the Pentateuch and Joh^ must certainly add some weight to the opinion that these books came from, the same ivriter. {Remarks, &c. pp. 153, 154.) In tlie criticism here advanced, this distinguished scholar has not exer- cised his usual caution and research. The fact differs most widely from his assertion. For it is certain, as we have been most truly told in a late ingenious publication, that throughout the 'Vihole Hebrew scriptures, i\\^ per- fect tense is most generally expressed by the cowverted future ; so that it is clearly the ftroper idiom of the language. And it is with justice added, that this is a peculiarity of a natul*e so extraordinary as to be highly deserving AND BOOK OF JOB. 329 ©f the sacred volume, might it not be accounted for, by sup- posing it to have been the usage of the language in its earliest peiiod, and which, though it did not descend later than the writings of Moses, yet might have been common to that and the preceding ages. But admitting even a similarity of style, one great difficulty still hangs upon the hypothesis, that Moses was the author of the book: namely, that as he must have intended it for the Israelites, it is scarcely possible to conceive, that, although relating an Idumsean history, he should not have introduced something referring to the peculiar state and circumstances of the people, for whose use it was destined ; of which no trace whatever appears in the work. The common subjects touch- ed upon in both, too, we should expect to find similarly hand- led; and yet, if Peters's remark be just, the manner in which the creation, the fall, the deluge, and other points of ancient history, are treated in the book of Job, is widely different from that, in which they are spoken of in the books of Moses. See Crit, Diss. p. 126. There seems, then, upon the whole, sufficient ground for the conclusion, that this book was not the production of Mo^ ses, but of some earlier age : and there appears no good reason to suppose, that it was not written by Job himself. Lowth favours this idea, and Peters urges some arguments, of no inconsiderable weight, in its support. (Crit. Diss. p. 123 — 125.) The objections against it, from Arabia being called the East, (which, according to Grotius and Le Clerc, marks the writer to be a Hebrew,) and from the account given of the death of Job in the conclusion, create no difficulty* Peters has shown, that not only did other nations, beside the Her brews, call Arabia the East; but that it was customary even with the Arabians themselves : and that the writer was an Ara- bian, he infers with much ingenuity, from the manner in which he speaks of the North wind. As for the addition of a few lines at the conclusion, made by some other hand, for the pur- pose of completing the history ; this should no more invalidate Job*s title to the work, than a similar addition at the conclu- of attention ; because the regularity of its chang^es will bear the strictest examination, whereby maybe demonstrated the great ^grammatical accuracy and propriety of expression that has been observed by all the nvriters of the Hebrev} scriptures for so many years, from Moses to Malachi. This position is substantiated by a wide rang-e of examples in the Letter on certain parti- cularities of the Hebreiii Syntax, written by Mr. Granville Sharpe, whose acute and valuable philological inquiries, as well in that and his other Let- ters on the same subject, as in his investigations of the Greek text, cannot be too highly commended. The labours of this learned layman reflect honour upon himself, and, what he appears to have much more at heart, light and intelligence upon the sacred text. — Lowth in his Lectures, vol. i. p. o36 — 345. has treated of the above peculiarity of the Hebrew tenses. K & 330 THE HISTORV sion of Deuteronomy, should invalidate that of Moses to the Pentateuch. (See Crit. Diss, pp. 127, 128. and pref. p. xvi.) But, whether we suppose Job the author of the book, or not ; its great antiquity, and even its priority to the age of Moses, seems to stand on strong grounds. And upon the whole, perhaps we may not unreasonably conjecture the his- tory of the book to be this. — The poem, being originally written either by Job, or some cotemporary of his, and exist- ing in the time of Moses, might fall iato his hands, whilst re- siding in the land of Midian, or afterwards when in the neigh- bourhood of Idumaea; and might naturally be made use of by him, to represent to the Hebrews, either whilst repining under their Egyptian bondage, or murmuring at their long wander- ings in the wilderness, the great duty of submission to the will of God, The encouragement which this book holds out, that every good man suffering patiently will finally be rewarded, rendered it a work peculiarly calculated to minister mingled comfort and rebuke to the distressed and discontented Israel- ites, and might therefore well have been employed by Moses for this purpose. We may also suppose, that Moses, in transcribing, might have made some small and unimportant al- terations, which will sufficiently account for occasional and partial resemblances of expression between it and the Penta- teuch, if any such there be. This hypothesis both furnishes a reasonable compromise be- tween the opinions of the great critics, w^ho are divided upon the point of Moses being the author; and supplies an answer to a question of no small difficulty, Avhich hangs upon almost every other solution : namely, when, and wherefore, a book treating manifestly of the concerns of a stranger, and in no way connected with their affairs, was received by the Jews into their sacred canon ? For Moses having thus applied the book to their use, and sanctioned it by his authority, it would naturally have been enrolled among their sacred writings : and from the antiquity of that enrolment, no record would conse- quently appear of its introduction. This hypothesis satisfies the 3d query in the TheoL Repos. vol. i. p. 72. I have the satisfaction also to find, that this notion is not without support from many respectable authorities. The ancient commenta- tor on Job, under the title of Origen, has handed dow^n a piece of traditional history, which perfectly accords with it. See Patrick^s Preface to Job. Many of the most respectable early writers seem to have adopted the same idea, as may be seen in Huet, (JDenu Evang. p. 226.) and, with some slight variation, it has been followed by that learned author. Patrick also and Peters, speak of it as a reasonable hypothesis. {Crit* AND BOOK OF JOB. ^1 Diss. pref. pp. xxxiv, xxxv.) And certainly it possesses this decided advantage, that it solves all the phenomena. One observation more remains to be offered: and that is, that there is good reason to pronounce the book of Job an in- spired work. Its reception into the Jewish canon; the recog- nition of the history, and, as Peters has abundantly proved, (CriL Diss. pp. 21. 145 — 148.) consequently of the book itself, by the prophet Ezechiel ; a similar admission of it, by another inspired writer, St. James; and the express reference made to it by St. Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 19.) who prefaces his quo- tation from it by the words, it is written^ agreeably to the common form of quoting from other parts of inspired scrip- ture : — all these fully justify the primitive fathers, and early councils, in their reception of it as a canonical and inspired book. (See Gregor. pref. in Job.) The intrinsic matter of the work also strengthens this idea. Job appears, from xxxviii. 1. and xlii. 5. to have enjoyed the divine vision. In what manner, whether, as the Seventy seem to think, by some appearance of a glorious cloud, or other- wise, it avails not. That, in some way, he was honoured with one of those extraordinary manifestations of the Deity, by which the prophets and inspired persons were distinguished, and that he was admitted to immediate communication with the Almighty, is positively asserted. Now, if this did really happen, — and the whole book becomes a lying fable, and a lying fable recognized by inspired writers as a truth, if it did not, — it necessarily follows, that Job was a prophet: and as a natural consequence it must be admitted, that Job himself was the author of the work: since it cannot be supposed, that God would convey supernatural communications to one person, and appoint another to relate them. That Job was not an Israelite, cannot be urged as an argument against such an hy- pothesis, since we find that Balaam is expressly said to have been similarly favoured. Other instances also are given by Bishop Law in his Considerations^ &c. p. 72 — 76. See also Patrick^s Append, to the Paraph, on Job — and Peters's Crit. Diss, p. 1 23-— 125. Now, from admitting the prophetic character of Job, we derive two considerable advantages. First, it removes the difficulty, which otherwise must hang upon the supposition, that the words of that much celebrated passage in his writings refer to the doctrines of a redeemer and a future^* state: and * In addition to the numerous writers who are commonly known to have maintained the application of the 19th chapter of Job to the doctrine of a future state, I think it rig'ht to mention the name of Velthuseny who, in his Exercitationes Criticce in Jobiy cap. xix. 23-— 29. has with much ability, and critical acumen, defended this idea. 3Ji2 ' THE HISfGRT 2. it supplies an additional confirmation oftJie divine origin of those great truths concerning the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge, as they stand recorded in the books of Moses. If I have dwelt rather long upon this point, I trust that the interesting nature of the subject, as well as the importance of the reality and antiquity of Job, in an examination of the history of sacrifice, will supply a sufficient excuse. I have little fear, that the discussion will appear unnecessarily prolix to those who are acquainted with the vast variety of opinions, and multiplicity of arguments to which this question has given birth. My principal object in this, as in most other of the dissertations in this work, has been to combine with such illustration as the general argument may require, useful di- rections to the young student in divinity, as to those leading topics and references, that may serve to assist his course of reading. This I have done on the present occasion with all possible brevity. A greater degree of compression must have led to dryness and obscurity. It is w ell, if, even in its present form, this review of the question be not found chargeajble with these defects. After the full detail which has just been given of the various opinions respecting the age and country of Job, as well as respecting the date of the poem which bears that name ; I might perhaps deem myself excused from making any additional remarks upon this subject, even in the face of a translation of that poem which has lately come before the public, accompanied with observations repugnant to the re- sulting probabilities as they have been there deduced, but not less repugnant (as I conceive) to the truth of scripture history, and the principles of fair interpretation. These observa- tions, hoAvever, coming from a prelate of the established church, acquire from that circumstance a weight, which will not permit them to be overlooked ; and compel a discussion in which I feel myself bound (however reluctantly) to en- gage, in defence of what I have already submitted, and of what appears to me to be equally sustained by argument, and sanctioned by scripture. That I may not do the Right Re- verend author injustice, I quote the very words in which he has so summarily beaten down the notions hitherto so gene- tally entertained, concerning the antiquity both of the book and of the age of Job. " The sacred writers in general, have been apt to ascribe to the book of Job an origin, that loses itself in the shades of the remotest antiquity. The opinion, I believe, rested at AND BOOK OF JOB. 333 first Oil the very sandy foundation of what is stated in the two conchidiiig verses of the work, which ascribe to its hero a longevity that belonged only to the generations not far dis- tant from the tlood. Of the authenticity of those verses, I think I have shown in my note on them, that we have every reason to be suspicious. But, if it were ever so difficult to ascertain the portion of time when the patriarch lived, it may not be impossible, from the internal marks in the poem itself, to conjecture with tolerable certainty the era of its author. This is what I have attempted to execute. The subject is curious, and on a close inspection of the work before us, certain notes of time have presented themselves to my ob- servation, which appear to have escaped the diligence of all preceding critics. The reader will allow me to offer them to him here in a summary manner, referring him for further sa- tisfaction on the point, to what I have said in the notes. — Allusions to events recorded in the five books of Moses are to be found in this poem, ch. xx. 20. compared with Numb, xi. 83, 34. ch. xxvi. 5. compared with Gen. vi. 4, 7, 11. ch. xxxiv. '20. compared with Exod. xii. 19. ch. xxxi. 33. com- pared with Gen. iii. 8, 12. and I shall hardly be expected to prove, that the author of the poem derived his knowledge of those events from a history of so much notoriety as that of Moses, rather than from oral or any other tradition. Facts are not usually referred to before the history recording them has had time to obtain currency. The inference is clear : the writer of Job was junior to the Jewish legislator, and junior, it is likely by some time. — A similar mode of reason- ing, upon comparison of ch. xxxiii. 23. with 2 Sam. xxiv. 16. 1 Chron. xxi. 15. will, if I mistake not greatly, bring down the date of our poem below the time of King David. — Lastly, ch. xii. 17. to the end, seems to point to the circumstances preceding and attending the Babylonish cap- tivity ; and chap, xxxvi. 8 — 12. has an appearance of allu- ding to the various fortunes of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, 2 Kings xxiv. 12. xxv. 27. — Notes of time these, which, though not so manifest as the aforementioned, may deserve attention ; since they add strength to the sentiment of those learned men who have been inclined to give the honour of this celebrated composition to Ezra." — The Book of Job newly translated by the Right Reverend Joseph Stock, Bi- shop of Killalla, pref. pp. v, vi. Such is the rapid decision of the Right Rev. translator upon a question which has occupied the attention, and di- vided the judgments of the most learned and able theplogians; and such are the new lights whereby this new expositor of the book of Job is enabled to discern the erroneousness of ^34 THE HISTORY the opinion in favour of its high antiquity, which has at all times most generally prevailed. It must be remarked, in- deed, that his Lordship, in the history of his work, has stated that the whole was executed in a period of six weeks, and that too a period of great agitation and distraction of mind ; and also, that he declined the aid of the many learned Com- mentators who had gone before him in the translation of this most difficult book, confining his attention to the three Eng- lish writers, Heath, Scott, and Parkhurst ; writers, who, however respectably they may rank as compilers, cannot be named with those great and distinguished Hebrew scholars,* whose labours his Lordship found it convenient to reject. * It was particularly unfortunate, that his Lordship felt indisposed to the trouble of consulting the Commentary of Schultens : a work, which, al- though its author is rather slightingly described by his Lordship as the " Butch expositor," has been considered by all the later interpreters of Job, his Lordship excepted, as a mine of the most valuable learning", and parti- cularly indispensable to such as were not acquainted with the Arabic, and what may be called the dialects of the Hebrew, in which it is acknowledged by every Commentator, that the book of Job abounds, and from which in- deed the peculiar difficulty of that book is admitted to arise. Dr. Grey, in his preface, speaking of this work, terms it ** egregium opus,** And of the benefit he derived from it in his translation of Job, he thus expresses him- self. " Quantum mihi gaudium attuierit, quant^qtie cura &. molesli^ li- berarit elaboratissimum hocce summi viri eruditionis atque diligentiac mo- numentum, facile dijudicare est. Parata, ut ait Plinius, inquisitio, nee onerosa collatio. Nempe omni isto apparatu illico jam instructus eram, quern alioquin mihi multo cum sudore undecunque conquirendum esse pracvideram ; unoque sub conspectu habui non tantum quicquid uspiam a doctissimis viris in hoc argumento concinnatum, sed & ordine ita accurate dispositum, eo judicio atque diligentia perpensum, ut nil aliud mihi negotii jam relictum videretur, quam exscriptoris munere perfungi.*' — Liber Jobi~- Richard Grey, prsef p. iii. Htath also, in his pref p. xiii. speaks of the work of Schultens In lan- guage equally strong. " The use of the dialects ,in the investigation of the true meaning of the several roots in this" (the Hebrew) " language, was never carried to the height it is at present ; till the late very learned Al- bert Schultens, in the beginning of this" (the last) ** century, bent his studies this way ; and witli so great success, that I think it may be truly said in his praise, that his endeavours have contributed more towards the true knowledge of the Hebrew language, than the united labours of all that went before him." Was this the Commentator, from whose " two ponderous volumes," (which, after all, are but two thin quartos) a translator of the book of Job, who does not profess either to have any acquaintance with the Arabic, should turn away with weariness and disgust ? Heath pursues a different course in his version. — " I have drawn (says he) from the dialects, all the light my knowledge in them would supply me with ; and in this part I acknowledge myself much indebted to the valuable works of the late very learned Albert Schultens." Pref page xv. — Bishop Stock, on the other hand, tells us, that he had "received from Scott as much information with respect to the discoveries of Schultens, the Dutch expositor, as he Kvished to possess.'* Pref. p. vii. — This surely is in every way an odd decla- ration. If one were only to ask, how the quantum sufficit could be ascer- tained without the knowledge of what Schultens's book actually contains, it would be rather difficult to frame an answer. AND BOOK OF JOB. 33.5 These circumstances will abundantly account for the cursory manner in which his Lordship has treated the subject of the antiquity of the book of Job ; for the errors into which he has fallen upon that important point ; and also for the general air and character of the translation itself. And, in the first instance, it is painful to remark, that in the very first paragraph of the work his Lordship has confounded two questions which are altogether distinct; and from this confusion has been led, (with a licejise, which might better befit such expositors as Dr. Geddes, or the Unitarian Society, than a Bishop of the established church,) to reject the two last verses of Job, as a spurious addition to the work. The two questions relate, one to the time at which Job ac- tually lived, and the other to the time at which the book of Job was written. These, it is obvious, have no necessary connexion ; as the history of a person who lived in the pa- triarchal age, might be composed even at the present day : and therefore these respective dates have, at all times, been made the subjects of separate inquiry. Yet the Bishop be- gins by telling us, that the reason which first induced the sa- cred critics to assign the book of Job to an era of remote an- tiquity, is to be found in the two last vei-ses, which ascribe to Job himself a patriarchal longevity ; that is, that the critics have pronounced the book of Job to be extremely ancient, because that book describes its subject as having lived at a very early period. Now no critics have reasoned in this manner ; nor in truth could any have so reasoned, who deser- ved the name. Some indeed have pronounced the book to be as ancient as its subject, inasmuch as they conceived it to have been the production of Job himself. But they who do not contend for this, and even those, (such as Warburton and Heath,*) who have been desirous to reduce the date of the book to a very late period of the Jewish state, in consequence of allusions to certain parts of the Jewish history which it appeared to them to contain, have, notwithstanding, found no • Heath indeed specially remarks upon the gross error of not making* a due distinction between the times of Job , and those of the aw^Aor of the poem : and on the whole pronounces it as his own opinion, that the author in many parts of his work alludes to facts which, thou.^h undoubtedly pos- terior to the ag-e of Job, on account of its great remoteness, were yet ante- rior to his own ; and consequently he holds, that no argument can be drawn from such circumstances against the antiquity of the times of Job on the one hand, nor against interpretations suited to the manners and history of the probable age of the author on the other. And therefore, although he re- duces the date of the author of the Poem as low as the Bishop of Killalla can desire, he yet conjectures the time of Job to have been earlier than the Exo- dus, and considers the length of life ascribed to him by the two verses with which the Bishop has quarrelled, as one of the proofs of the fact. See Heath's English Version of Joby pp. xix, xx, xxiv. 386 THE HISTORif (lifficiilty in placing the existence of Job in that remote age to which the history assigns it. They have, in short, argued thus : Job lived at an early period, but we have reason to conchide that the history which treats of him, was composed at a period considerably later. Whereas the present trans- lator argues, as if Job could not have lived early, because the history was written late. Or rather, to repeat the charge already made, two ideas totally distinct, the time of Job, and the date of the history, are manifestly confounded. And this confusion, which so inauspiciously prefaces his Lord- ship's work, unhappily conducts it to its close : for in the concluding note we find the following observations. — «' These two last verses have every appearance ^ of being a spurious * What the circuttistances are, that give to these two verses " every ap- penrance of being a spurious addition to the work," his lordship has not thought proper to mention. What do these \-erses contain ? Simply the following words — " After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons and his sons' sons, even four generations. So Job died, being old and full of days.*' — Now, if all that is meant be this, that the verses could not have been written by Job himself, this undoubtedly no person will be found disposed to dispute, as it is not pretended that he rose from the grave to finish the book. But this surely cannot be the proof of their want of au- thenticity, which in the beginning of his preface his lordship boasts of hav- ing discovered, and promises to produce in his note upon the verses : and in point of fact he does not here adduce it as a proof; but simply asserts, as we have seen, that the •' verses have every appearance of being a spurious addition to the work." He goes on indeed to state of this addition, that it has been "fabricated by such another dealer in the marvellous, ^s he that has fastened his long string of fables to the close of the translation by the LXX interpreters. — Now with great deference to his lordship, there is not only no appearance of these verses being such a fabrication as that which winds up the conclusion of the Septuagint translation, (and his lordship might have added, of the Syriac and Arabic also,) but there is as direct and proper evidence of the contrary as the nature of the case will admit. The difference between the two is precisely this, that the one is found in every MS. of the original Hebrew, and the other has nothing corresponding to it in any : that the one has in all ages, been received without question as part of the canon of scripture, and the other never : that the one in short is found in the record, and the other is not. Such is the shnilarity of appear- ance between the two, from which his lordship infers them on the view to be equally fabrications. Surely never was thei-e a more arbitrary and barefaced attack upon the integrity of the sacred text. The verses have never been questioned ; they appear in every ]V^S. of the Hebrew ; and they stand pre- cisely on the same ground, as to every circumstance of genuineness, with any other verses in the entire book of Job, It must be observed, that what is said hf re is perfectly admissible, even on the supposition that Job himself was the author of the poem : the argument not requiring, that the two con- cluding verses sliould have been written by the same hand that composed the remainder of the work ; but that they were, equally with any other verses, genuine parts of the book as it was originally received into the He- brew canon, and not the unauthorized and spurious addition of an unknown fabricator. That the verses in question were written by Moses, at the iixmr when the entire work was adapted by him, and accommodated to the uses of his followers, may appear not improbable from what has been said at page 330 of this volume. AND BOOK OP JOB. 3^7 addition to the work, fabricated by such another dealer in the marvellous, as he that has fastened his long string of fables to the close of the translation by the LXX interpreters. The fallacy must be obvious^ when we call to mind the allu- sions in the poem to facts that happened in and after the time of Moses, who lived but one hundred and tiveaty years, and even of David, when the age of man was reduced to its pre- sent standard of seventy years ? Bat perhaps after all, no other proof of the spuriousness of these two verses has been intended by the Right Reverend author, tlian what arises from those allusions to facts later than the tin\e of Moses, and even of Da- vid, to which his Lordship immediately after adverts. If this be the case, then in addition to the confounding together the times of Job and of the au- thor of the book, which has been remarked upon above, his Lordship has conducted the entire of his reasoning in a circle : having promised in his preface, to overturn the notion of the high antiquity of the book of Job, by establishing the spuriousness of tliese two verses, on which he states that no- tion to have been founded ; and having here established the spuriousness of the verses, by denying the antiquity of the book. Whatever may be the errors in the argument, his Lordship however seems to think, that all will be set to rights, by rejecting from the sacred text whatever does not corres- pond with the theory which he has adopted. As the discussion of this subject has led to the mention of the addition made by the LXX, at the conclusion of their version of the book of Job, it mav gratify the curiosity of the reader who is not conversant in these matters, to know what that addition is. Having, agreeably to the Hebrew original, stated that Job died full of days, the Greek proceeds, " But it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. — This is inter- preted from a Syriac book. * He dwelt in the land of Ausitis' (of Aus or Uz) * in the borders of Idumaca and Arabia ; but his name was first called Jobab : and, marrying an Arabian wife, he begot a son, whose name was Ennon ; and he was himself the son of Zare, a grandson of Esau, of a mo- ther Bosorra, so that he was the fifth from Abraham. And these are the kings which reigned in Edom, over which country he ruled; first, Bilak son of Beor, and the name of his city was Denhaba ; but after Balak Jobab, called Job ; but after him Asom, prince of the land of Theman ; and after him Adad, son of Barad, who smote Midian in the plain of Moab, and the name of his city was Gethaim. And the friends who came to him, were EHphaz of the sons of Esau, king of the Themani^es; Biddad, sovereign (rugstwoc) of the Suuchaeans ; and Zophar, king of the Minaeans." — With this the Syriac and Arabic, as given in th« Polyglott, nearly correspond. And a fragment of Aristseas, as taken from Eusebius, (JPrff/j. Evaug. hb. ix. cap. XXV. tom. i. p. 430.) contains most of these particulars, referring to Polyhis^ tor as his authority. On the passage in the Greek it is to be remarked, that it contains internal evidence, that the book of Job h^s not had the same Greek interpreters, that htfve rendered the other books of the Old Testament, since it expressly states, tliat the version was derived from a Syriac book. And, indeed, it is clear upon inspection, that the Greek interpreters of Job have taken uncommon liberties in their translation ; having, besides varia- tions from the obvious sense of the Hebrew as it now stands, made large ad- ditions, not only here, but in several other places, particulaily at ch. ii. 9. to the speech made by Job's wife. See also ch xix. 4. xxxvi. 28 xxxix 34. — It is to be noted also, that the concluding addition to Job in the Greek, is given differently by the Vatican and the Alexandrian : that it is found in Theodotion, but not in Aquila or Symmachus : and that in the Compluten- sian edition of the LXX it is wanting. It is said also to have been in the old Italic. At what time it was introduced cannot be conjectured } but the 338 THE BISTORT Thus then it appears, that because the translator thinks proper to bring the date of the book of Job lower than the time of David, the length of the life of Job could not exceed what was usual in that age of the world, and therefore the two verses, which ascribe to him a longer period cannot be ge- nuine, and must be discarded from the sacred text. That is, in other words, no history can ever be written of any indivi- dual who lived at a preceding period. This is certainly an unhappy specimen of antiquarian research ; and a still more unhappy specimen of biblical criticism. On the same ground on which he has rejected the two concluding verses, the Right Reverend critic might reject a very large portion of the book of Job, as a spurious addition to the genuine work ; since everywhere throughout are plentifully scattered those indications^ of patriarchal antiquity, for the direct exposition of which these two last verses are pronounced to be surrepti- tious. But not to dwell any longer on this unfortunate mistake, and the rash attempt at mutilating the sacred text which it has occasioned, let us proceed to consider those notes of time, attaching to the poem itself, w hich " have escaped the diligence of all preceding critics ;" and, by the discovery of which, his Lordship thinks himself enabled to pronounce upon Ihe lateness of its production. The first of these is said to be found in ch. xx. 20. in which w^e are told that the true rendering is, " Because he acknow- ledged not the quail in his stomach :" and the following re- mark is subjoined. — " Here I apprehend is a fresh example of the knoH^n usage of the Hebrew poets, in adorning their compositions by allusions to facts in the history of their own people. It has escaped all ihe interpreters: and it is the more important, because it fixes the date of this poem so far as to |?rove its having been composed subsequently to the transgression of Israel at Kibroth-hataavah, recorded in Numb. xi. 33, 34. — Because the wicked acknowledged not the quaily that is, the meat with which God had filled his sto- mach, but like the ungrateful Israelites, crammed and bias- phemed his feeder, (as Milton finely expresseth it,) he shall experience the same punishment with them, and be cut off Greek version of Job appears to have been earlier than Philo Judaeus, from his quoting it in his book Be nomimim nnutatione. See Wesley Dissert. Lin. 409-— 41:3. and 599.— Hod. de Vers Grlon ; and who must consequently be the shades, or manes, by which Sheol is inhabiied. — But wherefore denonjinated liephaim':^ By this word, he says, it appears indisputably from Isa. xxvi. 14. compared with this passage, must be meant the souls of the deceased. But at the same time, he observes, it ap- pears no less indisputably from Gen. xiv. 5. and Deut. iii. 11. that the same word is employed to designate a people of gigantic stature amongst the Ca- naanites; and it is accordingly almost every where rendered '^giants'* by the LXX and Vulgate. How to reconcile these two senses, which appear so very different, has been a difficulty wi\h commentators. But this diffi- culty, he says, will be removed, if we atiend to the noti6n which has vulgar- ly prevailed concerning ghosts or manes ; that they appear of a stature great- er than human : and hence our author thinks that the word which originally denoted the shades of the deparfed, came to be transferred to denote men of a gigantic bulk ; and so became finally an appellation for both. See Vitringa in If a. torn. i. pp. 4 >2, 433. I find that Cocceius explains the application of the term Rephaim to the giants in Canaan, on the same principle, though not so explicitly as Vitrin- ga. His words are, *• possit videri, eos" (gigantts scil.) *' ita appellatos quod tanquam m,anes & spectra inter homines versarentur." The word it. self he derives originally from T]si\ resolvere ; or as the LXX, -rct^diXvia-^Ai OKKvta-Qiti ; and its primary meaning he considers to be resoluti, mortui in pulverem redacti — hence tnants. Michaelis has, in a way that appears not equally satisfactory, endeavoured to account for the application of the same term Rephaim. io giants and ghosts^ on the idea of the dark caverns inhabited by the former. See J\''ot. et Epim. pp. 28, 29. The very learned and ingenious examination of the terms Sheol and Re- phaim, by Peters, (from p. 318 to S82) merits particular attention. Sheol he distinguishes into two parts, the upper and the lower; in the last of which he places the residence of the wicked spirits : and to this class be applies the term Rephaim, as being giants in impiety. In this point, how- ever, I apprehend he has carried tiie matter too far : for the giants in im.- piety, to whom he primarily alludes, are those monstrous defiers of God*s authority, who lived before the flood, and were overwhelmed by the Al- mighty for their enormous wickedness ; and from these it is, that he trans- fers the term Rephaim, to the shades of all such as had been mighty in vio- lence and crimes. But in doing this, he has fallen into the same error, wliich I have noticed in Bishop Stock and others ; namely, that ot supposing Re- phaim to have been the name of those heaven-defying giant.s, that lived be- fore the flood: whereas, as it is shown in p. 352, they had no such name, being known only by that oi' JVephilim Peters, indeed, appears to me also, to have followed the clue of interpretation, with respect to the term Re phaim, in a wrong direction altogetlier, by transferring the word froni the primary signification oi' giants to the secondary one of shadis; whereas I have little doubt, that it was first the proper appellation of the latter, and thence extended to tlie former, in the manner suggested by Viiringa. At 348 THE HISTORY pie shall be troubled at midnight and pass away ; and the mi: hty shall be taken away without hand." — On this passage his Lordship makes the following observations. — " The sud- den death here described, its happening at midnight, the trepidation of the people, the removal of the strong ones to fhe same time I agree with Peters and with Schultens, that the word is some- times taken in an unfavourable sense, so as to particularize the souls of the wicked This I think is manifest from Prov. ix. 18. xxi. 16. And I would in the following manner explain the various acceptations of the word, which I have not been able to find has yet been satisfactorily done by any author. From the verb nai, signifying resolvere^ I derive, with Coccehis, the word Cxa"), rtsoluti ; which, applied to human beings, denotes that they are reduced to their Jirst elements by dissolution. Rephaiin therefore implies the deceased, in that separated condition of the component parts of their nature which IS produced by death : and as the bodily part moulders into dust and becomes insensible, it is consequently applied to that active principle which retains the consciousness, and continues as it were the existence of the man. Hephaim then imports men in that state, to which they are brought when reduced by dissolution to the simple and essential element, the soul ; and thence has been used to signify the ghosts of the deceased. These again, be- ing clothed by the imaginations of the living in certain airy shapes, and magnified through terror to gigantic stature, in process of time lent their name to men of great and terrific bulk ; and hence the appellation passed to giaiitSf and became the denomination of certain classes of tliat descrip- tion in Canaan. Again, these Bephaiin of the Canaanites, being distinguish- ed amongst a people who were all odious for their crimes, and as such pro- irounced to be an abomination to the Lord, the idea of great wickedness so strongly associated with the name, was by degrees reflected back upon the primitive term ; so that Eephaim, as applied to the souls of the dead, came at length to imply also specially the souls of the guilty dead. Thus jRe- phaim becomes properly capable of these three senses, GAos.'s, Giants, and Ghosts of the Wicked. Again, as to the origin of the word h^\^\i) Sheol, signifying, as we have seen, the region allotted to the residence of the Rephaim, oy shades of the departed ; it has been best derived from the verb 7i;o-jvT6t/, (from^c«t/«, obstetrix,) shall be broii^ht forth ,- and the latter, by a word signifying regenerabuntur, shall be bom again : bot}\ evidently explaining the Hebrew word SSh or hyr\, in reference to tlie />a/?:.? of bringing forth; and .•signifying, that the Rephaim were to be rendered up trom the place of their residence, and as it were born ag^in into some new state of existence. — Codurcus also, 1 find, in his explanation of Sheol, dcr fryibes the notion entertained of it by the Jews, thus; "^*N*«y, purgatorii ANT) BOOK OF JOB. 349 the other world by an invisible hand ; what are all th^se but the circumstances recorded by Moses in Exodus, xii. 29. of the destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians ? Pharaoh likewise is the king, to whom God is said just before to have given the title of Belial. We have here, of course, another proof ih^i the writer of this poem was posterior in time to Moses."^ locum existimant, ex quo redduntur superis animsc, exantlatis quibus erant obnoxise panis." {Crit. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 3318.) Windet also mentions, that to the Shcol of the Hebrews, corresponds tlie Atne7ithes of the Egyptians, which Piutarch, comparing it with the Hades of the Greeks, expounds by Tov xufACstvovtat Kxt S'iJ'ovrsLy in his book of Isis and Osiris. (J)e vitdfunc- torum statu^ p. 24. also I'eters, p. 320.) — Windet likewise informs us, that the .lews hold Gehenna^ or the place of perdition, to be the lowest part of Shedl, the general receptacle of departed souls : — and that in order to ex- press the great depth, to which they conceive it to be sunk, they are used to describe it as beneath the waters: their idea being, that the waters are placed below the earth, and that the earth floats upon them like a ship. De •oitd functorum statu, pp. 242, 243. Tartarus, in like manner, he says (p. 245.) the Greeks made the lowest part of Hades. On the Jewish notions of Sheoi, compared with the Greek notions of Hades, I would refer the reader to the entire of the last named work; to Peters* s Cfit Diss, as before noticvfd; to Bisliop Lototh's Lectures, vol. i. ]i. 156 — 166. (Greg, edit.) and Mr. Henley^s note in ditto, p. 213 ; to Mich. J^ot. et Epim. pp. 27, 28. and to Bishop Horsle/s Hosea, pp. 46. 157—160. 200, 201. He may consult also with advantage the Sermon of this last writer, upon Christ's descent into Sheol : and upon the same subject, he will find a good discourse by Johnson of Cranbrook, in the 2d volume of his Sermons. Were I now, upon the whole, to offer my own rendering, of the passage ("n Job, out of which this long discussion has arisen, I would venture th^ fol- owing. The souls of the dead tremble; [The places^ below the waters, and their inhabitants. The seat of spirits is naked before him ; And the region of destruction hath no covering. Here I take the souls of the dead, and the inhabitants of the places belovi thz {abyss of) viaters, to bear to each other the same proportion, that is found in the next verse to subsist between the seat of spirits, and the region of de- struction: those of the dead who were sunk in the loivest parts of Sheol, be- ing placed in the region of destruction, or the Gehenna of the later Jews. So that the passage, on the whole, conveys this; that nothing is, or can be con- cealed from the all-seeing eye of God ; tha*, the so^ls of the dead tremble under his view, and the shades of the wicked siujfc to the bottom of the abyss, can even there find no covering from his sight. * Heath, who is extremely anxious to lower the antiquity of the Book of Job, has gone before the Bishop, in the notion that the slaughter of the first- born is here alluded to; although his Lordship has mentioned this as one of the notes of time, which had escaped all the commentators. To make the reference appear more probable, that author has rendered the word n3>'', in such a manner, as to imply the passing on of the destroying angel, as de- scribed by Moses. In doing so, he has undoubtedly improved the resem- blance to the account of the transaction in Exodus. But to make this point out, he is compelled either to violate grammar, or to pluralize the Angel. These things, however, avail nothing.'as the hypothesis must be supported. 350 THE HISTORr Now undoubtedly, if this supplies a proof of the point proposed, the matter of demonstration is easier than has been commonly imagined. In the original passage here re- ferred to, it must be remembered, that the Bishop does not pretend to have discovered any one e:cpression which is to be found in the description of the slaughter of the first-born in Egypt, excepting the single term, " midnight.'' This al- most total diversity of phrase, is surely no part of the proof y that the description in Job is taken from that which was given by Moses. But although there be not an identity of expressions, yet may there not be a general similarity to jus- tify the Bishop's assertion? On the contrary, there is no- thing more requisite than his Lordship's own statement of the case, to overturn every idea of a reference to Moses's ac- count of the above transaction. For, in the first place, ac- cording to that statement, God is here represented as having given to Pharaoh the title of Belial.'^ — Now this is a piece Warburton^ with the same resolute determination to modernize Job, disco- vers, in the passage before us, not only the transaction in Eprypt, but also an- other of a nature entirely different. The words, he says, *^ plainly refer to the destruction of the first-born in Eg-ypt, Airu Sennacherib^ s army ravaging Jitdv) than meat^ — and again, xii. 41. Behold, a greater {TcXttm) than Jonas is here. Many other such instances may be seen in Stephanus's Greek Concor- dance, to which Dr. Kennicot has referred in support of his opinion. But the true force of the word, both in the positive and the comparative, may be best seen in Schleusner's Lexi- con. It will thence appear, that the just value of the ex- pression in the passage in Hebrews has been given in the text : a more ample, or fuller sacrifice, expressing in em- phatical terms, that which partook more largely and essen- tially of the true nature and virtue of sacrifice. Vatablus renders the word uberiorem^ No. LXni. ON^ THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF THE FAITH EVIDENCED BY THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL. Page 43. (r)— Faith (we are informed by the apostle, Uomans x. 17.) comeih by hcuriug, and hearing by the word THE SACRIFICE OF ABfiL. 379 of God. This account of faith, combined with the numerous examples exhibited in the xith ch. of Hebrews, in illuslration of its nature, can leave us at no loss to pronounce, that Abel's offering was in obedience to a divine revelation. For it must be remarked, that in the several instances adduced in this chapter, of persons actuated by this exalted principle, the belief of something declared, and a mode of action conforma- ble to that belief, are uniformly exhibited. In like manner, then, as Noah, Abraham, and the rest, are represented as act- ing in consequence of a divine command, placing an entire reliance in the promise of him who commanded ; so Abel, in the sacrifice which he offered, must be supposed to have act- ed under the same impression, — believing what God had pro- mised, and therefore sacrificing as God had ordered. Indeed, as Heidegger remarks, the divine revelation was in his case even more necessary, than in any other of those mentioned. The sacred writer again informs us, at the 13th verse of the same chapter, that Abel and all the others whom he had named, died in faiths (i. e. as Hallet paraphrases it, " retain- ed their faith until their death, or the time of their leaving the world,") not having received the promises, (not having received the completion of them: that being reserved for later times, as is intimated in the concluding part of the chap- ter, and is clearly expressed in Acts xiii. 32, 33. TFe declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, (rorf /laf/i fulfilled the same unto us THEIR children) — but having seen them afar off; and were persuaded of them, and embraced them. Now, that these promises included the promise o/f/te Mes- siah, Kennicot says, is plain : " first, because this is the PROMISE, peculiarly and emphatically so called throughout scripture : and secondly, because that the temporal promises, respecting the land of Canaan, cannot alone, if at all, be meant here, as the apostle speaks of all the patriarchs, whom he had mentioned in the beginning of the chapter: and Abra- ham, who is one of those mentioned, is expressly said to have sojourned in the land of Promise ; whilst, on the other hand, Abel, Enoch, and Noah, (three of the patriarchs included in the word all,) had not received the promise of entering the land of Canaan. So that some other promise, made in the first ages, and frequently repeated, must be that to which the apostle here alludes. And what promise can that be, but the promise of a future Redeemer made to Adam?" — the promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the ser- penVs head : a promise, which was to be commemorated in the patriarchal and all succeeding sacrifices, until the seed should come. Agreeably to this the Homily on Faith applies 380 FAITH EVIDENCED BY this xith eh. of Hebrews, stating that holy men of old, al» though they were not named Christian, yet exercised a Chris- tian faith ; seeking, as we do, all the benefits of God the Fa- ther, through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ ; and differ- ing from us only in this, that whereas " they looked when Christ should come, we be in the time rvhen he is come.** To the fulfilment of this promise then, was the faith of Abel directed ; and the enjoined manifestation of this faith, the apostle justifies us in pronouncing to hare been the kind of sacrifice which he offered ; and which, as being of the true nature of the sacrifice required of the faithful, procured from God that acceptance and witnessing of his offerings which was refused to Cain. See Heideg, Hist, Pair. Exerc. iii. § 52. torn. i. — Shuckf. Connex, vol. i. pp. 86,87. — Kennic, Two Dissert, p. 212 — 215. and Edwards^s Survey of the Various Methods^ pp. 99, 100. See also Witsius, (Misc. Sac. Lib, II. Diss. ii. § 7 — 10.) who removes the objections brought by Spencer against the application of this chapter, of Hebrews, here contended for; and Jenn. Jew. Ant. vol, i. p. 57 — 59, where some excellent remarks are to be found, on the difficulty which the mention of Jephthah, in the cata- logue of distinguished believers, might apperr to create. It must be confessed that certain commentators, among whom are to be reckoned Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Ro- senmuller, and Primate Newcome also, if 1 rightly understand bim, interpret the promises alluded to in this chapter as tem- poral ; and are consequently reduced to the necessity of con- fining the expression, arot wccvrei, all these in the 13th verse, to some of those that had been named ; or of referring it to ALL the descendants of Abraham, of whom mention had been made in the sentence immediately preceding. Now, it is ob- vious, as Whitby remarks, that all the descendants of Abra- ham did not die in faith : and how, on the other hand, any par- ticular individuals of those before named, can be selected by an expression, which comprehends all, it is not easy to dis- cover. And li ally who had been before named, are referred to, (as is unavoidable,) then, as we have already seen, the promises cannot have been temporal, there being some to whom no temporal promises were made, as Abel and Enoch, As to the difficulty arising from the declaration, that the per- sons enumerated had died in faith, when it is known that Enoch did not die, but was translated; this is easily removed by considering, that the stress in this clause is not laid upon the death of those believers, but upon their having retained their faith through life, as is well marked in HalleVs para- phrase, quoted in p. 379 of this work, and in the common juse of languge would naturally be coi^veyed in the words h^re (THE TIME ANB OCCASION OF, &C. 381 used by the apostle. See Drusius, in loc. who supplies seve- ral instances of a similar latitude of expression in scripture. Hallet, Doddridge, and Whitby, deserve to be consulted upon this entire chapter. They furnish a complete answer to the arguments of those who contend for a temporal promise. I shall only add here an observation of Eisner, on the ex- travagant eagerness, shown by two of these commentators, Grotius and he Clerc, in defence of the temporal solution. Having remarked, that Le Clerc condemns Hammond for his mystical interpretation of the city which has foundations^ as implying an everlasting mansion in the Heavens ; and that he approves of the idea of Grotius, that Jerusalem was the city here intended ; he exclaims, " Mira est viri illius rt^ vTrohc-e* ^aXsvovrci imprudentia: quomodo qnseso exspectasse illara urbem Abrahamus dicetur, quam post multa demum saecula posteris suis cessuram noverat a Deo edoctus? — quomodo delude Deus conditor vocabitur HierosolymcR terrestris .'* — denique infra, v. 16. caelum esse illani urbem apparet, nam patria calestis vocatur. Simplicius quoque ad Epictetum, cap. xii. p. 77. in morte reperiri rtiv ax>i6m^ ttkt^iS'oi. dixit, de beatis sedibiis, Observat Sacr. torn. ii. p. 367. No. LXIV. ON THE PROBABLE TIME AND OCCASION OF THE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. Page 44. (5) — The event, which, according to the princi- ple of sacrifice maintained in the page here referred to, gave birth to the establishment of the rite, seems obviously to de- termine the time of its institution. The commission of sin, and the promise of a Redeemer, being the grand objects of its reference, no period seems more fit for its appointment, than that, at which sin first entered, and the promise was first de- livered: that is, the period immediately succeeding the fall. And indeed, the manner in which the first sacrifice recorded in scripture is introduced in the narrative, strongly indicates the pre-existence of the rite ; the words O'D' |*pQ, intimating (as Kennicot has shown in the 2d of his Two Dissertations, p. 177 — 183.) a stated time for the performance of this duty!: and the whole turn of phrase marking a previous and familiar observance. See RiclMs Peculiar Doctrines, Part H. § 42. vol. i. p. 138. If, then, sacrifice be admitted to have been coeval with the fall, every argument, which has been adduced to prove that Abel offered sacrifices in obedience to the divine injunction^ will apply with increased force to show, that Adam must have done the same. Scripture also supplies additional confirma- tion, by the fact, which it relates, of the first pair having been, 382 THE TIME AND OCCASION OF THE by the express command of God, clothed with the skins of beasts. Much as some have endeavoured to depreciate the value of this fact, it will be found, when more closely exa- mined, to supply a strong evidence on this head. That the beasts, whose skins were allotted for covering to our first parents, had been slain, is natural to suppose; as it is not rea- sonable to think that any animals had died of themselves, so soon after their creation, and without having yet experienced any severities of climate or situation. Now, there were no purposes for which they could have been slain, unless those of food, sacrifice, or covering. That they were not slain for food, has been, it is hoped, sufficiently established in Number LII. Neither can it be admitted, that they were slain merely for covering; since it cannot be supposed, that Adam would, immediately after the sentence of the divine displeasure, have dared to kill God's creatures without his permission ; nor is it likely, that God should order them to be slain solely for their skins, when man could have been supplied with sufficient covering from the hair and wool; and when, the flesh of the animal not being permitted for food, there must have been an unnecessary waste of the creatures. It follows, then, that they had been slain with a view to sacrifice. This alone sup- plies an adequate reason. The whole of the animal (if the offering be supposed an holocaust, as there is good reason to conclude all to have been, * until the Mosaic institution) would here be devoted to the uses of religion, except the skin, which would be employed for the purpose of clothing. And even this might not be without its moral and religious end, as it might serve to our first parents for a constant memorial of their transgression ; of the death which it merited; and of the divine mercy by which that death was withheld. It seems also not unlikely, that from this institution was derived the appointment in Lev. vii. 8. that the priest should have the skin of the burnt-offering. See particularly, on the subject of this Number, Kennic. Two Diss. pp. 67 — 70. 227, 228. and Wits, Misc. Sacr. Lib. II. Diss. ii. § 12. — also Heideg. Histor. Pair. Exercit. v. § 16.. Delan. Rev. Exam. vol. i. diss. viii. p. 99 — 103. Barringt. Miscell. Sacr. vol. iii. pp. 17. 67. Shtickf. Conwex. vol. T. b. 2. pp. 80, 81. and Patr. and Ainsw. on Gen. iii. 21. A translation, indeed, has been given of the passage in Gen. iii. 9. which subverts the entire of the argument de- rived from the skins given to the first pair for clothing, by referring the word "^i;; to the skin of Adam and his wife, and reading it in this sense, " that God made for them coats, or * See pp. 277. 