Testament, so far from being of little authority, is of the very highest. 4. The concurrence of the LXX and the Arabic is not a joint, but a single testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be little more than a version of the LXX, and, consequently, can lend no farther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX, at the time when this version was 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 Kennicott's State of the Hebr. Text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan 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 explained 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 consulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, Doederlein, &c., and scarcely undergoing any variation, however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies examined by Kennicott and De Rossi,) is as glanced his eye most cursorily, indeed, upon our English translation, when he charges it so peremptorily with the abrupt change of person. Again, this very translation, which, beside the older expositors above referred to, has the support of Vitringa and Bishop Lowth, and is perfectly consistent with the most accurate and grammatical rendering of the passage in question, agrees sufficiently with the ancient versions. In sense there is no difference, and whatever variation there is in the expression may be satisfactorily accounted for from a farther examination of the original, Thus, in the Vulgate it is rendered, "when he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see," &c.- and in the Syriac, "the penalty of sin is laid upon his soul," (i. e. in other words, his soul is made an offering for sin,) "that he might see," &c. Now the first is a literal translation of the Hebrew, if, only, instead of which we may readily ,2ישים be read תשים suppose some copies of the Hebrew to have done, without introducing the smallest uncertainty into the text. The second will also be found a literal version, if for be read Dwn, which may be taken passively, "shall be made." Now it appears from Kennicott's various readings, that one MS. supports this reading. But there is a remark on this head -made by Houbigant, (which has been over אם תשים אשם נפשו יראה זרע,follows Now these words, as they stand, manifestly admit of a two-fold translation, according as the word " is considered to be of the second person masculine, or the third person feminine, viz. when thou shalt make his 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, Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Castellio, and almost every other learned expositor of the Bible, retained the latter, inserting it 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 Matthewe's, Cranmer's, or the Great Bible, and Taverner's, see also the Bibles in the time of Elizabeth, viz. the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles, see all, in short, that preceded James's translation,) this latter reading is the only one that is given: and it should be observed, (see Newcome's Historic. View, p. 105) that one of the rules prescribed to the translators employed in the last named version, which is the one now in use, was," that where a Hebrew or Greek word admitted of two proper senses, one should be expressed in the context, and the other in the margin." Thus it appears, that Dr Priestley must have 1 See Bishop Lowth's Preliminary Dissert. to his Translation of Isaiah and Walton's Polyglot Prolegom. 15. —also Kennicott's State of the Hebr. Text, vol. ii. pp. 453, 454. looked both by Bishop Lowth, and the commentator on Isaiah who has succeeded him,3) that seems to deserve considerable notice. "The word," he says, "should be on, in the passive voice for that, as Morinus observes, the Jews, before the vowel points were introduced, were used to mark the passive by the letter interposed; and that here, this Chaldaism had been allowed to remain by the transcriber."-See Houbigant in loc. Again, with respect to the LXX version of this passage, (for as to the Arabic it need not be taken into account, for the reasons before stated,) the difference between it and the last mentioned translation is not so great, as on the first view might appear. It is true, the reading of the LXX as given in our Polyglot, Doederlein translates as if the word were , ubi vitam suam, ut piaculum, interposuerit; and adds, that the book Sohar (Parascha ) particularly warns us that it is so to be read, not ten Mr Dodson was here intended, as being the only person, who (at the date of the first publication of this work) had given to the public a version of Isaiah later than that of Bishop Lowth. But the observation equally applies to Bishop Stock, who has given the latest translation of the Prophet, and who has in like manner overlooked this remark: for whilst he renders the word in a passive sense," If his life shall be made a trespass-offering," he assigns for it a wrong reason; deriving the passive signification from a supposed reflective import of the verb should be made, or (he says) should render itself; forgetting, that if this latter sense belonged to the verb, it would have been given in the form Hithpahel, which clearly is not that of the vert -Dathe's translation of the passage is decisive for the passive signification of the verb: "Quodsi vita ejus ut sacrificiur pro peccatis oblata fuerit." D of No. 27.-ON CHRIST'S DEATH AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. is a dare, "if ye offer:" but it is remarked by Bishop Lowth, that some copies of the LXX read dora, "shall be offered:" which agrees exactly with the Syriac. Indeed, as Mr Dodson very properly observes, data may be considered the true reading of the LXX, not only on the authority of Clemens R. and Justin, who read it so; but also from the custom which prevails in Greek MSS. of This practice is writing instead of a. noticed by Wotton, in his edition of Clem. R. (p. 142,) on the words gorgeTe hμás Én' UT, and is well known to all who are conversant in Greek MSS. as obtaining not only at the termination of words, as in the instance taken from Clemens, but in all parts of the word indifferently. This reading is likewise approved by Capellus. Thus far, then, (and this, it is to be noted, is the most important clause in the passage,) the disagreement between the LXX and the other