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.

To

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 expres sion whatever, 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. 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. 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 necessa ry to reply to these writers.

As

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 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 avri, veg, dia, Tigi, 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 say, that Christ suffered instead of us, although it would be absurd to say, that he suffered instead of our offences. It is sufficient, if the different

To

applications of the word carry a consistent meaning. die instead of us, and to die on account of our offences, perfectly agree. 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 the exposition proposed 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 necessarily imply substitution in all these passages, and that therefore 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 weg, being admitted to have that force frequently in its common application; as may be seen in Plato Conviv. p. 1197. and again 1178. where aоbing unig, 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 wg and avr have the force of substitution.* In like manner, (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) when David saith concerning Absalom, τις δωη τον θάνατον με άντι σ8, there is clearly expressed David's wish that his death had gone instead of Absalom's.

Raphelius's observations upon this subject are so valuable, that I apprehend his entire note will be acceptable to the critical reader.-" Rom. v. 8 The μar abars-id est arri, loco, vice, nostrâ mortuus est, ut nos mortis pœna liberaremur. Vicariam enim mortem hoc loquendi genere Græci declarant. Neque Socinianis, qui secus interpretantur, quenquam ex Græcis credo assensorem esse. Nostræ sententiæ Xenophon adstipulatur. Nam cum Seuthes puerum formosum bello captum occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, puerorum amator, se pro illius more deprecatorem, praberet, rogat Seuthies Episthenem: Η και εθέλοις αν, ω Επισθενες, ΥΠΕΡ TOTтоY АпоеANEIN: Vellesne, mi Episthenes, PRO HOC MORI? Cumque is nihil dubitaret pro pueri vita cervicem præbere, Seuthes vicissim puerum interrogat, Talousy auToy ANTI exsive: num hunc feriri PRO Se vellet? De Exped. Cyri, &c. Et Hist. Græc. &c. ПguπTOV Se o Αγεσίλαος, στις παρέχοιτο ιππον και όπλα και ανδρα δοκιμον, οτι εξεσι αυτώ μη τρατεύεσθαι, εποίησεν έτω ταυτα συντομως πραττεσθαι, ωσπερ αν τις τον ΥΠΕΡ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΟΥΜΕΝΟΝ προθυμως ζητοι. Quumque Agesi laus denunciasset fore, ut, quicunque daret equum et arma et peritum hominem, immunis esset a militiâ: effecit, ut hæc non aliter magna celeritate facerent, atque si quis alacriter aliquem svo Loco moriturum quæreret. De Venat. p. 768. Αντίλοχος το πατρος ΥΠΕΡ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΩΝ, τοσαύτης έτυχεν ευκλείας, ως μονος φιλοπάτωρ παρά τους Ελλησιν αναγορευθήναι. Antilochus PRO PATRE Morti sese abjiciens, tantum gloriæ consecutus est, ut solus apud Græcos amans patris appelletur.-Et quid opus est aliis exemplis ? cum

S

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 decided by the general language of scripture upon that subject. And if it appears from its uniform tenor, that Christ submitted 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 of figurative 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 because the quality which characterizes this animal is possessed by him in an eminent degree: therefore the imagination conceives 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 significant of the real nature of the thing in the relation in which

luculentissmum sit, Joh. xi. 50. ubi mortuus dicitur Salvator TER TO 298. Quod quale sit, mox exponitur, ίνα μη όλον το εθνος απόληται. Raphelii Annot. tom. ii. pp. 253, 254.

How forcibly the word ug is felt to imply substitution is indirectly ad mitted in the strongest manner even by Unitarians themselves: the satisfaction manifested by Commentators of that description, whenever they can escape from the emphatical bearing of this preposition, is strikingly evinced in their late Version of the New Testament. See their observations on G.J. i. 4.

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 explanation of the other.-Of this Mr. V. gives numerous instances. I shall only adduce that which immediately applies to the case before us: viz. that of "the death of Christ being called in the New Testament, a sacrifice and sin-offering. This, says he, is not as the Socinian hypothesis asserts, figuratively, 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 figurative allusions 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 necessary. 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 ransom; 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 at present, we shall in time be able, without any effort or straining, to explain all particular expressions in the apos

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 straining and that all the powers of this polemic Procrustes, have been exerted to adjust the apostolic stature to certain preordained 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 I, 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 Mordecai's Apology, by H. Taylor.-Dr. Priestley has also endeavoured to establish the same point, and by arguments not much dissimilar. Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 121-136.

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 referred to, is urged by H. Taylor, (Ben Mord. pp. 784, 785, 797.) as applied particularly to the notion of vicarious sacrifice 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 victim, 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 supposed 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 Heathen 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,