270, 371. of this work— also NumberXXVII. INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 303 b : in like manner, both of these, or at least the suffixed pronoun (aii;r) would undoubtedly have been used here, had the skin of the persons covered been intended ; whereas the word ii;; is introduced absolute and unconnected. See Kennic. Two Dissert, pp. 68, 69. Accordingly the LXX, and all the an- cient versions, except the Chaldee, have uniformly rendered the sentence in its present received acceptation. So little deserving of serious attention, did the translation, which has been here discussed, appear to Dr. Lardner, that in his Essay on the Mosaic account, &c. (Kippis's edit. vol. xi. pp. 239, 249.) when engaged in a direct examination of the subject, he does not condescend to notice it, at the same time that he observes upon Le Clerc's interpretation, which is scarcely less extraordinary : viz. that the word, r^'\:^\D, does not signify coats, but te7its : so that the covering provided for Adam and his wife, were not coats, but tents, of skins. In this, however, Le Clerc has nothing to support him but his own ingenuity of invention. The word Nt:inD, jr/jiich is exactly the Greek % the Pope is made to say of him, "that indeed be made some good Sermons, but bad ones withal : and that he insisted too much upon Scripture ; which is a book, to which if any keep close, he will quite ruin tlie Catholic faith."-^And indeed, that the Pope had reason to complain of Fra. Fulgent io's sermons, must be admitted, when we find from Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedelly (p. 119.) that that father, in preaching on the words. Have ye Jiot read? took occasion to tell the auditory, that if Christ were now to ask this question, all the answer they could make to it would be ; JVo, for they %vere ndt suffered to do it : and thence proceeded to remonstrate, with the most animated zeal, against the restraint put on the use of the Scripture by the See of Rome. In a work, wliich, within a few years, has obtained the most distinguished mark of approbation, from the highest learned society of a nation holding communion with the Church of Rome, we meet with a detailed statement of those causes, which have disqualified the votaries of that Church for the task of Scripture interpretation. After an enumeration of the advantages, derived to the literature and civilization of Christendom, from religious hou- ses, as depositaries of the remains of ancient learning, the author thus pro- ceeds.^ — *' If the Churchmen persevered in this manner the faint tradition of knowledge, it must, at the same time, be acknowledged, that in their hands it more than once became dangerous, and was converted by its guardians to pernicious purposes. The domination of Rome, built upon a scaffolding of false historical proofs, had need of the assistance of those faithful auxilia- ries, to employ on the one side their half knowledge to fascinate men's eyes, and on the other to prevent those eyes from perceiving the truth, and from becoming enlightened by the torch of criticism. The local usurpations of the Clergy, in several places, were foimded on similar claims, and had need of similar means for their preservation. It followed, therefore, both that the little knowledge permitted shoidd be mixed with error, and that the nations should be carefully maintained in profound ignorance, favourable to supersti- tion. Learning, as far as possible, was rendered inaccessible to the laity. The study of the ancient langua^ges was represented as idolatrous and abominable. Above ail, the reading of the holy Scriptures, that sacred inheritance of all Christians, was severely interdicted. To read the bil)le, without the permis- sion of one's superiors, was a crime: to translate it into the vulgar tongue would have been a temerity worthy of the severest punishment. The Popes had indeed their reasons for preventing the word of Jesus Christ from reach- ing the people, and a direct communication from being established between the Gospel and the Christian. AVhen it becomes necessary to keep in the shade objects as conspicuous as faith and public worship, it behoved the dark- ness to be universal and impenetrable." Villers's Essay on the Reform ation of Luthery p. 88 — 90. The same writer in another place, thus contrasts the cha- racters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, as to their grounds of assent to sacred truths. — "The Church of Rome said, 'Submit, without exami»ation, to authority! The Protestant Church said, "Examine, and submit only to thy own conviction." The one commanded men to believe blindly : the other taught them, with the Apostle, to reject the bad, and choose only that which ,is good :" Ibid. p. 294. — And when the Church of Rome was, at length, obli- g«Aby the necessities of self-defence., to grant to her faithful sons the pri- OP THE PASSAGE, GEN. IV. 7. 389 hostility to which doctrine, entertained by the first Reform- ers, they are branded by these translators with the title of Manichees. (See the Doway Bible on Gen. iv. 7.) vilege of theolog-ical investigation, in what way does the same writer repre- sent the system of studies perinitted for this purpose? The theology of the Ro.nanist, and that of the Protestant, he describes, as "two worlds in opposite hemispheres, which have nothing common except the name." — ** The Catho- lic theology rests (says he) on the inflexible authority of the decisions of the Church, and therefore debars the man who studies it from all free exercise of his reason. It iias preserved the jargon, and all the barbarous appenda- ges of the Scholastic pJulosophy. We perceive in it the work of darkness of the monks of the tenth century. In short, the happiest thing which can be- fall him who has unfortunately learnt it, is speedily to forget it. The Pro- testant theology, on the contrary, rests on a system of examination, on the unlimited use of reason. The most liberal exegesis opens for it the know- ledge of sacred antiquity ; criticism, that of the history of the Church ; it re- gards the doctrinal part, reduced to purity and simplicity, as only the body of religion, the positive form which it requires ; and it is supported by phi- losophy in the examination of the laws of nature, of morality, and of the re- lations of men to b.e Divine Being. Whoever wishes to be instructed in his- tory, in classical literature, and philosophy, can choose nothing better than a course of Protestant theology." — Ibid. pp. 307, 308. — Such are the obser- vations, contained in a work, which has been distinguished by a prize, con- ferred by the National Institute of France. Perhaps, one of the most decisive proofs of the justice of this writer's re- marks on the state of sacred literature in the Romish Church, has been sup- plied by the late republication, in this country, of that wretched specimen of Scripture criticism, WarcTs Errata. This powerless offspring of a feeble parent, which was supposed to have perished when it first saw the light, above a century ago, has lately upon signs of reanimation, been hailed iu Ireland with shouts of joy. And the meagre abstract of Gregory Martin's Discovery of the inanifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures, a work which has itself lain for two hundred years overwhelmed by confutation, has been received by the Romanists of this part of the Empire, with a gratulation that might well become the darkest ages of the Church. A work, condemning the Protestant translation of the Bible for using the term messenger instead of angel, (in Mai. ii. 7. iii. 1. Mat. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27, &c.) by which the character o^ angel is withdrawn from ihe priesthood, and of a sacrament from orders: — for not rendering the words (in Hebr. xi. 21.) 7r^ia■iKvv»a■^v Em TO Ax-gov T«f g«C) uyx^ax; "Koir.q, txi Gv^uq ccf^a^rtat eyKotdtiTcci' KXt 9r^«5 <^f »f/«''J ecvra, icx( u^^eti uvm. Here is an agreement in all its parts with the rendering which has been submitted ; the force of xfJLu^rtcc, like that of mi^tan, extending to ihei sin-offering: syKxenraty as Avell as p'^, denoting the posture of an animal; and uvrov the masculine decidedly marking, that the reference in the last clause was, not to xftct^Ttxy* but to Abel. See Theodot. apud Mont ef ale. Grotius has given the passage somewhat of a different turn, and yet departs but little from the meaning which has been here assigned. He considers the force of the si bene egeris, as carried down to the concluding clause, so as to make the sense this, " if thou doest well, Abel, as the younger, shall be rendered subject to thy authority." And so makes the clause beginning with, " If thou doest not well," &c. parenthetical ; of which, he says, innumerable instances are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This mode of translating the pas- sage has been adopted by Purver in his English version : and Is certainly not unworthy of commendation. At the same time, I cannot but think the view of the sentence which I have offered to the reader, more grammatical, more consist- ent, and more natural. f side of the question ; called, by some of their controversalists, the question of questions.^' And in what way does their superiority appear upon this ques- tion of questions ? By " its never having been satisfactorily solved by the Romanists themselves : they havin.^ always reasoned in what is termed a vi- cious circle; proving the infallibility of the Church from the authority of Scripturcy and the authority of Scripture from the Churches infallibility.''* (Preface to Critical Iiem,arJts, p. v.) This must undoubtedly have given the Romanists the better side of the question ; for what Protestant logician could successfully reply to such an argument ? But the reader must be wearied of this fatuity. * Tliat is, to et/uLu^TtHi in the sense of sin ; in which sense alone it is, that it has been by some made the subject of reference in opposition to Jibel. In the sense of sin-offering, it would, as we have seen, admit the masculine pro- noun (tvTo ; but to the word, taken in that sense, the reference of the pro- noun would have no meaning. f The note of Ludov. de Dieu on this passage des-jrves to be noticed. ** An non, sive bene offcras^ sive non btne, ad ostiutn peccaturn cubat ? Quum scilicet, indigne ferret Cain, fratris sacrificium suo esse przelatum, quod non minus recte sacrificiorum ritus observasset fratre, neqiie quicquam, sive quoad rem oblatam, sive quoad externam offerendi rationem ac ceremoniam, dignius a fratre ac melius profectum esset, monet Deus, non esse hie ipsam oblationem respiciendam, recte ne ea secundum legem scilicet ceremonialem. facta sit, an secus : sed personam offerentem, dedita ne ea sit, ptccato, an non. Tu peccatum perpetuo circumfers, illudque in procinctu habes, Cubans quippe ante fores : itaque nihil refert, bene ne an male secundum ritus lega- les olferas. Vel optima tua oblatio a peccato vitiatur. Non debebat appetitus tuus ferri ad peccatum, sed peccati appetitus ad te, sicut mulieris appetitus maritum cui subest, tuque, ei dominari. — Posset etiam verti, An non W>e piUchrum ^uid adferas, sivCf non pulchrum, inGty—Animodv. in Vet. Test. 392 SACRIFICETS BBFOKB THE LA^ No. LXVI. ON THB COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SACRI- FICE OF ABEL AND THAT OF CHRIST. Page 46. (v) — Dr. Richie judiciously observes, on this passage of Hebrews, that " it makes the sacrifice of Abel to have been of the piacular kind, by the comparison which it makes between the effect of it and that of the sacrifice of Christ, which without doubt mas of the piacular kind. For, unless these two sacrifices had been of the same kind, and productive of similar effects, such a comparison could not have been made, nor the effect of the one pronounced to have been better, or much greater, than the effect of the other : causes of a different nature producing effects of a dis- Bimilar kind: and between effects of a dissimilar kind, no such comparison as that here made being admissible." Pe- culiar Doctrines of Revelation* Part II. $ xlii. p. 138. No. LXVII. ON THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE BEFORE THE law: TENDING TO SHOW ITS CONFINEMENT TO ANIMAL SACRIFICE, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CAIN. Page 46. (w) — From the time of AbePs sacrifice to the giving of the law, we find the sacrificial offering described by no other appellation than that of n^n or nai, the holocaust or burnt-offering, and the Zebach or immolated victim. Thu» we see the /o?'mcr expression used of the sacrifice of Noah in Gen. viii. 20. and again repeatedly applied to the sacrifice of Abraham in the xxiid chapter. It is also employed by Mo- ses in speaking of sacrifices to Pharaoh, in Exod. x. 25. and again in describing the offerings of Jethro, xviii. 12. The oblations of Job likewise, (Job i. 5.) and of his friends, (xlii. 7, 8.) are so denominated : as are those of Balaam, in the xxiiid ch. of Numbers. In the numerous other instances qf the mode of worship by sacrifice, which occur in this early period, the expression used is either nil, or, where the sort of sacrifice is not exactly specified, a word immediately de- rived from, and clearly implying it, nniD, which though trans- lated generally by us an Altary and being sometimes applied to that on w^hich Incense was presented, cannot, as Sykes remarks, (Essay, p. 246.) when used absolutely, and in its strict sense, be otherwise understood, than as signifying *' that on which slain animals were offered.*' Doctor Richie, indeed, not only maintains that none but animal sacrifices were offered from the time of Cain to the p. 13. — These interpretations possess much ingenuity: but are liable to the grammatical objection already urged, of taking nHDH, in tlie sense of suh in the masculine gender. ANIMAL SACRIFICES. 393 promulgation of the law, but that all during that period were noii€ other than holocausts^ or burnt-offerings ; the Zebach^ or slain animal, having been uniformly offered up in that man- ner : and that consequently all the sacrifices of this early pe- riod were piacular. In this last position Sykes concurs, so far as to allow, that " all holocausts before the days of Moses were deprecations o( wr^ih,^^ and he admits also, that from the time of Abel until that of Jacob, there is no instance of any other sacrifice than the burnt-offering. But from his peculiar notions concerning the nature of sacrifice, he is led to contend, that the sacrifice of Jacob, and those of Moses and Jethro, included 2i peace-offering, although he confesses, that in no one instance is there any mention expressly made of peace-offerings before the law. The circumstances, on which Sykes grounds his opinion, are — 1. The introduction of the word 7131: which is of no weight, because nothing prevents the Zebaclt from having been an holocaust. — 2. The mention of the eating of bread at the time of the sacrifice: from which no inference can be drawn respecting the nature of the sacrifice, as we have alrea- dy seen in Number XLIX. — and 3. The mention of both the Zebach diud the Holocaust, in the cases of Moses and Jethro, in Exod. x. 25. and xviii. 12. to which Richie has satisfacto- rily replied, by showing that the particle ), is to be taken, not in the sense of and, but in that of even. Indeed Dr. Richie deserves particularly to be consulted on the whole of this sub- ject. See FecuL Doctr, Part. II. § 42—49. vol. i. p. 137 — 144. See a.ho St/kes^s Essai/, \). 2Sl — 251. where, if al- lowance be made for the author's peculiar bias on the subject of sacrifice, considerable support will be found for the princi- pal part of Dr. Richie's positions. But whether Dr. Richie he well founded or not in his opinion, that all the oblations prior to the law, excepting that of Cain, \vere holocausts; this at least must be admitted, that they were animal sacrifices ; more than which, the present argument does not require. Josephus, it is to be observed, expressly describes the holocaust offered by Noah, as a sacrifice of deprecation. He states that this patriarch, under a persuasion that God had doomed mankind to destruction, and through terror of the re- petition of the dreadful judgment he had so lately witnessed, offered up prayers and sacrifices to God, to turn away his wrath. Antiq. Jud. Lib. I. cap. iv. Tiiis testimony of the Jewish historian, as to the received notions of the nature of sacrifice in his day, tJie reader will please to add to those which have been adduced in Number XXXIII, in reply to Dr. Priestley's remark upon that head. It will most natural \y fall in at p. 280. of this work. 3 A DISPROFOATIOK OF THE MOSAIC No. LXVIII. ON THE DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THii EFFECTS OF THE MOSAIC AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRI- FICES. Page 49. (.x)— On this subject particular attention should be paid to the observations in Numbers XXXL XXXIV. XXXVI. and XXXVII. especially to those contained in pp. 147, 148, and p. 195—197. of this work. The following elucidation by the learned Grotius, whose unbiassed reflections are always valuable, deserves to be noti- ced. — Lex vetus duplicitur spectatur; aut carnalilur, aut spiritualiter. Carnaliter qua instrumentum fuit xoXtretxi, rei- pubiicce JudaiccB, Spiritualiter, qua ckixv n^e '"«'»' /M.fAAevT*»», umbram habebat futtirorum, Hebr. x. 1. Quod ad priorem considerationem attinet, sacrificia Legis expiatoria sanctitica- bant ad carnis puritatem, Hebr. ix. 1. — Deus enim Rex He- brasorum (quoniam Legislatori licet suara legem, prsesertim pcenalem, nonnihil relaxare) in qiiibiisdam delictis victimas €xpiatorias admisit vice ipsius peccatoris, et per illas ac non aliter peccatorem a mortis poena (quae juxta carnalem sensum erat sanctio Legis) liberare voluit. — In quibusdam ergo de- lictis; quod ad poenam carnalem attinebat, admittebatur placamen, redemptio, satisfactio, compensatio denique mortis bestiae cum morte hominis alioque debita. — -Victimae pro peccato ita in Veteri Fcedere peccata expiarunt; nimirum Deum movendo, ut pcenam carnalem remitteret, idque per satisfactionem quandam, Quod autem typi prgestiterunt carnaliter, hoc « uyriTv^r^, exemplar, Christus praestat spiritualiter; et quod typi in quibusdam duntaxat delictis, id Christus in omnibus, Deum scilicet movendo, ut spiritualem poenam remittat, idque per salisfactionem perfectissimam. Plus enim, non minus semper est in re typo designata, quam in typo, ut ratio monstrat. Commune est sacrificio expiatorio legali et sacrificio Christi illud, quod sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio, Hebr. ix. 2*2. Hanc impetrationem remissionis per sanguinem ibidem divinus scriptor appellat modo ay^eo-^ow, sanctificatlonem (1«^.) raodo xaScc^ta-f^o^ expiationew, (14, 22, 23.) Sed in Veteri Lege victinicC erant pecudes, (12.) in hac nostra Christus ipse non sacerdos tantum sed est victima (14, 2G.) Legalis illaex- piatio hujuscoelestissivespiritpalis y^«J^«y^« (23.) et «vT/Ti;5r«v,# exemplar (24.) quomodo? Quia ilia prasstabat carni mun- ditiem (14.) id est, realus ablationem, non autem spiritui sive * Grotias has here used the word antitype improperly, and in a sense tilipectly opposite to that in which he has just before properly applied the term. AJTD *XU^ CHRISTIAlf SACRlFICEg. 395 conscientiae (9.) haec autem ipsi conscientiae (14.) Quia quod in Veteri Lege erat mors temporalis, hoc in Novo Foedei e est mors aeterua. Hebr. x. 29 : ac proinde illic liberatioerat tem- poralis, hie vero tc(o/}n<^ Xvr^uTtq^ (zterna redewptio, Hebr. ix* 12. Q,uare sicut eodem loco ab effectu legalis victimae ad ef- fectum hujus per spiritum oblatje argumentum producitur, Qiianto magis, &c. sic et nobis licet hunc in raodum certis- sime argumentari, Victima legalis reatum carnalem sustulit^ Detimmovendo ad remissionem ; ergo multo magis reatum spirihialem, Deum itidem ad remissionem movendo^ tollii ohlata per spiritum victima, — Grotii Opera Theology torn* iv. p. 331—333. The principles from which Grotius has derived his conclu- sion are manifestly these. 1. That the expiation wrought by the sacrifices under the law were typical of that effected by the death of Christ: 2. That in every type there must be something of the same general nature with that which is con- tained in the thing typified : and 3. That combined with this general correspondence between the type and the thing pre- figured, there should exist that disproportion which might be expected between the shadow and the substance. These principles indeed are so clearly and unequivocally laid down by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, that even the great fathers of the Socinian school, Faustus Soci- nus and Crellius, admit their evidence, and differ from Grotiu* only in the application. In establishing the correspondence and the disproportion of the Mosaic and the Christian ex- piation, they urge the reasoning of the apostle no less forcibly than Orotius has done ; as may be seen in the treatise of So- cinus, Dejes. Christ. Serv. [Opera, tom. ii. pp. 157, 15H.) and in Crellius's Respons. ad Grot, {Opera, tom. i. p. 204 — 211.) These expositors, not having been initiated into the convenient artifice, so familiar to their followers, of rejecting the authority of an Apostle when it made against them, found themselves compelled by the plain language of scripture to acknowledge the validity of these principles. The nature of their system, however, being at variance with their admission, they were led to strain one principle to an extreme, subversive of the other ; and by urging dispro- portion within the confines of dissimilitude, they were ena- bled to escape the bearings of that correspondence of the two dispensations, which forms the foundation of the apostle's ar- gument, and for which they had themselves in the first in- stance strenuously contended. For whilst in professing to represent the expiation by the sacrifice of Christ as of a supe- rior order to that effected by the sacrifices of the law, they endeavour to establish this by such a degcription of its na- SS'S CISPROPOHTIOlf OK THE3 MOSAIC tiire, as devests it of every character which the Mosaic sacri> fice possessed, they in truth show, that the death of Christ bore no relation whatever to those sacrifices by which they admit it to have been typified : that is, in other words, they make the Mosaic sacrifices at the same time typical and not typical of the death of Christ. — See this point well treated, though in a different manner, by Stiliingfleet, in his Discourse coticerning the true Reasons, &c. p. 3d5 — 367. On another fallacy in the reasoning of the above writers, it is also necessary to remark. Whilst they profess faithfully to follow the apostle's reasoning in his address to the Hebrew^s, they represent the expiation of the legal sacrifice as wholly typical ; whereas it was riot less real and effectual under its own proper system, than the sacrifice of Christ was under that by which it was succeeded ; whilst at the same time it pre- figured that more important expiation, which was to be intro- duced under the new dispensation ; all the parts of which, the apostle distinctly informs us, had their corresponding circumstances in that which w ent before. Upon the whole then, briefly to sum up the present sub- ject. The people of the Jews being placed under a peculiar polity, whereby they stood at the same time in a civil and a ritual relation to their divine Governor ; their offences in these several relations exposed them to the inflictions appropriate to each. The mercy of the Legislator at the same time pro- vided for them the means of expiation by sacrifice, whereby, in certain cases, the corporeal punishment incurred by the violation of the civil law, and the legal impurities contracted by the neglect of the ritual institutions, might be done away. The entire system, however, being but preparatory for an- other by which it was to be superseded, was constituted in all its essential parts in such a manner as to be emblematical of that which it was intended to introduce : and the several parts of the one consequently adjusted by the same propor- tions which were to obtain in the other. Hence it follows, that the sacrifices under the temporal and ceremonial dispensation of the law had a real efficacy in releasing those who w^ere subjected to it from its temporal penalties and ceremonial disqualifications ; in like manner as the one great sacrifice under the gospel possesses the power to release mankind at large from the everlasting penalties of that spiritual law under which all men are bound, and to cleanse the conscience from those moral impurities, which forbid all access to that holy Being, who is to be worshipped only in spirit and in truth. The expiation then, under the old law, was no less real than that which it prefigured under the newv whilst it bore to the dispensation, of which it was a AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES, ^1 part, the same proportion which that more perfect expiation by the death of Christ bears to the more perfect dispensa- tion to which it appertains. The wisdom of the divine con- trivance, in this as in the other branches of providential ar- rangement, rendering that which was complete and effectual for its own immediate purpose, at the same time introductory and subservient to other and more important objects. Berryman, in treating of the typical interpretation of the Law, although leaning a little too much to the notion of its be- ing merely symbolical, places the parallelism and proportion of the two dispensations in a just and satisfactory light. "From what" (he asks) " was the offender delivered by the legal sacrifices ? AVas it not from the temporal death, and the danger of being cut off from the congregation ? And to what privilege was he restored or entitled ? Was it not to the privilege of appearing before God, and joining in the pub=- lie worship T What was the purifying or sanctification conse- quent upon such atonements ? Was it not (as the apostle styles it) the purifying of the flesh ; an outward and a tran- sient efficacy, which coidd not reach to purge their con- sciences from dead works ? And why was all this necessary to be often repeated, but because it had no solid or permanent effect, nor deserved to find acceptance of itself? But if we take it in a symbolical or typical point of view, then it leads us to acknowledge the benefit of Christ's redemption, and those invaluable privileges he has purchased for us. That temporal death, which was denounced by the law, will denote that everlasting punishment to which sinners are exposed as such. The legal impurity, which wanted to be cleansed, will denote the defilement and impurity of sin. The outward admission to the service of the temple, will denote our spirit- ual privilege of access unto God, as well in the present ordi- nances of his church, as in the future inheritance of his eter- nal kingdom. And all this being performed by the oblation of sacrifices, clean and perfect in their kind, will import our being redeemed rvith the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and withcnit spot ; who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, for a sweet-smelling savour, and entered not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into, heaven itself, that true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man, there to plead the merit of his sacrifice, and make for ever intercession for ws." — Boyle Lecture Sermons, vol. iii. pp. 776, 777. On the subject of this Number in general, there are some excellent remarks of Bishop Stillingfleet, to be found in hi» Discourse concealing the true reasons, &c. p. 315 — .318. 398 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IIC THE O. T. No. LXIX. ON tHE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEBT THE SACRIFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THAT ElVIPLOYED IN THE NEW TO DESCRIBE REDEMP- TION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST: AND THE ORIGINAL ADAPTATION OF THE FORMER TO THE SUBJECT OF THE LATTER. Page 49. (y) — If indeed it be considered, that the sacri- fice of Christ was the great object held in view in the ap- pointment of all preceding sacrifices, and that these were pri- marily designed as sacramental representations of that, it will follow, that in reference to it must the sacrificial terms have been originally framed : and that therefore, when applied by the Apostles to the death of Christ, they were adopted, not merely as being familiar to the Jews from their application to the sin-offerings- under the law, but because of their original adaptation to this one great sacrifice, in consequence of which they had been applied to the legal sacrifices ordained to re-' present it. For some valuable observations on this subject, see Holmes^ s Four Tracts, pp. 102, 103. If this view of the matter be just, it then follows, that so far were the writers of the New Testament from employing the sacrificial terms in mere accommodation to Jewish no- tions, (an argument much insisted on by Dr. Priestley, H. Taylor, and others, see pp. 33, 34, and p. 146 — 148, of this work) that they must have used them as primarily belonging to the death of Christ, and as in strict accuracy more aptly characterizing the Christian sacrifice, than those sacrifices of typical import to which they had been applied under the law. From this also it might be expected, that a fuller light would now be thrown upon the nature of the Jew- ish sacrifice ; and the true force and value of the sacrificial ceremonies and phrases, more perfectly understood. And this we find to be the case; the language of the New Testa- ment on the subject of atonement being more precise and significant than that of the old. Instances of this may be seen in pp. 199. 219, 220, of this work, and are not denied by the opponents of the doctrine of Atonement, as it has been already observed in the places referred to. Thus then we find the Old Testament, and the New, bestowing mutual elucidation on this head : the rites and terms of sacrifice in the Old, exemplifying and describing the leading principles and fundamental notions of atonement : and the more exact and perfect delineation of it in the New, filling up the outline, and exhibiting the great work of our Redemption, in its genu-* ine magnitude and beauty. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 399 The train of reflection pursued in this Number, leads me naturally to notice the opinions of Archbishop Tiilotson, as connected with its subject. Nor is it without much regret, that I find myself compelled to notice, for the express pur- pose of marking with condemnation, the opinions of a prelate, whose great talents and virtues have combined to shed so bright a lustre on the annals of the English church. This distinguished writer,* having been forcibly impressed with the many visible traces of the doctrines and truths of revela- tion discoverable in the mythology and worship of the Hea- then world, was led to conclude, with a rashness little to be expected from such a man, that the Christian religion, whilst it was in its substance a most perfect institution, was yet, in condescension to the weakness of mankind, accommodated to the existing prejudices of the world, so far as was consistent with the honour of God, and its own great and valuable purpo- ses. And accordingly he maintains, that the doctrine of our redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, had its origin in the no- tion of sacrifices entertained amongst the Pagans. " This notion" (he says) " of the expiation of sin, by sacri- fices of one kind or other, seems to have obtained very early in the world ; and, among all other ways of divine worship, to have found the most universal reception in all times and pla- ces. And indeed a great part of the Jewish religion and wor- ship, was a plain condescension to the general apprehensions of men, concerning this vray of appeasing the Deity by sacri- fice : and the greatest part of the Pagan religion and worship was likewise founded upon the same notion and opinion, which, * So highly was Tiilotson esteemed as a ivriter by the celebrated Locke, that, in his treatise Concerning reading and study for a gentleman^ he specifi- cally recommends the constant perusal of the works of that prelate, as a most useful exercise for the student who is desirous to acquire the talent o\' per- spicuity. So very hig-hly, indeed, did that most excellent judge of whatever is requisite to clearness of expression, rate the archbishop's endowments in this particular, that he has joined with him but one other writer in the Eng- lish language, as exhibiting a just model for the acquisition of a perspicu- ous style. That writer is ChillingKvorth, whom he commends also for attain- ments of yet higher value. " Besides perspicuity" (he says) ** there must be also right reasoning; without which, perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for the attaining of this, I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his example, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better than any boot that I knoiu ; and there- fore will deserve to be read upon that account over and over again,- not to say any thing of his argument," — Lockers Works, vol, iv. p. 601. Why I have so readily availed myself of the opportunity, afforded by this honourable testimony, of presenting Chillingivorth to the more immediate notice of the student, at this period, and in this country, will not be difficult, upon reflection, to discover. — Quaere — Are Tiilotson, and Chillingworth, and writers of that manly stamp, those, with whom the youth of the present day are most solicitous to converse, for the improvement of their reasoning and their style ? 400 SACRIFICIAL TERMS l!f THE O. T. because it was so universal, seems to have had its original irom the first parents of mankind, either immediately after the Creation, or after the Flood ; and from thence, I mean as to the substance of this notion, to have been derived and pro- pagated to ail their posterity. And with this general notion of mankind, whatever the ground or foundation of it might be, God was pleased so far to comply, as once for all to have a general atonement made for the sins of all mankind, by the sacrifice of his only Son." — Tillotson^s norks, vol. i. p. 440. For similar observations see do. pp. 439, 446, 447, 451. And again in vol. ii. p. 112, he states the matter thus: that "with these notions, which had generally possessed mankind, God was pleased to comply so far, as, in the frame of the Jewish religion, (which was designed for a type of the more perfect institution of the Christian religion, and a preparation for it,) to appoi'U sacrifices to he slain and offered up for the sinner,'* &c. and that afterwards, in the dispensation of the Gospel, ^ the same condescension to the apprehensions of mankind was likewise observed, as has been already stated. Now ft is surely much to be lamented, that when this learned Prelate had, upon a full examination of the case, been led to discover such a striking conformity between Pa- ganism and Christianity, as must reduce the matter to this alternative, either that the Christian dispensation was framed in compliance with Heathen prejudices, or that Paganism was a corruption of those oracles which conveyed anticipa- tions of the Christian scheme : it is much, I say, to be la- mented, that he should have been drawn into a conclusion so directly at variance with history and scripture, when one so powerfully sustained by both, was immediately at hand. The stumbling-block to the Archbishop, as an ingenious writer has justly remarked, was the supposition of a Religion of Nature,^ prior to, and independent of, revelation. Hence * One of the most sing-ular theories ever devised on the subject of JVatu- rat Religion, is that of Bishop Warburton ; which 1 subjoin here the more readily, as it tends to show to what stran.^e conceits even the greatest men may be carried, when they attempt to be wise beyond what is written, and presume to substitute their ov/n conjectural rejisojiin^^s, for the solid truths of revelation — Man, he contends, was created mortal, in the immaterial, as well as the material })art of his nature, immateriality simply bein^ common to him with the whole animal creation, Ifeut by God's breathing- into his nostrils the breath of l>fe, and thereby making him a living soul, the life in man was discriminated from the life in brutes ; since by this act was communicated to his immaterial part a ra/fo/m/ principle, which, by making him responsible for his actions, must require, according to the existing t;onstitution of things, a continuance of life, and consequently, a distinct ex- istence of the soul after its separation from the body. In the state in which, according to the Bishop, the first couple were placed previous to their ad- mission into Piaradise, they were subject only to the law of Xatural Reli- ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OP CHRIST. 401 arose the assumption, that the notion of expiation for sins by sacrifice, which he found so early, and so universal, was ^/on, the constituent parts of which relig'ion were discoverable by the ef- forts of the human understanding-, unassisted by divine instruction. On being" advanced to the Paradisiacal state, man became the subject of Re- Htealed Religion ; and as the i-evvard of his obedience to the positive pre- cept attached to his new condition, Iminortalityy (meaning thereby, the perpetual duration, and uninterrupted union of the body and soul) a quality which was altogether extraneouis to his original nature, was placed within his reach, by the free grace of God. The opportunity now affiirded to him of exalting his nature, by the superinduced blessing of immortality, was lost by his non-compliance with the condition : and at the same time, the corruption which his disobedience caused to that rational nature in which he had been made to resemble the divine image, degraded him to his first condition of mortality, and made him again liable to that total death, that complete annihilation to which his frame was originally subject. But by the intervention of Jesus Christ, man was not only restored to the advantages of his original state, namely, the continuance of the soul aftei* the dissolution of the body ; but he was also enabled to obtain that immor- tality which Adam by his obedience might have secured ; with this differ- ence however, that, in the immortality prociued by Christ, death is permit- ted to give a temporary interruption to that existence and union of tlie soul and body, which, in the other case, would have been unbroken. But not only had the transgression occasioned a relapse into that state of mortality in v*hich man had been originally created, but it also threw him back into that subjection to natural Religion, in which he was at first placed. In this dispensation of JVatural Religion, which, according to Bishop Warburton, was thus permitted to precede the dispensation of Grace, the aids and suc- cours of virtue were not, however, according to his hypothesis, wanting; for, in his view of the subject, the light of revelation is by no means re- quired to make known the efficacy of repentance, or the rewards of upright conduct. Both these points, he contends, are evidently manifest to the eye of reason, tracing the connexion that must subsist between the crekture and his Maker. Such are the paradoxical, and, it must be added, unscriptural sentiments, conveyed by this learned writer, in the ixth book of the Divine Legation. They will be found well, though briefly, treated by Mr. Pearson, in the first three sections of his Critical Essay ; a work, of which I have already had occasion to sjjeak in p. 67, and p. 280 of this work. Dr. Graves also, in the 4th section, part III. of his Lectures on the Fentateiic/i, has made many valuable remarks, atlecting, though not dii*ecll\ , these po- sitions of the too ingenious Bishop, It ought not to pass unnoticed, that his Lordsliip in one of his Letters to his friend Dr. liurd, speaks of this his favourite theory, as intended to *' confute the triumphant reasoning of unbelievers, particularly, Tindal, who say redemption is a fable : for the only means of regaining God's yiz- sDowr, which they eternally confound with Immortality^ is that sirriple one which natural religion teaches, viz. rtpentance. To confute this, it was necessary to show, that restoration to 'a free gift ^ and the recovery of a claim, were two very different things. The common answer was, that na- tural religion does no^ teach reconciliation on repentance; wliich, if it does not, it teaches nothing, or worse than nothing.'* Of .Matural Religion then, after all that Bishop Warburton has written about it, we have his f'«ll con- fession, that if it does not teach the sufficiency of repentance, it teaches even •worse than nothing. — The opponent ot the notion of Natural Rehgiou, may safely allow the matter to rest upon the ground, on which the Bishop has placed it. That God will accept repentance in compensation for obedience, nothing short of the word of God can ever establisli satisfactorily to any rea- sonable mind. The consequence of this position is supplied by the author of the Divine Legation. 3 B 402 gACRIFICIAL TERMS Iff TflE O. 1^ the mere suggestion of human apprehension ; not deduced from any express revelation concerning the Lamb of God slairiy in decree and type, from the foundation of the rvorld } not springing from any divine institution, ordained for the purpose of showing forth Christ's dea/h, until he should him- self appear in the flesh, to fulfil all that was prefigured of him, and to take away sin, and put an end to sacrifice, by the one great sacrifice of himself. Had the Archbishop, as the same writer observes, reflect- ed, that a religion or law of nature,^ is a mere ens rationis ? that the first parents of mankind were not left to the unas- sisted light of reason or nature, but were from the beginning fully instructed by their Creator, in all things necessary for * To him who would wish to see, how little the Religion of JVaiure, so far a3 it contains any thin^ truly valuable to man, is strictly entitled to that name, I would recommend the perusal of the preface to The Jieligiofi of Jesns delineated. The observations there contained, whilst they tend to sho\*', in animadverting upon The Religion of JVature delineated, how sadly deficient the scheme of natural religion is found, even at this day, although sketched by the hand of a master, and aided by the borrowed discoveries of revelation, at the same time clearly evince, that the promulger of the truths of what is called natural religion^ in almost every case in which he advances any that are of importance to mankind, is in reality to be deemed, not AuToJ'iJ'itKroc, but Stoifi^cturoi. Of this, however, the fullest and most com- plete proof is to be derived from the invaluable work of Br. Ellis, in which he may be said to have demonstrated The Knowledge of Divine Things to be from, Revelation, not from Reason or JWiture. Leland has also abundantly established the fact, of the total insufficiency of human reason in religious concerns^ by the view, which he has given, of the state of religion in the Heathen world, in his work on The Advantage and JVecessity of the Christian Revelation. From darkens 6tli and 7th propp. of his Evidences of JSCatural and Revealed Religion, although this author Is disposed to attribute to the powers of reason rather more than their due share, the same inference may be deduced — especially from what is said p. 659 — 665. and 666 — 671. vol. ii. of his wovks,. 1 should be guilty of injustice to an accomplished modern writer, if on this subject I permitted to pass unnoticed. Dr. Maltby's Thesis for his degree of B. D. contained in the volume of his Illustrations of the Truth of the Chnstian Religion. The following proposition, " Nequit per se hu- mana ratio cognJtione satis plena et ceriu assequi, quo potissimum modo Deus sit colendus ; qux sint hominum officia; vita denique futura sit, necne, aterna,"is there treated with a justness, a succintness, a good taste, a cor- rectness of style, and a strength of authority, which reflect honour upon its author as a divine and as a scholar, and cannot fail to give satisfaction to the reader, who wishes to find the sitbstaiice of what can be said upon this impor- tant question, compressed into the smallest compass, and in the best manner. The concluding observation, concerning such as at the present day repose on the sufficiency of reason for a knowledge of their duties, contains a truth, in which every reflecting mind must necessarily acquiesce. " Profecto ea- dem, qua veteres philosophi, caligine animi eorum sunt mersi : aut si quid melius sapiunt, id omne a Christiana reUgione onald fide mutiiati sunt." p. 355. And therefore, as the writer finally remarks, it is most devoutly to be desired, that the advocates for the all-sufficiency of reason, would deeply imprint upon their minds, this momentous maxim of the great Baoon-i- " Causa vero et radix fere omnium malorum in scientiis ea una est, quod dum mentis humansc virSs falso miramur et extoUimus, vera ejus auxiliauon t^uaeramus." p. 359. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 403 them to know : that, after their fall, the way and method of their salvation was, in a certain degree, made known to them : that all religious rites flowed from the same divine source, viz. the original revelation of the redemption of the world by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ : that all the appre- hensions and common prejudices of mankind, as they are called, were derived from the same fountain : that all, until the apostacy at Babel, had the same tongue, the same faith, the same Lord : that the Heathen carried off from thence the same religious rites and ceremonies, and the same sentiments concerning God and his ways with man, which, by change of language, length of time, wantonness of imagination, per- verseness of human nature, and subtlety of the Devil, were reduced to that corrupted state of faith and practice in which our Saviour at his advent found them : — and that, as already observed, from the first promise made to Adam, during the patriarchal and legal dispensations, all was Chris- tianity in type and figure ; so that Christianity was the first religion in the world, corrupted afterwards indeed by the Gentile, but preserved by the Jew in type, till Christ the great antitype, the reality and completion, came : — had he (this writer observes) pursued this train of thinking, he would have found the reverse of his conclusion to be the truth ; namely, " that Christiajiity was not instituted in compliance *with Paganism, but that Paganism was nothing else but the great truths of Christianity split and debased into a legend of fables, such as we meet with in their mythology."^ — Speerman's Letters to a friend concerning the Septuagint translation^ and the Heathen Mythology, pp. 150, 151. The writer, who has made the above observations, and whose reasonings would not have been less valuable had they taken less tincture from the Hutchinsonian school, has endea- voured, and not without success, to establish the point last adverted to, namely, the derivation of the Pagan mythology from the divine revelations. Tillotson\^ idea corresponds with that which was after- wards adopted by Spencer* For since he admits the Jewish dispensation to have been typical of the Christian, the ac-- commodation of the Christian scheme to Pagan prejudices, for which he contends, could only have been effected through the previous accommodation of the Jewish scheme to those prejudices ; which, as we have seen in Number XLVIL falls * If this view of the case be a just one, we certainly might reasonabljt^ pect to find in the mythology of the ancients, in a much larger and more important sense, what Plutarch says of the Egyptian fables, st/iAvJ'gst.c Ttvm w^aTTfjc Tfjc xxt^Bfixiy somp faint and cbncurc re semblance of the truth. 404 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O, T. in with the theory maintained by Spencer. And this theor}> as we have seen in the same Number, p. 267. is satisfactorily refuted by Shuckford, whose work on The Sacred and Pro- fane History of the World Connected, goes to establish the direct contradictory of Spencer^s position.* The arguments of Spencer are also successfully combated by Witsius in his jEgryptiaca : see likewisethe same author's Misc. Sacr. Lib. I. Diss. i. p. 429 — 437. Warburton confesses truly, that Spencer^ s work is but a paraphrase and comment on the third book of the Moreh Nevockim of Rabbi Maimonides : and joining forces with Spencer,f in maintaining the orthodoxy of the philosophizing Jew, J he contends, with all his might, * The particular a]:>plIcatlon of his arguments to Spenccr'^s notion will be found briefly sketched in p. 177 — 179. of this work. I How little Spencer deserved to have the support of Warburton, is not only Jnanifest, from the whole scheme of his arg-nment, in his great work Be legibus H(xbr(jeoruniy wliich is itself unsupported by true history, and has al- ways been resorted to by Infidel writers in order to wing their shafts more effectively against the Mosaic Revelation -, but may also be made to appear, more evidently and briefly, by the quotation of a single passage from this writer's Discourse concerning Prodigies. " It is," he says, '* the nature of the soul to be greatly impressive to a persuasion of parallels, eqnoiitits, similitudes, in the frame and government of the world — This general tem- per of the soul easily inclines it to believe great and mighty changes in states, usiiered with the solemnity of some mighty and analogous changes in na- ture ; and that all terrible evils are prefaced or attended with some prodi- gious and amazing alterations in the creation : — Hence perhaps it is, that w« generally find great troubk's and judjjriTf^ents on earth described, especially by persons ecstatical, prophets and poets, (wliose speeches usually rather follow the easy sei,se of the soul than the rigid trvth of thijigs,) by all the exiimplcs of horror anrt confusion in the frame of the creation : The prophet J)avid describes God's going forth to judgment thus ; The earth shook and trenib'ed, the foundations also of the hills vioved ant 'cuere shaken" &c. (p. 70 — 72.) — Now can it be any defence against this irreverent attack upon the prophets inspired hy God, which cl^arges them with indulging in enthusiastic msions and expressions founded only in their own fancies and not in the truth of things i can it, I say, be deemed any defence to urge, as Warburton has done, that " through his inattention to the argument, he often expresses him- self very crudely ?" (Biv- Leg. vol. ii. p. 341.) If lie be so crtide in his ex- - pression, as to cast discredit upon revelation, whilst his intention is to sup- port it, he must surely be a very unsafe guide in theology. At the same time, it c;mi hardly be imagined that an autiior, possessing considerable powers and facilities of language, could in any case, especially in one affect- ing the very foundation of revealed religion, express himself so crudely, as to represent himself destitute of a belief, which he fr7nly, habitually, and reverently maintained. At all events, it is evident, that such a writer is to be consulted with much caution, and his authorities scanned with much suspi- cion. 4: For a very curious and interesting account of the circumstances which gave rise to the production of the celebrated work, the Moreh JK^evochint^ \\\ vvliich Maimonides hist gave to the world, the theory of the ceremonial institutions of the Jews here referred to, the reader may consult Warbur- ton' s Biv Leg. vol. ii. pp. 553, 354. He will probably, however, not be alto- ' gelher satisfied, that the existing necessity of " showing to the apostatizing Jews, that the scriptures mig-ht be defended or even explained on the prin- ciples of Aristotle ; and of gratifying the inquisitive and disnutatious ten- ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 4(>5 against the arguments of Wltsius 9.nd Shuckford. — Div, Leg, Book IV. sect. 6. To this he was urged by the necessity, which his paradoxical system had imposed upon him, of mak- ing out for the Egyptian rites and institutions an extravagant antiquity : and, in defence of his dogmas, he advances every thing that a powerful but perverted ingenuity, acting on a wide range of learning, could supply.^' dencies of diose, who inquired the reasons of the Jewish laws by finding, out a reasonableness and convenience in their ceremonial rites," supplies a proof, that those reasons, which tlie philosophic Jew liad thus assig'ned, were the true reasons which influenced the divine Legislator in the several ordinances of his law. The parallel, which Warburton here insinuates, be- tween the nature of his own great work and that of Maimonides, will not escape the notice of the observing readei*. * The character of this distinguislied scholar and divine, as it is pourtray- ed by the hand of a master, I here willingly subjoin. — " He was a man of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge, which yet had not oppressed his imagination, nor clouded his perspicuity. To «very work he brought a memory full fraught, wit^ a fancy fertile of original, combinations, and at once exerted tlie powers of the scholar, the reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His abilities gave him an hau-ghty confidence, which he disdained to conceal or mollify, and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his adversaries with such contemptuous superiority as made his readers commonly his enemies, and excited against him the wishes of some who favoured his cause. HeXseems to have adopted the Roman emperor^s determination, oderiiit dmn mehinnt ,- he used no allurements of gentle language, but wished to compel rather than persuade. — His style is copious without selection, and forcible without neatness : he took the words that presented themselves : his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences are unmeasured." — Johnson'' s Life of Pope. For a view of the character more favourable, but not more just, I virould refer to that which Bishop Hurd, the uniform admirer and panegyrist of Warburton, has given in the life he has written of that prelate. His enco- mi(mis, on The Diwie Legation especially, are overcharged ;^ and the recol- lection that the cause of truth and of religion, no less than '-i. i reputation of his friend, was involved in the estimation of that important work, should have rendered his panegyric more qualified. My friend Dr. Graves, in his late excellent work on the Pentateuch^ ha.s sketched a portrait which for likeness of feature and justness of colouring, seems to me to merit a place in the neighbourhood of that wiiich has been drawn by Johnson. — Speaking of the Divine Legation, and having observed, that " Whil® its author lived, his splendid talents and extensive learning, raised in his followers and defenders such enthusiastic admiration, that they could not perceive, or at least would not allow, that he had been in the smallest point erroneous : while the keenness of his controversial asperity, the loftiness of his literary pretensions, and the paradoxical form in which he too frequently chose to clothe his opinions, roused in his answerers a zeaf of opposition, which would sometimes yield him no credit for the dis- covery of any truth :" he then proceeds: "Time should now enable us to view him in his true light : in reasoning, sagacious yet precipitate ; in criti- cism ingenious, but not unprejudiced ; his comprehensive view sometimes em- braced in the process of ius inquiries too wide an extent ; while his quick imagination sometimes led him to combine his arguments with too slight a connexion._ But when he directed to any one giand point, his undivided and unprejudiced attention, he frequently diffused over it the radiance of genius, and discovered the recesses of truth. Hanpv, had his humility beeii 406 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN" THE O. T. Lord Bolinghroke has seldom been found instrumental is correcting theological mistakes, and yet nothing can be more apposite in reply to these dangerous notions of Tillotson, Spencer, and Warburton, than his observations upon this very subject. For the weighty reasons assigned by these writers, he says, (alluding to such as held the opinions of Spencer,) — " the God of truth chose to indulge error, and suited his institutions to the taste of the age : he contented himself also to take ordinary and natural means, in a case to which they were not adequate : and whilst miracles and di- vine interpositions were displayed in great abundance before the eyes of the Israelites, yet Moses, under the direction of the Almighty, chose to make use of superstitions which he did not want, and which defeated, instead of securing his in- tent ; insomuch, that if the apostasies of the Israelites, after such manifestations of the one true God, can be any way ac- counted for, it must be by the effect of the very expedient which had been employed to prevent these apostasies." In short, he says, the whole plan of Providence seems to have been, " to destroy idolatry by indulgence, to the very super- slit ions Old of whicli it grew.""