ancient versions is done away. That it differs both from them and the Hebrew text, in some other parts of the sentence, must be allowed; but that from an extensive collation of the several MSS. (which has now happily been at length undertaken,) even these differences may yet be removed, there is much reason to expect. The confirmation of the present reading of the Septuagint by the Arabic version is by no means an argument against this; as that version is not above 900 years old, and may, therefore, have been derived from copies of the Septuagint, not the most perfect. Besides, it deserves to be remarked, that Bishop Lowth (Prelim. Diss.) pronounces the Septuagint version of Isaiah to be inferior to that of any other book in the Old Testament; and, in addition to this, to have come down to us in a condition exceedingly incorrect. Upon the whole, then, since the present state of the Hebrew text has been shewn to agree with the Syriac, the Vulgate, (both of which, it should be noted, were taken from the Hebrew,-one in the first, the other in the fourth century,) with our English translation, and, in a material part, even with the LXX, we may judge with what fairness Dr Priestley's rejection of the present text, on the ground of the disagreement of the translations with it and with each other, has been conducted. His omission of the Vulgate, his overlooking the marginal translation of our present, and the text of our older English Bibles, and pronouncing peremptorily on their contents in opposition to both; his stating the Arabic as a distinct testimony, concurring "Aliquando diversitas citationis a LXX posita est in diversa lectione variantium Codd. Græcorum Tv LXX; ut Esa. liii. 10, editio Sixtina Ty LXX habet, iar dari wigi ȧpartias, ** si dederitis pro peccato," quæ corrupta est lectio. At Justinus cam quibusdam codicibus habet, iar dura, “Bi datus fuerit," quæ genuina est lectio respondens Hebræo."— Critica Sacra, Ludov. Capel. pp. 529, 530. 63 with the LXX; and his assertion, that the With respect to the Syriac version, Bishop frages of Pocock, Walton, and all the most tions, as applying particularly to tne expression in the present text, is evinced in numerous instances, adduced by Hammond and and satisfactorily handled, I refer him to the last named work; also to Michaelis's fourth chapter on the Language of the New Testament (Introduction, &c. vol. i. pp. 97-200,) and particularly to Dr Campbell's first and second Preliminary Dissertations to the 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 derived from the want of classical purity in its language. I would, on the contrary, direct the reader's attention to the Dissertation on the Principles of Human 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 want of purity in the writings of the New Testament supplies in itself a proof of their divine original; and had defended this position upon reasons nearly subversive of every just notion of the nature of human eloquence. Dr Leland, on the contrary, with a due regard to the principles of eloquence, of taste, and of common sense, and in the direct maintenance 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 discoverable in the 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 sarcasın 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 Irish Professor would be completely put to silence. The effect, however, was otherwise. The Professor returned to the charge with renovated vigour ; and by a reply, distinguished by such ability as proved to the opposite party the inexpediency of continuing the contest, closed the controversy. How complete, in the public opinion, was Dr Leland's triumph over both his mitred opponents, may easily be collected from the fact, that, however 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 Leland, remaining unacknowledged by the author, was indebted for its farther 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, completely demolished his antagonist.” (Edin. Rev. vol. xiii. p. 358.) The Critical Reviews for July I come now to examine his objections against the second text-" He made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In this passage, the word anagría, which is translated sin, is considered by Hammond, Le Clerc, Whitby, and every respectable commentator, to mean a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin: it is so translated expressly by Primate Newcome in his new version. That this is the true meaning of the word will readily be admitted, when it is considered that this is the application of it in the Hebrew idiom; and that Jews, translating their own language into Greek, would give to the latter the force of the corresponding words in the former. And that they have done so, is evident from the use of the word through the entire of the Greek version of the Old Testament, to which the apostles, when speaking in Greek, would naturally have adhered. Dr Middleton, in his answer to Dr Bentley, remarks, that "the whole New Testament is written in a language peculiar to the Jews; and that the idiom is Hebrew or Syriac, 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 difficult to understand it." (In- and November 1764, and April, 1765, contain some masterly trod. 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 Græca, at phrases et sermonis structuram esse Hebræam?" (Crit. Sacr. p. 522.) And Dr Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertations, pronounces, almost in the words of Capellus, "The phraseology is Hebrew, and the words are Greek."6 The justice of these observa • Ernesti affirms, "Stilus Novi Testamenti recte dicatur Hebræo-græcus." See p. 82, Inst. Interp. Nov. Test. Indeed the observations of this writer (pp. 