man, and therefore not willing, &c. but, that being a just man, that is, actuated by a sense of right and duty, he determined to put her away according to the law, in Deut. xxiv. 1: and yet, at the same time, not willing to make her a public example, he determined to do it privately. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Pearce, on this passage.

That the force of tamen, yet or nevertheless, which has been here ascribed to the word xal, is given to it both by the New Testament and profane writers, has been abundantly shewn by Raphel. tom. ii. p. 519. Palairet, pp. 41. 96. 221. 236. Elsner, tom. i. p. 293. and Krebsius p. 147. see also Schleusner Lex. in Nov. Test. Numb. 11. and the observations at p. 215. of this volume.

which is here used for dialos, seems not to have been sufficiently attended to in the decision of this question: if the learned reader will take the trouble of examining the several passages in the Syriac New Testament, where the word

, or its emphatic, occurs, he will be satisfied that in every case where it does not signify just in the most rigorous sense, it at least implies that which is founded in right. For its use in the former acceptation see Joh. v. 30. vii. 24. Rom. ii. 5. iii. 26. 2 Thess. i. 5. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Apoc. xix. 2.

NO. XLIII.-ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REASONING WHEREBY THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS

MAINTAINED TO HAVE BEEN BUT FIGURATIVELY A SACRIFICE.

PAGE 36. (♥)—It has been well remarked, that there is great inconsistency in the arguments of some writers upon this subject. They represent the death of Christ, not as a proper, but merely as a figurative, sacrifice; and establish this by proving, that it cannot be either. For whilst they argue, that it is not a proper sacrifice, upon principles which tend to shew that no such sacrifice can exist, they prove at the same time that it is not a sacrifice figuratively, since every figure presupposes reality. The writers of the New Testament, who perpetually apply the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, must surely have been under a strange mistake, since neither in a proper, nor in a figurative sense, did they admit of such application.

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

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

per

and real sacrifices were but types and shadows of the improper and figurative.

On the pretence of figurative allusion, in the sacrificial terms of the New Testament, which has been, already, so much enlarged upon in several parts of this work, Dr. Laurence, 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 SACRIFICE

FOR SIN.

PAGE 36. (*)--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 valuable reflexions on this subject. On the true nature of the sacrifice for sin, see also Hallet's Discourses, 2d vol. p. 293. Although both these writers, in adopting the premial scheme of atonement, endeavour to establish a principle entirely different from that contended for in these discourses, yet are the observations of both upon the subject of atonement particularly worthy of attention.

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

upon

PAGE 39. (*)-Doctor Priestley (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 419.) offers this head some very extraordinary remarks. He admits, that "the apprehensions of the divine justice, and of the evil and demerit of sin," excited by the scheme of redemption here maintained, are "sentiments of powerful effect in promoting repentance and reformation." But he adds, "that in proportion as any opinion raises our idea of the justice of God, it must sink our idea of the divine* mercy: and since a sense of the mercy of God, is at least as powerful an inducement to repentance, and as effi

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

cacious a motive to a holy life, especially with ingenuous minds, as the apprehension of his justice; what the doctrine of atonement gains on the one hand, it loses on the other.

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