^ — Bolinghroke^ s Phil. Works, vol. i. p. 313—319. What the noble sophist had intended with no better will to revealed religion itself, than to those of its advocates whom he professes to rebuke, I have, in this extract, taken such liberties in modifying, as will permit the argument to bear, only where truth would have directed it ; namely, upon those mistaken interpreters of revelation, who depart from the written word of God, to follow the guidance of their own fancies, in explaining the grounds and motives of the divine dispensations. Such it is impossible not to pronounce, Til- Jotson, Spencer, and Warburton, to have been on the parti cular subject now before us. equal to liis talents, and had his temper been as calm and tolerant as his understanding was himinous and penetrating-. His researches would theia have been conducted with more caution and impartiality, would have pro- duced more uiiexceptionable conclusions, and been attended with happier success." Dr. Grwocs^s Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. ii p. 209 — 211. * On the same subject, this writer, in another place, thus pointedly, (though as his custom is, irreverently) expresses himself. In order to pre- serve the purity of his worship, the Deily is represented, as prescribing to the Israelites, a multitude of rites and ceremonies, founded in the supersti- tions of Egypt from which they were to be weaned, and he succeeded ac- cordingly. They were never weaned entirely from all these superstitions : and the great merit of the law of Moses was teaching the people to adore one God, much as the idolatrous nations adored several. This may be called sanctifying Pagan rites and ceremonies, in theological language : but it is profaning the pure worship of God, in th.e language of common sense. — Phu Works, vol. V. p. 575. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 407 In how very different a manner we ouglit to pursue our in- quiries, from that which these writers would propose, I have already endeavoured to enforce^ p. 41 — 19. also Number XLVII. and pp. 398, 399, 400—403. of this work. And how fully we are justified in so doing, will yet more satisfac- torily appear, on consulting Dr. (Jraves^s Jjcctiircs on the Pentateuch, (especially the two sections cf Lect. vi. part iii.) and the Eight Discour^ses on the Connexion between the. Old and New Testament; in which latter work, the unity of the scheme of Redemption pervading the entire series of the divine dispensations, has been treated with much ability by Archdeacon Daubeny ; whose opinions upon so many impor- tant points, I am happy to find perfectly coincident with those which I have submitted to the public throughout these pages, on the nature of the atonement. To such as may be desirous to investigate more deeply, the opinions of the three distinguished writers against whom I have found it necessary to contend in discussing the subject of the present Number, I recommend" an attentive perusal of the tenth book of E^isehius^s Prceparatio Evangelica : — Book III. ch. V. of Stillingjleel^s Origines Sacrce : — Bo- chart^ s Geographia Sacra : — Witsius^s ^gyptiaca : — Winder^ s History of Knowledge: — Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, (especially p. 122 — 129.) Nichols's Conference with a Theist, (particularly vol. i. p. 290—308.— and pp. 319, 320.) Faber's IIorcB Mosaics: and Dr. Woodward's Discourse on the Ancient Egyptians,'^ {ArchcEolog. vol. iv.) The Bishop of Lincoln, in his ex- cellent Elements of Christian Theology, (Part I. chap. i. * An extract from tliis discourse I here subjoin, as particularly worthy of attention, in reply to the favourite theory of Spencer. — " Whatever might be the jient and dispositions of the Israelites, it was Moses*s proper business to rectify them. He was not to indulge them in their fancies, but inform them of their duties, and direct them to what was fit, reasonable and consistent with good morals and piety, though that happened to be never so much against their gusts and inclinations, which accordingly he every where did : and there ai-e numerous instances of it through all his government of them. His doing otherwise might, indeed, have shown a great deal of poUcj/, but not near so much probity and goodness, as are discoverable through his whole conduct of this great people. I can very easily allow Dr. Spencer, that this was the method that Mahomet, ApoUoiiius Tyanasus, and some po- liticians have taken : nor will I enter into any contest with him, whether the Devil makes use of the same in order to seduce mankind from the worship of God ; all which he gives, I think, surely with a little too much looseness, as parallel instances in confirmation of his notion : but this I am mighty sure, Moses was on all occasions very far from it." pp. 281, 282— Spencer has justified these observations by his strange assertions. ** In eo enim eluxit sapientia divina, quod antidotume veneno faceret, etillis ipsis ceremoniis ad populi sui utilitatem, qiiibits olim Diabolus adhominum perniciem uteretur." And again he cites this political axiom, to k«»ov vj »5/^gyov »« zsrt Kivareov. 408 SACRIFICIAL ^BRaiS IN THE O. T. p. 37 — 48.) lias admirably summed up the argument from the concurrence of profane tradition with the Mosaic history; deducing both from the common source of revelation, dis- guised indeed, and disfigured in the one by allegories, and fabulous conceits, but conveyed to us by the other in its pristine and uncorrupted purity. The laborious and valua- ble researches of Mr. Bryant, Mr. Maurice, and particularly Sir William Jones, have thrown new and powerful lights upon this important subject. As to the searching with a curious minuteness, into the re- semblances which subsist between the Pagan mythologies, and the great truths of the Jewish and Christian revelations ; this may undoubtedly be carried too far. And I agree. en- tirely with the learned and judicious Mr. Nares, that we are not bound in the proof of the authenticity of revelation, to mark out its traces amidst the rubbish of absurd fables, and disgusting mysteries, which compose the various religions of the Heathen world. See Narts^s Banipton Lecture, pp. 251, 252. — And yet, since these resemblances have been employed, by the pen of infidelity, to overthrow revelation, under the pretence, that the discoveries which we ascribe to it, had been derived from Pagan mythology, it surely must be admitted, that such inquiries of the learned, as tend to reverse this position, possess no inconsiderable value. The engines designed for the destruction of Christianity, are hereby converted into instruments for its defence. The in- fidel, who laboured in the support of error, is thus rendered an auxiliary in the cause of truth. And it may perhaps not unfairly be viewed, as a sort of providential retribution, that a Hume, a Bolingbroke, and a Voltaire,* should be pressed * Volney Is not, perhaps, of sufficient calibre, to be ranked with the above mentioned discoverers of moral and religious trutlis. And yet, he has p;i- ven specimens, which prove him not wholly unworthy of such society. He has, among;st many curious matters, discovered, that tlie mysterious birth of llie Messiah, signifies nothing- more, than the Stin rising in constellation of Virgo ; that the twelve apostles, are the t=ivelve signs of the Zodiac ; and that all '* the pretended personages from Adam to Abraham, are mythological be- ings, stars, constellations, countries.^' lining, pp. 348. 388, 389. — Of this work of Mr. Volney, it has been well remarked by a learned writer, that it ** is truly styled The Ruins : for that, agreeably to its title, it menaces de- struction to every thing that has justly commanded the respect and venera- tion of man ; as it would rob men of the inestimable blessings of peace and good order, of the endearing ties of social connexion, and consequently of what constitutes both public and private liappiness ; and by breaking the salutary restraints of religion, would banish peace from the human breast, and spoil it of its firmest support in life and surest consolation in death." And to this is most properly subjoined, that "its baneful influence is not confined to these alone ; that it carries in itself the seeds of its ovsn ruin and confusion ; and that it would almost require a volume, to enumerate the con- tradictory and jasTing atoms, of which this chaos of confusion is composed.*' ABAPTBD TO THE SACRIFICB OV eHRIST. 409 into the ranks with the champions of revelation, and com- pelled to march in the triumphal procession which celebrates their own defeat. The latest claim that has been set up in opposition to the Hebrew scriptures, is on behalf of the sacred books of the Hindus. These, it has been pretended, evince not only the priority of the Indian records ; but also, that Moses has borrowed from the Brahmens, much of what has been com- monly ascribed to him as original, especially with regard to the creation of the world. The fallacy of such pretences has, indeed, of late years, been fully manifested, by the valuable exertions of Sir William Jones, and those of his re- spectable fellow-labourers in the field of Indian literature. At the same time, it is to be lamented, that the admissions of that illustrious vindicator of the Hebrew writings, as well as those of Mr. Maurice, and others, respecting the antiquity of the Vedas, have been such as to furnish those who were desirous to pervert the truth, with an opportunity of apply- ing the produce of their meritorious labours to the prejudice of the Jewish records ; an opportunity which was not nea;- lected.^ The futility of the attempt was, happily, at once, exposed by a few judicious observations in the British Cri- tic, (vol. xvi. pp. 149, 150.) and has since received more ample refutation from the pens of Mr, Faber, and Mr. Nares, in their Bampton LerAure volumes. But, in truth, notwithstanding that, as has been abundantly proved, such admissions of the great antiquity of the Hindu records, by no means justify an inference, affecting the originality and An Enquiry into tlie origin of the Constellations that compose the Zodiac, p. 197. Such are the judicious observations of a writer, whose learning has ena- bled him to overthrow the principal theories, which have been erected by others upon the subject of which he treats ; and yet has not prevented th? writer himself, from adding" one move to the numerous instances, that already existed, of the danger of adventuring into those visionary regions, in which fact supplies no solid footing, and fancy is the only guide. * See the Advertisement prefixed to the 5th volume of the London edition of the Asaitic Researches : in which, after noticing the antiquity ascribed to the Vedas by the above Orientalists, the Editors insidiously subjoin the fol- lowing observation. *' We shall not take up your time, wi'h a dissertation on the exact age of either the Hebrew, or the 'Iindu Scriptures : both are ancient: let the reader judge. — Wheiher the Hindu Brahmens BORROWED FROM MoSES, OR MoSES FROM THE HlNDU BrAHMENS, is not our present enquiry." p. iv. — The merit of these observations, it should be noticed, belongs exclusively to the London Editors .• the advtrtistment bc' ing altogether a fabrication of theirs ; and no one part of it being to be found in the original Calcutta Edition, of which this professes to be a faithful copy. — Such is the use, to which the pure gold of Sir W. Jones would be con- ^ retted, by these workers of base metal. 3 C 41<^ SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T. priority of the Hebrew scriptures ; yet it is fairly to be cfues- tjoned, whether that antiquity has not been rated much above its real standard. The astronomical tables of the Hindus, it is well known, supply the only reasonable data from which to judge of their chronology : their habitual exaggerations rendering every other source of chronological information altogether chimeri- cal ; insomuch that Sir W. Jones pronounces, (in his Dis- sertation on the gods of Greece, Italy, and India') that " the comprehensive mind of an Indian chronologist has no limits^;'* and at the same time proves his assertion by a number of the most extraordinary instances indeed. Their astronomical calculations, therefore, having naturally become a subject of great curiosity and interest with men of science, the cele-. brated M. Bailly, in the year 1787, published, at Paris, a volume on the Indian astronomy, in which he contended for its great antiquity, carrying it back to a period of more than 3000 years before the Christian era. This conclusion he founded upon the nature of certain of their astronomical ta- llies ; which, he contended, contained internal evidence, that they had been formed from actual observation, and must therefore be carried up to so early a date as that of 8102. A. C. His reasonings upon this subject, in his elaborate Traits de V Astronomie Indienne et Orientate, were fol- lowed hy other astronomers, particularly by Professor Play- fair in the 2d vol. of the Edinburgh Transactions, in 1789: and the '^ Suryci Siddhanta, supposed to contain the most ancient astronomical treatise of the Indians, was also carried iiD to a very high date, not less than 2000 years before the Christian era. That the reasonings, however, which led to both these con- clusions, are erroneous, later discussions of the subject leave but little rpom for doubt, Mr. Marsden, in an ingenious pa- per in the Phil. Trans, for 1790, bad, without attempting to ijnpeach M. Bailly's astronomical arguments, pointed out a * Mr. Davis, who was the translator of this most ancient of the Sasiras^ thinks that he finds in it sufficient data, from which, computing tlie diminu- tion of the obliquity of the Ecliptic at the rate of 50" in a century, he can fairly infer the ag-e of the work itself to be 3840 years ; tliereby carrying it back more than 2000 years A. C. {Asiatic Bescarches, vol. ii. p. 238)— But Professor Playfair, proceeding at a rate of computation, which lie conceives more accurate, places the date of the work above 3000 years earlier than the Christian era. {Edinb. Trans, vol. iv. p. 103.) He therefore thinks himself perfectly secure, in adopting the interval of 2000 years A C. in which, also, he fortifies himself by the authority of Sir W. Jones.—The demands, both of Mr. Davis and Professor Playfair, must certainly be admitted to be modest, compared with that of the Hindus themselves ; who require of us to believe, that this book is 2,164,899 years old, having been at that distant period giv^ f n by divine revelation. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 41^ satisfactory mode, of accounting for the apparent antiquity of the Indian tables, by conceiving the computations to be found- ed, not upon a realy but an imaginary, conjunction of the planets, sought for as an epoch, and calculated retrospective- ly. The celebrated M. Laplace, again, after the most accu- rate mathematical investigation, has not only* pronounced * I cannot refrain from giving, at full length, the opinions and reasonings of so distinguished a mathematician as M. Laplace, on a point of such vital moment, as that of tiie great antiquity, whicii it has been the fasiuon to ascribe to the astronomical tables of the Hindus : and on a point, also, iri which, the opinions of a mathematician can alone have weight. *' Les tables Indiennes indiquent une astronomie plus perfectiontie ; mals tout parte a croire qu' tilts ?ie sunt pas d^une haute antiquite. Ici, je m'cloigne a regret de I'opinion d'un savant illustre, (M. Bailly) qui, apres avoir honore sa carriere, par des travaux utiles aux sciences eta I'humanite, mourut vic- time de la plus sanguinaire tyrannic, opposant le calme et la dignite du juste, aux fureurs d'un peuple abuse, qui sous ses yeux me me, se fit un plaisir barbare d'appreter son supplice. Les tables Indiennes ont deux dpoques prjncipales, qui remontent, I'une a I'annee 3102 avant I'ere Chrttteime, I'autre a 1491 : ces epoques sont liees par les moyens mouvemens du soleil^ de la lune, et des planetes, de sorte que Tune d'elles est necessairement* fictive. L'auteur cddebre dont je viens de parler, a cherclie a etablir, dan- son traite de TAstronomie Indienne, que la premiere de ces epoques est fon- dee sur l*observation. Malgre ses preuvcs, expos6es avec I'interet qu'il a sU repandre sur les choses les plus abstraites, je regarde comme tres vraiseiri' blable, que cette epoqiie a ete imaginee, pour donntr une commune origine, dans le Zodiaque, aux mouvemens des corps celestes. En effct, si, partant i'epoque de 1491, on reraonte, au moyen des tables Indiennes, a Tan 31u2 avant Tere Chretienne ; on trouve la conjonction generale du solcii, de la lune, et des planetes, que ces tables supposent : 7/i«iV cette conjonction trop diffSrente du resultat de nos m,eilleures tables, pour avoir eu lieu, nous viontre que Tepoque a laquelle elle se rapporte^ li' est point appuyee sur Its observations. A la verite, quelques elemens de I'astronomie Indienne semblent indicjuei', qu'ils ont ete determines, meme avant cette premiere epoque; ainsi, Ttiqua- tion du centre du soleil, qu'elle fixe a 2'',4173, n'a pu etre de cette grandeur, que vers I'an 4300 avant I'ere Chretienne. Mais, ind.pendamment des erreurs dont les determinations des Indiens ont etc susceptibles, on doit observer qu'ils n'ont considcre les inegalitts du soleil et de la lune, que re- lativement aux eclipses dans lesquelles I'equation annuelle cie la lune s'ajoute •i I'equation du centre du soleil, et I'augmente d'environ 22'; ce qui est a- peu-pres la difference Je nos deierminations, a celle des Indiens. Plusieurs olumens, tels que les equations du centre de Jupiter et de Mars, sont si dif- ferens dans les tables Indiennes, de ce qu'ils devoient etre a leur premiere t-poque; que I'on ne pent rien concluic des autres elemens, en favcur de leur antiquite. Vensemble de ces tables, et sur-tout l'impossibilite de la con- jonction qu^elles supposent a la meme epoque, prouvent au contraire, qu'elles ont ete conntmites, ou du moins rectifiees dans des temps vioderncs ; ce que confirment les moyens numvemens, qu'elles assignent a la lune, par rapport k son perigee, a ses noeuds, et au soleil ; et qui plus rapides que suivant Pto-^ lenxee, indiquent evidemfnent que la formation de ces tables est poaterieure au temps de cet astronotne ; car on a vu que ces trois mouvemens s'accelerent desiecle en siecle." — Exposition du Systetnedu Monde, \i\i. 293, 294. Thus has M. Laplace, from the evidence, which the tables themselves sup- ply, not only overturned the prevailing notion of their great antiquity, but reduced their date even lower than the second century, since he places them lower than the age of Ptolemy, who lived until 161 A. D. Having been led to make mention of this eminent mathematician, thart whom agi-catername has not arisen since the days of Newton, I cannotfgrbeajp N 412 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O* T. npon the recent date of the tables, but has also pointed out errors in the calculations from which M. Bailly deduced his results ; and has clearly demonstrated the epoch in the tables, not to have been real, but fictitious. And last of all, Mr. Bentley Beems completely to have settled the point, in his two most ingenious and learned papers, in the 6th and 8th volumes of the Asiatic Researches, in which, he not only con- tends, that from the principles of the Hindu astronomy, the recent date of the tables can be deduced ; but that also, from authentic testimony, independent of all calculations, the age of the Surya Siddhanta can be proved such as not to carry the date of its composition farther back than the year 1068, In his endeavours to establish these points, he has not scru- pled to pronounce M. Bailly and Professor Play fair to have been totally mistaken, in their reasonings, concerning the anti- quity of the Indian astronomy; and to have proceeded upon an entire ignorance of the principles of the artificial system of the Hindus: the nature of which he states to consist in this, — that " certain points of time back are fixed upon as epochs, at which the planets are assumed to fall into a line of mean conjunction with the sun in the beginning of Aries ; and that from the points of time so assumed as epochs, the Hindu astronomer carries on his calculations, as if they had been settled so by actual observation ; and determines the mean annual motions, which he must employ in his system, from thence, as will give the positions of the planets in his own time, as near as he is able to determine the same by observation." (VoL vi. p. 542.) — He then proceeds to show by what means^ such fictitious epochs maybe assumed, without incurring the danger of a perceptible variation from the real mean motions : and upon the whole, he has fortified his argument in a way that renders it not easy to be shaken. The high authority of the names, which Mr. Bentley has to oppose on this subject, noticing", as a matter of sintrular curlositj-, the coincidence of a remarkable astronomical epocli, as fixed by his calculations, with the year, in which Archbishop Ussher has placed the creation of the world, according to the chronology of the Hebrew. The epoch is that of the coincidence of the greater axis of the earUi's orbit with the line of the equinoxes, at which time the true and the mean equinox were the same, 'i'liis M. Laplace computes to have taken place, about the year 4004 before the Christian era ; which is the very era of the creation, as chronologists have derived it from the Hebrew scriptures. — Traiie de Mecaiiique Celeste^ torn. iii. p. 113. — This point I have stated, merely for the gratification of the curious reader, without intending to lay upon it any particular stress. At the same time, I cannot avoid ob- serving, that if a coincidence, equally striking, bore an aspect unfavourable to the truth of the scripture history, it would be cried up by a certain class of literati, (wiio admire Mr. Brydone's lavas and such like trash,) as a civ- Gumstance amcunting to a demonstration of the falsehood of the Hebrew fcriptttres. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OP CHRIST- 41^' (Sir W. Jones himself, having, as well as M. Bailly and Pro- fessor Playfair, maintained the antiquity of the Indian astro- nomy,) may occasion some delay to the reception of his opi- nions. But from the proofs which have been advanced in their support, and from the additional lights to be expected upon this subject, there seems little reason to doubt, that they will ere long be generally acquiesced in. At all events, the main foundation, on which the extraor- dinary antiquity of the Indian records has been built, must be given up as no longer tenable : and the decided priority of the Mosaic scriptures, cannot any longer reasonably be questioned.* So that, as the Chaldean, Phenician, Egyp- tian, Grecian, and Chinese antiquities, which at different times have been deemed irreconcileable with the truth of Scripture history, have, to a more minute inspection, contracted their dimensions to a perfect agreement with the Scripture stand- ard ; so it may without hazard be pronounced of the Indian antiquities, that the day of their exaggerated extent has near- ly gone by ; and that there is no longer much danger of any serious impediment, from that quarter, to the belief of the Mo- Baic history. That the Indians did, at a very early age, cul- tivate astronomy, and that to them we are indebted, for that most ingenious and useful invention of an arithmetical charac- ter, possessing at the same time an absolute and a local value, cannot, undoubtedly, be denied. And yet, it must be ad- mitted, that there are such indications of gross ignorance, in the very science, which they have so much studied, that one scarcely knows how to give them credit for certain other dis- coveries which are ascribed to them. To make the circum- ference of the earth amount to 2,456,000,000 British miles, (Asiat, Research, vol. v. art. 18.) and to hold the moon's dis- * Mr. Nares, in his valuable note upon this subject, (Bampton Lecture, p. 256 — 273.) seems somewhat reluctant to admit Mr. Bentley's results, in op- position to those which could boast so many distinguished names in their support. He has, however, with great learning and ability, shown, that even from the evidence, which M. Bailly himself adduces in corroboration of his opinion, no inference can reasonably be drawn, which in any degree inter- feres with the trutli and originality of the Scripture history. Indeed, the whole of Mr. Nares's discussion of this subject, is particularly worthy of at- tention. Of his entire work, it may be, as it has been, most truly affirmed,^ that there is perhaps no other extant, which, within the same compass, brings so mucli argument to bear, against the various enemies of our I'cligion from without, or against the betrayers of it from within. And, as compressing, in the best manner, the greatest quantity of important information, on all the great subjects, on which modern wisdom has attempted to assail Revelation^ 1 most earnestly recommend it to the Theological student, — I cannot permit the very favoin-ablc mention, which this author has made of my former pub- lications on the Atoneinentf to prevent me from giving a tcs'imony, which the cause of religious truth so imperionsir demand?:. . 414 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T. tance from the earth to be greater than that of the siin,^ are not proofs of any great progress in astronomical research. On this subject, see Montucla's observations, in the part re- ferred to in the note below. In truth, from circumstances such as these, joined to the fact, of the Indians being unable to give any explanation of, or assign any reasons for their par- ticular tables and calculations, there seems good reason to think, that much, of what has been supposed to be their own invention, has been derived to them from other sources; as has proved to be the case, with respect to the Chinese tables ; and as Mr. Nares has well shown to be extremely probable, with respect to those of the Indians likewise. f Bajnpt. Led. pp. 270, 271. As to the readiness of the Indians to impose fabrications upon the Europeans, all must now be tolerably well satisfied, since the publication of Mr. Wilford's letter, in which he con- fesses, with a grief that had actually reduced him to a fit of sickness, that " his Pundits had totally deceived him, in al- most all that he had written about the Sacred Islands in the West ; having at different times, and in proportion as they became acquainted with his pursuits and his wishes, made erasures in the Sanscrit MSS, and on those erasures inserted the names, Rajata-Dweep, for England, and Suvarna- DwEEP, for Ireland." He adds, also, that *' those frequent- ly recurring erasures in most Indian mss, tended to throw a deep shade over their presumed authority." Another impo- sition, on a subject infinitely more important, has also since come to light. For, unfortunately, we find, that the remark- able passage in the 3d vol. of the Researches, which Sir W. Jones affirms, to be an exact translation by himself, from an Indian MS, forwarded to him by Mr. Wilford, relative to Noah, under the name of Salyavarman, and his three sons, Sherma, Charma, and Jyapeti, is altogether a forgery BY the Brahmens. I cannot forbear annexing to this Number a passage from an old translation of a work of the celebrated Amyraut. It * " lis font aussi la Lune plas eloignee de nous que le Soleil, et meme ils sont aussi attachees a cette opinion, qu'on Test encore cl:ins ccrtaines con- trees a nier le mouvement de la terre. Un Bi-ame et un missioniirie etant dans la meme prison, le premier souffroit assez patiemu-ent, que I'autre cii- treprit de le desabuser du culte de Bratna ; mais lorsque, dans d'autrcs con- versations, il vit que le Missionaire pertendoit, que le Soleil ctoit au dela de la Lune, ^'en fut fait : il rompit entierement avec lui, et ne voulut plus lui, parler." — Montuc. Hiss. des. Maihein. torn. i. p. 404. t Will not this supposition throw some light upon that extraordinary ac- quaintance with certain Trigonometrical principles, laid down in the Sitirju Siddhanta, which have excited Professor Playfair's wonder in EdirdK Tram\ vol. iv. ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OP CHRIST. 415 has a close connexion with the principal topics under discus- sion : and the singular value of its contents, will, I trust, jus- tify its insertion. — " Furthermore, whereas it was well said by one, that things of greatest antiquity are best ; and the philosophers them- selves, when they treat concerning God and religion, extreme- ly cry up antiquity, and attribute much to the dictates of their ancestors ; as if nature itself had suggested to them, that there was a source of all these things, from which they, that were nearest it, drew the purest and sincerest waters ; w Iiere- as, accordingly as they are derived through several minds, as so many several conduit pipes, they become corrupted and tincted with extraneous qualities, and contract impurity. If there be found a doctrine that has all the marks of antiquity, and there appears nothing in the world that equals it, it ought not to be doubted, but that the same proceeded from him that is more ancient than all, as being author of all things. If the language in which it was revealed be as the mother and stocky from which others, though very ancient, are sprung ; if it de- scribes the history of the world, and of men, and their propa- gation upon the earth ; if it affords the demonstration of times, and that without it the knowledge of chronology would be more intricate than a labyrinth ; if it deduces its history from point to point with an exact correspondence ; if it clearly and certainly relates histories, that are as the body of the fabulou* shadows that vre see in the writings of the most ancient au- thors in the world ; who will doubt, but all w^hich they have, is taken from thence, and that we ought to refer what is there- in depraved and corrupted, thereunto, as to its principle, and have recourse thither to learn what we are ignorant of? — If there be found a religion, all whose parts accord together with an admirable harmony, although it has been propounded at several times, and by several persons, in several places ; if there be a discipline, a doctrine, a book, a society, in which God himself speaks to men in a style and manner agreeable to the eminence of his majesty, displays his justice to them most terrible in its appearance, discovers his power in its highest magnificence, and gives them to sound the breadth and length, depth and heighth of his infinite mercies : lastly, if examples of an incomparable virtue be found therein, with incitations and instructions to piety ; such as are not to be paralleled any other where in the world ; 'tis an indubitable argument, that they are proceeded from some other than the human mind, or the school of Man." In referring to the authors who have illustrated the primary subjects of this Number, I ought not to omit the name of Mr. Lloydj who, in his valuable treatise on Qhristian Theology^ 416 pesTSiRirT T© M©. LXix: has so justly propounded, and so impressively and eloquently enforced, the leading doctrines of the Christian religion. But that this Number has been already carried to an unreasona- ble length, I should add to it some extracts from his 1st and 2d chapters, which could not fail to enhance its value. From his remarks in the 1st chap, (particularly p. 6 — 10) on the proper provinces of Natural and Revealed Religion; and from those in the 2d, on the unity of divine truths displayed in the Jewish and Christian dispensations ; I can promise the judicious reader much satisfaction and instruction. In bestowing upon Lord Bolingbroke the epithet of So- phist, in the preceding Number, at p. 406, 1 feel upon second thoughts, that I have not been strictly correct in the applica- tion of the term. Ingenuity exerted, under a subtle show of reasoning, for the purpose of misleading and overreaching the controversial opponent, is the distinguishing attribute of the character so denominated. His Lordship, however, has not condescended to deal, in this treacherous manner, with those whom he combats in argument. His magnanimity, and his candour, are both at war with such mean and petty artifices. The one raises him above the little forms of logical and exact ratiocination ; and the other inspires him with the disdain of concealing from his opponent any vulnerable part. His ar- gument is, accordingly, of that elevated quality, that deals in lofty language and privileged assertion, and of that intrepid character, that fears not, as occasion may demand, to beat down the very positions, which, when other occasions de- manded, it had been found convenient to maintain. The no- ble writer, in short, too courtly to associate with the anti- quated followers of Aristotle, and too free to be trammelled by the rules of a precise and circumscribing dialectic, passes on fluently in one smooth and gentlemanly tenor, undisturbed by any want of connexion between premises and conclusion, and at perfect liberty to relinquish either, or both, just as his lordly humour may happen to direct. To these ingenuous qualities Avhich exalt his Lordship's reasoning above the pe- dantic exactness of logic, is superadded an easy freedom which releases his Lordship's history from the troublesome punctilios oifact. So that, upon the whole, there is scarcely any writer, who, in a flowing and copious vein of declamation, possesses, in any degree comparable to his Lordship, the art of arriving at whatever conclusion he pleases, and by what- ever route : not merely overwhelming the astonished adver- sary, by a rapid succession of movements the most unexpect- ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 417 ed; but displaying still greater argumentative powers, in overturning those very dogmas which had just before been rendered impregnable to all but himself, and thereby defeat- ing the only antagonist worthy to be opposed to so illustrious a disputant. To be serious, there is no writer of any name, Voltaire per- haps alone excepted, whose attempts upon Christianity are more impotent and contemptible than those of Lord Boling- broke. The bare enumeration of the positions he has main- tained throughout his Letters on History, and what are call- ed his Philosophical Works, would be an exposure of igno- rance and imbecility, sufficient not merely to satisfy truth, but to satiate malice. It was therefore scarcely necessary that his Jeistical productions should have been submitted to the careful dissection of Clayton, Warner, and Leland, and the powerful and unmerciful lacerations of Warburton."^ They must soon have done the work for themselves. Hav- ing little more than their impiety and their viciousness to re- commend them, they must inevitably, excepting only with those to whom impiety and vice are a recommendation, have ere long reached that oblivion to which, save only with such persons, they are now, I may say, almost universally con- signed. On their first publication, it was proposed as the best mode of counteracting their mischievous design, to collect the contradictory passages, and merely arranging them mutually confronted in opposing columns, so to leave them without comment to the reflections of the reader : and, if I mistake not, this idea was acted on by one writer, in a work, entitled an Analysis of the Philosophical Works of the late Lord Bo- lingbroke. This work I have not seen : but so exact a spe- cimen of this nature is supplied by the very part of this wri- ter's Avorks, to which I have had in the foregoing Number, oc- casion to refer, that I cannot refuse to produce it for the reader's satisfaction. Being anxious to prove, in opposition to the received opinion, that the idolatries of the Gentile world could not have been derived from the corruptions of an original Reve- lation, he peremptorily asserts, that " it is impossible for any man in his senses to believe, that a tradition, (namely, that of the unity of God) derived from God himself, through so few generations, was lost among the greatest part of mankind ; or * See the View of Lord Bolinghroke*s Philosophy in four letters toafriendt ill which all that fervid vigour and burning" severity for which its author is so distinguished, are overpoweringly exerted for tiie purpose of laying bare to the public eye, the miserable deficiencies of his Lordship, as a philosophical writer, under the several heads of ingenuity, of truth, of consisteiicy, of learnx- ing, and of reasoning. 3 D 418 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX. that Polytheism and idolatry were established ou the ruins ot it, in the days of Serug, before those of Abraham, avid so soon after the deluge." (Philos, Works, 8\o, ed. vol. i. p. 299.) At the distance of less than two pages, we find it a* peremptorily asserted, by this same extraordinary writer, that " Polytheism and idolatry have the closest connexion with the natures and affections of rude ignorant men :" and in less than half a page more, thai " the vulgar embrace them easily, even after the true doctrine of a divine unity has been taught and received, as we may learn from the example of the Israelites : and that superstitions grow apace, and spread wide, even in those countries where Christianity has been established and is daily taught, as we may learn from the examr pies of the Roman churches," &c. — But this is not all. We find this same writer again, in vol. ii. p. 200 — 210. both deny the fact that the divine unity had been taught to the Israelites, and soon forgotten by them, (which is the very example he builds upon in the above pasi^age,) and also the application of that fact to the case of other nations, (which application ii* the very use he has himself made of that fact.) — And then, after all this, and almost in the same breath in which he has made these assertions, he draws back again in part, and says^ " I do not so much deny the truth of the facts, as I oppose their application." (p. 210.) That is, — I cannot resist the reca- pitulation, — our author first denies a certain fact as imposi- hie: then establishes its strong prohability upon general principles of human nature, supported by an example drawn from the case of the Israelites, and applied^ to that of mankind at large : then he both denies the truth of that very example, and the justness of its application, (both of which are his own undisputed property:) and then again he admits them both, isi certain (but different) degrees ; since he does not so much deny the one as he op2)oses the other. What does all this mean ? Is it, or is it not nonsense ? Have we not here then, (to use the sort of pleasant and sportive phrase, that might not improbably have been used by such writers as his Lord- ship,) in beating about for game, sprung a whole covey of con- tradictions, which, after wirging their tortuous course in all directions, have at last sought shelter, by taking flight into the impenetrable thickets of nonsense ? Now what is to be done with such a writer as this? The author of the memoirs of his life, whilst he speaks in terms much too strong of his qualities as a statesman, remarks, in alluding to the excursions which, as an author, he had ventured to make beyond his proper sphere ; " I should be sorry, that you took your poli- tics from priests.; but I should be in more pain if I thought ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUMfi. 419 you in danger of receiving your religion from a politician.'* Memoirs of the Life of Lord Bolingbroke, p. 232. In truth, to sum up all in a word, my Lord Bolingbroke was no more than a coxcomb in literature, and a pretender in science. Nor has religion, though the principal object of his hostility, so much to complain of his bungling attempts as philosophy: at the same time that both have experienced more of malevolence than injury at his hands. With him, the great sages of antiquity have been as much the objects of lordly contempt, as the prophets and apostles : and the maxims of ancient wisdom have been held as cheap as the established doctrines of Revelation. Whatever, in short, is not Lord Bolingbroke, is not sense. All, whether ancient or modern, who have trod the same ground before him, historians, chronologists, moralists, philosophers, divines, all are either blockheads or impostors. And even Locke and Newton dwindle into drivellers, where they have presumed to meddld with those subjects, which the Viscount condescends to il- lustrate — {Phil. Works, vol. ii. Essay 3. ubique, especially p. 160.) The treatment, which the truly wise and learned, both of ancient and modern times, constantly receive at his Lord- ship's hands, naturally calls to mind the sarcasm of Crito in Berkeley's Alciphron. — " I tell you, Euphranor, that Plato and Tully might perhaps make a figure in Athens, or Rome : but were they to revive in our days, they would pass but for underbred pedants, there being at most coffee-houses in Lon- don, several able men who could convince them they knew nothing, in what they are valued so much for, morals and po- litics." And Lysicles immediately subjoins, " How many long-headed men do I know, both in the court-end and the city, with five times Plato's sense, who care not one straw what notions their sons have of God or virtue." — Berkeley's Works, vol. i. pp. 369, 370. The versatility also, with which this noble writer can, at one time, affect grave and learned research, and at another, as it may suit his purpose, profess to hold all such pedantic argumentation in contempt, is most happily illustrated, in the same admirable treatise, by the picture which is there drawn of the Proteus shiftings and modifications of the free-thinking tribe. — " When one of these has got a ring of disciples around him, his method is, to exclaim against prejudice, and recommend thinking and reasoning ; giving to understand that himself is a man of deep researches, and close argument, one w ho examines impartially and concludes warily. The same man, in other company, if he chance to be pressed with reason, shall laugh at logic, and assume the lazy supine airs of a fine gentlemen, a wit, a 420 POSTSCRIPT t6 no. lxix. railleiir, to avoid the dryness of a regular and exact inquiry. This double face of the Minute Philosopher is of no small use to propagate and maintain his notions. Though to me it seems a plain case, that if a fine gentleman will shake off all authority, and appeal from religion to reason, unto reason he must go." (pp. 460, 461.) But the truth is, as the same writer again remarks, (p. 639.) " that in the present age, thinking is more talked of, but less practised, than in ancient times ; and that since the revival of learning, men have read much, and wrote much, but thought (comparatively) little : insomuch that, with us, to think closely and justly is the least part of a learned man, and none at all of a polite man. The free-thinkers indeed, make great pretensions to thinking, and yet they show but little exactness in it. A lively man, and what the world calls a man of sense, are often destitute of this talent, which is not a mere gift of nature, but must be improved and perfected, by much attention and exercise on very different subjects ; a thing of more pains and time, than the hasty men of parts in our age care to take." What time 07tr man of parts employed for this purpose, may easily be inferred from the circumstance of his having £ommencedhh philosophical investigations at the age of /or/?^, after a youth revelled in the most voluptuous and dissipating erjoyments, and a manhood distracted by the most tumultuous political agitations. But it is full time to have done with him ; 1 shall therefore only add to what I have said upon so unworthy a subject, by referring the reader, who can have tiny curiosity to know more of such a man, to the characters that have been given of him, by Chesterfield, and by Blair. The latter concludes a very qualified commendation of his style, by observing that in his matter there is " hardly any thing to commend ; that in his reasonings, for the most part, he is flimsy and false ; in his political writings factious ; in w^hat he calls his philosophical ones, irreligious and sophistical ill the highest degree." — Blair^s Lectures on Rhetoric, vol. i. Lect. xix. p. 232. See also the observations in Lect. xv. p. 211. of the same volume. The former gives such an ac- count of him, upon the whole, as must be edifying to the young reader particularly ; who will thereby be completely let into the secret of such men, by one of themselves : and .will have the benefit of observing how much even a libertine, when in cold blood, can be shocked by libertinism. One or two passages I cannot avoid transcribing, as proving how greatly, even from the testimony of his warmest admirer, Loi^l Bolinc^broke is found deficient in every thins; that is truly valuable, either in a philosopher or in a man. His noble panegyrist, in recommending to his son to study the manner ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUM£. 421 that would best enable him " to seduce and tcr impose," pro- poses to him Lord Bolingbroke's style and mode of writing, for his imitation, in direct opposition to works of learning, and sound reasoning, which he particularly decries : and af- ter pressing upon him again and again, the repeated perusal of Lord Bolingbroke's writings, he assigns as his reason for so doing, that he wishes him " to lay aside all thoughts of all that dull fellows call solid, and exert his utmost care to acquire what people of fashion call shining.^* — Chest. Letters, vol. iii. p. 151. And in another place, where he speaks of the whole of that unhappy Lord's character, he is obliged, though with much softening, to describe him as " a most mortifying instance of the violence of human passions, and of the weakness of" (what he chooses to oallj " the most exalted human reason." " His youth (he says) was distin- guished by all the tumult and storm of pleasures, in which he most licentiously triumphed, disdaining all decorum. His fine imagination has often been heated and exhausted with his body, in celebrating and deifying the prostitute of the night ; and his convivial joys were pushed to all the extravagancy of frantic Bacchanals. Those passions were interrupted but by a Suor.ger ambition. The former impaired both his con- stitution and his character, but the latter destroyed both his fortune and his reputation." Vol. ii. p. 328. Such was the Pythagorean institution of this great philo- sopher, who was to be qualified by these intense lucubra- tions, to communicate new lights to mankind, and to improve the world by a juster set of notions in morals and philosophy. The noble characterizer, after glossing over these hideous enormities, and contrasting with them what he is pleased to represent as splendid qualities, is compelled after all, to con- clude, in words no less applicable to the insincere and un- principled writer, than to his subject : " Upon the whole of this extraordinary man, what can we say, but, alas, poor hu- man nature !" — Poor indeed, when it presumptuously rejects those aids which heaven designed to minister to its weakness, and to rectify its corruption. In a course of observations, in which I have insensibly been drawn to enlarge at so much length, upon the subjects of free-thinking and scepticism, it is impossible to forget David Hume. The ideas suggested in the progress of it, bring into view, by necessary association, this chief of mo- dern sophists : who, whether the precedence be determined by the boldness of impiety, the contempt of truth, the per- plexities of disputation, or the inconsistencies aiid contra- dictions in reasoning, — is undoubtedly entitled to the first place in the list of British infidels. The leading subject also 422 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX. of the discussion in which we are at present engaged, natu- ~ rally summons him to our tribunal. For, as his philosophic forerunner, Bolingbroke, has bestowed much unprofitable la- bour on the questions of Polytheism, and the divine unity, the same questions solicit the minutest investigations of this author, especially in his treatise upon the ^ Natural History of Religion ; a title which, as has been remarked, contains a form of expression, much as proper, as if he had spoken of the Moral History of Meteors, . And here, having positive- ly pronounced, that " Polytheism must have been the first and most ancient" (which certainly may be admitted if it was the first,) " religion of mankind :" {Essays, vol. ii. p. 402.) and having affirmed it to be an incontestable fact, that about 1700 years back, all mankind were Polytheists ; (p. 403.) and that, as far as history reaches, mankind ap- pear universally to have been Polytheists ; at the same time that he does not pretend to be ignorant, that about 170t) years back, there was in existence such a book as the Old Testament, and such a history as that of Josephus ; and that he himself informs us, (p. 433.) that it appears from Hero- dotus, that " the Geta? were genuine Theists and Unita- rians :" — having, I say, thus dogmatized as became a sceptic, and falsified as became an historian, he proceeds in a manner perfectly his own, to show what never had been dreamed of before, not even in the craziest reveries of a Bolingbroke, that the notion of the Divine Unity had sprung up from the blundering conceptions of the vulgar, and that it^demand- ed the reasoning powers of the Philosophers to .restore again the old system of a plurality of Gods II! This will hardly be credited. Let the reader therefore turn to the precious original, (p. 435.) where he will find the manner fully described, in which this notion takes its rise amongst the vulgar, for of these it is that he has been speak- ing throughout the preceding page. " Men's exaggerated praises and compliments still swell their idea upon them ; and elevating their deities to the utmost bounds of perfection, at last beget the attributes of Unity and Infinity, simplicity and spiriluality." Thus, then, the one, infinite, uncom- pouNDED and spiritual Jirs/ cause, springs, as we see, out * On this treatise Waiburton makes the following observations in a letter to his friend Hurd. " The Essay is to establish an atheistic naturahsm, like Bolingbroke : and he goes upon one of Bolingbroke's capital argu- ments, that idolatry and Polytheism were before the worship of the one God. It is full of absurdities. They say this man has several moral quali- ties. It may be so. But there are vices of the mind as well as body : and a wickeder heart, and more determined to do public mischief, I think, I never knew." Letters of a late eminent Prelate, p. "^39. ON BOLINGBROKE AND H^ME. 423 of the tendencies of the vulgar to praise and 'panegyric. But immediately after we find, that this is a height too giddj for those who have thus risen to it, and that it is necessary that they should be quietly let down again to the firmer and more peaceful footing of Polytheism. For, " such refined ideas, being somewhat disproportioned to vulgar compre- hension'' (although having grown naturally out of vulgar conception) " remain not long in their original purity : but require to be supported by the notion of inferior mediators or subordinate agents, which interpose between mankind and their supreme deity. These demi-gods or middle beings, partaking more of human nature, and being more familiar to lis, become the chief objects of devotion, and gradually recall that idolatry which has been formerly banished by the ardent prayers and panegyrics of timorous, indigent mortals." — Sec also pp. 429, 430. or rather the whole of the extraordinary reasoning upon this subject in the 6th, 7th, and 8th sections. Thus then we see, that the vulgar in their high flights of praise and panegyric^ rose to tlie discovery of a first cause; while a set of wiser men^^- we must suppose, called in to re- * In truth Mr. Hume himself seems entitled to rank amongst those txiiser meriy as he has been able to discover many advantages in the scheme of Poly- theism. For, he says, if we examine without prejudice, the ancient heathen mythology, as contained in the poets, we shall not discover in it any such monstrous absurdity, as we may at first be apt to apprehend. Where is the difficulty in conceiving, that the same powers or princijjies, ivhaiever they were, which formed this visible world, men and animals, produced also a spe- cies of intelligent creatures of more refined substance, and greater authority than the rest ? That these creatures may be capricious, revengeful, passion- ate, voluptuous, is easily conceived ; nor is any circumstance more apt among ourselves to engender such vices than the license of absolute authority. And in short the whole mythological system is so natural, that in the variety of planets and worlds contained in this universe, it seems inore than probable, that .somewhere or other it is really carried into execution.*' Essajs, vol. ii. p. 242. — Thus the cautious investigator, whose scepticism will not yield to the proofs of the existence of oiie God, sees no difficulty in admitting it as 'more than probable that there are manV' In this system of Polytlieism alsQ our jjhilosopher finds many advantages. For " where the Deity is repre- sented, as infinitely superior to mankind ; this belief, though altogether just, when joined with superstitious terrors, is apt to sink the human mind in the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been many of them advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease in our addresses to them, and may even without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them : hence activity, spirit, courage, magnanimit)^ love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandize a people." Ibid- p. 440. Our author has for- gotten to add, that in our aspirings to a rivalship with these nearer gods, that he proposes as the objects of our addresses, we might rise also to that capriciousness, revengefulness, passionateness, voluptuousness, and other such qualities with which he has been pleased to invest them, and which qualities seem in the view of himself and Mr. Gibbon to be the pruicipal in- 424 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX. store the mob of middle deities to their pristine honeurs, jiiiice the purpose is to suit the objects of worship to vulgar comprehjensions. And so we find, that, under the direction of this wonder-working ;^«f»jy(^, the philosophers and the people are made at once to change sides, and act each other's parts ; the people taking to themselves the discovery of the first causes and the philosophers y in return, the discovery of demi-gods and middle beings. Unless, indeed, as Bishop Kurd says, the people are supposed to have done both; discovered the unity in their blind, timorous^ and indigent state, and when they were so well-informed, struck out, in a lucky moment, their gross system oi Polytheism.