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 pieces of 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 superiority in this controversy, than in that which is entitled Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian; particularly in the Dedication and Preface prefixed to the Two Tracts which the eloquent editor describes as "Children, whom their parents were afraid or ashamed to acknowledge,** and which he therefore (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 Friendship, is one, and his Letter to Dr Leland, is the other and on the subject of these tracts, by which, it is added, Warburton 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 publication to a name of no mean note in the republic of letters Undoubtedly the vigour of conception, the richness of imagery, Whitby in loc. And to this very text the passage from Isaiah, which has just been discussed, bears an exact correspondence; for, 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 opportunity of extracting from this performance. It is sketched by the hand of a master, 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 determined solely by the great authority of Dr Johnson, who always mentioned Dr Leland with cordial regard and with marked respect. It might, perhaps, be invidious for me to hazard a favourable decision upon his History of Ireland; because the merits of that work have been disputed by 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 which have long contributed to public amusement, and have often been honoured by public approbation: to the Life of Philip, and to the Translation of Demosthenes, which the Letter-writer professes to have not read, to the judicious Dissertation upon Eloquence, which the Letter-writer did vouchsafe to read, before he answered it, to the spirited Defence of that Dissertation, which the Letter-writer, probably, has read, but never attempted to answer. The Life of Philip contains many curious researches into the principles of government established among the leading states of Greece: many sagacious remarks on their intestine discords: many exact descriptions of their most celebrated characters, together with an extensive and correct view of those subtle intrigues, and those ambitious projects, by which Philip, at a favourable crisis, gradually obtained an unexampled and fatal mastery over the Grecian Republics. In the Translation of Demosthenes Leland unites the man of taste with the man of learning, and shews himself to have possessed, not only a competent knowledge of the Greek language, 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, we 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 selfcreated despot." Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, pp. 193-94. 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 Dublin 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 somewhat 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 connection 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 66 66 as in that "his soul," or life, was to "be made" N, μagría, or as the LXX render it, gi agrias, a sin offering," so here Christ is said to have been made ἁμαρτία, “ 2 sin offering;" and "for 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 (Isa. liii. 10) deserves particularly to be consulted. Among other valuable observations, he shews that περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας, and ἁμαρτία, 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 word ἁμαρτία. Now from this plain and direct sense of the passage in 2 Cor. supported by the known use of the word anagria 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 flesh,” ἐν ομοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρ Tías, 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 wegi apagrías, 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 us," 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. 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 Dr 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 Trinity College, Oxford? Was the translation of the Greek orator supposed too good to have come from Ireland? or was it imagined, that the knowledge of its true origin would diminish the profit of its circulation? 7 In reference probably to the very words in this passage it is, that our Saviour declares (Matt. xx. 28,) that he gave r ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, or, as Saint Paul afterwards expresses ft, (1 Tim. ii. 6,) ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲς πάντων. E The word aanλay, 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," "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 received1 the atonement," I feel no difficulty in adopting this correction. or 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. p. 56; whereas by these, it is manifest, both from the reason of the thing and the express language of Scripture, that 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 indoxoua, and iginάoxopar, which signify "to appease, or make propitious," are almost always used by the LXX for, 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 (els To inάoxeoba) the sins of the people;" and, again, he is twice, in 1 John, entitled inaouds, "a propitiation," &c., see Number XXVI. p. 60. Now, in all these, 66 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 New Testament 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? 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 (xaтanhay, 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.- Page 14. Col. 2. ON THE DENIAL THAT CHRIST'S DEATH IS DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE AS A SIN-OFFERING. 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 thinks proper to concede. H.Taylor (Ben. Mord. pp. 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 trust, be found sufficient. At all events, it furnishes a direct reply to an argument used by the former of these writers, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 128, 129) in which, for the purpose of proving that 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 alluded to by the Prophets, it is never spoken of as a sin-offering:" and, to establish this position, he relies principally on his interpretation of Isai. liii. 10, which has been fully examined and refuted in the aforementioned Number. 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 Rosenmüller. The note of the former upon it is this: Auagriay, a sin-offering. There are many passages in the Old Testament, where agria, 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. Rosenmüller observes as follows: "Auagría, victima pro peccato, ut Hebr. quod חטאת et חטאה ,2 .Levit. vii אשם sæpe elliptice ponitur pro ND na, ut Ps. xl. 7. Exod. xxix. 14, pro quo LXX usurpant περὶ ἁμαρτίας, sc. θυσία, Levit. v. 8, 9, 11, aliisque locis. Aliis abstractum est pro concreto, et subaudiendum est WOTE, pro: ws |