serve any purpose, but the cause of truth. I have already dwelt longer upon them than they deserve: and shall now dismiss them without farther remark. NO. XXVIII.-ON THE WORD KATAAAATH TRANSLATED AS ATONEMENT IN ROM, V. 11. PAGE 29. (d)-The word xara22ayn, which is here translated atonement, it is remarked by Sykes, (On Redemp. pp. 56. 201.) and H. Taylor, (B. Mord. p. 807.) and others who oppose the received doctrine of the atonement, should not have been so rendered, but should have been translated reconciliation. The justice of this remark I do not scruple to admit. The use of the verb and participle in the former verse, seems to require this translation. And this being the single passage in the New Testament, in which it is so rendered, being elsewhere uniformly translated reconciling or reconciliation, (Rom. xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.) and being no where used by the LXX in speaking of the legal atonements, and moreover there being an actual impropriety in the expression, we have RECEIVED the atonement, I feel no difficulty in adopting this correction. But whilst I agree with these writers, in the use of the word reconciliation in this passage, I differ from them entirely in the inference they would derive from it. Their notion of reconciliation altogether excludes the idea of propitiation and atonement, as may be seen in Number XX. pp. 202, 203, whereas by these, it is manifest both from the rea *It will be worth the while of those commentators, who contend, (as we have noticed in Number XX.) that the reconciliation spoken of in the N. T. means only our being reconciled to God, or laying aside our enmity against him,-to consider, in what sense we are said, in this passage, to have RECEIVED the reconciliation. What rules of language can they adopt, who talk of a man's receiving the laying aside of his own enmities. son of the thing and the express language of Scripture, reconciliation is alone to be effected, as is proved in the same Number. It deserves also to be observed, that though the word atonement is not used in our version of the New Testament, except in the single instance already referred to, yet in the original, the same, or words derived from the same root, with that which the LXX commonly use when speaking of the legal atonement, are not unfrequently employed in treating of the death of Christ. Thus ιλασκομαι and εξιλασκομαι, which signify to appease, or make propitious, are almost always used by the LXX for 5, which by translators is sometimes rendered to make atonement for, and sometimes to reconcile: and in Hebrews ii. 17. we find it said of our Lord, that he was a merciful and faithful high Priest, to make reconciliation for (εis to 12αoxeolα) the sins of the people; and again, he is twice in 1 John, entitled 2aouos, a propitiation, &c. see Number XXVI. p. 220. 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 xata22ayn 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 30. (e)-I have, in the page here referred to, adopted the very words of Dr. Priestley himself. (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 123.) Dr. Priestley however, is far from admitting the death of Christ, to be of the nature of a sin-offering. That it is but compared in figure to that species of sacrifice, is all that he 66 In addition to what has been advanced, in that Number, upon the other text discussed in it, namely 2 Cor. v. 21, I wish here to notice the observations of Dr. Macknight and Rosenmuller. The note of the former upon it is this: " Auaρtiav, a sin-offering. There are many passages in the Old Testament, where auaptia, sin, signifies a sin-offering. Hosea iv. 8. They (the priests) eat up the sins (that is, the sin-offerings) of my people.-In the New Testament likewise, the word sin hath the same signification, Heb. ix. 26. 28. xiii. 11."-To the same purport, but more at large, Pilkington, in his Remarks, &c. pp. 163, 164.-Rosenmuller observes as follows, "Auapria, victima pro peccato, ut 66 quod sæpe,חטאת et חטאח .2 .Levit. vii אשם .Hebr elliptice ponitur pro On 21, ut Ps. xl. 7. Exod. ༄ pro : ως αμαρτανοντα εποιησεν, tractavit eum ut peccatorem; se gessit erga eum, uti erga peccatorem. Sensus est idem." NO XXX.-ON THE SENSE IN WHICH CHRIST IS SAID IN SCRIP TURE TO HAVE DIED FOR US. PAGE 30. (f)-Dr. Priestley's remarks on this subject deserve to be attended to, as they furnish a striking specimen of the metaphysical ingenuity, with which the rational expositors of the present day, are able to extricate themselves from the shackles of Scripture language. Christ being 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. "Orif, he adds, when rigorously interpreted, it should be found, that if Christ had not died, we 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 instruct and reform the world, mankind had continued unreformed; 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 natural then was it, especially to writers accustomed to the strong figurative 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 in our stead, yet it would have amounted to no more, than dying on our account, or for our benefit, just as under the present form of expression. And thus Dr. Priestley has proved to us, that no form of expression what ever would be proof against the species of criticism, which he has thought proper to employ: for it must be remembered, that the want of this very phrase, dying in our stead, 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 accomplished, 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 acceptation 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 necessary 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 examined all the passages in the New Testament, in which the preposition for is introduced. And the result of their examination 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 word for must be considered as on account of, for the benefit of, and not instead of. The ground on which this conclusion is drawn, as stated by the latter, is this: that "if the true 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 |