^ On this, and the whole monstrous assemblage of falsehoods, inconsist- encies, and nonsense, with which this extraordinary Essayf is stuffed, I would refer the young reader to the Remarks on Mr, David Hume^s Essay on the Natural History of Re- ligion, in whichj Dr. Kurd has so successfully employed the weapons, with which his friend Warburton had just before transfixed the brother infidel Bolingbroke. Yet such writers as these, such writers as Hume and Bo- lingbroke, (at least until their ignorance, falsehood, and ab- gredients in that " elegant tnythologyy" which they wowld so strongly recom- mend to our admiration. It has been well remarked, by an eloquent and in- teresting" writer, that antichristian writers, while they are giving us their opinions, may in truth be giving us more ; may be discovering their tnoralsy while they mean to teach us only their creed: and thus may carr}', like Bclle- rophon, their own condemnation, while they imagine they are graciously conveying intelligence and new light to mankmd. S'i that the old proverb, Seller ophontis Litera, may be a proper motto for the learned labours of them all. — Young^s Centaur,;^. 29. * Diderot, indeed, in his execrable Systhne de la JVature, has completed the view of this subject, that had been so imperfectly sketched by Boling- broke and Hinne. He has manfully undertaken to prove, not only that Poly- theism must have been, in the early ages of the world, the necessary result of men's observation of nature; but that it must be much more so «o-u, that the course and progress of philosophy haa tended to remove tnen's prejiidi- ces / ! I — This-completcly relieves Hume's argument from all its perplexi- ties. f Mr. Nares, in his admirable collection of sermons, preached at the Bampton Lecture in 180.5, pronounces of this extraordinary pi'oduction, that if he wished to satisfy any person of the indispensable necessity of a divine revelation in the first ages of the world, upon the infidel's own view of things, he would refer him at once to Mr. Hume's Matural History of Reli- gion. (J\'*arc#'5 JBampton Lectures, p. 485.) And Dr. Maclaine says of the >!ame work, in his Letters to Mr. Soavie Jenyns, that perliaps no book is more adapted to show the unspeakable advantages of a divine Revelation. i This work has been here, agreeably to the hitherto commonly received opinion, ascribed to Bishop Hurd. Bu^, from the Letters of Bishop War burton lately pubhshed, it now appears, that it was the production of his own pen, and received only some additional colouring from his literary friend. — See a cui-ious account of this transaction in the Letters of a late Eminent Frelatcj pp. 239, 240. ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME> 425 surdities had become sufficiently notorious to expose their followers to the like imputations,) it had been the fashion to extol and admire. How such writers could ever have obtain- ed followers, may at first sight indeed appear difficult to ex- plain. The difficulty however, admits a satisfactory solution : and one which has been so justly given by a late respected writer, that I shall content myself with the mere repetition of what he has said upon the subject. Having remarked that, in his Treatise of Human Nature, Mr. Hume's vain love of singularity had led him to endeavour to involve even the fun- damental principles o( geometry in confusion ; but that finding it impossible by his paradoxes on such a subject to rouse the attention of the public, he turned himself to moral paradoxes^; this writer goes on to show, that Mr. Hume in doing so had calculated rightly, for that these, " when men begin to look about for arguments in vindication of impiety, debauchery and injustice, become wonderfully interesting, and can hardly fail of a powerful and numerous patronage. The corrupt judge ; the prostituted courtier; the statesman, who enriches himself by the plunder and blood of his country ; the pettifogger, who fattens on the spoils of the fatherless and widow ; the oppres- sor, who, to pamper his beastly appetite, abandons the de- serving peasant to beggary and despair ; the hypocrite ; the debauchee ; the gamester ; the blasphemer ; — prick up their ears when they are told, that a celebrated author has written a book full of such comfortable doctrines as the following : — That justice is not a natural but an artificial virtue, depend- ing wholly on the arbitrary institutions of men, and previous to the establishment of civil society not at all incumbent : — That moral, intellectual, and corporeal virtue, are all of the same kind; in other words, that to want honesty, to want un- derstanding, and to want a leg, are equally the objects of moral disapprobation, and that it is no more a man's duty to be grate- ful or pious, than to have the genius of Homer, and the strength and beauty of Achilles : — that every human action is necessa- ry, and could not have been different from what it is : — that when we speak of power as an attribute of any being, God himself not excepted, we u^e words without meaning: — that we can form no idea of power, nor of any being endued with any power, much less of one endued with infinite power : and that we can never have reason to believe that any object or quality of an object exists, of which we cannot form an idea : — that it is unreasonable to believe God to be infinitely wise and good, while there is any evil or disorder in the universe ; and that we have no good reason to think that the universe proceeds from a cause : — that the external material world does aot exist ; and that if the external werld be once called in :i E 426 . FOITSCRIPT to KO. XXIX, doubt as to its existence, we shall be at a loss to find argii^ ments by which we may prove the being of God, or any of his attributes: — that those who believe miy thing certainly are fools : — that adultery mtfst be vractised, if men would obtain all the advantages of life; that, if generally praciisedy it would soon cease to be scandalous; and thaty if practised se-. cretly and frequent li/j it would by degrees come to be thought JIG crime at all :^ that the question concerning the substance • " My inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals is of all mv writings, historical, philosophicul, or lileran-, incomparably tlie hest** Jluvie's lAfcy p. vii- — The passap , referred to above, ufibrds an excellent specimen ot the writer*s qualifications as a moral instiuclor. And yet it is of such a inan as thist that such a man as Jidam, Smith has delivered the followh.g testi- mony : — " I have always considered IMr. Hume, both in his life-time and since his death, as approaching- as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise AND viiiTuous MAN, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will peVmit.** -^Letter/rom, ^Idam Srnith, L. L. I), to W. Strahariy Esq. annexed to Hume's Life, and prefixed to the late edition ot Hume^s History of England. — lor the reception, which such a declaration as ^his so i-mply merited, I refer the reader to Bishop Home's iMter to Dr. Jidam Smith.- in wliich, as well as in the Letters on Infidelity at large, he will find the ablest and most incon- testable confutation cf Hume and his infidel ssstciates. In truth, the extract from Hume on the subject of adultery appeared to me so monstrous, that, with some doubts of Dr Beattie*s accuracy, I turned to the ori.q;inal to ascertain its fairness, and there found the following justi- fication of the reporter : — ** It is needless to dissemble. The consequence of a very free commerce between the sexes, and of their living much to- gether, will often terminate in intrigues and gallantry. We m,ust sacrifice someivhat of the usefil, if ive he very anxious to obtain all the agreeable qualities i and cannot pretend to reap alike every advantage. Int^tances of license daily multiplying will weaken the scandal with the < ne sex, and !each the otlier by degrees to adopt the famous maxim of La Fontaine, with regard to female infidelity ; that if one Jtno-w.^ it, it is bnt a small onatter ; if one inoxvs it not, it is nothing.^* {^Hume's Essaytt, vol, ii. p. 394.) Again (p. 255.) he contends, that the necessary "combination of the parents for the subsist- ence of their young is that alone which requires the virtue of chastity or fidel- ity to the married bed. Without such a utility, it will readily be owned (he asserts) that AMc/i a 'virtue vsould never be thought of.'* And this being a favourite subject with this writer, whose Inquiry concerning the Principles f BOLIJfGiJROKE AND ftUME, 433 meinbered, that he was the slave of a faction, and that he meanly prostituted an excellent understanding to vindicate tyranny, and to destroy the rights of his nation. With no less pertinacity, but with an air of greater candour, Mr, Hume has employed himself to the same purposes : and his history, from its beginning to its conclusion, is chiefly to be regarded as a plausible defence of prerogative. No friend to humanity, and to the freedom of this kingdom, will consider his constitu- tional inquiries, with their effect upon his narrative, and com- pare them with the ancient and venerable monuments of our story, without feeling a lively surprise, and a patriot indigna- tion." Mr. Fox also, in his late celebrated work, speaks of the continual display, in Hume's history, of his " partiality to kings and princes, as intolerable. Nay, (he adds) it is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous ; and is more like the foolish admira- tion which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philosopher.*' — And a set of writers, whose national partialities would not indispose them to Hume, agree fully in this sentiment. " Few things (they say) seem more unaccountable, and indeed absurd, than that Hume should have taken part with high church and high monarchy men. The persecutions which he suffered in his youth from the Presbyterians, may perhaps have influenced his ecclesiastical partialities. But that he should have sided with the Tudors and the Stuarts against the people, seems quite inconsistent with all the great traits of his character.^' {Edinb, Review, vol. xii. p. 276.) — What great traits of character ? We have already seen what they amount to. — No, no : the man who is not influenced by a love of truth, must be destitute of principle. And, in such a character, inconsisten- cies must abound. Where there is no standard to refer to, no anchor to hold fast, what can be expected but perpetual ATicillation? The man who laboured to traduce scripture, would not fail to falsify his^tory. He who could be blind to the grandeur and glory of the Christian dispensation, could not easily discover the beauty and the sublimity of the British constitution. And we need not be surprised to find the same man a renegade in religion, and a slave in politics. The mischievous and dishonest uses, also, to which Hume perverts his history, should not pass without observation. Mere historic falsehood had lost much of its interest in the breast of this writer, had it not been made subservient to his favourite object, the subversion of moral and religious truth. The picture, which has been already drawn of the historian in this light, is sketched with such justness and good taste by the masterly pencil of Mrs. H. More, that I cannot do better :5 F 434 POSTSGUIFT TO NO. LXIX. than present it to the reader's view as it has come from the hand of that admirable woman. " There is a sedateness in his manner, which imposes ; a sly gravity in his scepticism, which puts the reader more off his guard, than the vehemence of censure, or the levity of wit ; for we are always less disposed to suspect a man who is too wise to appear angry. That same wisdom makes him too cor- rect to invent calumnies, but it does not preserve him from doing what is scarcely less disingenuous. He implicitly adopts the injurious relations of those annalists who were most hos- tile to the reformed faith ;* though he must have known their * Vjllers,in his Essay on the Hefarmatfctif (Mills*s translation, p. 107.) offers the following observations, which go to support the above allegation, and deserve to be particularly attended to. — " It is well known with what fury the rage of party pours out calumny upon eminent men. Upon Luther, above all men, it has been discharged in torrents. Among other causes, it has been found out, that his zeal arose only from the discontent of the Au- gustins, who beheld, it is said, with envy the Dominicans invested by tJit Pope with the commission of preaching indulgences. That Maimbourg should have picked up such a story is nothing wonderful. But it is inconceivable, that Voltaire and Hume should hare repeated it as a certain fact.*' This author then proceeds to expose the falsehood of the calumny, and refers to a note of Dr. Maclaine on Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, in which, he says, is " proved, beyond dispute, the absurdity of the imputation." The translator pursuing the same subject, goes on thus. " The credit of Voltaire is now so low in this countr\, that no means, however base, of forwarding a favourite object will be thought beneath him. He is now detected ; and hi» authority is of very little value. But Hume, who through the whole course of his history lies in wait for an opportunity of throwing discredit upon the cause both of religion and of liberty, who possessed a rooted enmity against all the best interests of mankind, and whose actions exhibit more of deliberate misanthropy than those of any other man perhaps that ever lived, still enjoys a reputation and authority which he by no means deserves ; and his writings contribute strongly to corrupt the public sentiments. Dr. Maclaine's note, referred to by Villers, is a full exposure, more full perhaps than was neces- sary, of one of those instances of bad faith with which his history abounds. If any one were to publish an edition of his history, with notes, pointing out the eagerness with which he has used not only lawful but poisoned arms against religion and liberty, exposing the unfounded assertions, the weak re- flections, and the barbarous phraseology which he so often employs, he would abate that false admiration so long attached to his works, and confer a great obligation upon the public." These charges against Hume may possibly not be sufficiently temperate and measured : but they contain in them much of truth: and the principal charge, that of historical bad faith, is undoubtedly made out by Dr. Maclaine, in the note alluded to ; which note I here subjoin, not merely because it establishes the point at present under consideration, but because it so completely rescues the author of the Reformation from the unfounded calumnies which Hame had contributed to circulate, and which of late days an interested zeal has propagated in this country with more than usual industry. " Mr. Hume, in his liistory of the reign of Henry the 8th, has thought proper to repeat what the enemies of the Reformation, and some of its du- bious or ill formed friends, hav6 advanced, with respect to the motives that engaged Luther to oppose the doctrine of indulgences. This elegant and persuasive historian tells us, that the ,Sus tin friars had usually been employ- edin Saxony to preach i7idul^ences, and from this hiist had derived both pro- ON BOLINOBROKE AND HUME. 435 accounts to be aggravated and discoloured, if not absolutely invented. He thus makes others responsible for the worst things he asserts, and spreads the mischief without avowing Jit and consideration ; that Ahcemboldi gave this occupation ti> the Domini- cans ; that Martin Luther, an Austin friar^ professor in the Univeruty of Wirtemberg^ resenting the affront put upon his own Order, began to preach against the abuses that were committed in the sale of indulgences, and, being provoked by opposition, proceeded even to decry indulgences themselves. It were to he wished, that Mr. Hume's candour had engaged him to examine this ac- cusation better, before he had ventured to repeat it. For, in the fr^it place, it is 7ioe true, that the Austin friars had been usually employed in Saxony to preach indulgences. It is well known, that the commission had been offered alternately, and sometimes jointly, to all the Mendicants, whether Austin friars, Deminicans, Franciscans, or Carmelites. Nay, from the year 1229, that lucrative commission was principally entrusted with the Dominicans s and in the records which relate to indulgences, we rarely meet with the name of an Austin friar, and not one single act by which it appears that the Roman Pontif ever named the friars of that order to the office under con- sideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that, for half a century before Luther, (i. e. from 1450 to 1517,) during which period indulgences were sold with the most scandalous marks of avaricious extortion and impudence, we scarcely meet with the name of an Austin friar employed in that service, if we except a monk, named Palzius, who was no more than an underling of the papal questor Raymond Peraldus : so fur is it from being true, that the Augustine Ordef were exclusively, or even usually employed in that service. Mr. Hume has built his assertion upon the sole authority of a single expres- sion of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly refuted by De Priero, Palla- xicini, and Graveson, the mortal enemies of Luther. " Bat it may be alleged, that, even supposing it was notiisual to employ the Augustin friars alone in the propagation of indulgences, yet Luther might be offended at seeing such an important commission given to the Dominicans exclusively, and that, consequently, this was his motive in opposing the pro- pagation of indulgences. To show the injustice of this allegation, I observe secondly, that in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences was become such an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far from being probable, that Luther would have been solicitous about obtaining such a commission either for himself or for his order. The princes of Europe, witli many bishops and multitudes of learned and pious men, had opened their eyes upon the turpi- tude of this infamous traffic : and even the Franciscans and Doininicans, towards the conclusion of the 15th century, opposed it publicly, both in their discourses and in their writings. Nay more, the very commission, which is supposed to have excited the envy of Luther, was offered by 7*eo to the Ge- neral of the Franciscans, and was refused both by him and his order, who gave it over entirely to Albert,h\shop of Mentz and Magdeburg. It is then to be imagined, that either Luther, or the other Austin friars aspired after a commission, of which the Franciscans were ashamed ? Besides, it is a mis- take to affirm, that this office was given to the Dominicans in general ; since it was given to Tetzel alone, an individual member of that ordar, who had been notorious for his profligacy, barbarity and extortion. *' But that neither resentment nor envy were the motives that led Lutkev to oppose the doctrine and publication of indulgences, will appear with the utmost evidence, if we consider in the third place, — That he was never accu- sed of any such motives either in the edicts of the pontifs of his time, or amidst the other reproaches of the contemporary writers, who defended the cause of Rome, and who were far from being sparing of their invectives and calumnies. All the contemporary adversaries of Luther are absolutely silent on this head. From the year 1517 to 1546, when the dispute about indulgen- ces was carried on with the greatest warmth and animo.sUv, not one writer 436 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX. &C. the malignity. When he speaks from himself, the sneer is so cool, the irory so sober, the contempt so discreet, the mode* ration so insidious, the difference between Popish bigotry and Protestant firmness, between the fury of the persecutor and the resolution of the martyr, so little marked; the distinctions between intolerant phrenzy and heroic zeal so melted into each other, that though he contrives to make the reader feel some indignation at the tyrant, he never leads him to feel any reverence for the sufferer. He ascribes such a slender supe- riority to one religious system above another, that the young reader, who does not come to the perusal with his principles formed, will be in danger of thinking that the reformation was ever ventured to reproach Luther willi these ignoble motives of opposition now under consideratien. I speak not of Erasiniia Sleidaiy Dc Thou^ Guic' ciardini, and others, whose testimony might perhaps be suspected of partiali- ty in his favour : but I speak of Cajetan, Hogstraty De Prierio, Emser, and even the infamous John Tetzel, whom Luther opposed with such vehemence and bitterness. Even CochUus was silent on this head during the life of Luther; though after the death of that great Reformer he broaclted the calumny I am here refuting. But such was the scandalous character of this man, who was notorious for fraud, calumny, lying, and their sister vices, that Pallaviciniy Bos^uety and other enemies of Luther, were ashamed to make use either of his name or testimony. Now, may it not be fairly presumed, that the contemporaries of Luther were better judges of his character and the principles from which he acted, than those who lived in after-times ? Can it be imagined, that motives to action, which escaped the pi'ying eyes of Luther*s contemporaries, should have discovered themselves to us who live at such a distance of time from the scene of action, to M. Bossuet, to J\lr. Hume, and to other abettors of this ill-contrived and foolish story ? Either there are no rules of moral evidence, or Mr. JJutne^s assertion is entirely groundless." Mosheim^s Eccies. Hist. cent. xvi. sect, i, chap. 2. vol. ii. pp. ir, 18. Br. Maclaineh^s very properly observed, that the cause of the Reforma- tion (which must stand by its own intrinsic dignity, and is, in noway, affect- ed by the views or characters of its instruments) can derive no strength from this inquiry, but as it may tend to vindicate the personal character of a man, who has done eminent service to the cause of religion. In truth, so far from looking for selfish and ignoble motives to account for Luther's zealous op- position to the publication of indulgences by Tetzel, one has only to read the account given by Mosheim of this transaction, to have his astonishment excited, that Luthers did not start up in thousands to raise their voices against it. — " This bold and enterprizing monk," he says, speaking of Tetzel, *' had been chosen, on account of his uncommon impudence, to preach and prpclaim in Germany, those famous indulgences of Leo X. uhich administer- ed reinission of all sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their 7iatnre, to those who were rich enough to purchase them. The frontless monk executed this iniquitous commission, not only with matchless insolence, indecency, and fraud, but even carried his impiely so far, as to derogate from the all-sufficient power and influence of the merits of Christ." Tiie transla- tor adds, in exemplification, that " in describing the eflficacy of these indul- gences, Tetzel said, among other enormities, that even had any one ravished the mother of God, he (Telzel) had Hvhere'ix.'ithal to efface his guilt. He also boasted, that he had saved 7nore souls from hell by these indulgences, than St, J'eter had converted to Christia7iity by his preaching.''^ — Yet Hume could dis- cover no cause for Luther's resistance of such indulgences, but that he h^d lost the sale of them himself. ANNUAL EXPIATION CORRESPONDENT, &C. 437 i«ally not worth contending for. But, in nothing is the skill of this accomplished sophist more apparent, than in the artful way in which he piques his readers into a conformity with his own views concerning religion. Human pride, he knew, na- turally likes to range itself on the side of ability. He there- fore skilfully works on this passion, by treating with a sort of contemptuous superiority, as weak and credulous men, all whom he represents as being under the religious delusion. To the shameful practice of confounding fanaticism with real reli- gion, he adds the disingenuous habit of accounting for the best actions of the best men, by referring them to some low mo- tive ; and affects to confound the designs of the religious and the corrupt, so artfully, as if no radical difference subsisted between them." (^Mrs. H. Morels Hints for a Young Prin- cess, vol. i. p. 156 — 158.) Thus does this elegant writer de- scribe the pernicious tendencies of Hume's History, which, as possessing at the same time many of the beauties of style, she happily characterises in a word, as " a serpent under a bed of roses." (p. 155.) — And thus we see, that in no occupation of Mr. Hume, whether exercising himself as the light Essay- ist, the deep Philosopher, or the grave Historian, does he ever lose sight of the one great warfare, in which he had enlisted himself against truth, virtue, and religion. In this Postscript to the foregoing Number, I have wander- ed far indeed from my subject ; but by no means from my object. For if I shall have the good fortune of impressing any one of my youthful readers, with a just opinion and ab- horrence of such writers as Bolingbroke and Hume, I con- ceive I shall have done no small service to the cause of truth, of virtue, and of religion. No. LXX. ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ANNUAL EXPIATION UNDER THE LAW, AND THE ONE GREAT EXPIATION UNDER THE GOSPEL. Page 49. (2^)— ^The sacrifice on the anniversary of expia- tion seems to be distinguished from all others by a peculiar degree of solemnity, as if to mark its more immediate refer- ence to the great sacrifice of Christ. Thus, on this day, we find the High Priest exclusively commanded to officiate: and on this day alone, in the stated exercises of his office, was he permitted to enter into the Holi/ of Holies, and to carry the blood of the victim into the presence of God, to offer it before that Glory, Avhich, seated between the two cherubims, over- shadowed the mercy seat, and represented the divinity : — a circumstance, which the Apostle particularly marks, (Hebr. ch. ix.) as prefiguring the entrance of our great High Priest, 438 arATURB and import op the with the blood offered by him for our redemption, into the true presence of the Most High, the immediate habitation of God's holiness and glory. The High Priest also seems to have been selected for the solemn services of this day, as more adequately representing the whole assembly, in whose name he sacrificed and supplicated forgiveness ; and there- fore more properly typifying him, who, representing the whole human race, was to procure redemption by his blood for the whole assembly of mankind. Whoever wishes for a more minute detail of the particulars of this solemn sacrifice, and of its peculiar fitness to represent the sacrifice of Christ, may consult Outram. de Sacr, lib. 1 . cap. xviii. § 6, 7. lib. 11. cap. iii. $ 2, 3, 4. He will also re- ceive much satisfaction, from an examination of Ainsworth^s comment on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. For many valuable remarks, connected with the subject of this Number, Dauheny^s Discourses on the Connexion between the Old and New Test, may be consulted. And in Rhenferdius^s treatise De Compdratione Expiationis Anniv. Pontificis Max. V, et N. Test. Meitschen's Nov. Test. &c. p. 1013—1039.) a most copious and circumstantial enumeration is given, of the particulars, in which the annual expiation by the Jewish High Priest resembled the one great expiation of the New Testa- ment. It may be proper to observe, that such is the force of the resemblance, that Socinus himself admits this anniversary sacrifice of atonement — inasmuch as " it was of special di- vine ordinance, at a stated season, offered by the High Priest, and appointed to atone for all the sins of all the people," — to be fairly accounted typical of the sacrifice of Christ. So- cin. Oper. {PrcBlect. Theol. cap. xxii.) tom. 1. p. 583. No. LXXI. ON THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE CE- REMONY OF THE SCAPE-GOAT. Page 50. (a) — On this, see what has been said in pp. S06, 207, of this work, and attend particularly to the 5th, 7th, and 10th verses of the xvith ch. of Leviticus, from which it appears, that the two goafs are, throughout the chapter, spoken of as one sin-offering ; being expressly so called in the first of these verses; presented jointly as the offering of the people in the second ; and though separated into two dis- tinct parts by the lot cast in the 9th verse, yet each describe ed as contributing to the atonement for the people, as appears from the 10th verse compared with the 17th- Indeed, that the two jg'oa/s made but one sin-offering on this occasion, the best commentators freely admit. See Jameson's observa- tions on this ch. of Leviticus. The reason of this seems ob- CBRBMONY OF THE S€APK-GOAT. 439 vious. The death of the animal was requisite to represent the means by which the expiation was effected : and the bearing away the sins of the people on the head of the animal was requisite to exhibit the effect; namely, the removal of the guilt. But for these distinct objects, two animals were ne- cessary to complete the sin-ofFering. It must be allowed that an account somewhat different has been given of this matter, by some very judicious Commenta- tors. The goat sent into the wilderness, and that which was offered up in expiation, jointly, they say, typify the great Redeemer of mankind : the former animal exhibiting that which could not be displayed by the latter, as having been slain ; namely, that Christ was not only to be delivered for our offences, but to be raised again for our justification, (Rom. iv. 25.) and that although he was to be crucified through weakness, yet he was to live hif the power of God, (2 Cor. xiii. 4.) Thus Ainsworth, Bochart, Alting, and before them Augustine and Procopivs, understand it. The opinion of these writers respecting the truth to be illustrated by the dismissal of the second goat, may perhaps not im- properly be combined with that which has been here pro- posed : so that, whilst the goat, which was slain, exempli- fies the sacrifice offered for the sins of mankind ; that which was sent away alive, may represent, not only the removal of tliose sins in consequence of that sacrifice, but also the res- toration to life of him by whom they were so removed. Whether however, this point be admitted or not, the circum- stance of the two goats jointly constituting one offering, by exhibiting its different adjuncts, cannot, I think, with any rea- son be controverted. Rhenferd contends, that this point is completely establish- ed by an evidence resulting from the nature of the ceremo- ny itself. For, he says, the imposition of hands, and the confession and implied translation of sins upon the victim, being usual in the sacrifice of animals in expiation ; and tliis ceremony being omitted in the case of the goat that was slain, whilst it was employed in the case of the goat that was sent away ; decidedly prove, that both animals were designed to be considered as one offering, and that the latter, conse- quently, represented him who was to bear the sins of Israel, and by his sufferings, to expiate and to remove them. — See Jac. Rhenferd, exp. anniv. Sec. p. 1033, of Meuschen, Nov, Test, ex Talm, Whoever may have a curiosity to know, whether any, ai?d" what ceremony, analogous to that of the scape-ffoat, is ob- served by the Jews of modern times, on the day of expiation^ may turn to pp. 157, 158. where he. will funt tlial a cock 44D MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOrs, is now substituted for the legal victims ; and that the entrails of the animal to which the sins of the offerers are conceived to have been transferred by imprecation, are exposed upon the top of the house, to be carried away by the birds into their solitary haunts, in like manner as under the law, the scape-goat had been conceived to carry away the sins of the people into the wilderness. See also Buxlorf. Synag:. Jud. and Broiigliton's Diclionary of Religio7is, Article Expia- TIOiV. No. LXXII. SOCINIAN OBJECTIONS URGED BY A DIVINE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, AGAINST THE DOCTRINE J OF THE VICARIOUS IMPORT OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, AND AGAINST OTHER DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Page 63. (b) — The arguments in behalf of the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifices, have been so fully examined in Numbers XXXVIII and XXXIX, that nothing need here be added to what has been already offered upon this head. It is with great regret that, in reverting to this subject, I feel myself obliged to notice the following observations; which have been recently hazarded by a Divine of the Es- tmends to us. And, although I cannot agree with Dr. Paleyy either as to his general notion of the intent of the articles, or as to his idea, that the animus-imponentis tenninates with the legislator that enacted them, yet it cannot, I think, be reasonably denied, that he proposes the true principle of their intf rprcta- tion. A just corrective of the laxity, with which Dr. Palty applies that principle, may be found in Mr. Giaborne*s Principles of Moral Philosophy, p. 190 — J92. — To this work, as well as to the Bishop «/" Lincoln's EtementSt I would earnestly advise the divinity student to resort, for accurate notions vpon this subject. Very loose opinions have been scattered abroad, by va- rious writers, upon this point; a point, which of all others demands a most conscientious precision. But of all these writers, none, perhaps, of any note, has advanced a more relaxed system, than the late Cambridge Professor, Dr. Iley^ who, in his Lectures on Divinity, however much of learning and good sense they may otherwise contain, has certainly merited the charge made by Bishop Law, of leading the members of the Church ** into all the labyrinths of a loose and a perfidious casuistry." (vol. ii. p. J3 ) His description of the nature of the tacit repeal adopted by the Church of Geneva^ (vol. ii. p. 56,} and his manifest recommendation of it as an example to be followed by other churches, will supply a sufficient proof of the truth of this assertion. — Dr. Poivell, again, another eminent member of tlie University of Cambridge, has given but too mwch colour, by certain expressions of his in his Discourse on Subscriptions, for the wih? opinions of Mr. Fellovies upon this subject : although when well consi- dered, and in connexion with the context, they will be found to give him no support. The following observations of this writer deserve to be quoted. Speaking of the subscription of the clergy, he sajs ; " Our arti- cles of religion are not merely articles of peace. They are designed also as a test of our opinions. For, since it cannot be imagined, that men should explain with clearness, or enforce with earnestness, or defend with accu- racy of judgment, such doctrines as they do not believe : the Church re- quires of these who are appointed to teach religion, a solemn declaration of their faith. Nor is it more unreasonable to exclude a man from this of- fice, who, throu/^h error, unavoidable, suppose, and innocent error, is unfit to execute it ; than to deny him a civil employment, for which he is acci- dentally disqualified. He therefore who assents to our articles, must have examined them, and be convinced of their truth.'* — Dr. Pcnvell^s jDis- courses on various subjects, pp. 33, 34. The whole of this passage is well worthy of attention. AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 453 friend to the Church of England, than he is, who may sub- scribe the articles in a sense more agreeable to the letter," &c.-— Thus we are informed by a writer, who boasts of not submitting his opinions to authority, that we are not to ex- ercise our private judgment in discovering the true sense of the articles, but to take it entirely on trust from others. This however turns out, in the conclusion, to be after all but a convenient mode of rendering the whole dependent upon the judgment of tlie very individual, who thus mo* destly disclaims its exercise. For, since all is now to be de- cided by the suffrage of the clergy, and since there is no practicable contrivance whereby this suffrage can be numeri- cally collected, the sense of the majority must, of course, be precisely that, which each individual may conceive it to be. But again, as it is not merely " the majority of the living members," but " particularly the most learned, up- right, and judicious members of the Church of England, that constitute the Church ;" it must be the sense of the majority of these, it is manifest, that is to determine the point. Now who are the 7nost learned^ vpright, and judi- cious, members of that Church ? These clearly can be no other than they who reject all mystery ; who make Chris- tianity nothing but a moral rule ; who can discern in it no- thing more than Dr. Priestley or Mr. Belsham, or any other free expositor who would devest it of all its peculiarities ;' who, in short, agree with Mr. Fellowes in pronouncing the entire sum and substance of the Christian religion to be com- prized in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Thus, then, it appears, that our author ends where he began, and that the true meaning of the articles, as well as the genuine sense of scripture, is to be collected only from him who has supplied us with The Guide to Immortality. Now what is all this les*than insanity ? But it is the in- sanity of a vain mind, of which we see too many instances on religious subjects daily. Well might a periodical writer, whose attachment to religious truth entitles him to general praise, describe this writer as " presumptuous, idolizing his own conceptions, and fancying his own reason infallible, and cutting short the line of faith, exactly where it happens to interfere with their suggestions. Already" (it is added)* ** he is a latitudinarian in the widest sense of the word : the natural progress is from that to a fanciful, self-willed, merely • It should be observed, that these remarks were drawn forth by one of the earliest of this writer's performances. He has since travelled farther in the same direction ; and given additional proof of the justice of these animadversions, and the truth of these prognostics. 454 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS, iiomiiinl Christian ; making even the gospels bend to his own whim. From this point the descent to Deism, or even Atheism, is perfectly easy : nor do we know indeed that a Deist differs much, except in name, from such a Christian." Mr. F. has, it is true, congratulated himself on his good fortune, in being the subject of these animadversions of the British Critic ; as they have furnished the occasion of his "receiving so much elegance of praise, from one who is equally distinguished by the vigour of his intellect, and the fervour of his benevolence." (Relig. without Cant, pref. p. xxxviii.) — That Dr. Parr has proved his benevolence, by the high panegyric which he has bestowed upon Mr. F. there can be no question ; but whether he has done equal credit to his intellect, or, what is of more consequence, whether he has served the cause of truth and of Christianity, by such indulgence of that amiable feeling, is certainly much to be doubted. Had Dr. Parr confined himself to the testimony which he has borne to the purity and benevolence ^ display- ed in the private life of Mr. Fellowes, as he is a competent, so he would have been admitted to be an unexceptionable witness. But, in speaking of an author, whose works are be- fore the public, Dr. Parr, however highly his learning and talents may be (and highly they ought to be) rated, yet can- not possibly expect, that the opinion which he thinks fit to pronounce upon that author's productions, shall necessarily regulate the public decision. Perhaps, indeed, in the decla- rations which this classical and most elaborate writer has * Dr. Parr speaks In terms altog-ether unmeasured of the benevolent and charitable feelings which uniformly govern the life, and guide the pen of Mr. Felloives. And yet it is an extraordinary eifect of those henevolent and charitable feelings, that he should every where throughout his writings pour forth the language of virulence and contempt against all who support tlie creeds and articles of the Church, against all in short who deem any thing beyond his abridged form of Christianity necessary for a Christian. Perhaps even from the writings of the most illiberal bigot, a stronger in- stance of the want of charity cannot be adduced than that which this author supplies, (as has been noticed, p. 443.) in speaking of those^ "who " teach the false and pernicious doctrines of innate depravity, iinputed righteousness,^^ &c. In short, it is of a writer, who has war continually in his mouth, that Dr. Parr pronounces peace to be for ever in his heart. It is almost ludicrous to see such a \vriter represented as using in his own person the language of Grotius, " Pacem amavi semper amoque," e.t&\\ in the qualified sense in which this pacific disposition is described. {Spitn! tSermon, p. 82.)-^Dr. Parr*s universal acquaintance with the ancient classics, will readily suggest to him whose language I use, when, (without being deterred by the " tales pacis hostes jnsurrecturos,*' &c.) I beg to substitute for the foregoing the following description as more aptly illus- trative of the character of his friend. — f2s-« s/t/?, aurovs "^wixeoVf ^en» ■irsipuiLiven firi too (JutTi avrcuc ex^tr ao-v^txyt fjinri tuc a\k>s: Av^^ceTrovg ixv. AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 4^$ hazarded on the subject of Mr. Fellowes^s theological pub- lications, although nothing can shake his reputation as a scholar, he may not have added much to his character as a divj/ie. For when he tells us, that he finds but " trvo or three points of controversial divinity in which he dissents from Mr. Fellowes,'* (who in almost every jjoint of contro- versial divinity dissents from the articles of the Established Church :) and that he discovers scarcely any thing to be ob- jected to, except " that Mr. F. does not assent to some po- sitions of Mr. Wilherforce^ about original sin ; for the at- tempt to refute whom, some enlightened believers may ap- plaud, and some orthodox churchmen would pardon him :" — when he tells us these things, he proves beyond a doubt, either that he has perused Mr. F's writings with an eye of blameable partiality, where the cause of religious truth de- manded an honest search, and even a piercing scrutiny ; or that his own opinions hang but loosely and uncertainly upon the point of orthodoxy. Dr. Parr needs not to be informed, that the truths of Christianity are not to be conceded even to the amiable sympathies of friendship ; nor their just measure and degree to be accommodated to the formation of a polished and a pointed sentence. It were to be wished that in his praises of Mr. F. he had not selected as a mark of his sense, his being " a Christian without bigotry." It certainly, on the other hand, is not to be wondered at, that Mr. Fellowes has returned the compliment, by describing his eloquent encomiast, as " a Priest without intolerance AND WITHOUT GUILE." — The rccipiocal panegyric might surely have been rendered sufficiently palatable, without the seasoning of illiberal aspersions upon Christianity and its Priesthood. * Dr. Parr, in speaking of the state of his mind respecting the book published by this excellent man, and sincere Christian, which gave rise t© the strictures of Mr. Fello'voeSy states, that the description of it lies in the following narrow compass — t* [aiv t^ a§;t«C} ou fjt.iy.viiiJi.cti; ret J's ytrsty o» ffvvixfjit ; Tit (fe iTTi Ts-xa-ivy ov S'oKiyct^o). — Now although there be some cpi- nio.is in Mr. IVilberforce's work, to which I am as unwilling to apply the SoKifjLa.^ce as Dr. Parr can be ; yet I cannot help thinking, that it would nei- ther have discredited his discertiment \.o have understood the reasoning, noi* his taste and piety to have stored iiis memory with many of the results, which it contains. — I confess, I think it but a bad symptom of the times, when even grave characters can be found to joih in the vulgar ridicule of distinguished piety : when religious seriousness but serves as aground for ludicrous denomi- nations and sarcastic epithets ; and these too not confined to the light and the malevolent, but receiving a partial sanction from the philosopher and tlie di- vine, and even admitted with more than toleration in one of the great assem- blies, with whose morality and corruption those of the entire pacple o^" fcese nations are vitally interwover. 456 I'HE SACRIFICE OP CHRIST, &C. Dr. Parr, for whose general character and talents I feeJ, in common with all who can appreciate integrity and genius, a sincere and unaffected reverence, may think, that I have spoken too strongly upon this subject. But the impress of his praise is no slight matter ; and the danger of its giving a circulation to what ought not (and without it perhaps would not) obtain currency with the public, demands an open expo- sure of the baseness of the coin, to which it would attach a fictitious value. In truth, mischievous as are the publications of Mr. FeU lowes, I should not have thought it necessary to animadvert upon them in this place, but that the eloquent eulogies of Dr. Parr, joined to the writer's presenting himself to the pub- lic as a clergyman of the establishment, might, by throwing young readers off their guard as to the true character and object of his works, expose them to be misled by the false lights of a treacherous Guide, To such readers, the satis eloqiienticB, sapientice parum, of the author, is imposing ; the specious gloss of liberality and benevolence, which his wri- tings wear, is attractive ; the classic authority of his splendid panegyrist is commanding. And, as it was for readers of this description, especially for students in divinity, intended for holy orders, that the present work was originally designed, it naturally falls within its province to endeavour to secure them against such snares, when calculated to entrap them into false notions of their duties as professors of a Christian faith, or of their engagements as members of a national clergy. No. LXXIII. THE ATONEMENT BY THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST MORE STRICTLY VICARIOUS, THAN THAT BY THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, WHEREBY IT WAS TYPIFIED. Page 51. (f) — The justness of the position here laid down \rill be readily perceived, not only from the observations in pp. 50, 51. of this work, but yet more fully from compar- ing what has been said in Numbers XXXVIII. and XXXIX. on the vicarious import of the legal sacrifices, with the re- marks in Number XLII. on tlie true and essentially vicari- ous sacrifice of Christ. The reflections contained in pp. 199, 200. 219, 220. of this work, should be particularly attended to, as pointing out the due proportion of the Mosaic and Christian atonements. See also pp. 48, 49. and Number LXVIII. and pp. 447, 448. in Number LXIX. I subjoin here a very extraordinary paragraph, which I find in a treatise of Dansius de Avr^a Redemptionis humana^, on the subject of an admission by the Jews of the vicarious suf- fering of the Son for the sins of men, pursuant to an eternal CONCLUDING NCMBER. 457 compact with the Father to that end. — " Oonsenthmt hie nobismet Judiei, scilicet Deum Patrem cum Filio suo jam ab seterno de redimendo humano genere consilium iaiise. Hinc notabilem quendam hac de re inter Deum et Messiam dialo- gum per fabulam, fingunt : quern ex Helvico hie apponere placet, qui eundem ex R. Mos. Haddarschan, super Gen. i. 3. excerpsit, et ita sonat ; Dixit Jebova sanctvs Benedicius^ Messia juste mi! istly qui sunt reconditi apiid te, Jnrjusmodi erunty quodfiiturunif ut peccata eorum inducdnt te injugum grave, Sec. Respondit coram eo 3l€ssias, Domine mundi I Ego quidem la^tiis suscipio super me trihulationes istas, sive tormenta : eo tamen pacto, ut lu in diehus meis vivifices mot- tuoSy et eos, qui a primo Adamo usque ad illud tempus mor- tui fuerint, Src. Dixit ei Sancius BenedictuSy Concedo. Protinus igitur suscepit ex dilectione super se Messias tor- menta omnia et trihulationeSy sicut scriptum est, les, LIII. AFFLICTUS IPSE, ET ANGUSTIATUS EST." MeUSCheU. NoV, Test, ex Talm. p. 850. — This extract I give to the reader aa matter of curiosity. LXXIV. CONCLUDING NUMBER. Page 51. (c?) — Those objections, the discussion of which would have been improper and impracticable from the pulpit, have been carefully canvassed in the preceding dissertations. It has been the wish of the author to notice all, that seemed in any degree deserving of attention. They who are acquaint- ed with the subject, will, it is hoped, do him the justice to al- low, that he has omitted none of moment. Whether he has been as successful in their refutation, as he has been indus- trious in their collection, it is witii others to judge. This at least he can venture to affirm, that he has examined them with a conscientious regard to trutli and scripture. And he now concludes this inquiry, with an humble and not unanxious hope, that the word of God may not have suffered in his hands* 3 I APPENDIX, CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OP THE UJS'ITARUJS' SCHEME, AS DESCRIBED BY MR. BELSHAM, IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WILBERFORCEs TREATISE; WITH OCCASIONAL STRICTURES ON THE LEADING ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THAT PUBLICATION. Thucyd. p. 15. edit. Franc. 1594 ** I like not that arrogant theolo^^y, which presumes to explore what angels desire to look into, and which failing in its attempt, rejects as absurd what it is not able to understand.'* Bishop Watson's Charge in 1795. " Aperte dicite non vos credere Christi Evangello: nam qui in Evangelio quod vultis creditis, quod vultis non creditis, vobis potius quam Evan- gelic creditis." Aug. cont. Faust, torn. vi. p. oo(^. ^. 1569. APPENDIX. XN supplement to certain remarks in the preceding sheets, (particularly pp. 28, 29. 53—62. 93—98. 105— 109.) it be- comes necessary to exhibit a brief outline of the opinions of that sect, which, under the assumed title of Unitarian, has presumed to arrogate the exclusive profession of the divine unity ; and which has of late years exerted itself, in the sister country, with uncommon zeal and activity, for the subversion of the doctrines and the establishment of the national religion. An abstract, presenting at one view, the leading principles and consequences of the system, devested of the imposing phraseology, which writers of modern days know so well how to apply to all objects whether worthy or unworthy, may prove not less beneficial to some who have, than to others who have not, embraced its doctrines. The task, indeed, is not without its difficulty. To seize what is fugitive : to fix that which is ever in the act of change : to chain down the Proteus to one form, and to catch his likeness ere he has shifted to another : — this is certainly a work not easy to be accomplished. What Unitarianism, however, was in the year ^1798, a writer, who professes himself its faithful inter- preter and vindicator, has circumst?intially detailed. Mr. Belsham, the late theological teacher at Hackney, has ex officio announced the creed of the day : and, so far as the principle of dissent can admit concurrence, the doctrines which he has promulged, may reasonably be presumed, to be those generally received by the Dissenters of the Unitarian denomination throughout the sister country. The scheme, as presented by this writer, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce^s Inquiry, is briefly as follows. Beginning with the existence of " an infinitely powerful, wise, and good • This appendix was originally drawn up in the year 1800. What have been the wanderings of the fugitive since that period, the Author has had little leisure, and less inclination, to explore. He is also disposed to think, that full as much consequence has been already attached to the subject as it is entitled to. 462 APPENDIX. being, as the first and fundamental principle of rational reli- gion," he pronounces the essence of this being to be love: and from this he infers, as a demonstrable consequence, that none of the creatures formed by such a being, " will ever be made eternally miserable." To suppose the contrary, he maintains, is not only inconsistent with the divine benevo- lence, but directly contradictory to the plainest principles of justice. That all will rise again after death, he admits to have been taught by Christ : and he likewise admits, that " the wicked will be raised to suffering." But, since God would act unjustly in inflicting " eternal misery for temporary crimes ; the sufferings of the wicked can be but remedial, and will terminate in a complete purification from moral disorder, and in their ultimate restoration to virtue and happiness ;"^ or, as he elsewheref expresses it, " Moral evil must be ex- pelled by the application of natural evil ;" and if not fully effected in this life, *' the process must be carried on by the severer sufferings of a future retribution." — Thus the doc- trine of a purgatoryX stands immoveably fixed on the basis of the Divine justice: and the antithesis between eternal mi- »ery and temporary crimes, is made to complete the demon- stration of the Unitarian ; by which, he is not only enabled to communicate " confidence" and " tranquillity" to the *' enlightened and virtuous believer ;"§ but, he might have also added, a hardened and fearless security to the impenitent of- fender : and without this, he contends, " the God of nature must be viewed as frowning over his works, and like a merci- less tyrant, dooming his helpless creatures to eternal misery," &c.|| — Whoever desires to see this curious specimen of rea- soning fully examined and exposed, will find ample satisfac* tion in Mr. Walker's Letter to Mr. Belsham : p. 40 — 42. Having thus softened down the article of judicial retribu- tion, and lightened guilt of most of its terrors, as well as of much of its deformity, (there being, as he contends, " a pre- ponderance of virtue, even in characters contaminated with the grossest vice ;")*'=j^ he naturally proceeds to depreciate the value of the atonement by Christ, — The notion of his death, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men, Mr. B. totally rejects ; and the doctrine of redemption through his blood, he holds to be an entire mistake, founded in the mis- understanding of certain phrases peculiar to the Jews :f f and finally, for the full establishment of his opinions, he refers ua to Dr. J. Taylor; the amount of whose reasoning on this * Reviav, &.c. p. 12—16. f PP- 41, 42. t See beside the above references, p. 154. § p. 21. fl p. 20. •• pp. 14. 88, 39, 40. 42. ft pp. 17, 18. 105, 106. APPENDIX. 468 head, " in his admirable Key,^*^ as Mr. B. finds convenient to call it, has been already examined at large, in the foregoing work, especially pp. 110—113. 119, 120. 