« PoprzedniaDalej »
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 word
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 and a Warburtonian, pp. 193, 194.
In the very year, in which these observations on Dr. Leland's literary character were given to the public, three volumes of his Sermons issued from the Dub. lin press; and, though posthumous, and consequently not touched by the finishing hand of the author, they exhibit a specimen of pulpit eloquence, not unworthy of the Translator of Demosthenes and the Historian of Ireland. To these Sermons there is prefixed a brief but interesting and well-written life of the author, from which it appears, that the amount of his literary productions exceeded what have been here enumerated. — 'The extract which I have made from the Tracts, although I do not accede to its justice in every particular, being disposed to attribute somc. what less to the Translation of Demosthenes, and a vast deal more to the History of Ireland, yet I could not deny myself the gratification of noticing, in connexion with the name of Leland; not only, as being highly creditable to the memory of a distinguished member of the University with which I am myself so closely 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 country.-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 that of Fellow of Tria VOL. I.
Now from this plain and direct sense of the passage in 2 Cor. supported by the known use of the word
apeagtia in Scripture language, and maintained by the ablest Commentators on Scripture, Dr. Priestley thinks proper to turn away, and to seek in a passage of Romans (viii. 3.) to which this by no means necessarily refers, a new explanation, which better suits his theory, and which, as usual with him, substitutes a figurative, in place of the obvious, and literal sense. Thus, because in Romans, God is said to have sent his Son in the likeness of sinful Resh, εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας, he would infer, that when in 2 Cor. God is said to have made him sin, it is merely meant that God had made him in the likeness of sinful flesh. Nor is he content with this unwarrantable departure from the language of the text, but he would also insinuate (Th. Rep. vol. i. p. 128.) that the words σερι αμαρτίας,
which occur in the text in Romans, and which, we have already remarked, are commonly used in Scripture language for a sin offering, and are so rendered in this place by Primate Newcome, merely imply for W's, availing himself of our present version, which translates the words, for sin. Such vague and uncritical expositions of Scripture may 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.
nity College, Oxford. Was the translation of the Greek orator supposed too good to have come from Ireland; op was it imagined, that the knowledge of its true origin would diminish the profits of its circulation ?
NO. XXVIII:-ON THE WORD KATAMAATH TRANS
LATED AS ATONEMENT IN ROM. v. 11.
Page 29. ()-The word xatarlayn, 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. ch. 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.
* It will be worth the while of those commentators, who contend, (as we have noticed in Number XX.) that the
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 reason 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 infrequently employed in treating of the death of Christ. Thus ιλασκομαι and εξιλασκομαι, which signify to appease, or make propitious,
, which by translators is sometimes rendered to make atonement for, and sometimes to reconcile : and in Hebrews ii. 17. we find it said of
,כפר are almost always used by the LXX for
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.
our Lord, that he was a merciful and faithful high Priest, to make reconciliation for (ELS TO shaonec boi) the sins of the people; and again, he is twice in 1 John, entitled inapuos, 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 xatarlayn 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. (C)- I have, in the page here referred to, adopted the very words of Dr. Priestley himself. (Theol. Rep. v. i. 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 thinks proper to concede.-H. Taylor (Ben. Mord. p. 811-821) contends strenuously, and certainly with as much ingenuity as the case will admit, in support of the same point.—What has been urged, in Number XXVII. upon this head, will however I