181 — 187. The merits and the sufferings of Christ having, in the scheme of this writer, no connexion with the acceptance of man ; the notion of his divine nature, and even that of his pre- existence, are discarded as wild chimeras. Jesus Christ he considers, " as a man in all respects like to his brethren:'* and he seems particularly anxious, that the opinions of the Unitarian should not be confounded with those of Socinus; who, he says, whilst he properly maintains, " that Jesus had no existence before his birth, yet admits the unscriptural and most incredible notion, that since his resurrection, he has been advanced to the government of the universe. "f The father of Socinianism, had but half accomplished the work of degra- ding the Son of God, whilst he allowed him a superiority over the human kind after death. Mr. B. with strict consistency, completes the system ; and boldly contends, that as he differ- ed In no respect from man in his mode of coming into the world, so can he have no dominion or superiority over him in the world of spirits. That he " is indeed now alive, and employ- ed in offices the most honourable and benevolent," he does not attempt to deny: but since <' we are totally ignorant of the place where he resides, and of the occupations in which he is en^aged,^* he maintains, that " there can be no proper foundation for religious addresses to him, nor of gratitude for favours now received, nor yet of confidence in his future inter- position in our behalf."J Thus, because we are ignorant of the place and occupations of the Son of God, is all intercourse between man and his Redeemer at an end! Thus says Mr. ♦ In a periodical publication, distinguished for the uprig-htness and talent with which it is conducted, there is to be found a series of valuable letters, upon the subject of the work above alluded to : and in the conclusion, the writer observes as follows, upon this " admirable Key." — '*The key of this author is not, I am persuaded, the legitimate one. I should rather be tempt- ed to resemble it to some of those false keys, vulgarly called picklocks. — The web of the key, to speak technically, is, in those ingenious instruments, cut to as slender a form as is consistent with the strength necessary for turning the bolt, in order that the chance of the impediment from the wards may be as little as possible. But the Icck, with which this theological ad- venturer had to do, was of such a peculiar consti-uction, as to resist every effort to open it, except with the true key. The Doctor gave some despe- rate wrenches, and doubtless imagined that he had effected his purpose when he found the key turn in his hand. But it has been discovered by oth- ers, that he did no more than break it in the lock, and the bolt, for any thing which he has done to remove it, remains where it was before *' — Christ. Ob~ aerv. vol. vi. p. 504. — The figure undoubtedly conveys no unjust idea of the work, which it is so much the fashion with Socinian writers, and with p-^' * reason, to extol, t p. 74. i p, S5. 464 APPENDIX. Belsham. And so far is he from considering our blessed Lord as an object of religious address, that he can look on him only as the " most excellent oi human characters, the most eminent of all the prophets of God ;" whose " memory he reveres,'* whose " doctrine he embraces," in whose " promises he con- fides," and to whose " authority he bows."^ To what then does Christianity amount, on Mr. B's plan? To nothing more than good habits; and these habits, the re- sult of man's own unaided and in 'ependent exertions, of rather the result of external influences and irresistible impres- sions.f Those usually received, and (as Mr. Wilberforce properly styles ihem) peculiar doctrines of Christianity, which declare the corrupted state of human nature, the atonement of the Saviour, and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, our author rejects as utterly inconsistent with truth a id scrip- ture. J The preponderance of virtue over vice in the world at large, and with a very few, if any, exceptions, in every in- dividual in particular, he maintains to be indisputable.^ The practice of virtue, he pronounces to be the only grourid of ac- ceptance with God, without any regard to faith in Christ, to his merits or his sufferings, all which he proscribes as notions unscriptural and absurd :|| and as to the influence of the Holy Spirit being that which prompts to virtue, he finds little diffi- culty in expunging this likewise from his creed, being fully satisfied, " that the scriptures do not teach the existence of any such person as the Holy Spirit, and that there is no ground for the expectation of any supernatural operation on the mind."*^ The sole incitements to virtuous conduct, spring, according to Mr. B. from " the circumstances in which men are placed, and the impressions to which they are exposed :" — " moral and religious habits, not being acquired in any dif- ferent way, from other habits of mind :"ff — that is, according to his reasoning, all being equally the result of a necessary ope- ration : the religious tendency, as well as its opposite, natu- rally arising out of a certain " state of the brain ;" J J and " ha- bits growing by the influence of particular impressions, with the same regularity and certainty, with which the fruits of the earth are produced and matured by the genial influence of the sun, and of the fructifying showers. "§§ Thus does the advocate of human vnerit, vindicate the in- dependency of human virtue. Let us stop for a moment td examine this more fully. — ** Virtuel||| is a system of habits, * pp. 84, 85. t p. irO— 175. t p. 170. § pp. 13, 14. 38, 39 11 pp. 104, 105. 172, 173. ** p. 97.— see also pp. 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79. ft pp. 134. 148. 173. 180. \\ p. 171. % pp. 174, 175— also p. 41. Ill] Mr. B. in his Elements, where it is his intention to convey his ideas in the most scientific form, defines Virtue to be " the tendency of an action, af- APPENDIl^, 465 conducing to the greatest ultimate happiness r'*'* " and men being the creatures of circumstances, the habits they form, whether good or bad, are the result of the impressioijs to which they are exposed ;''f — or, as we have just seen, are the result of a necessary and mechanical operation, and arise out of causes independent of the agent, if such he can be called. Now it seems natural to demand of this writer, in what respeet his scheme differs from that part of the high doctrines of Cal- vin, which he most strongly reprobates? Does he not equally with the Reformer of Geneva, contend that man has nothing which he can call his own ? Does he not, equally with him, reduce every action under the necessary and irresistible con- trol of motives, in which the agent has no choice, and over which he can have no power? And does he not, whilst he thus concurs with the follower of Calvin, differ from himself, by abolishing the very idea of merit, whilst he makes merit the foundation of his system ? Mr. B. indeed, exerts all his ingenuity, as Doctor Priestley had done before, J to escape from this resemblance to the Cal- vinist. The attempt however is vain. The Unitarian may fancy, that he has provided a complete salvo for the difficul- ties of his system, and a clear distinction from that of the Cal- vinist, by substituting his notion of a purgatory for that of eternal punishment . But here, the consequences with which he presses the Galvinist return upon himself. For, if it be inconsistent with " infinite justice and goodness to doom a fection, habit, or character, to the ultimate happiness of the aj^nt." (p. SM.) — It is at the same time to be noted, that of this tendency the true and pro- per judge is the ag-ent himself. What then follows ? Why'plainly this, as Dr. Price has properly objected, that agreeably to this definition, " Any the most pernicious and horrible effects will become just and fit to be produced by any being, if but the minutest degree of clear advantage or pleasure may result to him from them.** {Beview of Morals, p. 183.) Now how does Mr. Cooper, who coincides in Mr. Belsham's sentiments, reply to this ? — ^' Granted. But let God look to that. A future state of retribution has been ascertained for the very purpose of obviating this objection." — Mr. B. indeed admits, that " the expression is harsh, and hardly consistent with the rever- ence due to the Supreme Being ;" but contends, *' that the meaning is just, and the reply satisfactory." — What! a retribution hereafter! Wherefore a retribution ? Must a being, whose only business was to calculate the balance of advantage, suffer for a mistake in that calculation, when he made it with a view to that which alone he was bound to look to, his own advantage ? And this too, when he could not by any possibility have made a diiferent calcula- tion. For, as Mr. B. informs us, (Elemente, p. 391.) " The only difference between tlie most virtuous and the most vicious person is, that the former was placed in circumstances, and exposed to impressions which generated virtuous habits and affections, and the latter in circumstances by which vi- cious principles and dispositions were produced :''' the one so circumstanced as that he innut unavoidably calculate right, and tlie other so circumstanced as that he must unavoidably calculate lorong. — So nVucUibr the true disUnCf tjon between virtue and vice. * P' 33. t p. 41. % Philo.^oph. .Yecessityj sect, xiii. 3 K 466 APPENDIX^ being to eternal misery, for no other cause, but that of not extricating himself out of the state in which his creator placed him, without any powder to act or will;"^ I would ask, by what principles of reasoning it can be reconciled to the same infinite justice? and goodness, to doom to temporary misery, a being placed in circumstances precisely similar; i. e. deter- mined to one certain mode of action, by an indissoluble chain of motives, and an irresistible necessity. If the idea oi jnm- ishment for that which was the result of inevitable necessity, be repugnant to the essential nature o^ justice, it must be equal- ly so, whether that punishment be of long or of short duration. The quantity of the evil endured, if no evil whatever ought to be inflicted, can make no change in the nature of the case. The power that prolongs or heightens the punishment, where wo punishment was deserved, may be more malignant, but can- not be more unjust. Thus then, allowing to the Unitarian the full benefit of his purgaforialf scheme (for which how- ever scripture supplies not the smallest foundation) ; he is ex- posed, equally with the Calvinist, to the charge, which he * licvie^jy p. 58. f The formal notion oTa. fmrgatory, I find laid down by our author, in the philosophical treatise before alluded to, in which it is his professed object to give to students accurate and fundamental notions on all the leading sub- jects of morality and religion. That the precision of his ideas may not suffer in the reporting, I shall state them in his own words. ** If there be a future life, the immediate condition of the great mass of mankind when they enter upon it, must be a state of very considerable pain and suffering. For the great majority of human characters are alloyed with one or more vicious ha- bits and affections. These must be put under a process of curcy more or lesa severe in proportion to the m.aligiiity of the moral disease." — Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind, p. 402. Our author also affirms that he has the testi- mony of scripture for this doctrine. I apprehend it must be the second Mac- cabees, where others have pretended to find it also. Or, perhaps, as he has not joined in turning the doctrine to so good account as those who profess to have found it there, his authority has been of that classical nature which ynight better suit a philosopher. ** Ergo exercentur pdenis, vcterumque malorum Supplicia expendunt: aliae panduiitur inanes Suspense ad ventos ; aliis sub gurgite vasto Jnfectum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igni. Quisque suos patiraur Manes.'* ^N. Lib. vl. *'^ For tins are various penancejs enjoined ; And some are hung to bleach upon the wind ; Some plunged in waters, others plunged in fires. Till all the dregs are di'ained, and all the rust expires. All liave their Manes, and tliose Manes bear.*' Drvden. ^ Pagans, Jev:s, Mahometans, and Papists have heretofore held these nQ- tions: to these we must now add \X\q- Philosophical Unitarian. APPENDIX* 467 liimself brings against the latter, of " impeaching the charac- ter of his Maker and traducing his works. *'^ — Thus much fof the consequences of the two systems. Again, as to the principle of necessity, it is precisely the same, whether the Unitarian endeavour to dignify it by the title of philosophical ; or degrade it by that of predestina- rian. Or, if Mr. Belsham will still pretend to differ from the follower of Calvin, whom he describes as equally with himself pronouncing man a necessary instrument destitute of self- agency, it can only be in this; that whilst the latter makes man a necessary instrument in the hand of God, Mr. B's sys- tem admits the possibility of rescuing him from this slavish subjection to his Maker, by placing him under the irresistible control of chance, or desliny, or some other equally conceiv- able power. For, to suppose all the actions of man to spring necessarily from motives, and these motives the una- voidable result of external impressions and local circum- stances ; the Divine Spirit giving no direction in the particu- lar case, and the man having no power either to regulate their operation or to resist their impulse : is to suppose all that the stoic and the atheist could desire. Such is the exalted merit of man, fashioned by the deisti- cal jargon of that, which equally disgraces Christianity and philosophy, by assuming their names. Such are the lights afforded us by the rational Christian : who mends Calvinism by purgatory ; secures to man a property in his actions, by rendering him the unresisting slave of motives; and maintains the interests of religion, by subjecting human conduct solely to the mechanical operations of secondary causes. It is indeed extremely difficult to make out Mr. Belsham's system. But it is one of the advantages of inconsistency, that the statement of the absurdities in one part of an argu- ment, is liable to be discredited by contradictory positions in another. Thus, whilst Mr. B. repeatedly affirms, that man is not to look to the influence and sustaining aid of the Divine Spirit, but solely to his own exertions, o,r as he most singular- ly explains these exertions, to circumstances and impressions which work upon his mind by a mechanical and necessary operation; he professes, in other places, not altogether to banish the notion of the divine agency. We are, he says, " thankfully to ascribe all our improvements, our hopes, and our consolations to God."f Mr. B. has here struck a little out of the path to direct atheism, in which he seemed before rapidly advancing : and this saving clause was indispensable to a writer, who professes a belief in the existence of a God, • Jteviev^y p. 3r. f p. 175» 46t APPENDIXr But when we come to inquire, on what ground our gratitude is due to a Beingj who has not contributed by any beneficial influence to the improvement of our virtue, we find our inde- pendence of a divine grace still carefully secured, inasmuch as the sole foundation of our thankfulness to the Supreme Be- ing is, that " to his appointment and continued agency, all causes owe their efficacy."^ It is then, for the original con- stitution and general arrangement of the works of nature alone that we are to be grateful : and not for any special operation of a divine influence, in any individual case. May we not therefore fairly apply to our philosopher, what Cicero pro- nounced of the refiners of ancient times, " verbis reliquisse Deos, re sustulisse ?" But, that we may the more perfectly understand our au- thor's meaning, he supplies with a specimen of the mode, in which a judicious instructor should endeavour to reclaim a vi- cious person, desirous of reformation. Having first carefully guarded him against all unscriptural doctrines, such as origi- nal sin, atonement, merits of Christ, and the like : having Warned him not to expect any supernatural impressions upon his mind, nor to imagine that moral and religious habits are to be acquired in a way different from any other : having point- ed his attention particularly to those parts of scripture, which direct him to do justioe, to love mercy, &c. having urged him to '' fix in his mind, just and honourable sentiments of God, as the greatest, wisest, and best of beings :"f — he proceeds more circumstantially to the case of the offender; and begin- ning in due form, with a definition of virtue, as " a course of conduct leading to the greatest ultimate happiness :" and of vice, as " that which leads to misery ;" — he next lays before the sinner, (or in tlie milder vocabulary of Mr. B. the " per- son oppressed by the tyranny of evil habits,") J the exact- state of his case. — " You are deficient in virtuous habits, you wish to form them : you have contracted vicious aff*ections, jou wish§ to exterminate them. You know the circum- * p. 175. 180. fp. ir4. + p. 172. § N. B. It is above all things necessary for the reformation of this person, "oppressed by the tyranny of evil habits," (so alarming and fanatical a phrase as that o^ sinner I must hot use,) that he feel no re7norset be the vi- cious acts that he has committed ever so enormous. For'Mr. Belsham in- forms us, in Jiis Elements, (pp. 307. 406.) that " the doctrine of philosophi- cal necessity supersedes remorse." And indeed it is happy that it does so ; because, whilst on the one handj he pronounces remorse not to be essential to repentance; he proves on the other, that it is a thing in it^&Vi highly perni- cioiis ; inasmuch as it is founded upon the belief, that in the same previous circumstances it was possible to have acted otherwise.'* — A perfect freedom from uneasiness of mind, after the murder of a parent, or the seduction of the ifmocent ; an undisturbed composure, flowing from the conviction that under all the circumstances it was impossible to have acted otherwise, must surely APPEK^DIX. iCil jitances, in which your vicious habits were originally contract- ed, and by which they have been confirmed* Avoid"^ these circumstances, and give the mind a contrary bias. You know what impressions will produce justice, benevojence, Sec. — Expose your mind repeatedly and persevcringlyto the in- fluence of these impressions, and the afTections ihemselveH will gradually rise, and insensibly improve, &c. — ALL that is required is judgment, resolution, time, and perseve- rancc"/ / If Really, Mr. B. must excuse me, if I take the liberty of saying, that I know nothing in the English language to equal this, except the Energies of Miss Bridgetina Bo- therim.% It is not my intention to introduce ludicrous ideas contribute much to accelerate the repentance of the offender, and to com- plete his reformation ! • This is a whimsical sort of address, from a writer, who, upon his prin- ciple of necessity, maintains the impossibility of avoiding, upon the recur- rence of similar circumstances, any act which has once been performed. For if this be, as he contends it is, (EUrnents, kc. p. 107.) a sufficient reason for asserting, that the person who has once yielded to any temptation, jnust un- der the like circumstances yield to it again, and that consequently the only chance for his escape is to be found in flight : it must likewise be a sufficient reason for concluding, that he who has not at one time been able to fly from the circumstances which brought the temptation, will not be able to fly from them at another ; the circumstances at the time of the intended flight beings the same as before: and thus the impossibility recurs ad infinitum. — Our' writer had condemned Mr. Godwin, {Elements, &c. p. 405) for the indiscreet avowal of the consequences of this system ; namely, that necessary agent^t are incapable of moral discipline. But has not Mr. B. himself as completely disclosed the secret by his reasoning? For, i£a7iecessary a^ent can iiever ac- quire an increase of strength to resist the temptations of vice, where is the improvement in moral discipline ? This Parthian moralist, who is to be for ever unequal to the g-acStn vfr(j.itH, and can hope to conquer only by flying, will find that he will not have much to boast of in the way of conquest, if his steed is to be as much fettered in the flight, as he is himself manacled in the conflict. Alas ! that Mr. B. will not permit his penitent to call to his aid that auxiliary, and that armour, which would enable hii» to quench all the fiery darts of the txicked ! t pp. 174, 175. % Modern Philosophers : — a work, which if perused with feelings favcura« ble to religion and order, must be allowed to furnish a decisive proof, that Mrs. Hannah Moore is not the only female of the present day, by whom zeal and talents have been eminently displayed, in defence of all that can be deemed valuable in this life, and in that w^hich is to come. Were we, in truth, to search out among tlie authors of later times, fo? those who have most successfully promoted the cause of virtue and religion, by the combination of what is most interesting with what is most edifying ».ri their writings, we should find them to have been principally of the other sex. With the name of Mrs. Hannah Moore, who ranks eminent in that class, — ■ and whose numerous and diversified publications, scattering tiieir benefits through every gradation of society, from the prince down to the peasant, have come home to the breasts of all with that irresistible force that springs from the united powers of piety and genius, — we have to connect in grateful remembrance, the names oi Hamilton, oi' Hoivdler, of West, of Chapone, and (notwithstanding something that one could wish to be otherwise) of Bar bmld. To " the venerable £/i3oZ'e?4 Career and thft blooming EHzahJh 470 APPENDIX. upon such a subject : but the resemblance is too striking and apposite to be overlooked. vSo far as Mr. Belsharn's language is intelligible, his process of conversion amounts to this. He tells the vicious person, that he has contracted bad habits ; and he desires him by all means to get rid of them. How far this salutary advice and direction would operate to the reformation of the sinner, they w ho may have been reclaimed from vicious courses by such means, can best say. But one thing deserves particularly to be remarked, that whilst the mind of the sinner is directed to contemplate the excellence of virtue, to excite its own ener- gies, to expose itself to impressions, and the like ; not one word escapes of the propriety o^ prayer ; on the contrary, all supplication for divine assistance seems to be expressly ex- cluded, and indeed evidently must be so, on Mr. Belsharn's principles. For, if goodness be the necessary result of im- pressions and circumstances, the mechanical effect of particu- lar traces on the brain, derived from the general operation of established and unalterable laws of our constitution ; there is CO room, in the particular case, for divine interference. We may, according to Mr. B's principles, indulge in sentiments of complacency to that first cause, the beneficial effects of whose original arrangement we feel in the individual instance, but jJrayer addressed to the Divine Being can have no rational object. Prayer, accordingly, forms no part of this writer's system. In no one line of his work does he recognize it as a Christian duty : — indeed the mention of it has not once esca- ped him. It is not then surprising, that we should find Mr. B. endea- vouring to diminish the opportunities and inducements to prayer, by contending that the Christian religion has not pre- scribed the appointment of a day for the purposes of divine worship. But he goes farther. He affirms, that " Christiani- ty expressly abolishes every such distinction of days :"^ that, " under the Christian dispensation every day is alike ; no one more holy than another : that whatever employment, or Smith" we have al&o to cast our eyes ; if, in Mrs. Mora's words, we would *' contemplate profound and various learning chastised by true Christian hu- mility ;" and if we would wish to dwell on the recollection of " acquire- Tnents, which would have been distinguished in a University, meekly soft- ened and beautifully shaded by the gentle exertion of every domestic virtue, the unaffecfed exercise of every feminine employment." ( Ccelebs, pp. 250, 251.) — Did my present subject lead me merely to advert to the distinction, which superior talents, exquisite taste, and the charms of fine composition, confer upon the female writers of the present day, it would be impossible to overlook the commanding claims of Miss Edgeworth- ♦ Jtevievi, p. 3Q. APPENDIX- 471 araiisemeiit, is lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week, is equally lawful and expedient on any other day:"* that consequently, " a virtuous man is performing his duty to the Supreme Being, as really, and as acceptably, Avhen he U pursuing the proper business of life, or even when enjoying its innocent and decent amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him in the closet or in the temple."f From these premises he peremptorily concludes, that all dis- tinctions of days should be exploded : that our business and our amusements should be pursued on every day alike : and that the laws which enjoin the observance of the Sabbath arc " unreasonable and unjust." J He likewise maintains, that the Sabbatical spirit naturally leads to uncharitable and censori- ous feelings :§ that " persons who are so very religions on a Sunday," (as to make regular attendance on the services of the church a matter of conscience,) " are too apt to lay aside religion for the rest of the week :"y and that, upon the whole, the Sabbatical observance is highy injurious to the cause of virtue. To this pernicious institution, our author does not scruple to attribute the decrease of national morality: and he rejoices, with a Christian joy, that the late " ill advised" proposition, " for enforcing a stricter observation of the Lord's day," was wisely rejected by the legislature.^ Now, it may perhaps occur to a plain unphilosophical reader to inquire, what sort of a teacher of Christianity is this, who thus levels Christ, through the whole of his existence, to the rank of human nature: — leaves man, for acceptance, to his own merit ; and that merit the pure result of external impres- sions and mechanical operation : — rejects the notion of prayer,^=^' making man as it were independent of his Maker : — • pp. 20. 139. tp. 133. t pp. 140, 141. § p. 141. Ji p. 142. U p. 203. ** How different are the reflections of true philosophy, gaiicled by a pious reverence for the superior lights of Revelation ! Tlie words of a distin- i^iished and attractive writer, whose publications have always tended to pro- mote, what his life has uniformly exemplified, the love and practice of vir- tue, are too interesting and important lo be omitted on this subject. — " If we admit the truth of revelatoin, the evidence which it delivers of the spe- cial interposition of God, in the physical and moral government of the world, must be deemed decisive. Instead, therefore, of involving ourselves in the mazes of metaphysical subtilty, let us direct our attention to the foundation of that intercourse with the Derty, which is at once the most in- teresting duty, and the noblest privilege of our nature. We are taught that he ivho cometh to God, innst belicoe that he is, and that he is a re- nvarder ef them ivho diligemly seek him : that in him u-e live, and inove^ and have our being : that as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth than that fear him : that ifive, being evil, inoKi} how to give good gifts to our chil- dren, how onuch more shall onr Father, tahich is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him. For this thi?ig, says St. Paul, I hesoitght the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me : And our Saviour is recorded to have pray- ed the third time, saying the same words, / my Father, if it be possible, kt 47*2 APPENDIX. and finally, proscribes the Sabbath as destructive of religion and maralily ? Mr. B. being aware that such a question would naturally suggest itself, has been careful to supjily the answer. He tells us, that he desires to be considered as a •' moral teacher of Christianity."* And, lest we might not perfectly understand the nature of this moral or Unitarian Christianity which he teaches, he informs us, that it is sub- stantiaUi/ the same with the system of Lepaux, and the fhis cup pass from me : J\!€T.crth€less not as I voillf bnt as thou luilt. Indeed the form of devotion, which Christ recommended to his disciples, affords the clearest proof that he regarded prayer as an acceptable and efficacious act, Nor is this supposition inconsistent with that immutability of the divine at- tributes, which is essential to their nature and perfection. The wisdom, be- nevolence, and justice of the Deity are the same yesterday y to-day, and for ever. But this unchangeableness implies, that, in their exercise they are al- ways accommodated to the purest rectitude, and to the greatest sum of fe- licity. And thus a providence is established, which discriminates between the virtuous and the vicious ; which adapts the properest means to the ac- complisliment of the best ends; and regulates all tkings so as to work to- cfether for the highest good. To this superintending direction a pious Christian will look up, wiih humble confidence,ybr ease under sufferings for protection in danger^ and consolation in sorroiv. If prayer were not enjoined as a duty, he would instinctively perform it as a refuge for human infirmity. And he may reasonably presume, that such filial dependence will be indul- ^ntly accepted by his heavenly Fatlier, who in his divine administration is characterized as being ever ready to bind up the broken in heart ; to htat tlie •ciotmdedin spirit ; and to give good gifts to them that worthdy ask him,^* Fa- ther's Instructions — Pari the Third — by Thos, Percival, JVl. U. p. 118 — 1 20. I the more willingly refer to this excellent performance, because, independent of the value of the passage here extracted, and the vein of fer- vent piety which pervades the entire volume, the observations which it con- tains on the subject of the Divine permission of Evily the topics it suggests for the farther confirmation of tlie Evidences of Christianity, and the direc- tions it conveys for the due regulation of the Clerical conduct and character, entitle it to the most serious perusal from every friend to religion and vir- tue. Since the date of the first e Bervations are intended more immediately to apply, Mr. B. does not leave his reader at a loss to discover, when he plainly affirms, that the heads of our establishment look to means very different from that of " a sincere faith in" their own " creeds and homilies, for the prosperity of the national church :"f and with the same liberal reference it is, that he reminds us of the saying of Cicero, " that he wondered how augur could meet augur without laughing :" and again, of that memorable exclamation of Leo, in the days of papal Rome, " how lucrative is this fable of Jesus Christ!" J — thus clearly intimating, what a warm supporter of his doctrines and his performance has since announced in terms a little more di- rect ; " it is well known, that many of our public teachers laugh in their sleeves, — and some of these sleeves they say are of lawn, — at those doctrines which they inculcate from the pulpit, with a pretended earnestness-"^ Nor does Mr- Belsham confine his charges to those who are the immediate superintendents of the national religion. Though particularly favoured with Mr- B's notice, they do not entirely engross it. By his observations on the institu- tion of a national fast,[| he takes care to hold up the civil, no less than the ecclesiastical, heads of the state, as objects of public contempt and execration, for their gross insincerity, and unprincipled imposition on the people. Nov^, if all this be of the nature of that charity, which belongs to the middle region, under whose temperate influence, Mr. B. professes to enjoy philosophic repose ; I rather apprehend, that the inha- bitant of this " pleasant and commodious dwelling," is as far removed from the charity, as he boasts to be from the pecU' liar doctrines, of Ckristianity. It must indeed be confessed, that great allowance is to be made for those, who have been, as it were, rocked in the very cradle of discontent : and who have been used from infancy to view every act of the Government, and every ordinance of the Church, with the bitterness of a discomfited and vindic- tive enemy. But it is strange, that whilst language of the nature here cited every where deforms Mr. B's pages, and those of his Unitarian associates, they should make the want of charity the principal charge against all who hold Chris- tianity in any other, than the vague and fleeting form, in which they profess to embrace it. In the management of a controversy, it may not indeed be bad policy, to charge the *pp. 230, 233. tp. 220. :^p. 230. § Layman'' g Letters to Mr. Wilberforce on the Doctrine of Hereditary De- pravity, p. 172. :ff Eeviexv, pp. 294, 205. 476 APPENDIX. adversary with whatever unfair arts you mean to resort to yourself. Thus, whilst the opposite party bears all the odium, you possess yourself of the profit. So at least it seems to be with the writers of Mr. B's way of thinking. A total want of candour and charity is perpetually objected to all, who defend the rectitude of the national religion ; whilst every principle of both is grossly violated by those who oppose it : — and at the same time that the charge of self-interest, is freely bestowed upon such as support the establishment ; it is hoped, that it will not be remembered, that interest is as much concerned to acquire, as to retain : it is modestly ex- pected, that no mention will be made of the pride and fervour of party ; and that no note will be taken of the resentful jea- lousy of those temporal advantages, which, as they form the leading theme of animadversion, may not unreasonably be presumed to be the principal ground of hostility. In a spirit congenial to these feelings, Mr. B. seems not a little to have participated, when he thus openly states, as in another place=^ he indirectly insinuates, under the thin co- vering of the terms paganism and popery, that the religion of the Church of England is a mere engine of state ; and as such " cried up by interested statesmen, and their hireling priests ;" who, he says again, naturally " support that reli- gion which supports them .-"f and that, at this moment, **pwre Christianily'' (by which he describes the system taught by himself and Dr. Priestley,) " is so far from meet- ing with public encouragement in England, that it is in a state bordering upon persecution. "J This last remark in- deed seems, according to Mr. B*s view of things, to have been altogether unnecessary. The assertion, that " an es- tablished priesthood is in its very nature a persecuting or- der," renders this a tautologous position. But, in what way do these professors of pure Christianity appear to be " in a state bordering upon persecution?" Simply, because they are not permitted to rail against established authority with impunity ; to preach up doctrines in politics subversive of Bubordination ; to bring the government, both in church and state, into disrepute and contempt amongst the people, by every species of calumny ; to establish the enlightened sys- tem of France, the Theophilanthropism of Lepaux, and the miso-monarchism of Paine. The government, the clergy- and the people of England, are surely much to blame, in throwing any obstacles in the way of such great reforms ! And what is the grand proof, adduced by Mr. B. of the persecution carried on against pure Christianity in England^ • p. 196. -f p. 233. t p. IPr- APPENDIX. 477 at the present day ? Plainly this, that the great champion of Unitarianism Jias been driven from his native country, and '* compelled to seek for refuge" from the rage of persecuting bigotry, " in the transatlantic wilderness ;" — in which, how- ever, it appears that he is subject to no deprivations ; since we are informed, in the very next line, that, in this ivilder- ness, he has the good fortune to be surrounded by *' en- lightened sages. ""^ But, ludicrous as is this picture of the wilderness of sages, here presented by our author, it were unfeeling and unpardonable to trifle on such a subject. What Doctor Priestley's reasons may have been for ex- changing England for America, I shall not presume to pro- nounce. That they are not to be resolved " solely'' into his religious opinions, as Mr. B. seems desirous to convey, is, I believe, pretty generally uinlerstood. That the purity of Dr. P's private character, the amiable simplicity of his manners, the variety and strength of his talents, the perse- vering industry with which he pursued what he deemed use- ful truth, and the independent spirit with which (had it not been phrenzied by the intemperance of party,) he might have so profitably maintained it, — are circumstances which must make every good man regret that misapplication of his powers, which rendered it necessary for him to abandon his native country in the decline of life, I will most readily ad- mit: and I freely subscribe to the strongest testimony which his warmest admirers can bear, to the many ai^d great vir- tues f which adorn his private life. But whilst I most cheer* • pp. 197y 198. f From a friend of the highest literary distinction and moral worth, who was connected by habits of early and continued intimacy with Dr. Priest Icy, I received, on the first publication of these remarks on that author's character, a letter containing the following observations. " The character you give of Dr. Priestley, has reminded me of that drawn by Dr. Samuel Parr, in his letter from Irenopolis, to the inhabi- tants of Eleuthropolis. As this pamphlet was a temporary publication during the riots of Birmingham, and you have probably never seen it, I will transcribe the passage to which 1 refer. — * 1 confess with sorrow, that in too many instances, such modes of defence have been used against this formidable Heresiarch, as would hardly be justifiable in the support of re- velation itself, against the arrogance of a Bollngbroke, the buffoonery of a Mandeville, and the levity of a Voltaire. But the cause of orthodoxy re- quires not such aids. The Church of England approves them not. The spirit of Christianity warrants them not. Let Dr. Priestley be confuted where he is mistaken. Let him be exposed where he is superficial. Let him be rebuked where he is censorious. Let him be repressed where he is dogmatical. But let not his attainments be depreciated, because they are numerous almost without a parallel. Let not his talents be ridiculed, be- cause they are superlatively great. Let not his morals be vilified, because they are correct without austerity, and exemplary without ostentation ; be- cause they present even to common observers the innocence of a hermit, and the simplicity of a patriarch ; and because a philosophic eye will at 1 478 APPENDIX, fully make these concessions to the talents and the virtues of Dr. Priestley ; and whilst I join in the most decided repro- bation of those savage acts of violence, which in his instance have disgraced the annals of English polity ; yet I cannot hjesitate to believe, that if, in any country, in which the di- i'eclion of affairs was held by those enlightened politicians, and professors of pure Christianity, who form the asso- ciates of Dr. Priestley, and Mr. Belsham, any man had em- ployed himself for a series of years, in labouring to overturn the established order of things ; and had even advanced so far, as, in the intoxication of his fancied success, openly to boast, that he had prepared a train, whereby the whole must inevitably be destroyed ;* a very different lot from that, once discover in them the deep fixed root of virtuous principle, and the solid trunk of virtuous habit.' This beautiful portrait is, I think, accurate in its lineaments. But there are two features in the character of Dr Priest- Jey, which it does not exhibit, and which to you I will not scruple to com- municate. He has a sort of nnoral aptithy, which makes him absolutely in- sensible of the severity of the wounds he inflicts in his polemic discus- sions. Feelin,^ no enmities in his constitution, he makes no discrimination between friends and foes. And having adopted the language, and dipped his pen in the gall of controversy, he suspects not that he excites bitterness of heart, because he is unconscious of it in himself I could exemplify this observation^ by his treatment of Dr. Enfield, Dr. Brocklesby, Judge Blackstone, and several others whom he really loved or respected. — Another striking trait in his character, is an almost total deficiency in dU- cretion, that intellectual faculty, which is, as Pope well expresses it, ** al- though no science, fairly worth the seven.' — A report has prevailed here, that Dr. Priestley proposes to return to England. But I find that his latest letters signify his intention oi' passing the remainder of his life in America, where he is happy in every respect, except the enjoyment of literary so- ciety, and possesses a library and philosophical apparatus far superior to those which he had at Birmingham." This fragment, containing so much that is interesting concerning Dr. Priestley, will, I conceive, not be unacceptable to the reader, and although I consider the bright parts of the character to have been too highly em- blazoned by Dr. Parr, the darker spots to have been too sparingly touched by ray much-valued correspondent, and some important points to have been entirely overlooked by both, yet I cannot withhold from the memory of a iTian certainly possessed of many amiable qualities, and some extraordinary endowments, a tribute, to which two persons, eminent for their worth and their attainments, have conceived him to be justly entitled. * " We are, as it were, laying gun-pov/der, grain by grain, undertime old building of error and superstition, which a single spark may hereafter inflame, so as to produce an instantaneous explosion." — Importance of Free Inquiry^ p. 40. What Dr. P. means by the old building of error and sJifier- stiiiorif the context sufiiciently explains. On the impossibility of support- ing the ecclesiastical constitution, if once a great majority of the people can be made hostile to it; and on "the power of small changes in the po- litical state of things, to overturn the oest compacted eslabUshments," he likewise enlarges with much earnestness and force: Ibid. pp. 39, 41, 44. The fittest seasons, and best opportunities, for silently working out the great eflTects, which he here professes to hold in view, this writer had be- ftre communicated to his feiiow-labourcr, Mr. Lindsey, in the dedication of APPENDIX. 479 which has fallen to Dr. Priestley, would await him. The privilege of transferring his residence to another land, unless indeed it were to that land from which no traveller returns, would hardly be conceded. Our enlightened philosophers, of the present day adopt on these occasions much simpler modes of proceeding: and a peep across the British Channel, may readily satisfy us as to the nature of the process, where there is no *' lucrative fable of Jesus Christ" to be main- tained; no "established ^ clergy to breathe the fiery spirit of persecution ;" and where the rights of civil and religious man, are explained and exercised, upon the broadest princi- ples of a philosophy, untrammelled, even to Mr. B's most san- guine wishes. One distinction between the two cases may indeed possibly exist. The professors of an all-perfect philosophy and a Ra- tional Christianity, knowing theirs to be the cause of virtue, and acting only from a love of truth, are meritorious in removing, by jvhatever means, all impediments to the accomplishment of ends so glorious as those ^/ic?/ hold in view : whereas the advocates of received doctrines, and of existing establishments, not even believing what they profess, and being only concern- ed to defend a lucrative fc^lsehood, are, by the original sin of their cause, criminal in the performance of every act, however natural and necessary, which has a tendency to maintain iti This distinction may possibly supply a satisfactory explana- tion : — but to proceed. As I cannot entirely agree with Mr. Belsham, respecting the persecution carried on by the established clergy, against those, who, under the title of Unitarians, are, as Mr. B. af- firms, the only professors of a pure Christianity ; so neither do I, respecting that which he deems a natural consequence of this persecution, the great increase of this body in numbers and consequence. Possibly indeed, without making any very his History of Corruptions^ pp. vi, vii. — " While the attention of men in power, is engrossed by the difficulties that more immediately press upon them, the endeavour of the friends of reformation, in points of doctrine, pass with less notice^ and operate tMithoiit obstruction.^* Times of public danger and difficulty are thus pointed out, as best suited to lay that train, which was finally to explode with the ruin of the establishment. And in- deed, at an earlier period of life, he had even ventured to promise himself a more rapid accomplishment of the great object of his wishes. Speaking of the cstabUshment, and those abuses which he ascribes to the principles of the hierarchy, he does not scruple to predict, that in ** some general con- vulsion of the state, some bold hand, secretly impelled by a vengeful pro- vidence, shall sweep down the whole together." — Vie'^ of the Principles and Conduct of the Protestant Dissenters, p. 12. — Passages conveying simi- lar sentiments in the writings of Dr. Priestley, might be accumulated ; but their notoriety renders it unnecessary. * It will be recollected that this was written in the vear 18CQ 480 APPENDIX. valuable concession to Mr. B. it might be admitted, that " the number o( Rational Christians," (by which he means Unita- rians, or the professors of his Moral Christianity,) " was iiever so great as at present ;"^ — a position, which at the same time, but badly accords with the assertion, that the early christian church was almost exclusively Unitarian. But, that " it is still a progressive cause," can by no means be al- lowed. So that Mr. B. may safely release his mind from all apprehensions of that, Avhich he so sincerely deprecates, " the support of civil authority ;" from which he seems to dread the only impediment to its triumphant progress. If indeed, by " a progressive cause," be meant a pro- gression in its course to that, which seems its natural termina- tion. Deism ; it might, undoubtedly, in that sense, be admit- ted to be progressive. But, if thereby be meant, a continued increase of numbers, nothing can be more opposite to the real state of the case. For let any candid and reflecting man, even of this very denomination, lay his hand upon his heart, and say what he thinks likely to be the case of the rising generation, educated in the Unitarian principles ; let him say, what has been the case of those educated in the straitest principles of the sect, under the immediate instruc- tion of its greatest luminaries, Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, at the Academy of Hackney. Let Mr. B. himself say, what has been the progressive nature of the cause in that seminary. Mr. B. has too great a regard for truth, not to admit, that the pupils of the new light had gone beyond their teachers a lit- tle too far : that they had somewhat too stronglyf exemplified * licvtcw, p. 198. .^• f Mr. Belsham himself, in speaking' of this subject, is oblij^^ed in a great measure to acknowledg-e the truth of this charj^e. " This fact," (he says, alluding to a statement similar to the above made by Mr. Carpenter,) " to a certain extent, cannot be denied ; and most surely, it excited unpleasing sensations in many, and not least in the minds of those, whose endeavours to form them to usefulness in the Church were thus painfully disappointed."— However, immediately after, he seems, in the contrast between the systems pursued at Hackney, and in other seminaries where education is conducted on a different principle, to change the tone of lamentation on this head into a note of triumph. " It is an easy thing," he remai'ks, " for tutors to edu. cate their pupils in the trammels of any religious faith which they may choose. Take away the key of knowledge, and the business is done. You bring them out atonceCalvinists, Arians, Papists, Protestants, any thing that you please; and ready to join in the cry against any sect, which, for the season, may be obnoxious to the ruling party. This was not the metliod pursued at Hack- ney : they gloried in encouraging freedom of Inquiry : nor were they at all apprehensive, that the interests of truth and virtue would suffer by it in the end." {Letters on Jlrianism, ^. 40.) — Thus, Mr. Belsham, on second thoughts, is of opinion, that what was done in Hackney, is a thing to be glo- ried in: and tliat in educating those who were designed for the christian ministry, so as to render them infidels and atheists, *' the interests of truth and virtue cuunot suffer in the end." A^PENDiX. 481 tlie progressive nature of the system, by reaching at once the goal of Deism ; and that in some instances, perhaps not a few, the race had been crowned with the prize, of direct, avowed, and unqualified Atheism. Mr. Belsham affirms, that " Mr. Wilberforce, and others who agree with him, seldom regard their system in a compre- hensive view, or pursue their principles to their just and ne- cessary consequences:"* and he adds, that " it is from the absurd and injurious consequences, which necessarily result from Mr. W's principles, that he infers their falsehood and But, that we may the better form a right judgment of that, wliich Is con- «eived to constitute the excellence of those dissenthig academies, to which such friends of rational inquiry as Mr. Belsham and Dr. Priestley have been used to look for the real improvement of youth, I here give an extract from Dr. Priestley's Memoirs relative to this subject. In my time, the- academy was in a state peculiarly yavoiirabie to the serions pursuit of truth, as the stu- dents were about equally divided upon every question of much importance, such as liberty and necessity, the sleep of the soul, and all the articles of theological orthodoxy and heresy / in consequence of which, all these topics were the subjects of continual discussion. Our tutors were of different opinions: Dr. Ashworth taking the orthodox side ; Mr. Clarke, the sub-twtor, that of heresy, though always with the greatest modesty." Here is a view of the true way, in whicli, under the guidance of the new lights of philosophy and reli- gion, youth is to be led on " inter sylvas Academi quaerere verum." The calm and undisturbed retirement of study exchanged for the unceasing wrangling of a debating club. Tutor and sub-tutor, master and pupil, all together by the ears, continually, on the gravest and deepest subjects of theological controversy. And the sublimest truths and most awful myste- ries of revelation bandied about amongst boys, as the common and hourly topics of disputation : whilst the parties of combatants on every subject are equally matched, and falsehood and truth, infidelity and religion maintained by equal numbers. Under such circumstances of education, it lias been truly remarked in reference to Dr. Priestley, that in tlie course, which by his own account he steered in his theological opinions, there is nothing to ex- cite surprise. A Calvinist at twelve ; becoming an Arminian at eighteen; at twenty-one an Arian ; at twenty-foiar a denier of his Saviour, and a dis- believ>er in the inspiration of the scriptures. — IVIiserable infatuation ! (it is justly added) to set the stripling on a sea, of which he knows neither the soundings nor the shore; and calmly to see him rush to every point of the compass, before he knows the bearings of any !" But this Academy, which was " in a state so peculiarly favourable to the serious pursuit of truth," was distinguished by other circumstances enume- rated by Dr. Priestley, wliich were perhaps not less favourable to that end, than those which have been already named. " Tliere was no provision for teaching the learned languages. We had even no compositions, or orations, in latin. Our course of lectures was also defective, in containing no lectures on the scriptures or on ecclesiastical history ; and by the students in gene- ral (and Mr. Alexander and myself were no exceptions) commentators in general, and ecclesiastical history also, were held in contempt.^*— {Memoirs of Dr. Priestley, p. 21.)— rThus, all the prejudices of ancient learning, which might have acted as so many clogs upon the youthful genius, were com- pletel^' removed; and nothing hindered the boy of the academy from fancy- ing himself at once arrived at that goal, which,' in the more measured walks of science, the matured student feels many laborious efforts still requisite M attain, * p. 10. 3 M 482 APPENDIX. Impiety. "''f^ No words can more aptly convey my ideas of Mr. B's scheme, than those with which he has here supplied me: for, strange as this gentleman and those who think with him may affect to consider the charge, they by no means fol- low up their principles to their just and necessary conse- quences ; nor, w^hilst they boast in a loud and exulting tone of their dauntless pursuit after truth, have they always the courage to be consistent throughout, and to advance boldly in the face of those conclusions, which to any intelligent and unprejudiced mind could not fail to evince " the falsehood and impiety" of the system. But Mr. B. himself has well remarked, that " the natural and necessary consequences of principles are the same, whether advocates of such principles are apprized of them or not, and whether they do or do not choofse to contemplate and avow them :"t and fact completely proves, what reason would obviously suggest, that where the principles of this new sect have been fairly and honestly fol- lowed on to their legitimate consequences, the system of re- velation, and in many cases of theism, has been entirely thrown up as a heap of mummery and priestcraft. To cite particular instances were invidious ; but they are numerous, and could easily be adduced. By w hat has been said, it is however far from my intention, to charge either Dr. Priestley or Mr. Belsham, with a disin- genuous attempt to escape from such consequences, as na- turally flow from the opinions which they maintain. No, I believe them both to be incapable of duplicity. But, origi- nally educated, as both confess to have been, in the strictest tenets of that creed, whose distinguishing doctrines they now reject; and having at an early age entertained a full convic- tion of the truth and importance of the Christian scheme ; some latent influence of their first persuasion naturally re- maining, they cannot now release themselves entirely from a Christian belief. Strangely as they have altered and disfi- gured the structure, the foundation still remains. The first impressions of the youthful mind are not easily effaced. And fortunately for these gentlemen, something of " what the nurse and priest have taught," still continues, in spite of their boast to the contrary, to retain a secret hold upon their thoughts. To have a fair experiment of the system, we must look to its effects upon those, who have never known Chris- tianity, but in the Unitarian dress of Mr. Belsham and Dr. Priestley. Examine; these, and behold its genuine fruits. • p. 11. t p. U. APPENDIX. 48(i How then can we admit the truth of Mr. B's assertion, that the nimibers of this sect daily* increase ? In one way, indeed, but in that way only, can it bear any resemblance to fact. Men who, having rejected the Christian revelalioni are yet restrained, hy a regard to opinion and decorum, from openly abdicating the Christian name, may find it not incon- venient to rank themselves of a class, whose latitude of opi- nion can occasion but little embarrassment to that freedom for which they contend : and thus Mr. B, may possibly reckon among the residents of his *' mansion," many who are con- lent to sojourn there, on account of its commodious neigh- bourhood to that region, which they regard as their true and proper home. One proof, however, Mr. B. produces of his assertion, which might not have occurred to many, and which is entitled to a more than ordinary degree of attention : namely, that " there are thousands" of those professing themselves of the established church, who think with him, " but are deterred by secular considerations, and the harsh spirit of the times, from avowing their real principles. "f Indeed, according to the charitable notions entertained by Mr. B. in common with Dr. Priestley, J of the character of those who maintain the * The writer of a judicious paper in a late periodical publication, makes the following'observations on the nature of the Unitarian or Socinian sect, and on the unlikelihood of its extension. — " Socinianism must ever from its na- ture be the most harmless of all herisies, the least contagious of all the va- rieties of human opinion. It has been called, and how aptly the history of its Hackney Academy and all its other institutions may prove, that half-way house to infidelity : but it should be remembered, that many who set out on the pilg-rim's progress of inquiry, take up their place of rest there, who, if there were no such inn upon the road, would infalhbly proceed to Doubting Castle. It is a system which saves men from utter unbelief more frequently than it tempts them to it ; and it never can become a popular doctrine. It appeals to the vanity of the half-learned, and the pride of the half-reasoning : but it neither interests tlie imagination, nor awakens the feelings, nor ex- cites the passions, nor satisfies the wants of the human heart. Hence it must ever be confined to a few scanty congregations composed wholly of the reading class, and is equally inc£ipable of producing eitlier extensive good or extensve evil." Quarterly lieviev}, vol. iv. p. 485. With this writer I en- tirely agree in the opinion, that this jejune and cheerless heresy is not likely to be embraced by many : but that so fiir as its influence does extend, it will be fotmd productive of greal evil without any countervailing good, is, I think, as evident, as tliat sucli an effect must follow from a derehction of all the leading tenets of a Christian's belief: nor I confess, does it appear to me a matter of much consequence, whether the traveller, of whom the Re- viewer speaks, proceeds on his entire journey, or stops short at the inn which ITnitarianism provides for him on the way. ' t p. 227. t Mr. Belsham's liberal views of the character of the clergy of t)ie esta- blished church, hare been already noticed, in this appendix, pp. 474, 475. Dr. Priestley's representations are of a nature equally complimentary. In his Hist, of Cor. vol i. p. 147. he says of tiie Trinitarians of the present age, that '« they are all reduciblu' to two classes, viz. that of those who, if they 484 APPENDIX. national faith, it is not surprising, that this should appear, ter minds so prepared, with all the circumstances of probability. And certainly no argument can be more convenient : from no combination of events can its force suffer any diminution, and from no ingenuity of reply can it ever meet refutation. Though the entire host of those professing the pure Chris- tianity of the Unitarian, were ostensibly reduced to Dr. P* and himself, yet by the application of this argument, aided by a portion of that faith, which not having been largely expend- ed on other subjects, Mr. B. might have to bestow in abun- dance on this and similar occasions, I should not be surprised to find him solacing himself even then with the satisfactory persuasion, that the " glorious period" was fast approaching, in which " the Unitarian church" was about to " comprehend in its ample enclosure, the whole Christianized world i"'^ the prejudices and interests of mankind, causing but a temporary and artificial suppression of those sentiments, which must ne- cessarily and universally prevail. This argument then I must admit to be wholly unanswerable. Dr. Priestley has indeed advanced, that he " never knew a single instance of any person, who was once well grounded in Unitarian principles, becoming an unbeliever."! If the becoming an unbeliever, be admitted as the proper proof of an antecedent deficiency of confirmation in Unitarian princi- ples, the position is a safe one. But if Dr. P. means to say, that the influence of Unitarian principles is unfavourable to infidelity, it need only be replied, that the fact speaks a lan- guage directly the reverse. For it is notorious, and it will require no small degree of hardihood to deny it, that from those who have professed Unitarianism in England, the largest stock of unbelievers has arisen : nay more, that their were ing-enuous, woald rank with Socinians, belleTing- that there is no pro- per divinity in Christ besides that of the Father ; or else with Tritheists^ holding" three equal and distinct Gods." Having thus distributed the whole body of professed Trinitarians between Insincerity and Ignorance, he after- Wards in the eonclusion of the same work, (vol. ii. p. 471.) narrows his atten- tion to the clerical part of that body, pronouncing- their arguments in de- fence of the system they support, to "be " so palpably weak, that it is barely possible they should be in earnest :" by which it is not difficult to discover, to which of the two classes before named, the established clergy were in his opinion to be consigned. — That Dr. Priestley should, indeed, have imagined, that many, who rejected the doctrines of the EstabUshed Church might } et be found among the ranks of its professed teachers, may well be supposed, when we find, that he deliberately advised Mr. Lindsey to retain his preferments in the Church, at the same time that he laboured to undermine its creed: an advice, however, which the Rector of Caterick was too honest to comply with, although it might not be unpalatable to certain clergymen of the pre- sent day ; such as Mr. Fellowes and Mr. Stone. * /?ew>w, p. 266. t 'I'fieol. Eepos. vol. iv. p. 24 APPENDIX. 485 principal Academy, the place in which Unitarian principles were inculcated in their greatest purity and with every ad- vantage of zealous ability in the teacher, and of unbiassed docility in the learner, has borne witness to the efficacy of those principles, by its dissolution, imperiously demanded by the prevalence of infidel opinions. Now in what way 3hail w^e account for this event? Was Unitarianism not properly taught at Hackney ? Or, w ith all its vaunted simplicity, is it a scheme so difficult to conceive, that the learners not be- ing able to comprehend it rightly, "^ became unbelievers from not having heen firmly grounded ? Howsoever it be explain- ed, the fact is incontrovertible, and seems not a little to coun- tenance the idea, that the road to Unitarianism differs from that which leads to infidelity by so slight a distinction, that the traveller not unfrequently mistakes his way. And surely^ if, with Mr. Wilberforce, we suppose the station of the former to be placed at no great distance from the confines of the lat- ter, it is not surprising, that they who in the morning of life begin their journey from this advanced stage, should be able to finish the entire course with ease ; whilst those who do not reach it till the evening of their days, may have some indispo- sition to proceed, especially if from early habits, they had been taught to feel a salutary horror of those regions, that lie beyond. One difficulty, amounting to paradox, which attaches to this entire system, yet remains to be noticed. It might ap- pear to such as have been used to consider Christianity, as something more than natural religion with a superadded proo£ of a future state of retribution, that they who hold this to be the sum of the Christian scheme, must at the same time reject the writings of the New Testament, or at least all those parts that go beyond the mere facts, of the life and resurrection of Christ. Mr. B. however informs us, in what manner the Unitarians, whilst they retain the title of Christians, by ac- knowledging the authority of the New Testament, yet con- trive to preserve their " simple creed," unaffected by those important truths which it contains. There are two ways, in which the word of revelation, and a system of religious belief may be made to square. One is, by conforming our belief to revelation: the other, by adjusting the revelation to our be- lief. The latter is that chosen by Mr. B. and his Unitarian \ • Indeed Mr. B. seems to represent Unitarianism, as a matter complicated and difficult to be understood. For the total rejection ot* Cliristianity by jforoeof his Unitarian brethren, he assigns the following- reasons, *'Thev cither did not understand their principles ,- or they were perplexed Hvith dijf:- culties, which perhaps patienjce and attention might have solved ; or," S;c. R^ v/>;u, p. 265. i8G APPENDIX. associates; and accordingly, the New Testament, and the creed of the Unitarian, are at the same time without difficulty retained. Of the mode of adjustment Mr. B. exhibits a perfect speci- men. Christ, he says, being described in the New Testa- ment as a man, having appeared as a man, having called him- self a man, — having had all the accidents of a man ; having been born, having lived, eaten, drank, slept, conversed, re- joiced, wept, suftered, and died as other men," there is suffi- cient reason to pronounce him really such ; no farther proof can be required : and the onus probandi, he contends, lies with them, v.^ho " maintain that he was something more than ma^i :" and whatever texts of scripture can be adduced in support of that opinion, he adds, " the Unitarians pledge themselves to show, that they are all either interpolated, corrvpted, or mis- understood-:^^ ^ in short, they engage to get clearly rid of them in some way or other. Either the passage should have no place in scripture : or, if it must be admitted, it should ap- pear under some different modification : or, if the present reading must be allowed, it is wrongly interpreted by all but Unitarians ; and sometimes even the subject originally mis- understood by the inspired writer himself: until at length, the sacred volume is completely discharged of all that exceeds the convenient and -portable creed of the Unitarian. This, it will be allowed, is, in Mr. B's own words, " making scripture with a witness :"f and exhibits no mean specimen of my Lord Peter's ingenious device, in extracting the legitimate meaning of his father's will: the *' totidem syllabis," or at all events the " totidem Uteris,'* cannot fail to supply the deficiencies of the " totidem verbis. "J Lest however these ingenious modes of eliciting the sense of scripture, should be deemed too bold, Mr. B. supplies a decisive reason to prove, that the Unitarian alone is duly qualified to form a sound judgment in matters of sacred criti- cism. To comprehend the true import of scripture, he in- forms us, " requires time, labour, patience, and candour."§ How then could it be expected, that any but the aforesaid moral teachers of Christianity should rightly ascertain its meaning ? That this laborious, patient, and candid expurga- tion of scripture, whereby every passage intimating the divine nature of Christ is completely expunged, or new-modelled so as to speak a different language, should be stigmatized by the harsh representation, of " mangling and altering the transla- tion to the mind" of the Unitarian, as Mr. Fuller and Mr» * lieviev}, pp.. 270, SH, 272. f Review, p. 116. r Tale of a Tub, sect. ii. § Revieiv, p. 272. APPENDIX* 487 Wilberforce have, it seems, very uncivilly described it, only serv^es to recall to Mr. Beisham's " recollection the honest qiiaker's exclamation, O argument ! O argument ! the Lord rebuke thee:"^ the argument being without question, all on * This animated and delicate species of irony is, with Mr. Belsham, a fa- vourite mode of treating his literary antagonists. Having-, in liis controversy with Mr. Carpenter, established the inconsistency of man's freedom with the divine' foreknowledge, on such principles, that, as be modestly affirms, ** 710 proposition in Euclid admits of a more perfect demonstration .•" he suddenly recollects himself, — ** But all this is metaphysical reasoning- ; and why should we puzzle ourselves with metaphysical subtleties r" And then in a spirit of humanity, sympathizing most tenderly with his galled and lacerated oppo- nent, he exclaims, — " naughty tnetaphysics! thus cruelly to impale a voor- ihv, ivell-meaning gentieman, upon the horns of a goring dilemma, and to leave him writhing and smarting there without relief — T am sorry for my friend's unfortunate situation," &c. (Lett, on Arian. p. 47-) and so he goes on grieving for the cr\iel discomfiture wJiich he had himself caused to his friend ; but which, it seems, he could not well have avoided, from the un- common keenness of his argumentative talent, and the piercing potency of his Metaphysics. It should, however, be observed, to tiie credit of Mr, Belsham, that he has not been influenced by any unworthy fear, to withhold from the world, the knowledge of the nature and use of those all-subduing weapons, which have never failed to secure to him such easy triumphs in his controversial campaigns. The Logic and Metaphysic, whereby he has laid many a sturdy combatant low, he has fairly given to the public ; and it is now the fault of those with whom he has henceforward to contend, if they do not conceive with the same clearness, and reason with the same precision, as himself On the work which exhibits these, and which, dignified with the title of JElements of the Philosophy of the Mind and of Moral Philosophy^ professes to give, within the compass of one octavo volume, a most complete view of Logics, Morals, and Metaphysics, 1 have had occasion already to offer some remarks, in the preceding notes of this appendix. Those remarks, however, as they relate for the most part to detached topics, rather incidental to the main object of the work than essentially connected with it, scarcely supply an adequate idea of its true value, and of the benefits which must have ac- crued, in point of strict reasoning and just conceptions, to the students of Hackney, and which are now held out by this publication to the world at large. 1 shall here adduce a few specimens, which go more immediately to its general excellence as a treatise of Logical and Metaphysical instruction. First, in the list of axioms we find the following, which may prove the de- gree of caution, with which our author proceeds. — " Axiom 4. The agree- onent of two ideas with a third, cajinot prove their di-sagreetnefit with each other." (p. lii) — By this, such reasoners as are naturally led to conclude, that when two ideas agree with a third, they viust disagree witJ« each othei-, are completely guarded against falling into this vulgar error. Again, in the next page, we are apprized of a tertn, so circumstanced, as that it may be- come a proposition ; namely, the major term in a Syllogism, whose major premiss is a particular aflfirmative. For of such a term he says, "Jfitbe the subject, it is particularly taken as being a particular proposition /' and again, " If it be the predicate, it is particularly taken as being an affirmative proposition.^* This will provide against the errors of those, who might have conceived, that the term would still remain a termt and could never have turned into a proposition of any sort. — Again, in the matter of 2?p/?«///on, we find much more of copiousness and versatility than can be met with in ordinary treatises of Logics ant? Metaphysics. The definitions with which the work commences, are thf«e of Perception and Sensation. These and their concomitants we find iVxis variously propounded. 41i8 APPENDIX. the side of the Unitarian, whose modifications of the Gospel, exhibiting it as a mere revival and confirmation of natural re- ligion, cannot fail to approve themselves to all " men of en- 1. " Perception is the attention, which the mind pays to a variety of impressions made upon it by external objects or by internal feelings.** 2. " Perception is the faculty, by which we acquire sensations and ideas." 3. " Sensation is the perception of an object by the organs of sense." 4. " Sensation is the faculty of acquiring- certain internal feelings, by the impression of external objects upon the organs of sense." 5. " ^1 Sensation, is the impression made upon the mind by an object actually present." 6. *• Scfisations are internal feelings, excited by the impressions of ex- ternal objects upon the organs of sense." See pp. vii. 10, 11, 15, 16. Now, not onl}' have we here a rich variety of definitions, but such as, by a due combination of their powers, is found capable of engendering more. Thus, if we combine the second and fifth, we obtain a new definition for Perception; namely, "the faculty by which we acquire impressions mgniQ, upon the mind," &c. so that Perception finally turns out to be its own pro- ducer, inasmuch as it seeks after and acquires those impressions, from which, we are told in the first definition, it derives its existence. — Again, if we com- Inne the first and sixth, we obtain a more extensive and detailed view of the nature of Perception : for since in the latter. Sensations are described as a species of " intcryial feelings, ^^ it follows, that " Perception is the attention which the mind pays to a variety of impressions made upon it, 1. by exter- nal objects, 2. by Serisations, 3. by all other internal feelings." And, lastly, since by the fifth definition, " a Sensation is an impression made upon the mind," if we join tins in friendly union with the two former, we have then contained in the definition of Perception, " an attention to impressions made upon the mind, by impressions which are made upon the mind." — •! will fol- low this no farther. I do not ])retend to exhaust the combinations and their results : these few, perhaps, may satisfy the reader. Of our author's uncommon powers in definition, I shall only give one in- stance more : but that one cannot but be deemed sufficient, inasmuch as it will sliow the possibility of deciding, in an instant, the most difficult ques- tions in metaphysics. " Volition is that state of mind, wliich is immedi- ately previous to actions which are called voluntary." " Natural Liber- ty, or, as it is more properly called. Philosophical Liberty, is the power of doing an action, or its contrary, all the previous circumstances re- maining the same." (p. 2i7.) Now here is the point of free will at once de- cided : for, volition itself being included among the previous circumstances, it is a manifest contradiction in terms, to suppose *' tlie power of doing an action or its contrary, all the previous circumstances remaining the same ;" since that supposes the power of acting voluntarily against a volition. After this, surely, Mr Belsham might have spared himself the trouble of the ninety-two pages whicli follow, as his opponents must have been at once suffocated by the above definitions. But the philosopher was determined to give the absurd advocate for free will no quarter ; and therefore has dealt out argument after arginnent, blow after blow, until the adversary is no longer able to stand before him. He was not even content, until he brought the evidence oi' Mat hematics to his aid, to prove ex absurdo, that philosophi- cal liberty totally confounds the distinction between virtue and vice. Tlujs, ** for example, benevolence ivithonf Liberty is no virtue : malignity toiihout li- berty is no vice. Both are equally in aneutral state. Add a portion of liberty io both,- benevolence ir.stantly becomes an eminent virtue, and malignity an odious vice. That is, if to eq^uals fou add eq.uals, the wholes ■WILL be UNEQ.UAL; thau which nothing can be more absurd!!!" — Does the reader doubt that these words are fairW quoted ? Let him turn to pp. 258, 259. of the treatise, and satisfy himself tVat there is in the world such a nsatliematician as the author of the above pi')of. But I have done witj» APPENDIX. 48^ lightened minds;" whilst the old ortliodox fancies, — that '* the corruption of human nature, the atonement of the Sa- viour, and the sanctifying influeiice of the Holy Spirit," are the prominent doctrines of the Christian revelation, — are left to the professors of the national faith : interested and unprin- cipled men, who, not believing the doctrines they uphold, *' testify their regard to the scriptures by empty professions;" or ignorant and blundering bigots, who are led by a slavish and " blind submission to vulgar interpretations. "=^ It needs scarcely to be remarked, that among the virtues of the new system, modesty seems not to occupy, any more than charity^ a very distinguished place. For the fulfilment of the engagement, to overturn every interpretation of scripture, that wars with the simple creed of the Unitarian, Mr. B. refers us, — for he has not thought proper to undertake the task himself, — -to a list of Com- mentators, on whose critical exertions he is willing to rest his this work. It must by this tuTie be clear, that in Logics^ Metaphysics, Mo- rals, and Mathematics, the students must have been well instructed at Hackney. Having been led by the subject of this note to the mention of a combina- tion of metaphysical and mathematical reasoning almost too ludicrous for serious observation, I cannot make better amends to the reader for such a demand upon his patience, than by directing his attention to a very small but valuable tract, entitled, The .Doctrine of Philosophical necessity briefly invalidated ; in which the author, Mr. Baivson of Scdbergh, has most hap- pily effected that which has been so unmeaningly caricatured : having en- listed the accuracy and brevity of Mathematics (a science with which he is so well acquainted) in the cause of Metaphysics : and having thereby been enabled to plant the standard of Philosophical Liberty on a strength, from which the advocates of the opposite doctrine have not found it convenient to attempt to dislodge him. One faint effort indeed was made by a writer in the Monthly Review for July 1781. But this was so easily repelled by the author in a second edition of his Tract,.that as far as I can learn, the attempt has not been repeated. * For these two descriptions of characters, and for that of the Unitarians, placed in direct opposition to both, as tlie only " enlightened and consistent Christians," the reader may turn to what. Mr. B. has said, Eevieiv, pp. 26 — 3Qr 196. 199. 220. 230. 233. Indeed it should be stated in justice to Mr. B. that the charges of incompetency, insincerity, and slavish adherence to popular systems, are not confined by him to the divines of tiie established church. Some not a litftexlistinguished amongst the Dissenters, are examples of the impariiahty of his strictures. Even the pious, candid, and learned Dod- dridge had adf^pted an " erroneous and unscriptural system.'* " His love of po'pulariiy," with other causes, had " strangely warped his judgment in the interpretation of the scriptures; and his works are, consequently, " not calculated to instruct his readers in. the true sense of the Christian scrip- tures, nor to infuse into them a spirit of rational and manly piety." (pp. 102, 103. 213, 214.) He had unfortunately retained some of those old-fash- ioned notions about atonement a.nd grace, which have been vulgarly supposed to distinguish Christianity from natural religion. He was not, in short, a Rational Dissenter : for it is not from the members of the establishment solely, but from the various other classes of dissenters, that the grand cha- racterJstic of Jiatioj^alifv divides the Unitarian. 3N 490 APPENDIX. cause. Here we find, in addition to some respectable names, and to some from whom his peculiar opirions will not receive much support, the names of " Wakefield, Evanson, Lindsey, and Priestley. ""^ These last being the only persons now f living, of those whom he has enumerated as the great ora- cles of gospel interpretation, to these of course he must principally refer, when he affirms, as we have seen, that " the Unitarians pledge themselves ;" to get rid of every passage in scripture, that militates against the principles of their system. Now, I do agree with Mr. B. that if he had traversed the entire range of all who profess to have a single shred of Christianity hanging to them, he could not have found a phalanx more admirably fitted, by the apparatus of ^* interpolations, omissions, false readings, mistranslations, and erroneous interpretations," J to empty scripture of every idea that does not correspond with the pure Christianity of those who call themselves Unitarians. Paine could not well have been added to the list. /Je most imprudently ^irikes down all at once, and would brush away the flimsy cobwebs of both Old and New Testament at one stroke. But cerr tainly, more § resolute expungers, parers, and diversificrs • Review, p. 206. t It is matter of melancholy reflection, that of the above-named writers, all actively engaged in the propagation of their respective opinions when the first edition of this work was published, not one is at this day living. So rapidly do we all pass off in this fleeting scene of things ! — Respecting those who no longer live to answer for themselves, I confess 1 feel some- what of the force of the maxim, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. And yet, when it is considered, that though the man dies, the author lives : that the interests of the living should not be sacrificed to a sentiment unprofitable to the dead ; that, on the contrary, were the deceased himself to rise from the grave, he would probably feel it his first duty to oppose those very er- rors which he had before been industrious to disseminate : — there seems no good reason, why any greater delicacy should now be used in treating of the pernicious mistakes and misconceptions of such writers, than bad for- merly been observed; more particularly as the subject is infinitely too im- portant for compromise. I have therefore neither retracted nor softened any observation applying to the works of the above-named authors, unless where I have had cause to doubt the truth and justice of the observation itself. ^ Review, p. 206. . § Dr. Gecides has travelled too slowly through the C5ld Testament, to Entitle him by his meritorious services in the New, to a place in the present list. But from the libe'ral views which the part of his translation already published, joined to his late volume of Critical Remarks, presents, con- cerning Xht false representations of the Deity in the Pentateuch, the cruel and sanguinary character of the God of the flebreius, — the juggle of the mira- cles said to be ivroughi by JMoses, — the incrtuible 7iumber of pvoJigits not literally to be believed, — the frecjuent interposition of the Deity and his agents, not to be admitted, — the absxirdity of attributing inspiration to the ivriters of the early books of the Old Testament, — the error, inconsistency, and doivn- right absurdity, to be found in the ffebreiv ivritings, fro'tn which their inspirar tion cannot be credited, even on the authority of St, JPaulf or though an angel APPENDIX. 491 Gf sacred writ, he could not have discovered in the whole tribe of polemics. Of their powers in this way, some fev^ specimens have been exhibited in the foregoing Disserta- tions : and from the notable exertions of master-criticism, which have been there occasionally noticed, little doubt cart be entertained, of the sufficiency of these writers to fulfil the engagement entered into on their behalf by Mr. Bel- sham."^ fro7n heaven ivere to teach it, — the information of the Hebrew historians de- rived from public registers, popular traditions, and old sorgs, — from these, and other obsei'vations of a similar nature, there is offered a reasonable -promise, that when this translator of the books accounted sacred, shall have extended his researches to the New Testament, and thereby clearly made known his scheme of Christianity, \xe will prove himself fully entitled to have his name enrolled among- the most enlightened of Mr. B's Unitarian Commentators. When we find him thus freely concurring- with Lord BoUngbroke, in pronouncing the God of Moses to be ** partial, un- just, and cruel, delighting in blood, commanding assassinations, massa- cres, and even exterminations of people :'* can we doubt, that he will agree with his Lordship, and other philosophic inquirers, in viewing the God of Paid, in a light equally unwortiiy of our religious adoration ? Boling- brokers Works, vol. v. p. 567. — 4to. 1754. The earthly career of Ur. Geddes has been closed since the above was written : nor did he live long enough to carry his mischievous perversions of scripture beyond the limit of the Pentateuch, and the historical books. * The above engagement has in fact been fulfilled by the Version of the New Testament, which has lately issued from the press ; and which, as appears by a note on the beginning of the first epistle of St. John, has been founded principally upon the labours of those able expositors, and asso- ciates of .Mr. Belsham, to whom we have been above referred I hold myself therefore now bound, in point of justice, to retract, (so far at least as the New Testament is concerned) what I had ventured to pronounce, in p. 108. of this work, concerning the unlikelihood of any Unitarian ver- sion of the scripture being given to the public. It must however be con- fessed, that by what has been done, these Unitarian expositors have not much abridged the liberty for which they so strenuously contend. Their version is of tliat convenient latitude, that a person may at the same time admit its authority, and yet disbelieve almost every doctrine, and every im- portant truth of the Christian revelation. It is, in short, like the ancienti mantle of my country, a covering of such loose and wide dimensions, that the wearer may turn round and round in it, without disturbing its shape, or depriving himself of its siielter. And like that too, it has been used as a disguise to muffle the ass.issin, and to conceal the dagger. The Editors of this work have not, it must be observed, conducted them- selves in the publication of it, with that manly boldness, which they are at all times so ambitious to put forward as their distinguishing characteristic. I'hey have on tlie contrary not scrupled to adopt one of those pious frauds, which they are pleased to consider the ordinary expedients of their ortho- dox opponents. The name of a Bishop of the EstabUshed Church was cal- culated to lull suspicion, and to conlnbute to a more extended circulation, and accordingly tiiis Improved Version, which they have now sent abroad, they profess to Ibund up'in the basis of Archbishop A^ewcome' s translation of the New Testament; whilst in truth they adopt no part of that translation which in any degree shackles them in point of doctrine, but abide by it in such places only as are of a nature perfectly indifferent. They have thus contrived to give a respectable name to their Unitarian blasphemies. Tiie^ 493 APPENDIX. Our author himself, iudeed, has favoured us with but few displays of his critical ingenuity. Those few, however, tlaus hold out deceitful colours to the unwary, and vend their poisons under a false label. To give any adequate idea of the nature of this Improved Version within the narrow bounds of a note, would be impossible. The reader may easily conceive that the whole apparatus of " interpolations, omissions, falr^e read- ings, mistranslations, and erroneous interpretations," on which, as we have seen above, Mr. Belsham places so firm a reliance, has been fully brought to bear, and has most thoroughly performed its work, in the forging of this last great production of the Unitarian foundry. A few particulars how- ever, which may suffice to give some faint notion of the design and execu- tion of the performance, I cannot but advert to. In the introduction to the work, (p. v.) we are fairly apprized, that it has been a principal part of its design, to " devest the sacred volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology.'* — That is, in other words, we are told, that the great object has been, so to render the New Testament, as to empty it of all such expressions as might give support to any of the received and peculiar doctrines of Christianity. This appears pretty manifestly to be what is here intended : for agreeably to this, we find, that all those phrases, which in any way connect with the unsci iptural notions of the miraculous conception, the pre-existence, and the divinity of Christ, — the personal existence, divine nature, and gracious injluencts of the Holy Sfn- rit, — the existence of evil spirits and angels, &c.— are all completely swept away; and nothing left to us, but what perfectly agrees with Mr. Belsbam*s idea, — that Christianity comprizes a good moral system, with indeed the knowledge of this one fact, that a man has risen from the grave. — In the next place, we are told, what sufficiently explains how this has been effect- ed. It is stated, that it has not been tlie intention, " to exhibit a version critically correct in every minute particular :" and that *' verbal criticism had of course not been attended to in the degree that some might wish and expect." (p. vi.) — Thus we are fairly inform.ed, that certain liberties are to be taken in the translation, to which the minuteness of verbal criticism might possibly present some impediment. That is, in a work, whose very object is to ascertain the exact meaning of words, the exact meaning of words is not to be attended to, lest it might embarrass the freedom of trans- lation, and force upon the translator a sense different from that which he chooses to assign. Of what nature are those freedoms in translation, which have grown out of the facilities, and are adapted to the objects, which the editors have here planned for themselves, I shall now give two or three slight specimens. The first which I shall mention, relates to the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is at once thrown off, by rejecting from the beginning of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, the whole of what belongs to the miraculous birth of our Lord. This has been done, it must be allowed, with sufficient boldness: for it is fairly admitted, that these portions of the gospels " are to be found in all the MSB. and versions now extant." — Now it is actually amusing to observe, what is the leading evidence by which the editors con* ceive themselves justified, thus to expunge from the canon of scripture, what has come supported by the testimony of all the MSB. and all the versions.. With respect to the passage in Matthew, they tell us, that the Ebionitcs did not read the two first chapters in their copy of his gospel ; and with respect to St. Luke, they tell us, that Marcion, a heretic of the 2d century, did not admit the two first chapters of his. Therefore it follows, that since the sect of the Ebionites, and the heretic Jllarcion of the 2d century, are against all the .Manuscripts, and all the Versions, it is impossible that these last can be received as true. The argument is certainly quite intellible. But let us inquire a, littis about these irrefragable witnesses. And, first, ps to APPENDIX 493 »roTe him by no means unworthy of the cause which he sup- ports. The two passages, which expressly ascribe the office these Ebionitest we are informed, that their canon of the New Testament rejected the three last p^ospels, and all the epistles of St. Paul And next, as to this MarcioHj we find, thai he rejected the Old Testament, and every part of the New which contiiined quotations from the Old, and that he used no gospel but that of St. Luke, expiinpng from this also whatever he did not approve : and we are told these things too, upon tlie very authority on which the editors build, respecting the omissions from St. Matthew and St. Luke. — Why then have not these admirers of MarcioHy and the Ebionitesy received the testimony of such unimpeached witnesses throughout ? Why have they not, on the authority of the latter, rejected all the New Testa- ment except Si. Matthew ; or, on the authority of the former, rejected the entire of the Old Testament, and all the New, excepting a part of St Luke and some of the Epistles : or, on the anrhorlty of both together, why have they not rejected tike whole Bible, both Old and New Testament ? — But it seems, that these witnesses are to be brought up and turned down at plea- sure : they are both good and bad, according as may serve the present pur- pose. Forj not only do we find, that they are not believed, by the party pro- ducing them^ in any part of their testimony except that wliich relates to the beginnings of the two gospels ; but we find that even in these they are be- lieved, only so far as is convenient ; our Editors themselves admitting, that the Ebionites had mutilated the gospel of St. Matthew, by taking aiuay the genealogy ; that is, by taking away the first 16 verses of the first chapter. And therefore, respecting tliese first 16 verses, the Editors reject the tes- timony of the Ebionites as being convicted of a mutilation of the gospel ; but as to the remaining verses of the first chapter, and the whole of the se- cond, they hold the testimony of these same Ebionites to be good, against all gainsayers, against all Manuscripts, and against all Versions. — All this is put forward honestly, and without any attempt at disguise. The Ebion- ite witnesses pronounced, on one side of a leaf, as not credible, from their acknowledged mutilation of the sacred text ; and upon the other side of the same leaf, maintained to be witnesses of such repute, as ought to be relied upon, in opposition to all the MSS and all the Versions of the New Testa- ment in the whole world. But that we may form a better judgment of the value of this Ebionite testimony according to the showing of its Unitarian abettors, let us attend to a few more particulars on this head. The gospel of the Ebionites began, it is said, with these > words. It caine to pass in the days of Herod King of Judea, that John came bap i izing 'voith the baptistn of vE' pentance in the river Jordan. This the Editors distinctly state in their third note, from the authority of Epiphanius ; whilst, in the very note which pre- cedes, they reject the text of St. Matthew, expressly because it places the birth of Christ before the death of Herod ; which event, they contend from Luke iii. 23, must have taken place two years at least before Christ was born. Thus, the gospel ascribed to Matthew is spurious, because it fixes the birth of Christ before the death of Herod ; and yet the gospel of the Ebionites, which fixes it not less than thirty years before that event, (inas- much as it represents Herod to be alive at the commencement of the Bap- tist's ministry) is notwithstanding to be relied on as a genuine and indis- putable document. — Yet farther, — for the Editors seem ambitious to make an overpowering display of the riches of their criticism on the first open- ing of their work, — they infprm us, from Epiphanius, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates argued from the genealogy at the begimiing of the gospel, that Christ was the Son of Joseph and Mary ; whilst, at the same time, they ac- quaint us, that the gospel, which was u^ed by Cerinthus and Carpocrates, was the gospei of the Ebionites^ to which they admit no genealogy was pre- fixed, or from which (to use their own and Epiphanius's words) the gene- :ilogy t-as taken ««'flf]'. This, it will be confessed, is making a tolerably 494 APPEiVDfX, of intercession to Christ, are, (Rom. viii. 34.) He is nonf at the right hand of God, making intercession for us : and large demand upon the complaisance of the reader ; yet there remains still more occasion for his courtesy, if he will travel on amicably with the Etli- tors even throug-h the first two pages of their translation. ' The genealogy appears, upon the first view, to be a d fficulty in their way, which they have themselves unnecessarily created. The Ebionites they have produced, as their favourite witnesses, to ascertain what was the true and original gos- pel of S>. Matlbew. But the Ebionites omit the entire of the two first chapters of that gospel. Why then injure their evidence by contending for the genealogy, which they reject ? The reason is plainly assigned. The genealogy, as it stands, may answer the purpose of proving, that Jesus was the olfsi)ring of Josepli and Mary : and, accordingly, the Editors apprize us, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, applied it to this use, and hence de- duced the mere humanity of Christ They proceed also to show the reasonableness of admitting the genealogy to be genuine, on the ground, that *' it can hardly be supposed, that an au- thor writing for the instruction of Hebrew Ciiristians would have omiited to trace the descent of Christ from Abraiiam and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress." They then proceed to evince the like reason- ableness of discarding all that follows the genealogy to the end of the second chapter. "This" (they say) ** could not have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it co-^T-RXnicT^ his design, which was to prove, that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David; whereas the design of this narrative is to show, that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account there- fore of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebi- onites : and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative vivst be spurious'* Thus, then, the whole matter is completely arranged. The genealogy must be genuine as marking the human descent of Christ from Abraham and Da- vid, a thing expected by the Jews : and by all who received it as genuine, the narrative of the miraculous conception, as contradicting its design, must be rejected as spurious. At the same time, lest we should imagine, that the force of this reasoning might have operated so powerfully upon those Hebrew Christians who received the genealogy and maintained the proper humanity of Christ as to induce them to take aviay the narrative which so directly contradicted the genealogy, in like manner as it is admit- ted others of them had taJten away the genealogy itself, the Editors take care, in the very next note to assure us, that to tliat description of Chris- tians "the account of the miraculous conception could not have been in any degree unacceptable :" " nor ivould eV" (tliey add) " at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, it being a fact analo- gous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation." Thus it appears, that the history of the miraculous conception is itself something miraculous ; for it at the same time contra- dicts, and yet does not at all militate against, the idea of Christ's human de- scent. Now perhaps it may be doing no more than justice to these erudite and lu- minous commentators, to bring together into one point of view, the scattered lights, which have been here distinctly noticed; but which caimot fail from their combined brilliancy, to shed a brighter glory upon the work which they are designed to illustrate. — 1. The Ebionites and Marcion have omit- ted, in their respective copies of certain portions of scripture, passages, which are undoubtedly parts of the genuine sacred text ; and the former (it is confessed) have actually taken au>ay the genealogy from St. Matthew's gospel : the proof, therefore, arising from their omission of whatever relate* to the miraculous conception of Christ must be received as decisive against that fact, although it is admitted, that the narratives of it, as given by SL APPENDIX. 495 (Hebr. vii. 25.) He ever liveth to make inUr cession for us, f^ow, as Mr. B. cannot allow to Christ the office of interces- Matthew and St. Luke, come attested by every manuscript anct every ver- sion now extant without exception. — 2. The gospel of St. Matthew, as it is conveyed to us at this day by all the MSS. and all the versions, cannot be genuine, because it requires us to believe, that our Lord was born before the death of Herod ; but we may admit as unquestionable the gospel of the Ebionites, which pronounces Herod to be living- at the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, or about the thirtieth year after cur Lord's nativity. Lastly, the narrative of the miraculous conception ascribed to Saint Mat- thew, must have been rejected by all who received the genealogy, as contra- dicting the design of the genealogy, which was to establish the human de- scent of Christ ; at the same time that it is quite clear, that the fact of the miraculous conception could not at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, nor consequently have been in any degree unacceptable to those who held that doctrine. — Such are the new views pre- sented at the opening of this Improved Version, which is to set every thing to rights in the Christian Scriptures. See pp. 1, 2, 3. 5 and also p. 12 L There are, moreover, certain chronological deductions connected with some of the foregoing observations, which I cannot avoid laying before the reader. Two pages back it has been stated, that the Editors contend, that the death of Herod must have taken place two years at least before Christ tuns horn- . Their mode of establishing this point is deserving of some detail. It follows, they say, as a necessary consequence from the death of Herod be- ing placed (as it is by Lardner) in the year 750, or 751, U. C. Lardner, in the part referred to by the Editors p. 129.) had asserted, that "if Herod died in 1750, U. C. he died three years and nine months before the vulgar CHRISTIAN era; if at a Certain time before mentioned in the year 751, then he died about two years and nine months before the said era -•" and which is the truth, he professes himself unable to determine. (See Lardner*s Works, vol. i. p. 428.) Our Editors, referring to Lardner (twice upon the same subject, at p. 2, and at p. 129.) contend peremptorily, that Christ "must have been born at least two years and nine m.onths, and probably three years andtiine Tnonths, after the death of Herod /* and thus, in utter dis- regard of all the arguments by which the Vulgar Christian Era has been dis- proved, or rather with an apparent ignorance of the existence of any such arguments, they have at once assumed the vulgar and the true era of our Lord's nativity to be the same ; and on this assumption, as in itself sufficient to invalidate the whole story of our Lord's birth as given by St. Matthew, they build the rejection of that story as an utter fabrication. They profess at the same time to ground their reasoning on the autliority of Lardner ; "whose main object has been to establish the direct reverse of their position, — that Christ " must have been born two years at least after the death of He- rod ;" — inasmuch as, with great learning and sound argument, he has la- boured to demonstrate the consistency of St. Luke's declaration respecting the age of Christ in the 15th of Tiberius, with the narrative of St. Matthew, which places the birth of Christ about two years before the death of Herod. {Lardner^s Works, vol. i. p. 339 — 382.) That learned writer, however, in his Jlppe7idix concernwg the tiTne of Herod's death, has, unfortunately for our Editors, in the passage above referred to, spoken of the Vulgar Christian JEra as posterior to tlie death of Herod : and they, substituting for the Vul- gar Christian Era, the titne of Christ's nativity, have at once inferred the priority of Herod's death to the birth of Christ ; and have adduced the au- thority of Lardner's name in behalf of a position, which Lardner has most triumphantly overthrown, A similar instance of careful reference to autho- rities, and of minute attention to the accuracies of ecclesiastical history, is presented to us in the very front of this elaborate performance, which I can- ?iot avoid adverting to in this place. The Editors, whilst dealing out in their Inirodvciion large portions of that knowledgQ of manuscripts and the 496 APPENDIX. sor, he begins with remarking, that " the exact import of the phrase is difficult to be ascertained** in these passages : and various critical apparatus for the translation of the New Testament, which Wetstein, Michaelis, Griesbach, and others had already amply supplied, take occasion to speak o{ Ephrem the Syrian, as "a writer of some note in the SIXTH century." (p. xiv.) [n this at least they have thought and spoken for themselves : the commonly received opinion havini^ hitherto been, that Ephrem flourished about the middle of the fourth century From ^sseman we learn, that he was present at the council of Nice, in the year 325 : and we are told by Jerome, that he died in the time of the Emperor Valens, that is, at some time before the year 379. We are also informed by the early autho- rities, that this same Ephrem, wlio is here so slig'htly glanced at as " a 'wri- ter of some note" was a person of the most distinguished celebrity : a man, of whom Jerome says, *' ad tantam venit claritudinem, ut post lectionem scripturarum publice inquibusdam ecclesiis ejus scripta recitentur :'* who is described by Ebedjesu, a learned Syrian of the 13th century, " Ephrzem inagnus, qui appelhitus est Syrorum propheta :" who was even entitled by the Syrians, " the doctor of the whole world ;" and who, in truth, with the consent of all who have hitherto made mention of him, has been estimated as one of the most illustrious divines and writers in the century in which he lived, that is, as we have seen, in the fourth century. The Editors of the im- proved Version, however, acquaint us, that he wj^s " a ivriter of sotne note in the sixth century,^* It is the less pardonable, I may add, in these Editors, to have been thus inattentive in the case of Ephrem ; as he is reported ( Lard- Tter, vol. li. pp 419, 420.) to have written a commentary upon the Harmotiy of Vatian, a writer, whom the Unitarians have been at all times anxious (though most unfoundedly indeed) to claim as an auxiliary to their cause» (See tVil Hams' s Free Inquiry, p. 60 — 66.) 1 need not, I think, go much farther upon this subject, — I shall however touch briefly upon two or three points more. The beginnings of the gospels, (at least of three of them,) have ab'^ays been found sadly troublesome to Unitarians. Matthew and Luke however, have now been forced to part with theirs. This could not be so easily effected with rej^ard to St. John. We have no Ebionite or Marcion appropriate to his use But we have what just answers as well, a Unitarian expositor. — For example. ** The word was in the beginning, and the word was with god, and the word was a GOD." The word then is found, not to be god, but only a god. But again, lest, as being a god, it might still by possibility be supposed, that the formation of the world has been ascribed to this word in the verse which follows, we are told that " all things were done by him ; and wiih- out him was not any thing done that was done ?" that is, says the note, •* all things in the christian dispensation were done by Christ ; i. e by his authority, — the word yiva/ueti never signifying to create." — Well ; but then we come to the 10th verse, in which we find the words, O xotr^oc S'l^ avt* i-yrnro. This, to common readers, would indicate, that the tuorld ivas crta- ied by this word. B it as we have seen above, that Trctvrst iyivcvro must be rendered, ** all things were done by him;" of course it must follow here, that " the viorld was done by him •" let these words mean what they may. No such thing after all. Our expositor tells us, that the only true rendering is, " the world was enlightened by him." And thus the whole matter of the Divinity of Christ, and his creation of the world, are cleared away from the introduction of St. John's Gospel. For, it must be observed, that in the opening clause (/n the Beginning ivas the Word) nothing indicative of Christ's pre-existence is contained : inasmuch as the beginning here means simply (we are told) ** the commencement of the gospel dispensation, or of the ministry of Christ." The V'hole, then, as duly explained by these critics, stands thus : Christ (for so they admit the word is to be understood) vcasfrom the com.- Tnencement of the ministry of Christ; and Christ ivithdrew to com.Tnnne vjitk Godf and to receive instructions for his ministry ; and Christ was a ,God, For APPENDIX. 497 lor this he assigns a reason which cannot be denied to be sufficient, that probably the writers themselves annexed to it the excellent and strictly classical reasons assigned for these improvements upon the common version, I refer to this profoundly learned work itself, pp. 199, 200. If the reader should not be altogether satisfied with those rea- sons, he will however be pleased to recollect, that the Editors have given fair notice, that it was not their intention to condescend to the " minuteness of verbal criticism.*' I shall content myself with one specimen more of the qualifications of the Editors for the work which they have undertaken. I have given one, as an example of their accuracy, in ascertaining the genuine text of Scripture: a second as an example of their precision in reference to historical dates: a third, as an example of their attention to the minutiae of Ecclesiastical his- tory : a fourth, as an example of their acumen, in detecting the precise sig- nification of the original language ; and this will serve as an example of the justness of their inferences on general principles of reasoning. Acts vii. 60, we find St. Stephen addressing his prayers to Jesus Christ, — " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ;" and, — " Lord, lay not this to their charge." On these passages, our expositors favour us with the following just distinction and salutary caution. ** This address of Stephen to Jesus, when he actually saw him, does not authorize us to offer prayers to him, now he is invisible :" and for farther explanation they refer to Mr. Lindsey, who states the matter thus. " Unquestionably 'Stephen addressed this prayer to the Lord Jesus. ButitUis can be no precedent for directing prayer to him unseen, or address- ing'lum as God, whom the blessed martyr declares he sa=iu luith his eyes, and call^im the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God,- calls him the Son of Man, in that his highest state of exaltation." — apology, &c. p. 129. — This reasoning is quite invincible, and contains in it a mine of valuable matter, which does not at first sight present itself Jesus must, it is evident, be a mere man, or he could not have been seen by Stephen in bodily form, " standing on the right hand of God," nor have been called by him the Son of Man. — (" Behold, I see the Heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God ") He might then of course be worshipped and prayed to, whilst he was plainly visible as a inan. But when he ceased to appear as a man, he ought no longer to be addressed in prayer. Orperh.ips, generally speaking, it is meant, that no being that is invisible can properly be an object of worship. How all the arguments which Popery has ever devised, in defence oi' image worship, fade and vanish, in comparison of the bright and overpowering evidence, which this reasoning supplies ! By this time the reader must be sufficiently awape of the great value of this Improved version of the JKeiu Testament : and it may accordingly be safely dismissed ; more particularly as Jllr. JK'ares's valuable Re'rnarh ren- der all farther criticism upon the work nearly superfluous. And yet before I finally take my leave of it, I must do it the justice to say, that there are criticisms, the production of certain Unitarian commentators, which are too bold even for its adoption. Of this, one striking instance is to be found in the translation of Acts xx. 28. in which the Editors prefer the safer mode of evading the admission of our Lord's divinity, by reading Kfg;« instead of 02K, Lord instead of God, Mr. Wal^efield, on the contrary, contends strenu- ously for ©2j^, and afterwards effects his escape from the consequence, by proposing two of the most extraordinary criticisms that were ever ventured by a Greek scholar. Ta lii'ia cti/uietrQ^f he renders, not his oxw blood, but, his oivn Son, because truly a man's son may be said to be his o God*s own blood,— »an ex- pression, which had it been used of God the Father by a Trinitarian in defence o? his doctrine, would have subjected him to Mr. Wakefield's inef- fable contempt. Mr. W. supphes also another mode of getting rid of the difficulty, (that is, the difficulty of acknowledging the divinity of our Lord,) viz. that of translating the words, " by the blood of his own," (supplying the 3 O 4dli APPENDIX. no very distinct idea,^ St. Paul it is clear was no Rational Gbristian ; or he would not have used words so inaccurately Urord Son.) — This, observe, is the rendering ofSiA m lim rt/^aroc. So miicH for the most celebrated scholar of the Unitarian school which England has produced. — The reader will be rewarded for his trouble in looking into *Wddleton*a Doctrine of the Greek Article^ p. 418 — 428, on this passage. In truth, I refer most willingly to this work, as one which will supply to the scripture student, some of the most valuable helps to the critical investiga- tion of the Text of the New Testament, which can be derived from any modern publication. Having been led, in the foregoing part of this note, to advert to the rejec tion, by the Unitarian Editors, of the portion which follows the genealogy ia the first two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, I deem it not unadvisable to offer here a few remarks upon the subject of those chapters, which without gomg at length into the proof of their authenticity, will J trust be found suffi- cient to su|)ply at once a satisfactory assurance on that head. Dr. Marsh, in his ninth lecture observes, that if we turn to the second volume of Gries- hach^s Sjtnbolce Criticcfy we shall find a quotation from the^/j^ch.ipter of St. Matthew's Gospel, and a reference to the second made by CeUus the Epicu- rean philosopher, which quotation and reference are noted by Origen, who wrote in answer to Celsus. Griesbach, he adds, justly remarks, " Hinc patet duo priora Matthaci capita Celso nota fuisse." And with no less justice on his own part, he deduces the following inference ; that if Celsus, who wrote his celebrated work against the Christians in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and consequently little more than an hundred years after St. Matthew him- self wrote, yet found the first two chapters in his manuscript of St. Matthew's Gospel, those chapters must either have been on^zVja/partsof St. Matthew's Gospel, or they must have been added at a time so little antecedent to the age of Celsus, that a writer so inquisitive, so sagacious, and at the same time so inimical to Christianity, could not have failed to detect the imposture But that, in this case, he would not have quoted those chapters as parts of St. Matthew's Gospel : and (Consequently, that the truth must lie in the other part of the dilemma, namely, that those chapters are authentic. — Course af JC>ectures, Part ii. pp. 55. 56. To this reasoning of the learned and able Professor nothing can be added, which will give greater force to his conclusion. In point of fact, however, it is important to observe, that we are not left to a single quotation from tlie Jirstf and a single reference to the second chapter of St. Matthew, for the proof that these two chapters were known to and admitted by Celsus. In truth we find, from Origen's refutation of that author's charges against Chris tianity, that his references to those chapters were so numerous as nearly to supply a perfect detail of the facts which they relate. See Origen against Celsus, pp. 108, 119. 125. 134. 139. 184. 189. 192. 208. The reader wljo may dislike the trouble of referring to Origen's work for the proof of this, will probably acquiesce in the following recapitulation given by Lardner of the testimony borne by Celsus to the facts recorded in the first two chapters of St. Matthew. " We learn from him" (Celsus) " that Christ was born of a virgin, in a small village of Judea, supposed to have been descended from the Jewish kings : that she was married to a carpenter: that for some while her hus- band was doubtful abov\t her chastity : that Chaldeans, or other wise men from the East, came to Jerusalem soon after his nativity, to do him homage m King of the Jews, having been excited to that journey by the appearaj^te * JRe^ieiV) pp. &9, TQ- AJ»PfiNDIX* 499 and unphilosophically; for, besides the aforesaid vagueness of of a star : that Herod moved by jealousy put to death many young children, hoping" to kill Jesus with them ; that by direction of an angel he was carried by his parents into Egypt for the preservation of his life ; where, as Celsus insinuates, Jesus learned the charms practised in that country. He calls Jesus the Nazai-aean man, or man of Nazareth, from the place where he was brought up and chiefly resided Lefore his appearance in a public character.** See Lardner^s Worksy vol. viii. pp. 10, 11. 19—22. 58, 59 and for a yet more particularized detail by Dr. Doddridge, see ibid p. 6i. Now, what is this, but an abridgment of the history given by the Evangel- ist ? Indeed the testimony thus borne by Celsus is so irresistible, that its application is not denied even by the writers, who most strenuously oppose themselves to the authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew*s Gos- pel. Thus Dr. WiUiamst in his Free Inquiryy p. 49. when urging his objec- tions strongly against those chapters, asserts, that " we have no certain references or allusions to them, till the days of Celsus the Epicurean, about the year 150 or later." That the reference made by Celsus to these chap- ters, is certain and undoubted, is then, plainly admitted. As to the latenese of that reference, the drawback thence arising will not be considered very formidable, when it is recollected, that the date of Celsus*s work is not re- moved from that of St. Matthew's Gospel by more than about one hundred years, nor from the death of St. John by more than fifty ; and when, in addi- tion to this, the remarks already quoted from Dr. Marsh are held in remem- brance. But imaginary as this drawback is, yet cannot even this be conce- ded to Dr. Williams ; the very reverse of his allegation being the truth For we do find certain references to the first two ciiapters of St. Matthew before the date of Celsus*s work. In the first place, we find them numerous and decisive in the writings of Justi?i Martyr : so much so indeed, as nearly to supply a recapitulation of all the facts related in those chapters ; and in such language as clearly to prove, that from tht)se chapters the information of the writer was principally derived. The very words also of St. Matthew are sometimes quoted with a precision so unequivocal as to determine the source of the quotations. Passages and phrases which occur in St. Matthew only, and applications of the prophecies of Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah, which are made by no other Evangelist, are adopted by Justin ; and adopted by him with a literal ad- herence to St. Matthew's text ; and, whut renders the demonstration perfect, with a literal adherence in those very citations from the Old Testament, in which St. Matthew has departed from the words both of the Hebrew and the Septuagint. (See Just. Mart. pp. 53, 54. 304 — 307, and the observations upon these parts of Justin, at p. 502 of this work.) These references to St. Matthew are contained in Justin's First Jpology^ presented by him to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in the beginning of his reign, and in his Dialogue ii}ith Trpho; both of which are sujjposed by the best Commentators to have been written about the year 140. Tlius we have travelled nearer to the age of the Apostles; and in truth we coine nearer still, if we consider that Justin's testimony, though not published till the year 140, may fairly be carried back to the period at which he became a Christian ; inasmuch as we must suppose him at that time well acquainted with the Christian scrip- tures, which must in fact hive been the means of his conversion ; and con- sequently cannot easily imagine, that what was not then conceived to form apart of St. Matthew's Gosp. I, could be afterwards received by him as .such. In this view of the case, the authority of Austin's testimony reaches backwards nearly to the year IjO. To a date equally eurly may be referred the testimony of the Composer, or (perhaps I might more properly su>) the Christianizer of the Sibytlinc Oracles ; who, as Lardner jnsvly observes, was manifestly acquainted with the first two chapteis,of St. Matthew. For a few extracts fiom this work, see p. 504. of this volume. The objection tiiat this coiieetion, gr at ^ast a 500 APPfilVDIX. 6xpres»ion, it is certain, that " God has no right hand at part of it, rt of their authenticity, to have mutilated the copy which they possessed^ * lieviev!, p. 7^- 502 APPENDIX. eal discovery, the authority of St. Paul is completely and at by removing- the g-enealog-y. — I should not have dwelt so long upon a sub- ject, which is at this day so fully ascertained as the aulhenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, did it not furnish a fair opportunity of exhibiting the species of evidence, which Unitarian critics are capable of resisting; and the sort of arguments, with which they do not scruple to re« sist it. I have mentioned above, that the first two chapters of St. Matthew are found in all the MSS. that are extant. To those hitherto commonly known, a late discovery in the library of this University enables me to add the testi- mony of one more, and that one of cotisiderable antiquity. For this discovery tlie public is indebted to the great industry and accurate research of the Rev. Doctor Barret, now Vice Provost of Trinity College. This manuscript, which is a codtx reecriptus, contains the Gospel of St. Matthew in the most ancient Greek character, of which a fac simile has been published by the University : and it has been satisfactorily shown by the learned Editor not to be of later date than the sixth century. In this MS. we find the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel, with the exception of some parts wanting from mutilation ; namely, the first sixteen verses of the first chapter, and from the seventh to the twelfth, and from the twentieth to the twent j'-third verse of the second chapter. — It is a circumstance worthy of observation, that Dr. Williams, speaking of this manuscript, of which he had received an account previous to its publication, observes, ** no information concerning oiir inquiry can be derived from this manuscript." (Free Inq. p. xxi.) Now the course of the inquiry had been to discover MSS. that could justify the rejection of the first two chapters of St. Matthew, or at least of the genealogy. For that purpose, undoubtedly, this MS. could yield no information : but for that, which ought to be the purpose of an inquirer, it affords full infor- Tnation ; viz. information of the fact, that at the date of the manuscript, the genealogy and the whole of the first two chapters of St. Matthew were deem- ed by its writer to be authentic, and were found as a genuine part of the Gospel in the MS. from which it was copied. In support of what has been asserted (pp. 499, 500.) concerning Justin Martyr^s reference to St. Matthew's Gospel, the following remarks will pro- bably be deemed satisfactory. Tlie quotation from Isaiah vil. 14. by Justin Martyr, is as follows : Hh v TTA^BlVOC IV yAr^t i^ih HAt TS^iTAt VtOV KAt i^HinV iTTl Tm OYOfAATl etWTSi, fXi^* »fAa)V Qioc. p. 53. In another place (p. 223.) this is quoted with some little variation, Kn-^irctt being read for s^Uy and there being added after viov the words, x*/ KAKiFirut TO ovcfxA tiwra E/!A/u.Aviii)\. Now St. Matthew, and he only of the writers of the New Testament, has quoted this prophecy. Both he and Justin quote it in the same application. Both quote it in the third person, instead of the second, {thoic shalt call,) in which it is given by both the Hebrew and Septuagint of the Prophet : and, what is most remarkable, both annex the interpretation of Emmanuel in tlie very words, /uib^ nfxav o ©80?, God ivith us. So that, upon the whole, there can be no reasonable doubt of .Tustin's having taken the quotation from St. Matthew ; as well from their mutual agreement in general, as from their common departure from, and common addition to, the text of the prophet as it stands both in the Hebrew and the Greek. — Again, in p. 54, Justin relates the declaration of the Angel to the Virgin in the manner described both by St. Matthew and St. Luke ; and having, through the first part of it, used the expressions of both indifferently, he concludes with these words, kai kakhtuc to ovcfxa uvrn I^o-s!-, AuT»c yct^ a-aa-ti rov \xov avth ato tav A/uA^rim awtchv ; which last clause con- tains the very wyrds of St. Matthew, words to be found in no other writer of APPENDIX. 503 m\ce set aside. His words, it is shown, admit no precise the New Testament. Justin, moreover, to prove that he was giving- a quo- tation from the Evangelists, adds, *' as they have taught us, who have written the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Clu-ist :" hereby clearly announcing, ihat he derived his information from more than one of the sacred historians, and therefore manifestly pointing out both St. Matthew and St. Luke, who only of the sacred historians had related the story of the angel's address to Mary. And }et, what is Dr. Williams's observation upon this passage of Justin ? — " The woids supposed t) be here cited from St. Mat- thew, are, /or he shall save his people from their sins. This, however, is by no means certain ; for all the other parts of the quotation are taken out of St. X.uke, though in a manner some what disordered. These words, therefore, may be no more than a loose citation^ by memory, from St. Luke, or a reference to some other passagt s of the same writer — see Acts iv. 12. x. 43. The ihoitghf occurs in a variety of places in the New Testament; so that we are not necessa- rily obliged to conclude that there is an allusion to St. Matthew, and to no other Evangelist." He adds also, in a note, that "the manner in which the wai- ters of the New Testament make citations from the old, plainly shows that they often quoted fiom memory." (Free Inq. p. 98.) — Here is surely most ex- traordinary reasoning The very words of St. Matthew, to a letter^ are used by Justin. The same wo'ds are employed by no other writer of the New Testament. And yet there is reason to think, that this precise repetition of St. Matthew is not a quotation from him, but rather a loose citation from St. Luke, who has not used any terms resembling them. And, because the thought occurs in various places of the New Testament, we are not obliged to conclude that there is an allusion to St. Matthew, who is the only writer that has used the vcords : and this too, although Justin tells us, that he quotes from the Evangelists, at the same time that it must be admitted, that no other but Matthew and Luke can be alluded to ; the one of whom does not at all employ the words alluded to, and the other does most accurately. Dr. Williams, indeed, in a note, adds, that "Justin also seems to allude to the Arabian Magi, iVIatth. ii 11. in his dialogue with Trypho,^p. 315, &c, but it may be only an allusion to a common tradition." (Free Inq. p. 98.) — Now the reader will be surprised to learn, that this seeming allusion lo the passages in Matth. ii. 11. concerning the Arabian Magi, is almost an exact transcript of that part of St. Matthew's history, and in several places convey- ed in the very words of St. Matthew. The Magi, speaking of the king, whose birth was signified by the appearance of the star, tell Herod, in the precise terms of the Evangelist, x*/ «A6o^ev Tr^oa-Kwua-xi cturov : and having come to Bethlehem, and fallen down and worshipped the young child, they are described by Justin as bringing, their gifts, in the very language of St. Matthew; Tr^oa-iViyKHv ctwcc Su^sty ^^va-ov, Kctt \iCuvov, kai a-juu^vcuv : and again, being warned in a vision not to return to Herod, they are ibKfiiJ. oix.0; TH £4>gfit6«t, oxiyc^og (t th itvat tv ^iKta.(rtv IsicTa.* (x. ins /uloi (^ihiva-trAt nyHfAiVoc m ttvatt w etg;tovT6t «v toj I(rg«t»x. — Alex. — 2. When describing the slaughter of the children at Bethleliem, and the consequent fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy, Justin thus quotes the prophecy : tgy KHf »;fc uBiXi rru^etKKnByivxi ort tsx. ncrt. See Justin, p. 307, and Matt. ii. 18. Here also, we have a complete agreement between Justin and St. Matthew, with this single exception, that the words ^^nvos aett, found in the common readings of St. Matthew, are here wanted. But it should be at the same time noted, that these words are likewise wanted in some manuscripts and many versions of St. Matthew ; and tiiat Griesbach marks them as most pro- bably to be expunged from the text of the Evangelist. Now, on the other hand, how stands the prophecy itself, as rendered by the Seventy ? ^mvn tv Pdt^UCt «X.8<76« 3-g«V8, iCAt KhAvB/U-Hi KAl oSu^fXHy J?A^lfK ATTOitXAIO/UtlVm iTTl TfllV vtav AVTHiy H.AI ji» uBiKtv TTA^AAKuBuvAty oTt iSK «i(rtv. — Mex. — OP, as in Vatic. *r7rox.KAiofji.ivii ax, uBiKi vavo-ao-Bai stti to/? vioti Awrn^y on ax. iiirtv. — These re- markable passages in Justin, it must be observed, have been altogether unno- ticed by Dr Williams — What then, upon the whole, is to be judged, con- cerning the likelihood of Justin's having quoted from St. Matthew, and con- cerning the accuracy of Dr. Williams's examination of this subject, — it can- iiot be necessary farther to discuss. At p. 499 of this work, the Sibyllene Oracles have been referred to. A few extracts from those oracles are here subjoined. In the eighth book are to be found several passages relating to the nativity of Christ. The angel Gabriel is there described as visiting Mary the mother of our I.ord^ and foretelling the miraculous production of the Saviour : and the birth of this illustrious deliverer, at Bethlehem, of a virgin mother, is at length detailed. To this detail is added what follows. ICfl6tov wxiq ctv0^ci>7roiiiv H|e< c-x^Kound uj)on examination, not to have been studiously and formally brought for- ward for the purpose oi proving the miraculous circumstances of our Lord's birth, as if they were at that time n jt generally assented to ; but in- troduced familiarly and unqualifiedly, as relaimg to a fact well known, and about which no difference of opinion prevailed, or at least, none that de- manded a more detailed consideration. Lastly, with respect to Polycarp, of whose writings the Epistle to the Phi- lippians is the only one that has been preserved; his references to Si. Mat- thew are as follow. Matth. v. 3. 7. 10, 44. vi. 12, 13, 14, 15. vii. 1, 2. xxvi. 41. These relate merely to matter of religious exhortation and enfoi cement, as do his remaining references to other parts of the New Testament ; wamelv. Acts ii. 24. Rom. xii. 17. xiii. 9, 10. xiv. 10, 12. 1 Cor. v 11. vi. 2, 9, 10. 2 Cor. iv. 14. vi. 7. viii. 21. Gal. i. 1. iv. 26. vi. 7. Ephes. ii. 8, 9. iv 26. Philip, ii. 10, 11, 16. Col. i. 28. 1 Thess. v. 17, 22. 2 Thess. iii 15. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, vi. 7 10, 2 Tim. ii 11, 12. iv. 10. Heb. iv. 12, 13. 1 Pet. i. 8, 13, 21. 1 Pet ii. 11, 12. 17, 22, ?4. iii. 9, 14. iv. 5, 7. v. 5. 1 Jolm ii. 7. iv. 3. Jude 3. The purposes for which the Apostolical Fathers referred to the New Testament, will readily be discerned by a review of the i)assages, to which they can be supposed to have alluded, and which have been here very fully APPENDlJt*. 607 continually employing his renovated and improved powers, ins enumerated. In truth, so far are they from having- had occasion to refer to such parts of scripiure as relate lo the family and birth of Christ, that, with the exception of Ignathis, their subjects in no instance lead them to any dis- cussion or even notice of these points. The epistle of Barnabas consists of two parts : the one exhortmg- to constancy in the belief and profession of the Christian doctrine ivithout the rites of the JeHnisk laiv : and the other contain- ing a course of moral instructions. (See Jlienarc/. Judic. de S. Bam Patr. Jipoat. vol. i. p. xxviii.) The epistle of Clement is designed to compose dis- sentions, which had sprung up in the ciuirch of Cormth respecting .spiritual governors ; and is principally occupied in recommending peace, and harmo- ny, and humility, and faith, and all the virtues of a Christian Ufe. The wri- tings of Hermas consist of visions, mandates, and similitudes, all totally unconnected with the person and history of Christ. The short letter of Polycarp, which is scarcely of sufficient bulk to fill ten actavo pages, is en- tirely employed in godly exhortation. And in the genuine Epistles of Igna- tius, in which heretical opinions are adverted to, we find that father opposing to those opinions the fact of our Lord's miraculous birtli, agreeably to the account given of it by St. Mattliew ; ami opposing that fact as decisive and unanswerable in argument, whilst it is itself assumed a.s a matter about which there was no dispute. That the heretical opinions, moreover, against which he had to contend, were not those which maintained the simple humanity of Christ, but those, on the contrary, which denied his liiimun nature altogether, and the reality of his suffering and resurrection ; seems fairly deducible from the entire tenor and language of his Epistles, and more especially from the xith section of his Epistle to the Mai^nesians, in which he lays particular stress on these tilings having been done truly and certainly , 'r^ct;)(^()ivr a. ak»B as Kitt QiQitu^. [On this subject I cannoi forbear recommending to the reader an excellent work of the lute Mr. Wilson, of St .loiJii's College, Cambridge, on the Method of Explaining the JVew TestaTnent by the early opinions of Jeivs and Christians concerning Christ. Let him look particularly to p. 357, and the argument connecied therewith. I cannot but think, that this ingenious writer has tuken a juster view than that which even the learned Bishop t'ear- son, the great vindicator of Ignatiiu's writings, has foimed, of the nature of the heresies with which this ancient father had to contend.] How little, then, upon the wliole, these early fathers had to do with establisJiing the truth of the history relating to *' the family and birth of Christ;" how little they were, in their writings, concerned in *' debates with Jewish nn/)elievers /' how little they were urged to the necessity of** refer- ring to the first two cliapters of St. M:athew," and how little consequently Dr. Williams is at liberty to infer from the silence which he attributes to them on tl»e subject matter of those chapters, tiie conclusion tliat they are spurious, — I leave to the reader to determine. Tiiat he may form the better judgment of the value of the argument derived from the silence of the Apos- tolical Fathers concerning any assigned portion of scripture, I shall conclude with transcribing some ohservalioi\s of the industrious and cautious Lardner upon the subject of their writings {Works, vol. ii. pp. 103, 104.) — " All these are but short pieces. Toe largest is the Shepherd of Hermas, which is almost as large as all the rest put together. But it was inconsistent with the nature ot that work for the writer to qtiote books. All these pieces, except the Siiepherd of Hermas, are epistles written to Christians ; who, it is likely, needed not at that time to be particularly informed what books they ought to receive; but only to be admonished to attend to the thuigs contained in them, and to maintain their respect for them, as is here often done." From tliese and other particulars, he proceeds to say, — " it is ap- parent, that these Apostolical Fatliers have not omitted to take notice of any book of the New Testament, which, as far as we are able to judge, their design led them to mention. Their silence, therefore, abr>ut any other books can be no prejudice to their genumeaess, if wo shall hereafter meet witl^ §08 APPENDIX. some unknown way, for the benefit of his church.'* We are told, that " we may imagine what we please, but that more than this is not revealed ; of which it unfortunately happens, that not one word is revealed — except by Mr. Belsham : St. Paul having simply said, that Christ is now at the right hand of God, making intercession for lis. — God however has no right hand? and interceding does not mean interceding,^ credible testimonies to them." What has been here justly remarked re- specting the books of scripture, equally applies to portions of those books. * Mr, Belsham's remark on the force of the orig-lnal word, rendered by us, inakirig intercession^ deserves to he noticed. ** The word," he says, ** ex- presses any interference of one person ybr or against another." Now, from this it follows, that if Christ be not supposed to interfere /or nsy he must be employed in exercising his powers against us. Does Mr. B- preiier this to the received sense ? It appears, however, that he has borrowed his view of this passage from Dr. Taylor's note on Kom. viii. 27- as he refers us to that for full satisfaction. Such then is the joint light of Dr. Taylor and Mr. Bel- sham. But it seems necessary to remind Mr. B. of the difference between iiTvy^etviiv KstTst, and iVTvyx'^-viiv vTTig. I must therefore take the liberty of referring h'.m to his Lexicon. Or, if he nxsill look to Commentators, perhaps were he to consult Locke and Peirce, — two ofthose very commentators whom he himself has named, but seems to have named only as giving a grace and character to his list, whilst they certainly deserved to have been placed in better company, — he would find their interpretation decidedly in favour of that, which no scholar can question to be the sense of the original, inter cediiig. As the authority of a Gertnan commentator is likely also to have considera- ble weight with Mr. B. I would recommend it to him to attend to Rosenmul- ler's distinction, (Rom.xi. 2.) — " ^vTuy^ctvitv vTn^ tivoc, est negotium alicujus coinmendare, inttrcedcre pro aliquo ,• iMi;-jy)(a.viiv xjtTrf, t^vo?, est aliqucm accusare -•" so says Schleusner likewise, (wJio deserves to be particularly consulted on the word iVTvy^aLvo)) and so say all the Lexicons. Mr. B. how- ever says otlierwise. " Time, labour, patience, and candour" have, no doubt, convinced him that they are wrong. As Mr. B. has referred to Dr. Taylor, for the true and adequate sense of the original word in tliese passages, it is but fair to state that writer's obser- vations on the force of tlie term as applied in Kom. viii 27. *' The Spirit of God tnakes intercession for the Saints, not by making application to God on their behalf, hut by directing and qualifying their supplications in a proper manner, by his agency and iiiflucnces upon their hearts /which, according to the Gospel scheme, is the peculiar viork and office of the Holy Spirit." — What then ? is Dr. Taylor, he who has so " well explained the Jewish phrase in his admirable Key,''' — is he, after all, but one of those " popular interpreters," who, in opposition to the " Rational Christi'an," contend for the idle notion of the existence and injiuence oi ihe Holy Spirit? And does he, to whom Mr. B. refers, for a full explanation of the original phrase commonly rendered in the sense of -making inter cessioJi for ies, expoimd the words syTt/y^oLvnv vTng^ when applied to the Holy Spirit, as signifying that benevolent interference, whereby our supplications are rendered more acceptable and effectual with our Almighty Father ? The same words, it is clear, cannot be instantly purged of this meaning, when tiiey are applied by the same writer, in a few lines after, to the case of our blessed Lord : so that I fear much, that when Mr, B. comes to reconsider this matter, he will be obhged to repudiate his boast- ed auxiliary, Dr. Taylor, as little better than Orthodox. What had been thus given, in the former editions of this work, as matter of speculation, has now become matter of fact : Mr. Belsham, in his latter views of this subject, has carefully omitted the mention of Ur. Taylor. H^ APPENDIX. 509 With a few other criticisms of the like nature, 3Ir. Belsham has enriched his work. He has, however, not adventured far into the field of controversy. He has trusted rather to abstract reasoning upon what he calls philosophical princi- ples ; and whilst he has confined himself to the stringing to- gether a number of rapid conclusions from plausible pre- mises, or to what is vulgarly styled ^ declamation, he has left finds it much safer to place his reliance on Mr. Llndsey ; an authority, which is not likely to fail him in any Unitarian perversion of the sense of scripture. And, with his assistance, having- first explained the word «vTy^;^av®, as ex- pressing any kind of interference whatever, he arrives at this conclusion, that what is called the intercession of Christ implies the '* operation and effect of his mission and doctrine in tlie world." ( Calvi Inquiry, &c. p. 327.) In like manner, the Unitarian Version, to which he refers, and in wliich probably he but quotes himself For an admirable exposure of the absurdity of the in- terpretation thus given by Mr. Belsham and his UuitUrlan Version, I refer tlie reader to Jlr. JSTares^s Remark s, p. 140 — 144. I shall only add, for the purpose of showing how miserably mifit the Editors of this Version are for tlie task which they have undertaken, that in their note on this word in Kom. viii. 34. whilst they profess to give the interpretvition of it by Schlcusner, (an authority to which I had formerly taken the liberty of referring Mr. Belsham,) they garble and actually falsify his application of the term : and again, that in their note on the same word in Hebr. vii. 26. they repeat the identical error of reference into which Schleusner had fallen, quoting Acts xxvii. 24. instead of Acts xxv. 24. and this too, whilst they are engaged in enumera- ting the precise parts of the New Testament in which the word is to be found, and would have mt believe that they have consulted those very passa- ges for its meaning : thlR evincing, at the same time, their servile adherence to any authority on which they may choose to rely, and their negligent rash- ness, united with affected research in matters relating to the accuracy of the sacred text. • One of the finest possible specimens of the species o^ criticism that goes by this name, is to be found in another publication of Mr. Belsha')Ti'sy which I have already noticed, entitled Letters on ^rimiisin. At p. 129, of that work, he attacks the absurdity of deducing from the language used throughout the New Testament respecting the creation of all things by Jesus Christ, the strange conclusion, that by him a creation was literally effected. He admits, indeed, that in Ephesians iii. 9. it is said, that " God created all things by Jesus Christ :" — that in Heb. i. 2. it is said, " by whom also he made the worlds :" — and again in Colossi^ns i. 15, 16. " Who is the image of the in- visible God, the first-born of every creature, for by him were all things crea- ted that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." But after launching against these the usual Socinian refutations, —that creating does not mean creating, and that n.vorlcls are dispensatioiis, &c. &c. — he proceeds, by a still happier flight, to show that the same language is as applicable to Buonaparte as to Jesus Christ. I give his words. — ** Of a certain person, who now makes a very considerable figure in the world, it may be said with truth, so far as the civil state of the continent of Europe is concerned, that he is the creator of all these new distinctions, high and low, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all these things are niade by him, and for him, and he is before them all, takes precedence both in time and dignity, and by him do all these things consist. Yet who would infer from such language as this, that the present ruler of France is a being of superior order to man):ind, much less that he is the maker of tkfc 510 APPENDIX. it to the more critical advocates of Unitarianisra to prove, that the words of scripture bear that meaning which he every where (tssumes. Indeed this work, the professed ob- ject of v/hich is to try the doctrines of the gospel by the standard of scripture, no less than by that of reason, is so miserably deficient in the point of critical inquiry, that its avowed admirers, the Analytical Reviewers feel it neces- sary to admit, whilst they endeavour to vindicate this de- fect. — " We have said, this is a popular work. The reader must not look into it for verbal criticism, or the citation of ancient authority." But they add, in excuse, " the work to which it is a reply, was altogether declamation."^ And if so, it has undoubtedly been answered in its own way. I have now done with Mr. Belsham : nor should I have directed the attention of the reader so much to this gentle- man's performance, had I known any f other work, than the world ? The language ivhick is true of Buonaparte, in a civil sense, is applica' hie to Jesus Christ in a tnoral mco: ; but it no more inipiies pre-existence, or proper creative power, in one cast' than in the others'* ! J ! — riiis comment of Mr. Uelsham's requires no comment from me. * Reme'vo for March, 1798. f That part of the Unitarian creed, which relates to the person and cha- racter of our Lord, has received some additional t^ches from the hand of Mr. 13elsham, in a work recently published ; whiclrhe entitles, ^ Cahn In^ (juiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ ; and in which he professes to give a formal digest of the recognized opinions of the Unitarians upon this subject in the year 1811. Of this digest I select the few passages which folio v. — " The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus of Na- zareth Was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the sameigaorance,prejudIcf s, and frailties," — " that he was born in low circumstanceSjhavingnopeculiar advantages of education, or learning, &c." — " The Unitarians maintain, that Jesus and his apostles were superna- turally instructed as far as was necessary for the execution of their commis- sion, that is, for the revelation and proof of the doctrine of eternal life, and that the favour of God extended to the Gentiles equally with the Jews ; and that Jesus and his apostles, and others of tlie piimitive believers, were occasionally inspired to foretell future events. But they believe that super- natural inspiration was limited to these cases alone : and that when Jesus or his apostles deliver opinions upon subjects unconnected with the object of their mission, such opinions, and their reasonings upon them, are to be received with the same attention and caution with those of other persons in similar circumstances, of similar education, and with similar habits of think- ing," (p. 447". 451.) Here then is an improved view of the case : a mani- fest progress in the Unitarian system. The supernatural instruction vouch- safed to our Lord was strictly limited to the object of his mission : this ob- ject was, exclusively, to make known tlie doctrine of eternal life, and the admission of the Gentiles to divine favour equally with the Jews : in all mat- ters not connected with this object, the opinions and reasonings of our Lord are to be esteemed of no greater value than those of any person of similar circumstances and education, he being subject to the same ignorance and prejudices to which the common nature of man is subject : and as he was of low circumstances, and had no peculiar advantages of education or learn- ing, of course it follows upon the whole, that the opinions and reasonings of APPENDIX. 511 Review of Mr. Wilherforce^s Treatise, in which the entire system and bearings of the doctrines called Unitarian, are exhibited with equal brevity, distinctness, and candour. To Mr. B. is certainly due the praise of an honest and open avowal of his sentiments. And, in his work, as J doubt not in his life, are exhibited strong traits of talent, combined with amiable and virtuous feeling. The same freedom with which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are (except when they relate to the doc- trine of a future life and universal retribution) to be treated with as little respect, as those of any person of low origin and circumstances who had re- ceived as few advaniag-es of learnin,^ or education. I have not carried on the argument as regarding the apostles, for Mr. Belsham and his associates have long ago disposed of the Epistles. But how much of tlie gospels must now follow them as waste paper ? — Yet farther, it is not merely the ignorance and prejudices^ to which our Lord was as subject as other tnen^ that we have to guard against, in his opinions and reasonings on all topics, save the one above excepted ; but we have also to secure ourselves against the conse- quences of those itifirinities and frailties of all descriptions which are inci- dent to human nature, and to which our Lord was not less liable than oiher human beings. Thus, according to Mr. Belsham, the moral as well as the intellectual imperfecti.)ns, which render the opinions and reasonings of men, and more particularly of men who have had no peculiar advantages of edu- cation or learning, liable to error and exception, alike affect the opinions and reasonings of our blessed Lord ; save only on that one .subject, to which Mr. Belsham informs us, his commission was rigidly restricted. As Mr, Belsham's language seems to cast a reflection on the moral character of our Lord, it is but justice to Mr. B. to state what he has expressl} said upon that point. " The moral character of Christ, through the whole course of his public ministry^ as recorded by the evangelists, is pure and unimpeachable in every particular. Whether this perfection of character in public life, combined with the general declaration of his freedom from sin, establish, or were intended to establish, the fiict, that Jesus through the whole course of his private life was completely exempt from all the errors and failings of human nature, is a question of no great intrinsic moment, and concerning which we have no sufficient data to lead to a sa- tisfactory conclusion." (p. 190.) Here Mr. Belsliam admits that we have no actual proof of any sinful acts committed by our Lord in his iirivate life, so that we cannot positively and satisfactorily pronounce any thing upon that head. But it must be observed, that this admission has been made after the recital of certain declarations of scripture, that *' he knew no sin " that he "'was holy, harmless, undefded, and separate from sinners ;" that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ;" and others of the same import : — although, as these declarations do not rtlate to the object of Christ's mission as stated by Mr. Belsham, it is difficult to discover to what credit they are entitled upon the principle which he has laid down. In a distant part of his work, however, in which he was sufficienily removed from the influence of the above testimonies, and when he prepares himself to sum up resolutely the articles of the Unitarian creed, he rises above the weakness into which he had here allowed himself to fall; and (as we have seen in the two preceding pages) afiirms of that great Being, who came to redeem the world from sin, that he was subject to the common infirmities and frailties of human nature. It will not now appear surprising, that Mr. Belsham and his Unitarian associates are so extremely anxioos to establisJi the apocryphal gospel of the Nazarenes to be the true original gospel of St. Matthew : for that gospel, as Jerem- Jonesy (a favourite vvith the Unita- rians,) has shown, in his Method of aettling the Canonical Authority of the JVexu Testanienty vol. i. p. 376, has left us reason to believe, that ** Christ was a sinner^ or at least that it is doubtful viliether he 'was jo or not."/// 512 APPENDIX. he has treated others, and with which, were he to offer any animadversions on this work,^ his pen would be directed to- wards me, I have not scrupled to use with him. If I have misrepresented him, it certainly has not been my intention. His language I confess, has offended me by its arrogance: and perhaps the feeling, which that would naturally excite, may have dictated a mode of reply, not always sufficiently re- j^pectful. If any thing like asperity or sarcasm has escaped me, I wish it to be considered, as applied to the cause, and to the manner of supporting it, rather than to the writer him- self. His opinions, as undermining the best interests of hu- man kind ; and his atyle, like that of all the writers of the same side of the question, as tending to overbear by an im- posing confidence of tone, and a familiar and frontless as- sumption of superiority, can scarcely be received without indignation,! or met without warmth. I do not pretend to * It is now ten years since the first publication of this work : and, during' that time, neither Mr. Belsham nor any of his learned Unitarian feliow-la- bourers, have, as far as I know, favoured the public with any observations upon the arg-uraents which it contains. Dr. Priestley, if I recollect rightly, about ihr yenr 1790, stated in one of the public prints, that his History of Early Opinions^ having remained along time unanswered, if the same silence should be observed during a limited period which he specified, he would consider it as an acknowledgment on the part of the whole Christian world that it was unanswerable. In this I will not presume to follow Dr. Priest- ley's example. It had better become Dr. Priestley to suppose, that his work had not received an answer, because it was not deemed of sufficient moment to demand one. I'.; must surely become me to suppose the same of mine. At the same time, I cannot but rejoice, that its reception and circu- lation have been such as to give good reason to believe, that there is no small portion of the community to whom it appears to contain useful matter .- and I shall certainly feel most sincere satisfaction, if it be allowed to continue to work its silent way witliout the noise and the exasperation of controversy. f I cannot allow niyseif to employ the terra, which Mr. B. does not scruple to combine with this, on much shghter provocation, — " contempt.** (Jieview, p 64) And yet, — to pass from Mr. Belsham to the entire class of his fellow-labourers, and to speak not of the individual, but of the cause at large, and of its cliampions, — what can be more fitly calculated to excite even the feeling which tiiat term expresses, than the impotent and arrogant attempts of a few loquacious sciohsts, directed against the sublime and solid truths of revelation ? Bishop fFhf sow, whose tolerant moderation is the subject of general praise, is forced to exclaim, that ** it cannot but move one's indignation, to see a smattering in philosophy urged as an ar- gument against the veracity of an apostle." {Tijo Jlpologies, &c. p. 359.) — What shall be said, when the same sort of smattering is employed, to overturn the whole edifice of Christianity, to subvert the sanctioned wis- good selection for his purpose, 490, 491 why could not add Paine, 490 why not Geddes, 490, 491 exhibits a few specimens of his own criti- cism, 492 — 509 convicts St. Paul of ignorance, 497—502 sets him right, 504, 508 commends Dr. Taylor's Scripture Key^ reason why, 113, 462 refers to Dr. Taylor, whose observations make against him, 508 compares Bonaparte to Jesus Christ, 509 has lately given a nenu digest of the Unitarian creed as touching the person of Christ, 510, 511 shows that the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles is to be received with great caution and distrust, 511 expresses doubts as to the moral character of our Saviour, 511. Ben Mordecai, (H. Taylor,) his letters written with acuteness, 84 his just views of the principle of viediation, 84 his scheme of Atone- ment, 27 ^not free from a tincture of Socinian principles, 27, 110—— different from that of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, 11] objects to tlie re- ceived doctrine of Atonement, its implication of the divine implacability ^ 28 answered on his own principles, 28 — 30, il3 — 116 objects witliout reason to Grotius, Stillingfleet, and Clarke, 115 objects to the doctrine of atonement on the ground of a want of discoverable connexion between the means and the end, 29 answered, 29, 30, 120, 121 objects on the. ground of the divine immutubihty, and of the texts which speak of man's reconciliation to God, 30, 31, 118 answered, 30—32, 121—123 denies that the paschal lamb is referred to in calling Jesus the Lamb of God, 128 refuted, 128, 129 endeavours to prove that the word iK^a-fxoi does not support the idea of propitiation, 130 shown to be mis- taken, 130, IJl, 142 his argument from the word »*Tsixxot^« shown to be inconclusive, 141, 142 endeavours to prove that tlie phrase for us, cannot mean in our stead, 144 his argument shf)vvn to be erroneous, 144 — 146, 505 attempts to deprive the Levitical atonement of all propitiatory import, and to represent it but as a ceremonial purification, 187 this notion refuted, 184 — 187 his arguments against the doctrine of atone- ment on the supposition of its implying the absurdity of a vicarious substi- tution, stated and answered, 198, 20 i his attempt to do away the force of the expression, bearing sins, examined and refuted, 227, 258 his theory of Sacrifice, 276 shown to be erroneous, 40^ 281, 232. Benson, (Dr.) admits that bearing sins, signifies suffering the penalty due to them, 252 his criticism on the word avacpega examined and refuted, 255, 256. Blaney, (Dr.) not consistent, 249, 250. Bolingbroke supplies, without intending it, a good argument against cer- tain mistaken views of the Mosaic institution, 406 a short review of his character, and of his attempts to overturn revelation, 416, 422. Bryant, (Jacob) — grounds of his opinion that Philo Judaeus derived his knowledge from Christian sources, 161 his striking observations on the Mystical Sacrifice of the Phenicians, 213 — 216. Buchanan, (Dr. Claudius) — his Memoir on the Expediency of an Eccle- siastical Establishment for British India, a work deserving most serious attention, 74—76 it presents a melancholy view of the neglect of reli- gion in India by the British, 75 exhibits a pleasing picture of the Church •f Malabar, 76 represents that church as possessing the purity of the Protestant profession of Christianity, transmitted to it from the apostolic age, ibid. Cs/^M^s— bears testimony to the authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew's gospel, 408, 409. Chitbb, exhibits curious specimens of deistical arguments against Chris- tianity, 84—86. C/o/)/JcnZ»«r^/i'* judicious remarks on the distinction between the sacri- fices of Cain and Abel, 373. 518 INDEX. Condillac, (Abbe de)— bis attempt to explain tbe natural rise and growtli of lang-uug-e, 2 ^6, 237 folio wed by Br. Adam Smiiht and Mr. JJugald Steiaurt, 2)7 his ibeory untenable, 237, 238 Corruption of human nature^ 24, 96 — 98 fully examined by Leland, 96 eloquently described by Mr. Wilberforce, 96, 97 also by Mrs. Hannah More, 98 dt- nied in a certain sense by the Wesleyan Method- ists, as well as by the followers of Priestley, 98, 99, 102, i03- Crelliusy — his criticism on Isaiah liii. and particularly on the phrase bear- ing sins, fully examined, 227—258. Cumberland, (Bishop)— opposes the idea of the Phenician sacrifice be- ing derived from the intended sacrifice of Isaac, 217 the particular impressions under which this writer engaged in the Review of Sanchonia- iho^s History, disqualified him for the due discharge of the task, 217. D Deist, rejects totally the idea of a Mediator, 18 his objections apply- equally to Natural as to Revealed Religion, 18 — 23 not a true philoso- pher, 18, 19 cannot prove from reason the suflSciency of repentance, 19, 20 well answered by Balguy, 65, 66 refuted by experience, showing the necessity of a revelation on this head, 20, 21, 67 — 83 his objections against a Mediator bear with equal force against repentance and prayer, 22 The error in all such reasonings, 22, 23, 87, 88. Dodson, (!VIr.) — bis criticisms on Isaiah liii. and his endeavours to do away the force of the expression bearing sins, carefully examined, 22o — 258 commended, yet partial in his translation and commentary, 223, 224 refers in proof of the justness of his criticisms to writers who have given no proof, 230, 231, 242— J47. Evanson, (Mr.) charges the evangelists with gross contradictions, 106 — ^reuuns only the gospej of St. Li^e, and but a part of that, 106, 107. Felloivesy (Mr.) attacks most unwarrantably the doctrines and articles of the established church, 440 — 456 observations upon his writings, ibid. Female ivriters of modern times, who have contributed by their publica- tions to the advancement of virtue and religion, 469. Geddes, (Dr.) — Specimen of his respect for the writings, and of his qualifications as a translator, of the Old Testament, 270-272, 290, 291 instance of his grotesque rendering of certain words, 178— — his absurd view of the sacrifices of the Hebrews as borrowed from the Egyptians, 270 — 272 opposed and answered by Dr. Priestley, 272 — 274 his strange distinction between those whom he calls the vulgar Papists, and the vulgar Protestants, 390, 391. Grotius, — his erroneous translation of Heb. i. 2. 54, 55— —charged w^ith Socinianism, 55 his extravagant application of the famous prophecy of Isaiah liii. to Jeremiah, 227-^ — his strange notion concerning the nature of Abel's sacrifice, examined, and confuted, 368 — 371 his excellent re- marks on the relation subsistin^f between the iVlosaic and the Christian sa- crifices, 394, 395. H Heath, (Mr.) — The objections urged by him and others against the anti- quity of the book of Job fully examined, 320—325- INDEX. 519 Heidegger's interpretation of the passage in Gen. i. 29, 30. as a grant of ani- mal food to A.dam, shown to be erroneous, 285 — 87 Herder'** Essay to explain the natural acquisition of langxiage, admitted to be the best in support of that notion, and yet radically defective, 299. Hume, (David) — a short view of his characier, and of his inveter.ite and impotent hostility against Revelation, 421 — 437 a dangerous guide in hiatory as well as \nphilosophj, 4o^— 437 his calumnies against Luther fully exposed, 434, 435. Ignatius (Saint)— affords strong testimony to the authenticity of the frst two chapters of St Matthew^ 500, 501, 506 nature of his allusions to scripture, and of his writings generally, 506, 507. Indian records, — falsely asserted to be prior to the Mosaic ivritings, 409 — 414 dishonest attempt in the London editors of the Asiatic Researches to advance their extravagant claims to antiquity, 409. Jeiv$, — their notions concerning the state of the dead, unfolded in the ex- plication of their terms Sheol and Rephaim, 246 — 349 their extrordi. nary admission of a compact with the Father binding the Son to a vica- rious suffering for the sins of men, 456, 457. Job, — the reality of the history, and the date and author of the book, carefully considered, 312 — 368 Various opinions on these heads, and their principal supporters, 312, 314—316, 317, 318, 332, S3 the book an inspired work, 331, 332— — erroneous objections to the antiquity of the book of Job by Bishop Stock, and their confutation, 332 — 366— — the his- tory of him handed down among the Arabians, 366 — 568. Josephus, — his testimonx , as far as it goes, favourable to the notion of the propitiatory virtue of sacrifice, in opposition to the asseriion made by Dr. Priestley upon that subject, 159 — 161 uses expressions which clearly mark the use of the word txetg-n^iov among the Jews in a strict propitiatory sense, 131. Justin Martyr — quotes from Ezra an extraordinary passage relating to the Passover, 173, 174. affords ample testimony to the authenticity of X\vQ first two chapters of St. Matthew's gospel, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504. Kennicot, prefers Coverdale's to otir present version of the bible, 237 his criticism oi Ilebr xi. 4. not admissible, 573 — 378 mistakes the na- ture of the Mincha, 375 — 377. XeachitOf — the true meaning of this word considered, 318 — 320. Language, — its origin from divine institution, 289 — 301— of the New Testament peculiar, 137, 138 opinions of Capelhis, Emesti, Michaelis, Middleton, Warburton, Leia7id, and Campbell, upon this subject, ibid ■ ■ figurative distinguished from analogical, li6, 147. Leland, (Dr. Thomas, of Trinity -College, Dublin,) has best refuted the objections against the inspiration of the writers of the N. T. derived from their unclassical style, 138 an account of his writings, 138 — 140. Lincoln, (Bishop of) — on Pliilip. ii. 6, 7. deserves particularly to be con- suited. So his judicious reflections on the endeavours of the Christian after perfection, 101— his excellent observations on subscription to the Articles oj the V/mrch, 450—452. Luther— \he calumnies ciiculated against him by Hume exposed and re- futed, 433—436. 520 INDEX. M Maimonides — his notion of the origin of sacrifice, 151— -his opinion of the book of Job followed by Le Clerc and Michaetis, 313 the origin of his celebrated work, the Moreh JYevochim, 404. followed by Spenoer and Warburtony 404. Matthev}, (St.) reconciled with Isaiah, 227—239 arguments relating to the authenticity of the first two chapters of his gospci, 492, 507. Mede—h\s opinion that sacrifices were ess^nii&Wy federal feasts, 278, 279 shown to be ill founded, 279, 2aO his excellent observation on those passages of scripture which seem to depreciate sacrifices, 309. Michaelis — his exposition of the word /Xatfwg/oi', 131 his opinion of the apostolical antiquity of the old Syriac version of the N. T. 137. his objections against the reality of the history of Job examined, 3i3— 316- his arguments in support of the antiquity of the book, 323, 324. Monboddoy (Lord) — his strange theory of the origin of language, 295. Jfiore, (Mrs. Hannah)~a distinguished and powerful advocate of virtue and religion, 469 quoted on the subject of imman corruption, 98 her just and beautiful observations on Hmne's Ilistorji 433 — 436. Morgan,— his absurd idea of the origin of sacrifice, 40, 267 of some use, 267. N JSi'areSf (Rev. E.) — his Hampton Lecture a most valuable work, 413, 414 — —his Retnarks on the Unitarian Version of the JS^ca Testament referred to, 261, 262, 497, 509 the cause of Christianity much indebted to him, 262, 413. Outram, — his wcfik De Sacrifciis deserves to be particularly consulted on the sacrificial doctrine of the Rabbis, 151, 200, 204. Parr, (Dr.) unguardedly commends Mr. Fellowes^s writings, 454 — 456 his eloquent eulogium on Dr. Priestley, 477 his defence of Dr. Thom.as LeUnd, 139, 140. Passover, — an accurate discussion of the meaning of the original word, 175 — 18i — —shown to be a sacrifice, 169 — 175' — —extraordinary passage relating to it in Justin Martyr, 173. Percival, (Dr.) — a distinguished writer, 471 his excellent remarks on Providence and Prayer, 471, 472 valuable observations on the Origin of Evil, the Evidence of Christianity^ and the clerical character and conduct, 472 Memoir of his life and character by his son Dr. Edward Percival, 472. Phi'o Judccus, — not accurately versed in Jewish customs, 161, 165, 171 holds a number of doctrines, and particularly those of a Mediator and propitiation, that closely resemble the Christian doctrines, 161 — 165 - supposed by Bryant to have derived his knowledge from the first Christians, 161 this notion opposed by Allix, 161. Popish ivriters, support the notion of the human invention of sacrrfice, and whv, 269 those of the present day not entitled to serious considera- tion, 387—391. Porteus, (Bishop)— his sermons on the Christian doctrine of Redemption, excellent, 84. Pre-exister.ce—Texis supporting, 54 Arguments against, by Grotius, 55 bv modern Socinians in general, 55 — 61 by Mr. Lindsey, 56—— by Mr. tyvw^hitt, 57 by Mr. Wakefield, 58, 59, 60 by Socinus, 59 ~~T-Uefended against the above objectors, 53—61. IffDEX. 521 JPncf, (Dr.)-^liis strange opinion concerning Universals, 293, 294—— offers some excellent observations on the compatibility of tlie efficacy of prayer with the divine immutability, 87, 88— also on the efficacy ofm- tercession with the Deity, 90 — 92 remarks likewise on the beneficial in- fluence of intercessionary prayer on the mind of him who offisrs it, 91, 92. to be lamented that such a man should in some points have departed so far from scripture truth, 92. Priestley t (Dr.) — his irreverent language concerning the sacred writers, 62, 106, 1U7, 149, 226— —pronounces it indispensable to his scheme to over- turn the receivp^l Hnrtr*in*»..f A.t<»ucinent, go- ^^5—— iiis boldness of assertion respecting historical facts, 79 — 83 his historical incompetency fully es- tablished, 67 — 8 J ^lus mcnmpetency as a reporter of the Rabbinical opinions and writings, 149 — 159 his gross mistatement of theii writings, and of those of Piiilo and Josephus, 149 — 165 his extraordinary pouer of modifying and applying the testimonies of ancient writers, 151 — 165—— seems as little conversant with classical as with historical writers, 165, 166 considers tlie death of Christ in the same light with that of any other good man, 95 misrepresents the arguments in support of the doctrine of atonement, 105, 260 charges the sacred writers as ignorant and blunder- ing, 106, 107 boas'.s of having no fixed creed, 108 instances of his mode of evading the force of scrip ure authority, 117, 118, 131, 143, )44— directly mistatesthe book of Job, 126 his unjustifiable inaccuracy in Scrip- ture criticism shown in his remarks on two important passages, Isaiah liii. 10. and 2 Cor. v. 21. 132 — 141 his strange explication of the words/or and instead, 143, 144 confesses that he forces the language of scripture, 147, 148— —contradicts himself, 148, 149 his rejection of the attribute of Justice for the purpose of proving the sufficiency of repentance without any other consideration, 126, 127 his principles go to exclude all punishment whatever, 126 denies that the Passover was a sacrijice, 169 convict- ed by the direct words of scripture, and all his arguments on this head shown to be plainly contradictory to truth, ibid. Passover on the contrary pro- ved to be a sacrifice, 169 — 172 his endeavours to prove that the Levitical atonement contained no idea of propitiation, but merely implied ceremonial purification, 183 seems not to have attended to the original word ISD, signifying atonement, 183 — 184 fallacy of his argitment, 184, 185 con- futed, 184 — 187 his assertion that no trace of the doctrine of atonement is to be found in either New or Old Testament, shown to be totally un- founded, 258, 259 ■ -his assertion that no trace of the principle of atone- ment is to be found in scripture, refuted, 260 his assertion that the doc- trine of atonement sinks our ideas of the divine mercy, refuted, 265, 266— maintains in opposition to Geddes, that the Mosaic sacrifices were not bor- rowed from the Heathens, but had a divine orij^in, 273, 274 in this he contradicts himstlf, 274, 276 his thet)ry of sacrijice, 276 liis reason for denying, in opposition to accumulated facts, that the notion of expiatory sacrifice had ever obtained amongst the heathens, 303 his private cha- racter and talents, 477, 478 his public conduct censurable, 478,479 does not fairly follow up his own principles, 481— restramed by early ha- bits, 482— his religious opinions less exceptionable as he advanced in life, 274, 57 ' his uncliaritable animadversions on the established clerg-y, 483 affirms that Unitarians never become Deists, 484 is directly con- tradicted by fact, 484, 485 gives such an account of the nature of Acade- mies of the Unitarian description, as proves the progress to infidelity to be almost unavoidable, 481. Quarterly Review — an excellent article contained there'n on the subject of the Missions to India, 76— -its just observations on the nature of Socinian- ism, 438. 3R 5i2Ji INDEX* R Habl/itH-fuU account of their opinions on the subject of the sacrificial Mo7iement, proving that Ihey considered sacrifices not only as generally ex- piatory^ but as strictly vicarious^ 150—159 the notion entertained by some of them of the human origin of sacrifice accounted for, 157. Rational Christian — his philosophic lights, 467 see Unitarians. Rational Dissenters — Unitarians so distinguish themselves from the other classes of non-conformists, 93 see Unitarian. Redemption^ — doctrine of, naturally to be r^j<»of#»rl hy unassisted reason, 17 principle of. rem batted by Sdcinians with peculiar vehemence, 64, 65 in the highest degree necessary to defend it, 18, 64 Arguments relating to it misrepresented by Dr. Priestley, 28, 29, 105, 260 misre- presented by H. Taylor and others, 113—115, ll7 scheme of, held by the Unitarians, 23 held by B. Mordecai, 27 held by Dr. J. Taylor, of Norwich, 110 — 112 ^tke doctrine objected to as implying divine implaca- bility, 28 objection answered, 28 — 29 objected to, for want of con- nexion between the means and the end, 29 — 30 objection answered, ibid. 119 — 121 objected to on the ground of the scripture phrase of our being reconciled to Gody 50, 31, 121, 123 objected to on the ground of the di- vine benevolence, and of the stress laid on this attribute every where through scripture, 31, 126 objection answered, 3', 123 — 127 nature o[' the Redemption fully opened up by Isaiah, 226 — 254 advantageous ef- fects otthe scheme of Redemption upon the mind, 37 the full compre- hension of the principle on which it is founded, impeded by the same diffi- culty which attaches to other part of human knowledge, 121— —see Atont' ment. Richie, (Dr.) — refutes Dr. Sykes's theory of sacrifice^ in his Criticism, on tnodern notions of sacrifice, 278 furnishes an excellent refutation of Dr. J. Taylor'' s scheme of Atononent, 113 particularly recommended on the subject of the origin of sacrifices, 310. 5'rtcr/j(?cc--human, general throughout the ancient world, 67—83—— deemed strictly 'vicarious by the Heathens, 164, 165 Heathen sacrifice a COiTuption of the rite divinely instituted, 210 — 212 -a striking instance of this in the Mystical sacrifices of the Phenicians, 212 — 217 contended that the death of Christ was not a propitiatory sacrifice, 32 answered, 32 — 34, 131 objected that under the Laiu there was no propitiatory sacrifice whatever, 33, 34, 148, 149 objection answered, 34— 35, 181 — 210 the sacrifice of Christ though spoken'ofin laDguage seemingly figurative, intend- ed as a real and efficacious sacrifice, 146, 147 inconsistency of those who hold the death of Christ to have been but figuratively called a sacrifice, 35, o6, 263, 264 that the only true and real sacrifice, tlie sacrifices of the Lav:, being all but figurative of it, 41, 42 Passover proved to be a sacrifice, and tlie nature and meaning of this sacrifice explained, 169 — 175 sense in which the notion of vicarious is to be applied to sacrifices in general, 25, 197 — 198 vicarious i^nport of the sacrifices of the Law, expressed by the ceremony of the imposition of hands, 204, 205 more strongly marked by the ceremony of tlie Scape-Goat, 205, 206 Sacrifice for Sin defined, 35 means of reconciliation by Sacrifice explained, o& not inconsistent with the divine dignity and attributes, 36, 37 Sacrifice of Christ difFisrs from all other sacrifices in one important particular, 37 nature of Christ's sacrifice usually examined in an erroneous method, 39 Supporters of the f.unian invention of sacrifice, 267, 268 Theories of it — by Spencer, 40 — 275 by Author of Scripture account of Sacrifices, 275 by Dr. Pri st- ley, 276 by B. Mordecai, 27^ by Sykes, 40, 276 by Warburton, 40, 280 General heads of argument against all the theories of the huraaa invention of Sacrifices, 40— -only true mode of discovering the origin and nature of the Rite, 41 the rite unnatural in the view of unassisted rea- son, 301 an argument hence in favour of divine institution, 303, 304 the rite universally practised, an argument in favour of divine institution^ 301 — 303 brief view of the Christian sacrifice, 41 Objections against the divine origin of sacrifice examined, 304 — ^10— "^Divine origin interred from Abel's and the early Partriarchal sacrifices, 42, 310, 311 the sa- crifice of Abel an animal sacrifice, 368 — 371 Divine origin and true de- sign of sacrifice inferred from the sacrifice of Abel, 43 — 47 sacrifice of Abel, why accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected, 43 — 46, 371 — 377 prte instituted at the fall, 44, 381 — 384 the animal sacrifice peculiarly sig- nificant, 44 sacrifices before the law, animal and piacular, 45 — 47, 211, 212, 392, 393— -—true import of the early animal sacrifices before and under the law, 211, 212 history of scripture sacrifice shown to be consistent throughout, 47 — 49 the sacrifice of those under the Law, most particu- larly typical and illustrative of that of Christ, 49, 50, 437, 438 sacri- fice of Christ in what sense, and how far, vicarious, 50, 51. Scripture Account of Sacrifices, Author of — his scheme of HedempHon, 120, 121 his singular notion concerning the pollution of the Scape-Goat, &c. 208 refuted, 195 admits that bearing Sin, means bearing its punish- ment, in the case of one's ow?i sin, but not in that of anoMer'ff» 249 -an- swered, 249 — 252 his scheme of the origin and meaning of sacrifice, and the objection to it, 276, 277. Septitagint translation of Isaiah, inferior to that of any other part of the Old Testament, 134,224 the translation of Job also inaccurate, and takes great liberties with the original, 337 collation of the various copies of the Septuagint by Dr. Holmes, 65, 66 Sharp, (Granville) has, in his letter on certain particularities of the Hebrew Syntax, made some excellent remarks on the converted future of the Zfe- br€vi, 329. Smithy (Dr. Adam) argues from the natural sentiments of mankind, in be- half of the reasonableness of intercession and atonement, 124, 125 infected by his connexion with David Hume, 125, 126, 426 his opinion of the pro- cess whereby the use of general signs is acquired, 297 this opinion con- troverted, ibid. Smith, (Elizabeth) — her translation of the book of Job, an extraordinary work, 352, 353 extracts from, and observations on, tliat translation, 352, 354, 355, 356 praise of her by Mrs. Hannah More, 469. Socinians distinguished from Unitarians, 93 — 95 their mode of inter- preting scripture described, 107, 109, 114 their sophistical reasoning* to be most carefully watched, 506. Spencer — his en*or concerning the nature and origin of sacrifice, 268, 269, 275 his wrong interpretation of the i(iiKoB^>iyhich this phrase is used in scripture, 219 — 258 texts in Isaiah liii. fully explana- tory of the doctrine of atonement, 219—226, 252—255 text in 1 Pet. ii. 24. erroneously referred to Isaiah liii. 4. 228, 255 texts announcing the principle of atonement, 254, 255, 258 texts proving the sacrifices of the Laiu to be typical of that of Christ, 41, 42 texts erroneously supposed to support the idea of the hum^ invention of sacrifices, 307—309 text proving Abel's sacrifice to have liad a reference to that of Christ, 43 text in Gen. iv. 7. explained, 45, 384—392 texts evincing the piacnlar virtue of the animal sacrifice, 46, 47 texts referred to by Jwtin Martyr and t'ue ^ipostolical Fathers, 502—508. Tillotson's unjustifiable idea of the origin of the plan of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, 399 confuted, 399—406 his mistaken sup- position of a Religion of Miture, 359—403 his writings recommended by Locke as supplying a model of perspicuity, 399. 7Vn(/a/,— his absurd objection, 41, 42, 267 the use to which it may be applied, 267. INDEX, 526 ToviMon, (Dr.) gives a good account of St. Matthew's peculiar mode of citing- the prophecies, 239. U ^ Unitarians — fjrief view of their scheme, 23 their notion of the suffi- ciency of ihe promulgation of forgiveness on repentance, erroneous, 23 — 15 adopt a principle of reasoning in common with the Deist, 23 are equally unassailable, on the groimd of scripture, with the Deist, 25, 26 their strange explication of texts of scripture, 55--61 and Appendix ubique — mode of reasoning subversive of every possible interpretation of scripture, 61, 62, 107 called by Mr. Hoives, Humanists ,- and by Mr. JJobhouaCf Humanitariang^ 93 favourers of Mahometanism, 85, 86 pre- tend to be exclusively worshippers of one God. 93, 461 their scheme fully explained by Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, but m >st compendiously by the latter, 93, 461, 473, 510, 511 their scheme difficult to describe, why, 461 they disclaim the title of Socinians, 94, 95 go far beyond Soci- nus, 94 — 96 explain away the meaning of scripture, 25 — 27, 81 — 83 represent the sacred writers as erroneous and unphilosophical, 105 — 107 differ little from the Theophilanthrope Deists, 107, 474 cannot form any canon of scripture, why, 108 have lately published a version of the New Testament ; nature of that version, 491—497 in that version admit the substitutive force of the word vTn^, 146 reject humility^ 26, 98 agree with the Stoics in their proud notions of virtue, 109 refer to each other boldly for proofs which have not been given, 2 51- 2,»3, 242, 246, 489r- — said to hold a pure Christianity, 476 said to be persecuted, ibid. said to be a progressive cause, 480 likely to decrease in num- ber, 480, 482 do not all follow up their principles, 481, 482 in one way seem to increase in number, 483 naturally pass to Deism, 480 — 485 how contrive to retain the bible, 485, 486 they alone sound cri- tics, and why, 486, 488— ^—disingenuous in their treatment of ancient au- thorities, 501. Unitarian Version oj" the JVeii Testament — of a latitude which embraces opinions subversive of Christian doctrines, 491— —insidiously professes to found itself on Archbishop Newcnme*s translation, 491 effected by means of the usual apparatus of Unitarian exposition, 491, 492 avows the design of clearing away all the leading doctrines of the gospel, 492 ——is enabled to take the widest liberties of translation by its systematic rejection of verbal criticism, 492 gets rid of the doctrine of the Xnear- nation by rejecting the opening chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 492 — —futile and contradictory grounds on which it attempts to maintain this rejectiun, 492—494 quotes Lardner*s authority in support of the oppo- site of that which he maintains, 495 does this from a gross blunder in confounding the true and vulgar eras of the nativityy 495, 496 falls into another blunder concerning the age and character of Ephrem Syrus, 496 ——gives a most extraordinary and absurd translation of the first chapter of St. John's gospel, 496 — —gives an equally extraordinary and absurd explanation of St. Stephen's address to Christ, 497 the whole of this Tieiu Ferwon judiciously examined and exposed by Mr. Nares, 262, 497. Universals—Xhe various opinions concerning their nature, 289 — 294 Aristotle's views on this subject, just, 290, 291 excellent remark upon this subject, by Mr. Dugald Stewart, 291, 292. Veyaie, (Mr.) — his judicious remarks on the sense In which God is said to forgive men freely ^ 119 his just distinction, on the subject of figura- tive allusion, 116, 117. Fillers — gives, in his Essay on tJie Reform,ation, a dismal account of the ignorance of scripture enforced by the Romish Church, 388, 389 con- 526 ri^DEX. trasts the characters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, 389— wn- victs Hume of falsehoods in his charges against Luther, 434. W Walker f (Mr.) — has given, in his Letter to Mr. Belsham, an excellent re- futation of his reasoning, 490. Warburton, — his strange position that repentance must necessarily enti- tic to forgiveness, 66, 401 his singular theory on the subject of Natural Religion, 400, 401 his well-founded observations on Wesley, 103, 104 ■ his paradoxical position concerning the language of the New Testa- ment, lo8 this well refuted by Dr. Leland, 138 — 140 his idea of the scenical nature of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, 2 IB his theory of Sacrifice^ 40, 280 his objections against the divine institution of sacri- fice considered, 304 — 307 his extravagant notion concerning the book «f Job, 315 his unjustifiable adoption of the opinions of Spencer and JMaitnonidts, 404, 405 his unmerciful laceration of Bolingbroke, 401 characters given of him, 405, 406. Ward's Errata — a meagre abstract of Gregory Martin's ancient refuted work, 389 its recent republication a proof of the low state of scripture criticism in the Romish Church, ibid specimen of its miserable cavils against the Protestant translations of the Bible, 389, 390 answered by Dr. Ryan and Mr. Grier, 390 the danger to which these gentlemen are exposed by their attempts to answer it, ibid. fVatsorif (B- of Landaff) — his judicious observation on the position that the docir'ine of Monemefit is inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercy, 265 his just expression of indignation against the presumption of op- posing a fancied philosophy to apostolic authority, 512. Wesley — his fi)llowers hold opinions of perfection, inconsistent with Chris- fian humility, 98 speak contemptuously of the Clergy of the Establish- ed Church, 98 not remarkable for the justness and accuracy of their reasonings, 99 their numbers rapidly increasing, and the reason why, ibid. danger to the establishment from the injudicious countenance given to them by some of its members, 99, 100 change of the Liturgy and Jlrticles, and rejection of the Cateckism, two of the Creeds, and many of the Psalms, by Mr. Wesley, 100, 101 the Jlrticies rejected by hira inconsistent with his favourite doctrine of perfection, and the rejection de- rogatory to the dignity of Christ, 100, l02, 103 'extravagant dogmas maintained by him and his followers, 100 proofs of this in the writings of Mr. Wesley, 102 — 104- his latittidinarian principles respecting doc- trines, 10 J — 104 mischie^us consequences to true rehgion, 104. Wilherforce, (Mr.) — his Practical View, a book of high value, 63, 96 defended against Dr. Parr, 455 his eloquent description of the corruption of man*s natural state, 96, 97 describes Unitarianism as a half way house to infidelity, 474. WilliaTns — in his Free Inquiry, asserts that there are no certain references to the first two chapters of St. Matthew's gospel, till the days ofCelstis, 499. this assertion refuted, 499, 500 his strange assertion concerning the silence of the apostolical fathers on those chapters fullj^ examined and con- futed, 500 — 507 this writer exhibits a striking specimen of the disinge^ nuousness of Unitarian critics, 501. INDEX OF TEXTS, EXPLAINED OR REFEEEED TO. Genesis. Page. Genesis. Tagf. 1. 3 486 XV. 2, 7,8 321 -29 282. 284 — 9 279 285, 286 - 10, 18 279 287, 300 — 17 279, 311 — 30 282, 285 xvii. 27 217 286, 287 xviii. 20 285 ii. 9 300 xix. 3 284 — 16—18 300 XX. 7 89 — 19 289, 295 — 9 285 300 xxii. 2 215, 216 — 20 289 XXI ii. 6 216 -22, 23 300 xxiv. 3 321 iii. 8 300, 333 XXV. 31- -34 368 355, 356 xxvi. 24 89 — 9 300, 382 xxviii. 13, 16 321 — 10 300, 356 32 89 — u 300 xxix. 1 89 — 12 300, 333 xxxii. 9 321 255 20 377 — 14-20 300 xxxiii. 19 318, 319 — 21 300, 382 xxxvii, 35 346 — 22 300 xliii. 11, 15 377 IV. 3 306, 371 33 368 372, 381 xlv. 18 341 — 4 269, 311, 368 373, 374 B~» V Exodus. — 5 269 i. 11 236 — 6 386 iii. 2,4 270 - 7 45 v. 2 193 370, 384 vi. 3 2-0, 321 386 — 9 223 389, 391 X. 17 247 391 — 25 392, 393 - 20 281 xii. 5 207 vi. 4, 7,11 333 — 8, 21 170 — 14 183 — 11 176 vii. 2 288, 289 — 12 176 — 11 342 - 13 176, 177 — 21 $84 179 viii. 20 251, 288 — 19 86 — 21 310 — 23 176, 177 ix. 3 282, 286 179 — 4 285 - 27 169, 171 xiv. 5 347 171— r 6 — 22 321 177—180 528 INDEX OP TEXTS- Exodus, Page. 1 Leviticus Pagi. xii. 29 349 V. 11 143 XV. 25, 26 309 — 13, 16 187 xvi. 8 308 — 17 190 13 340 — 18 187, 190 xviii. 11 193 vi. 1, 2 194 12 392, 393 — 2- -7 34 XX. 7 200 — 3 200 xxi. 2—6 320 — 7 187 14 193 — 18 208 xxii. 26 383 - 23, 26 245 xxiii 7 225 — 25 384 18 171 vii. 2 143 xxiv. 8 279 — 8 382 xxviii. 38 2^0, 242 ix. 22 242 2-2 — 24 311 xxix. 14 143 384, 385 X. 17 240, 242 24.3, 245 XXX. 9 376 445 10 384 xi. 44- -46 309 12,14,16 129 xiv 20, 26,7 3o5 187 xxxii. 21 385 31, 30 186 385 xvi. 5 206 438 32 186 6 207 xxxiv. 6 241 — r. 9 4.i8 7 241, 243 247 10 206 438 9 243 — 11 207 25 169, 171 15- -28 202 30 383 16, 17 20 184 438 Leviticus. 21 204, 206 i. 3 210 243 — 4 55, 171 172, 208 22 206, 245 242, 243 — 4—9 172 26 206 — 5 171 xvii. 11 46, 200 ii. 1 274, 376 244 377 xix. 20 35 — 6 ^75y 376 22 187 — 13 279, 280 XX. 19 256 iii. 2—5 172 xxii. 21 207 iv. 2 190, 193 xxiv. 14, 15 209 — 3 202 16 200 384 xxvi. 18, 23,28 2.2 — 3—12 202 39 192 — 6 318 — 13, 14 190 . — 13-22 202 JSTwmbers. — 21 384, 385 ix. 5, ^.7 170 — 23 190 — 13 170. 171. — 24 172 xi. 31 339, 340 384, 385 — 32 340 — 28 190 — 33 33.5, :^SB — 29 ' 384 339, 340 V. 2, 3 190. — 34 333, 338 — 4 195, 200 339 — 8 143 xiv. 18 241, 247 — 9 143 19 241 385 33 248,249, 250 — 10 187 355, 256, 257 INDEX OF TEXTS. 529 J^umben. Page. 2 Samuel. Page. XV. 22 191 xix. 22 322 24 190 xxiv. 16 333, 359 24—28 25, 2f), 191 187 28 1 Kings. 27 193 V. 4 322 30 191, 193 viii. 29 170 31 193 32 225 xvi. 46,47,48 186 X. 25 377 xviii 1 242 xi. 14,23,25 322 8 244 xii. 11, 14 222 12 Q70 16 384 xix. 2 207 xviii. 29, 36 376 xxii. 22 322 38 311 xxiv. 2 242 xxii. 19-23 314 XXV. 11, 13 xxxui. 1 186 313 • 2 Kings. iii, 20 576 - vii. 9 248 viii. 8, 9 377 Deuteronomy. xxiv. 12 333 i. 42, 43 193 XXV. 27 333 iii. 11 347 .. vii. 7 223 1 Chronicles. xi. 2 222 xxi. 15 333, 359 xii. 5,6,11 14 •1 170 26 311 xiv. 3 388 2 Chronicles. xvi. 2 169, 170 ii. 2, 18* 232 4 170, 171 vi. 23 225 5,6 170, 171 vii. 1 311 xvii. 12, 13 193 16 170 xviii. 10 212 viii. 1 170 22 193 ix. 24 377 xxi. 18 222 X. 11, 14 222 xxii. 18 222 xxix. 23 207 xxiv. 1 263 XXX. 15, 16 171 XXV. 1 225 xxxii. 23 377 xxvii. 21 239 xxxiv. 13 232 xxviii. 26 245, 251 XXXV. 5, 11 6, 1( ^^ 170, 171 Joshua. ii. 19 "■■"" 209 Ezra. xxiv. 32 318 ix. 4, 5 376 Judges. JVehem,iah , vi. 18 376 iv. 45 184 — 21 XV. 4 311 356 Esther. . vii. 8 341 1 Samuel. viii. 1, 7 341 ii. 17 376 ix. 25 209 XV. 22 308 xxiii. 26 176 Job. xxix. 4 122 i. 4 i. 5 126 46, 126 392 2 Samuel. i. 16 209 ii. 9 337 ^fviii. 33 145 iii. 19 320 3 S ^30 INDEX OF TEXTS. Job. Page. Job. Page. V. 16 325 xlii. 12 365 vii. 9 viii 10 543 325 Psalms. X. 11 383 vi. 1 222 — i& 356 vii. 16 209 xi. 8 343 xiv. 13 230 xii. 12 315 xvi. 10 346 — 17 333 XX. 3 311 xiv. 13 343 XXV. 7 177 XV. 10 314, 315 XXX. 4 346 — 30 323 7 236 xvi. 9 |230 xxxii. 1 6 184 243 ' xvii. 13, 16 343 10 2jO • ^^3 345 xxxiii. 3 346 xviii. 13 369 xxxviii. 1 222 xix. 4 337 17 230 20, 26 383 xxxix. 11 222 23- -29 331 xl 6 307 XX. 9 343 — 7 143 — 20 333,338 1. 5, 16 279 — 22 345 — 8, 9,13 507 xxi. 13 343 li. 16 307 xxiv. 19 343 Ixix. 29 230 xxvi. 5 333, 341 Ixxi. 13 322 347, 348 Ixxii. 10 377 xxviii. 8 356, 357 Ixxxi. 16 370 xxix. 8 314 Ixxxii. 3 225 XXX. 1 314 Ixxxv. 2 184 29 357 Ixxxvi, 15 241 xxxi. 28 320 Ixxxviii. 30 339 33 333, 355 Ixxxix. 50 256 34 356 xci. 13 257 xxxii. 6 314, 318 xciv. 17 346 xxxiii. 19 231 ciii. 3 233 23 333, 359 civ. 4 270 xxxiv. 17— -19 353 cv. 40 240 17- •20 352 cix. 20, 29 322 . 18 353 cxviii. 18 222 19 353, 354 cxlvii. 14 370 -' 20 333, 346 354 Prsverbs. — 20- •28 353 iii. 11 223 23, 24 354 X. 18 348 26 345 xiii. 24 222 37 345 xiv. 13 230 xxxvi. 8—12 333 XV. 8 307 18 345 xvii. 15 225 28 337 xix. 18 222 xxxvii. 13 222 XX 4 223 xxxviiL 1 331 xxi. 16 5.8 xxxix. 34 337 xxii. 15 222 xl. 1- 14 365 xxvi 13 357 xli. 6, 7 365 xxvii. 20 348 — 14 320 XXX. 16 348 xUi. 5 331 - — 29 387 — 7. 8 31, 126 ' 9 392 Ecclesiastes. T- 10 149 i. 18 Kr.^ •^. 11 ' 319, 365 ii. 18 230 INDEX OP TEXTS, 531 laaiah. Page. Jeremiah ^age. i. 11, 12 307 ii. 19. 30 222 ii. 9 355 V. 3 222 V. 14 343, 348 vii. 22 307, 308 — 23 225 — 23 308 vii. 14 258 X. 24 122 ix. 6 56 XXIV. 2 369 X. 27 232 XXX 11, 14 222 xiv. 9 342, 343 15 230 345 xxxi. 18 222 - 11, 15 343 29 249 xxiii. 16 387 . 30 249 xxvi. 14 347 xlvi. 28 222 16 222 Ii. 6 248 xxviii. 4 369 — 9 242 7 191 ._ 15, 18 343 Lamentations. xxxi. 5 177, 178 iv. 21 316 180, 181 V. 7 256 xxxiii. 24 239 232 XXXV. 5 237 248 xxxviii. 10, 18 343 249 xl. 2 248 256 xlvi 4 231, 232 i. 19i 20, 21 242 xKx. 23 322 iii. 14 242 1 8 225 iv. 4, 5 240 lii. 6 342 v. 15 222 liii. 3 231 X. 16 242 — 4 202, 220 xiv. 14 331 221, 227 xviii. 2 249, 250 242 240 253, 255 13 240 257 19, 20 248 liii. 5 220, 221 249, 256 224 19- 23 200 — 5- ^8 13t XX. 15, 23 242 — 5—10 221 xxiii. 48 222 — 6 220 xxxii. 30 256 222 xxxiii. 32 387 — 7 250 xliv. 29 130 123 xiv. 23 384 29'? — 8 223 Daniel. — 10 32, 132 ii. 35 242 133, 135 xii. 3 226 140, 143 22'J, 223 Hosea. — 11 221* 224 225 iv. 8 143 384 228, 231 — 15 192 240, 247 V. 14 357 248, 256 vi. 6 303 257 vii. 12 222 -.-12 219, 220 X. 13 It 226, 228 xiii. 7 240, 243 257 ^^ Joel. Ivii. 9 343 ii. 13 308 Ix. 16 Ixv. 14 322 229 Amos. ixvi 3 307 ▼.21, 22 307 532^ INDEX OF TEXTS. Micak. Page. Matthew* Page. V. 2 508, 509 X. 16 506 -32, 33 506 ^^"01^111. xi. 4 237 'in. 11 223 — 10 xii. 33 — 41 389 506 378 Habakkuk. ii. 5 348 xiii. 5- -7,20 -} - n J. 506 Zechariah' 31, 32 5 ii. 13 314 — 15 239 iii. 1 314 XV. 9 268 V. 7 242 xvi. 24 505 xii. 3 236 xviii. 3 , 4 506 xiv. 19 248 6 505 19, 35 20 506 192 Malachi. i. 13, 14 376 xix. 12 506 — 14 207 XX. 12 234 ii. 7 389 — 16 505 iii. 1 389 -28 131, 140 189, 258 258 Judith. V. 19, 20 192 xxii. 43, 44 505 xxiii. 6 506 Wisdom. xxiv. 22 505 iii. 5 222 XXV. 5, 6, 10 505 xvii. 8 233 xxvi. 24 26 28 505 174, 184 47, 131 Ecclesiastictts. xvii. 5 300 31 41 254, 258 505 506 1 Maccabees. xiii. 39 192 xxviii. 13 Mark. 506 ^rt^Mew. i. 19 263 iv. 12 239 — 21 258 V. 26 232 501 vii. 7 310 — 23 500, 501 ix. 49 279 ii. 2, 11, 12 508 — 50 506 — 6, 18, 475 X. 46 131 • iii. 15 506 — 46 189 V. 3, 7, 10] 506 xii. 26 271 44 xiv. 13 235 — 23 31 — 22 171 — 24 31, 122 . — 28 506 LtiJte. — 42 505, 506 i. 31 503 vi. 12—15 506 — 77 238 — 25 378 iii. 23 493 vii. 1, 2 505, 5QS vi. 30 505 — 12 505 — 36, 37, 38 505 viii. 17 227 vii. 14 235 230, 233 — 27 389 239 xiii. 24, 25 506 253 xiv. 27 234 ix. 2 238, 239 506 240 xvi. 18 506 ix. 13 505 xvii. 2 505 — 42 $QS xviii. 12 373 INDEX OP TEXTS» ^3^ Jahn Page. Romant, Page, i. 1 444 ii. 20 505 — 1- -14 58 444 iii. 24 — 25 131 130, 13t — 10 58 • 261, -29 32, 129. 258 128 174, — 26 iv. 3 127 261, 263 505 iii. 8 506 — 25 131,254 -13, 31 54 439 — 16 29 V. 6 254 V. 14 239 — 6,10 131 — 30 263 — 8 145 vi. 27 308 — 9 124 — 38 54 — 10 122, 123 - 62 54 124 vii. 24 263 — 11 32, 388 Vili. 29 506 — 16 192 -~S7, 58 59, 60 505 X. 9 506 vi. 4 55 xi. 50 125, 258 viii. 3 141 - 51, 52 258 11 506 xii. 6 235 27 508 — 49 506 32 32, 105 xiii. 3 54 33 225 xiv. 6 506 34 494, 509 XV. 26 446 38, 39 506 xvi. 7, 8,13 446 ix. 4 505, 506 — 11 506 — 5 SOS — 12 234, 261 236 - 10, X. 3 11,12 SOS 191 — 28 54, 506 — 17 378 xvii. 5 54 xi. 3 508 xix. 36 174 — 15 123, 141 XX. 15 235, 236 — 29 506 • — 36 505 Jlcts. xii. 17 506 ii. 24 506 xiii. 9, 10 506 id. 17 191 xiv. 1, 3 505 iv. 12 503 — 10, 12 506 V. 41 506 XV. 1 234 vii. 15, 16 316 505 — 56 497 — 7 506 — 60 497 — 8 506 viii. 32 128, 131 — 33 131 1 Corinthians. — 35 226 i. 10 506 X. 41 506 — 12 505 -42 505 - 18, 19,20 506 — 43 503 -23, 24 17 xiii. 22 505 iii. 16 505, 506 32, 33 379 — 17 506 XV. 10 434 — 19 331 XX. 28 497 iv. 4 506 — 35 505 V. 7 131, 174 XXV. 24 509 — 11 vi. 2 506 506 506 Romam i. 29- -32 24 505 - 9, vii. 11 10 506 123, 204 ii. 5 263 506 534 INDEX OV TEXTS. 1 Corinthians. Page. Ephesians. Page. vii. 15 506 iv. 18 191 X. 24 505 — 26 506 xi. 20 505 V. 2 32,254 — 26 47 506 .. C 12, 15,7 ^"»- 1 22:24! 505 — 10 — 16, 17 254 SOS xlii. 4 505 — 25, 29 506 7 232 — 13, 14, 16, 17 506 XV. 3 131, 254 — — 8 506 Philippians, — 20 505 i. 10 505 — 47 54 — 21 ii. 3 — 5 506 506 505, 506 2 Corinthians. ill 18 505 — 6, 7, 8 54, 505 iv. 14 506 — 10, 11, 16 506 V. 14, 15 506 iv. 5 505 — 17 505 — 18 506 18 123. 141 V. 19 122, 123, Colossians. 141 i. 7 506 . — 20 122, 123 — 10 505 — 21 131, lo2. — 14 131 157, 138, — 15, 16 54, 509 141, 143, — 16 56,57 254 58 vi. 7 506 — 17 56 vii. 10 506 — 20, 21 123 viii. 5 505 — 28 506 — 21 506 ii. 22, 23 268 X. 17, 18 xi. 24, 25 505 505 1 'thessalonians. xii. 2,4 314 V. 13 506 xiii. 4 439 — 17 — 18, 23 — 22 506 505 506 Galatians. i. 1 — 4 'iOG OKJVf 146 2 Thessalonians. 505 i. 5 263 iii. 10 194,; 200 iii. 15 506 — 13 — 24 2'S4. 49 1 Timothy. — 27 506 i. 13 191 iv. 26 506 ii. 1,2 506 V. 4 506 — 6 131, 140 — 10 234 198, 254 vi. 2 234 — 8 505 — 7 506 — 16 iii. 13 309 505 Ephesians. V. 4 505 i. 7 131 vi. 4 434 ii. 2 505 - 7,10 506 — 8,9 — 16 506 123 2 Timothy. — 22 506 X. 9 505 iii. 9 56, 57 1 — 10 505 509 — 14 506 iv. 3 506 — 16, 18 506 — 4.5 505, 506 1 ii. 4 506 _ 6 505 1 — 9 232 INDEX OF TEXTS. 535 2 Timothy. Page. ffebreivs. Page. ii. 11, 12 506 xi. 5,7,8 379 iv. 8 263 — 13 380 — 10 506 — 16 381 — 18 506 — 21 389 — 31—39 xii. 1,2,6,9 10,11 505 '\ 505 .1 Titus. ii. 3 506 — 14 254 — 17 506 iii. 1 505 — 24 46, 47, 17.-, 395 506 Philemon. xiii. 9 20 506 — 11 14 > — 20, 21 51 ffebreivs. l 2 54 James. 509 I 5 505, 506 - 3 54, 131 - 6,7,8 505 505 ii. 7 506 - 4,5 505 — 10 200 — 7 271, 272 — 21, 23 505 — 13 505 iii. 13 505 ii. 17 131, 142 — 15, 17 506 iii. 2 505 iv. 2 506 — 5 505 — 3,4 505, 506. iv. 12 505, 506 — 6 505 — 13 506 - 7,12 506 vi. 18 505 V. 1,2,4 506 vii. 13, 14, 17 168 — 11 331 — 25 495 — 15 239 — 26 509 — — 27 32 1 Peter. IX. 1 394 i. 6,7,8,1 3 506 — 7 192, 193 — 14 191 — 9 196, 197 — 17 505 394 — 18, 19 29, 129 — 9—14 42 131 — 12, 13, 14-) — 20 29 22, 23, ^ 394 — 21 506 24, 26 3 ii. 5 505 — 12—28 131 — 11,12,17,22 506 — 14 197 — 24 227, 237 - 22 39,46 239, 252, 373, 394 255, 257, — 26, 28 143 506 — 28 254, 258 iii. 9,14 506 X. 1 34,42 — 15 506 196 — 17 232 394 — 18 254 — 10, 14, 18 131 iv. 5,7 506 — 12 42 — 8 505 — 25 505 v. 5 505, 506 — 26 123, 193 — 7 506 — 27, 30, 31 123 _ -28 506 2 Peter. — 29 395, 506 i. 3 55 xi. 3 55 — 21 106 — 4 43, 268 ii. 4,5,7,8 305 310, 371, — 5,6,7,9 505 ^73y 377, — 15, 20 506 378 iii. 4, 10 505 536 INDEX OP TEXTS. IJohn. Page, 3 John. PflT^C. i. 2 506 2 506 a. 2 32 130 245 3, 4^ Jude. 506 ■ — 7 506 3 505 — 27 iv. 3 506 506 6, 14, 21,24 ^^}305 -r- 6 506 .»- ...ii-i — 10 29, 32 i?e«c/afio?j». 130, 131, iv. 1, 2 314 142 V. 9 129 V. 6 506 — 9—12 131 Yiii. 8 29, 44 2 John. 131 4 606 Tfix. 2 263 537 Lond. 1683 Do. 1604 Ludg. 1725 . Lond. 1690 Do. 1770, &c. Do. 1806—1811 Francof. 1661 Winch. 1785 Lond. 1739 Lond. 1792 Dublin. 1800 Lond. 1770 Do. 1789 The editions of such books as have been quoted by a reference to pa- ges, or appropriate marksy throughout the preceding nork, are here subjoined. Abarban. Exord. Comm. in Levit De Viel. Acosta. History of East and West Indies. Alberti Observationes Philologicae. . . . Alllx's Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church. Archseologia. ..... Asiatic Researches. ..... Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. Balguy*s Essay on Redemption. .... Banier's Mythology, Sic. of the Ancients. Bai-bauld's (Mrs.) Remarks on Mr. Wakefield's Inquiry. Barret's Inquiry into the origin of the Constellations. Barrington's Miscellanea Sacra. .... Batt on the Message from J. the Bapt. Bayle's Dictionary. . Do. 1734 Beattie's Essay on the Nature of Truth. . . Beausob. and L'Enf New Version of St. Matth. Belsham's Calm Enquiry Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind. Letters upon Arianism, &c. Review of Wilberforce's Treatise. Ben Mordecai's Apology by H. Taylor. Berkeley's Works. . . . . . Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric. Bocharti Opera Omnia. .... Bolingbroke's Philosophical Works. . Works Boyle Lectures. .... Brissonius de Reglo Pers. Principatu. Broughton's Dictionary of all Religions. Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Pliilos. Bryant's Observations relating to ancient hist. Philo Judeus. ' . Dublin. 1773 Camb. 1790 Lond. 1811 Do. 1801 Do. 1808 Do. Do. . Dub. . Do Lugd. Batav. 1712 Lond. 1754 Do. 1754 Do. Argent. Lond. . Lips, . Camb. 1767 .Do. 1797 Buchanan's Memoir on an Ecclesiastical Establishment in India. Lon. 1798 1784 1784 1789 1739 1710 1742 1766 1805 1811 1685 1798 1662 1680 1712 — — Christian Researches m Asia. . . Camb. Burnet's Life of Bedel. .... Lond. Butler's Analogy of Religion, &c. . . Do, Buxlorfii Dissertationes Philol. Theolog. . . Basil. Synagoga Judaica. .... Do. Caesar. Opera. ..... Lond. Calixti Scholac Prophetic^, ab Ernesto. . . Quedlinb. 1713 Campbell's Four Gospels, &c. ... A herd. 1803 Capelii Critica Sacra. .... Paris. 1650 Cliapellow's Commentary on Job. . . Camb. 1752 Cicero. ...... Pairisis, 1684 Clarke's Works. ..... Lond. 1738 Clavigero's History of Mexico, . . , Do. 1737 Clemens Romanus (WoUon) . . . Cant. 1718 Cloppenburg. Sacrif. I'atriarch. Schola. . . . Ludg. 1637 Cosiard's Two Dissert, on Kesitah and Hermes. Oxf 1750 Coventry's Philemon to Hydaspes. . . . liOn. 1753 Crellius — Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorura. . . Irenop. 1656 Cudworih's Intellectwal System. ... . Lond. 1743 Treatise concerning eternal and Immutable Morality Do. 1731 Cumberland's Sanchoniutho. .... Do. 1720 Cyrill. Alexand. contra. Julian. , Lips. 1696 Dathii Opuscula. , Do. 1796 H T 538 Dawson's Doctrine of Phil. Necessity invalidated De Dieu (Ludov.) Animadversiones in Vet. Test. Delaney's Rev. examined with candour. De R5)ssi Varise Lect. Vet. Test. D'Herbelot, Bibliotheque Orientale. Dodson's new translation of Isaiah. Letter to Dr Sturges. Edwards's Survey of the methods of Religion. ElUs's Knowledge of divine things, &c. Elrington's Donnellan Lecture Sermons. Eisner. Observationes Sacrae. Ennius. . . . , . Episcopii Opera Theologica. Ernesti Institutio Interpr. N. T. Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Church History. Eusebii Demonstratio Evangelica. Preparatio Evangelica. Evanson's Dissonance of the Evangelists. Farmer's Inquiry ioto the Temptation. Fellowes's Guide to Immortality. Picture of Christian Philosophy. — — Religion without Cant. Fortuita Sacra. . . , Geddes's Critical Remarks. Gillies's Aristotle's Ethics and Politics. Glsborne's Principles of Moral Philosophy. Glassii Philologia Sacra. Goguei's Origin of Laws, &c. Graves's Lectures on the four last books of the Pentateuch. Gray's Key to the Old Testament. Gregory's Lowth's Lee ures. Grey. Liber Jobi a Schult. Grotii Opera. .... Gussetii Comment. Linguse Ebraicsc, . Haley's Methodism Inspected. Halhed's Code of Gentoo Laws. HaJlet's Notes and Discourses. Harris's (Comment, on the 53d ch. of Isaiah. Harris's Hermes. .... Heath's Essay towards a Version of Job. Heidegger, Hist. Patriarch. Sacr. Heliodori -<£thiopica. , , He>'s Lectures in Divinity. Hobbes's Leviathan. Hodge's Elihu. .... Hodii de Versionibus Graecis, Etc. » Holmes's Four Tracts. , Horsley's Hosea. Hottingeri Smegma Orientale. Howes's Critical Observations — (Number 1.) Lond. . 1803 Ludg. Bat. 1648 . Dublin. 1732 Parnijc. 1784 Maestr . 1776 Lond. 1790 Do. 1791 . Do. 1699 Do. 1743 . Dub. 1796 Traj. ad Uhen. 1720 cd Hess. 1707 Lond. 1678 Lips. 1792 Edinb. 1790 Colon. 1688 Do. 1688 Ipswich. 1792 Lond. 1761 Do. 1804 Do. 1803 Do. 1808 Rotterod. 1726 Lond. 1800 Do. 1804 Do. 1790 a Dathio. Lips. 1776 Edinb. 1775 ateuch. Dublin- 1807 Dublin. 1792 Lond. 1787 Do. 1742 Basil- 1732 . Amstel. 1702 Dublin. 1803 and 1805 Lond. 1776 Do. 1729 Lond. 1735 Dublin. 1773 Lond. 1756 Amstel. 1667 Francof. 1631 Cambr. 1796 Lond. 1651 Dublin. 1757 Oxon. 1705 Oxford. 1788 Lond. 180 t Heidelb. 1658 Lond. 1776 N. B. The remaining Numbers of the 4 volumes published at inter- vals through a period of about 14 years. Huetii Demonstratio Evangelica — . . Francof. 1722 Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. , Lond. 1779 ■ Essays and Treatises. . . . Dub. 1779 History of England. .... Montrose. 1796 Hyde Historia Relig. Veterum Persarum. . Oxon. 1760 JabloHski Pantheon Egypt. , . ,. Francof. 1750 Jennings's Jewish Antiquities. . . . Lond, 1766 539 Jones, (Jercm.) on the Canon of the N. T. Jornandes De Reb. Getic. Cassiodori Opera. Jortin's Remarks on Eccles. History. Josephus. Opera. Translated by L'Estrange. Juliana Opera, CyrilL Justini Martyris Apolog. duae. Kennicot's Remarks on Select Passages. State of the Hebrew Text. .— — i— Two Dissertations. Kidder's Commentary on the 5 books of Moses. Krebsii Observationes e Flav. Josepho. Laplace. Exposition du Systeme du Monde. Traite de Mecanique Celeste. Lardner*s Works, by Kippis. Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. Laurence on the Logos. Law's Theory of Religion. Layman's Letters to Mr. Wilberforce. Le Clerc, Nov. Test. Leiand*s Christian Revelation. Leslie's Theological Works. Letters from a late Eminent Prelate. Lightfoot's Works. . , Lindsey's Apology. Lloyd's Christian Theology. Loccenii Antiq. Sueo. Goth. Historia Rerura Suecic. Locke's Works. Lowth. De Sacra Poesi Hebr. Letter to Warburton. — — — . Translation of Isaiah. Maimonides De Cultu Divino. Moreh Nevochim, Buxtorf, De Pocnitentia. Clavering. — — — De Sacrificiis De Viel. Mallet's Northern Antiquities. ^altby*3 Illustrations of the Christ. Religion. Marsh's Course of Lectures, part ii. Marshami Canon Chronicus. , Martlnli Sinic. Hist. Mason's Works of Gray. Matirice's Indian Antiquities. Mede's Works. .... Memoirs of Lord Bolingbroke. Meuschen. Nov. Testara. ex. Talmude. Michaelis (J D.) Grammatica Syriaca. Introduction to the N. T. (Marsh. Ed •— — Notae et Epimetra. Mickle's (Camoens) Lusiad. Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article. Mirabaud Systeme de la Nature. Montucla. Histoire des Mathematiques. More's (Hannah) Calebs. Hints for a young Princess. r- Works. .... Morgan's Moral Philosopher. Morini Exercit. De Lingu4 Primaeva. Mosheim's Eccles. History. Nares's Bampton Lecture Sermons. ■% Remarks on the Version of the N- T. by the Do. 172€r Aurel. 1622 Lond. 1773 ed. Hudson. Oxon. 1720 Lond. 1702 Lips. 1696 Lond. 1722 Oxf. 1737 Do. 1753 Do. 1747 Lond. 1694 Lips. 1575 Paris. 1798 Do. 1798 Lond. 1788 . Edinb. 1793 Oxf 1808 . Camb. 1774 Lond. 1799 Francof. 1714 Do. 1764 Do. 1721 Do. 1809 Do. 1684 Dublin. 1775 Lond. 1804 Holm. 1647 Francof. 1676 Lond. 1768 Oxon. 1753 Lond. 1766 Perth. 1793 Parisiis. 1671 Basil. 1629 Oxon. 1705 Lond. 1683 Do. 1770 Cambr. 1803 Do. 1810 Franeq. 1696 Amstel. 1659 Lond. 1807 Do. 1794 Do. 1672 Do. 1752 Lips. 1736 Halx. 1784 Camb. 1793 Oxon. 1763 Dublin. 1791 Lond. 1808 Do. 1781 Paris. 1758 Lond. 1809 Do. 1805 Dublin. 1803 Lond. 1737 Ultraject 1694 Lond 1765 Oxf. 1795 Unitarians. Lond. liJl9 540 Newcome*s (A.Bish.) Historical View of the English Biblical Translations ..... Dublin. Ilr92 Newton's Chronolog-y. .... Lond. 17 IS Nichols's Cijnference with a Theist. . . Do. 1723 Noldii Concordantise Partic. Ebr. . . . lenae. 1734 Nott's Bampton Lecture. .... Oxf 1803 Grford's (Lord) Works. .... Lond. 1798 Orig'en against Celsus (by Bellamy) . Do. Orme'sHistory of Indostan. .... Do. 1803 Oiitram De Sacrificiis. .... Amstel. 1688 Owen's Modes of Quotation. .... Lond. 1789 Palairet Observat Philolog-ico-Criticse. . . Lugd. 1752 Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy. . Dublin. 1793 Parr's Spital Sermon. . . . . Lond. 1804 Patrum Apostolic. Opera, cura Ric Russell. . . Lond. 1746 Pauw Recherch. Philos. sur les Americ. . . Berl. 1768 Pearce's (Bishop) Comm. and other Writings. . Lond. 1777 Pearson on the Creed. . . . . Do. 1715 Pearson's Critical Essay on the ixth book of the Div. Leg. Camb. 1808 Pierce's Paraphrase. .... Lond. 1733 Percival's Father's Instructions, Part 3d. . . Do. 1800 Peters's Critical Dissert, on Job. . . . Do. 1754 Phavorini Lexicon. ..... Basil. 1538 Pliilonis Opera. ..... Parisiis. 1640 Photii Bibliotheca, ..... Rothom. 1653 Pilkingion's Remarks, &c. ... Camb 1759 Platonis Opera. . . . . . Francof. 1602 Plauti Opera, (Lambini) .... Par-is. 1577 Plutarchi Opera. .... Francof 1620 Pocock's Theological Works. . . . Lond. 1740 Porphyrius De Abstinentia . . . . Lugd. 162S Powell's Discourses on various subjects. . . Lond. 1776 Pretyman's Elements of Christ. Theology. . . Do. 1800 Price's Four Dissertations. . , - . Do. 1768 Review of Morals, .... Do. 1769 Priestley's History of Corruptions, &c. . . Birmlng. 1782 Notes on Scripture. . . Northumb. 1803 Protestant Apo'iogy for the U. C Church. . • DubUn. 1809. Randolph's Sermons in Advent. Book of Job translated by Miss Smith. Raid's Essays on the Intellect. Powers Remarks on Hume's Essay on the Nat. Hist, of Religion. Rennet's Discourses on various subjects. Richardson's Dissert, on the Language of Eastern Nations. Richie's Criticism on modern notions of Sacrifice Peculiar Doct. of Revelation. Sale's Koran. .... Schnurrer. Dissert. Philolog. Criticae. Scholar Armed. .... Schultens. Liber Jobi. Origines Hebrseae. Scripture Account of Sacrifices (Portal.) Sejiecae Opera. . . . . . Shaw's Travels in Barbary and the Levant. Sherlock's Use of Prophecy. ShucHord's Connexion of Sacr. and Prof History. Simon. Critique De la Biblioth. et Des Proleg. de Dupin, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. Socini Opera, (Biblioth. Fratr. Polon.) Spanhemii Historia Jobi. . . . . Speerman's Letters on the Septuagint. Spencer De Legibus Hebr. . . . . Lond. 1801 Bath. 1810 DubUn. 1786 Do. 1777 Do 1801 Oxf 1770 Lond. 1761 Warringt. 1766 Bath 1795 Gotha. 1790 Lond 1795 Lugd. Batav. 1737 Francof 1724 Lund. 1755 Amstel. 1672 Oxf 1738 Lond. 1749 Lond. 174S Paris 17S0 Lond. 1759 Irenop. 1656 Lugd. 1672 Edinb. 17591 Cantab. 1727 511 Spencer's Discourse on Prodigies. Stebiyrnj^*s Examination of Warburton. Stewart's (Du.^ald) Eiem. ot the Philos. of the Human Mind. Stillingfleet's, Orig-ines Sacrx. Sermons on Several Occasions. Stock's Isaiah. .... Job. ..... Strabo. ..... Stuart's View of Society in Europe Siiidae Hlstorica. .... Sykes's Essay on Sacrifices. ■ Essay on the Truth of the Christian Religion. Scripture Doctrine of Redemption. Taciti Opera, ed. Brotier. Theological Repository — vol. 1, 2, 3. Thesaurus Temp. Jos. Scallg. Animadv. Tindal's Christ, as Old as the Creation. Tlllotson's Works. Townson's Discourses on the Gospels. Van Mildert's Boyle Lecture Sermons. rUnitarian] Version of the New Testament. Universal History (Ancient) . '. Velthusen, &c. Comment. Theologicx. Veysie's Bampt. Lecture. Viller's Essay on the Reformation (Mills) Vitringe Comment, in Jesaiam. Volney's Ruins. ..... Vossius (Ger. J.) De Theolog. Gentil. et Idololat. Warburton's Divine Legation. -Principles of Natural and Revealed Rel: Walker's Letter to Belsham. Ward's Errata of the Prot. Bible. Watson's (B. of Landaif) Two Apologies, &c. . Wesley, Dissertationes in Librum Jobi. Wesley's (John) Sunday Service of the Methodists. Whitaker's Origin of Arianism. White's Oommentary on Isaiah. Wilberforce's Practical View. Williams's Free Inquiry into the 1st and 2d. chapters of St. Matthew. Wilson's Illustration of the Method of explaining the — , New Testament. Winder's History of Knowledge. Windet De vita functorura statu. Witsii Egyptiaca. Miscellanea Sacra. Wollaston's Religion of Nature Young's Centaur not Fabulous. Lond. 1665 Do 1774 Do 1792 Do. 1724 - Do. 1673 Bath. 1803 Do. 1805 Amstel. 1707 Lend. 1782 Basil 1564 Lond. 1748 Do. 1725 Do. 1756 Paris 1771 Lond. 1795 vols. 4, 5, 6, Birm. 1784, 1786, 1788 gion, Amstel. 1658 Lond. 1732 Do 1728 Oxford 1788 Lond. 1806 Do. 1808 Dubhn 1746 Lips. 1794—1798 Oxford 1795 Lond. 180S Leov. 1714 Lond. 1795 Francof 1668 Lond. 1738 Do. 1753 Dublin 1799 Do. 1807 Lond. 1806 Do. 1736 Do. 1790 Do. 1791 Do. 1709 Do. 179r Do. 1789 Camb. 1797 Lond. 1745 Do. 1677 Herb. Nassav. 1717 Do. 1712 Lond. 1725 Dublin 1755 Fij\rjs NEW BOOKS LATELY BUBLISHED, AND FOR SALE BY JJLMES EASTBUBJ^, CORNER OF BROADWAY AND WALL-STREET, DIVINITY AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. THE HOLY BIBLE, containing the Old and New Testaments. The Text taken from the most correct Copies of the present authorized "Ver- sion . with the Marginal Readings, a collection of parallel Texts, and co- pious Summaries to each Chapter. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Designed as a help to a better understanding of the Sacred Wri- tings. By Adam Clarke, LL. D. It may appear unnecessary to say any thing in recommendation of the merits of JDr. Clarke* s Commentary on the Bible, since it has already ob- tained so large a share of public partronage ; the number of its subscri- bers being upwards of 2,500 in these United States — and since nearly one fifth of the whole amount of the work has been already published, by which the religious and literary portion of the community is fully enabkd to appreciate its value. Yet the circulation of tliis excellent work has hitlierto scarcely extended beyond the verge of the states of New -York, of Pennsylvania, of Maryland, and of the district of Columbia. To intro- duce it therefore to the notice of that vast body of religion and of learning, wliich is at once the ornament and the bulwark of the New-England states, and of those other portions of the union, where learning and religion flourish, it may be permitted to present a brief survey of the character, spiritual, moral, and intellectual, of this important production. Dr. Clarke has been for many years esteemt^d one of the most pious, eloquent, learned, and popular preachers of the Gospel in Great Britain. So high indeed is his reputation for talents and learning, that, although belonging to a dis- senting sect, he has been appointed Historiographer General by the British Government, and has been entrusted with the arduous and honourable task of continuing the Fadtra of Rymer. Dr. darkens Commentary on the Bible, without peradventure, contains a much larger mass of sound learn- ing, of valuable information, of nice criticism, and more especially of ori- ental research, than any Commentary on the- Sacred Scriptures which has hitherto appeared in any language. But this, though great, is not its great- est praise ; for while the profoundest scholar may reap a rich harvest of instruction from the author's extensive field of investigation, the plain and humble disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ will find his soul enlightened, soothed, supported, cheered, strengthened, and elevated by the deep and fervent piety, the pracdcal, vital, experimental godliness, breathed forth, in spirit and in truth, from every page and ever; line of this truly evangeli- cal performance. Bui what need can there be of entering into any length of detail in enumerating the merits of a work, which before it had reached its third number in England, ran through a first edition oi'Jive thousand, and already finds a circulation of ten thousand copies among the well wish- ers and supporters of the best interests of religion and of letters in that country. Six numbers have been already published, and No. 7. is in the press* Price 1 Dollar and 50 Cents per number, with maps, plajis and tables — Subscriptions also received by Thomas Griffin and Charles Rudd, No. 189 Greenwich-street, New-York j John F. Watson, Philadelphia; E. F. Back- us, Albany ; Beers and Howe, New-Haven ; Munroe & Francis, and Lincoln and Edmands, Boston ; Henry Whipple, Salem ; Thomas and Whipple, Newburyport ; Fitzwhylson and Potter, Richmond. A DISCOURSE on the Nature, Design, and Institution of the HOLY EUCHARIST, commonly called the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By Adam Clarke, LL. D. Principal Librarian to the Suiry Institution, auti N£W BOOKS. President (5f the Philological Society ; to which are added, a Collection of his smaller Tracts. Price ouq dollar in boards. The HISIORY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. By the late Joseph Milner, M. A. late master of the Grammar-Schooi in Kingston upon Hull, and continued by the Rev. Isaac Milner, D. D. F. K. S, Dean of Car- lisle, and President of Queen's College, Cambridge, in five vols, price ^11 25cis. boards. A COUrlSE OF LECTURES, containing a description and systematic arrangement of the several BRANCHES OF DIVINITY, accompanied with an account boih of the principal authors, and of the progress wluch has been mada at different periods in tneological learning. By Herbert Marsh, D, D. F. R. S. Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. i*arts 1 and 2. price 62 1-2 cents each. Each part contai)is six Lectures, delivered annually, and will be published as tliey come out. It is presumed that the name of the learned author will preclude the ne- cessity of any other recommendation. The pans already published can be had as above, and subscriptions will be taken for succeeding courses. The plan of these lectures will be found different from any ever befbre g-iven to the public. A True and Complete PORTRAITURE OF METHODISM, or the His- tory of the Wesley an Methodists; including their rise, progress, and pre- sent state ; the lives and characters of divers of their ministers ; the doctrines the Methodists believe and teach, fully and explicitly stated ; with the whole plan of their discipline. The different collections made among them, and the application of the monies raised thereby, and a description of class-meetings, bands, love-feasts, &c. Also, a defence of Methodism, &c. By Jonathan Crowther, who has been more than 31 years a member, and above 26 years a travelling preacher among them. To which is added, some interesting documents respecting tlie extension of their religious pri- vileges, by a late act of the British legislature. Price gl 50 cents, bound. In boards gl ^5 cents. POETRY. PSYCHE ; or THE LEGEND OF LOVE. With other poems. By Mrs, Henry Tighe ; with a portrait of the author. Price gl in boards. " For elegance of design and accuracy of execution, this much exceeds any poetical composition of the present day. While the hearts of our coun- trymen shall beat at the sweetest sounds of their native language, conveying as nature dictates, the feelii|g of the purest passions, so long shall this little tale of Psyche dwell on their ears, and they shall think the Angel is still speaking." — Monthly Review, Oct. 1811. " The elegance and refinement, which proceeds from good breeding, when it operates on a benevolent heart; a sensitive frame, and exquisite tender- ness of feeling, balanced by sweetness, patience, and constancy, are leading lines in the moral portrait of Mrs. Tighe, drawn from the internal evidence of her writings." — Critical Review, June 1812. MISCELLANEOUS. ELEMENTS OF CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY, vol. I. part 1. price ^2 50, by Sir Humphrey Davy, LL. D. Sec. R. S. Prof Chem. R. I. and B. A. M. R. I. F. R. S. E. M. R. I. A. Member of the Royal Academy of Stockiiolm, of the Imperial Med. and Chir. Academy of St. Petersburgh ; of the Ameri- can Philosophical Society ; and Honouraiy Member of the Societies of Dub- lin, Manchester, the Physical Society of Edingburgh, and the Medical So- ciety, London* The WORKS in verse and prose, of the late ROBERT TREAT PAINE, jun. E.sq. with notes; to which are prefixed, sketches of his Ufe, character, and writings. Price 3 dolls. 25 cents in boards. THE INFLUENCE OF LITERATURE UPON SOCIETY. From the French of Madame de Stael. To which is prefixed a memoir of the life and writings of the author. From the second London edition. NEW BOOKS. ESAVS ON THE PRINCIPLES OP TASTE, by A. Alison, LL. D. &c. in 1 vol. 8vo. price in boards 2 dollars 25 cents, or bound in sheep, 2 dollars 50 cents. WORKS OF FISHER AMES, Esq. 1 vol. 8vo. price 3 dollars 50 cents in extra boards. DISCOURSE delivered before the NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SGCIE- TY, at their anniversary meeting 6th December, 18 U, by the Hon. De Witt Clinton, one ot the vice-presidents of the society. Price 62 1-2 cents. DISCOURSE delivered before the same Society, at their anniversary meeting-, OLh Dtc. 1812, by the Hon. Governeur Morris, first vice-president of the societv. Price 37 1-2 cents. THE REMAINS OF HENRY KIRKE WHITE, late of St. John's Col- lege, Cambridge, with an account of his life, by Robert Southey, 2 vols, half-bound at 2 dollars 25 cents. PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION, on IJ\' THE PRESS. THE POSTHUMOUS WORKS of the Right Hon. EDMUND BURKE; containing his letters on the regicide peace, with numerous other important papers. BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS of Adam Smith, LL. D. William Robert- son, D. D. and Thomas Reed, D. D. by Dugald Stuart, L. L. D. F. R S. Edinburgh, with three heads to be engraved by Leney. THE bl'EECHES of the right honourable LORD ERSKINE, while at the bar. THE DOCTRINE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE, applied to the criticism and the illustrations of the New-Testament, by the Rev. F. F. Middleton, D. D. Rector of Tansor. To be edited and corrected throughout by the Rev. John M. Mason, D. D. Provost of Columbia College, New-York. PLEA FOR THE DEITY OF JESUS, by the Rev. David Simpson, M. A. late of St. John's College, Cambridge, and minister of Christ-church, Mac- clesfield. The last two works, togetlier with ** Magee on the Atonement and Sacri- fice," contain a full and clear exposition of the four essential and funda- mental principles of the Christian scheme ; — to wit, the entire depravity of fallen man; justification byjESusCuRisr; sanctification by theHoLvSpi- uiT ; and the doctrine of the Trinity^ three persons in one Jehovah. THE EXCELLENCY OF THE LITURGY, in four discourses To which is prefixed an answer to Dr. Marshes Inquiry y respecting- the neglecting to give the Prayer-Book and the Bible, with four other discourses, all preached be- fore the University of Cambridge, by the Mev. Charles Simeon, M. A. fel- low of King's College, Cambridge. NINE SERMONS by L Watts, D. D. just published from the original MSS. by J. R. Smith, D. D. THE SERMONS ENTIRE, of the Rev. Robert Hall, including two just published in London on ** Education," and the " Discouragements and Supports of the Christian Ministry." BIOGRAPHIA EVANGELIC A ; or an historical account of the lives and deaths of the most eminent and evangelical authors or preachers, both British and foreign, in the several denominations of Protestants, from the beginning of the reformation to the present time. Wherein are collected, from authentic historians, their most remarkable actions, sufferings, and writings ; exhibiting the unity of their faith and experience, in their several ages, countries, and professions; and illustrating the power of divine grace, in iheir holy living and dying. — By the late Rev. Erasmus Middleton, B. D. rector of Turvey, Bedfordshire, and lecturer of St. Rennets, Grace- church-street, and St. Helens, Bishopsgate-street, London. — Edij^ed and brought down to the present time, by the Rev. James M. Mathews, profes- sor of biblical literature, and ecclesiastical history in the Theological Semi- nary of New-York. — Making from 5 to 6 vols 8vo. price ^3 per volume. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below or on the date to which renewerf^ "^*°^' ^ Renewed books are subiert^ ;!?!r5?: are sub jea to immediate recaU. -^^^^^^-fr© ~^'"« 1 5 1333 3 3 ~FM^TW^ AM LOAH DEpt ouL 2, ll^lPvJ^D JULi_jfiaj3Ai LI)2lA-45m-9,'67 (H5067sl0)476B .General Library University of California Berkelev ) G 7 193: i^ soriptural- f atonement 4M^ JO 'Ct/^^QH ^ar? Om-8,'29 * • '• J. "^