and independent light, inasmuch as it may have been in virtue of the pre-ordained atonement, that this repentance was accepted. And as to the force of the word freely, on which not only Dr. Priestley relies very much, but also Dr. Sykes in his Scrip. Doctr. of Redemp. and H. Taylor in the beginning of his Sixth Letter, (B. Mord. Apol.) it is obvious, that nothing more is meant by passages that employ this expression in describing God's forgiveness of sinners, than that this forgiveness was free with respect to any merits on the part of man, or any claim which from repentance, or any other cause, he might be supposed to possess: since admitting such claim it would be not free, but earned. And in this very sense it is, that Dr. J. Taylor himself, in his Key, &c. (No. 67.) contends that the word free is to be understood: "the blessing of redemption being, as he says, with regard to us, of free grace-that is, not owing to any obedience of ours." Any other application of the term, must make the word free synonymous with unconditional; in which case forgiveness could not be a free gift, if repentance were required to obtain it; that is, unless it were extended indiscriminately to the impenitent as well as the penitent. So that, in fact, the very use of the word free, as applied to God's forgiveness of men, is so far from supporting the opinion of the sufficiency of repentance in itself, that it goes to establish the direct contrary: clearly evincing that repentance can give no claim to forgiveness. See some excellent reasoning on this subject in the judicious discourses delivered at the Bampton Lecture, by Mr. Veysie, Serm. 6 and 7.

No. XIX. THE WANT OF A DISCOVERABLE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE MEANS AND THE END, EQUALLY APPLIES TO EVERY SCHEME OF ATONEMENT.

PAGE 30. (t)-Dr. J. Taylor illustrates this matter by a familiar parallel. (Key, &c. No. 151.)-To the question, "wherein is Christ's love and obedience a just foundation of the divine grace ?" he answers, that he knows not how to explain himself better than by the following instance.-There have been masters willing, now and then, to grant a relaxation of study, or even to remit deserved punishment, in case any one boy, in behalf of the whole school, or of the offender, would compose a copy of Latin verses. This at once showed the master's love and lenity was a proper expedient for promoting learning and benevolence to the society of little men, training up for future usefulness, &c.-and one may say, that the kind verse-maker purchased the favour in both cases, or that his learning, industry, goodness, and compliance with

the governor's will and pleasure, was a just ground and foundation of the pardon and refreshment, or a proper reason of granting them.

This Dr. T. declares to be the best explanation he can give of his scheme of man's redemption by Christ. And that in this there is any natural connexion between the exertions of the individual, and the indulgence granted to the rest of this little society, it is not even pretended. The whole contrivance is admitted as a good expedient or means, whereby the intended kindness of the master was to be shown. If, in order to supply a link, whereby they may be drawn into connexion, the indulgence granted be supposed as a reward to the exertions and obedience of the individual, as is done by H. Taylor, in his Ben Mord. Apology: then, unless this reward, in the case of Christ, be but ostensibly such, and intended solely as a public exhibition to mankind, of the favour with which obedience and good conduct will be viewed by the Deity, (in which case it is not a real reward, but merèly a prudent expedient as before,) it must of necessity be admitted that the trial of Christ's obedience was a principal object in the scheme of his incarnation, for without some trial of his obedience how could it merit a reward? Now in what just sense of the word there could have been any trial of Christ's obedience, it is for those to consider who do not mean to degrade the Son of God to the Socinian standard.

The author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, has devised a scheme, the chief object of which is to remedy the want of connexion. In this, the sacrifice of Christ is not considered as a wise expedient of an instituted nature merely, but as a natural inducement, whereby God's displeasure against mankind was literally averted, by Christ's intercession and mediation recommended by his great zeal and interest in the salvation of men, manifested in the offering up his life in the cause. The author of this scheme has, with great ingenuity, accommodated to his notion the nature of the Patriarchal and Jewish sacrifices; making their efficacy to consist entirely in the force of supplication or intercession, and their nature to be that of a gift, strongly expressive of homage and devotion. This author, bowever, although his work contains most excellent and instructive matter, is not perfectly consistent; since, to have appointed a scheme of intercession, whereby, agreeably to rectitude, God might be induced to grant forgiveness, (and that God did appoint this scheme, the author is obliged to confess,) is in other words to have planned the redemption of man through the medium of intercession, but not in consequence of it :-in which case, this theory

falls in with the notion of instituted means adopted by the

rest..

But surely, upon the whole, it is not wonderful that the grand and mysterious scheme of our redemption should present to the ambitious curiosity of human intellect, the same impediment which restrains its inquisitive researches in every part of nature:-the modus operandi, the connecting link of cause and effect, being itself a mystery impenetrable to human sagacity, equally in things the most familiar and the most obscure. On this subject, it were well that the old distinction laid down by Mr. Locke were remembered by those who would deem it an insult to have it supposed that they were not perfectly acquainted with the writings of that eminent philosopher.

No. XX. ON THE SCRIPTURE PHRASE OF OUR BEING RE

CONCILED TO GOD.

PAGE 30. (v)-See Theol. Repos. vol. i. pp. 177, 178, in which several texts are adduced to establish this proposition, It is likewise attempted to maintain it on the general ground of the divine immutability: in virtue of which, it is asserted, the sufferings of Christ can produce no change in God: and that in man, consequently, the change is to be brought about. God is therefore not to be reconciled to men, but men to God. H. Taylor also (Ben Mord. Apol. p. 692-694.) contends, that "God is never said to be reconciled to the world, because he was never at enmity with it. It was the world that was at enmity with God, and was to be reconciled by coming to the knowledge of his goodness to them." He adduces

texts similar to those above referred to, in confirmation of his opinion and upon the whole, peremptorily asserts, that "the New Testament knows no such language, as that God was reconciled to the world." The same ground had been before taken by Sykes, in his Scrip. Doctr. of Redemp. (pp. 56, 426.) and in his Comm. on Hebr." There could be no need," he says, (on Heb. vii. 27.) "of reconciling God to man, when he had already shown his love to man so far as to send his Son to reconcile man to God."

The argument adopted by these writers had been long before urged by Crellius, in support of the system of Socinus. And it deserves to be remarked, that all these writers have built their arguments upon an erroneous acceptation of the original word, which implies reconciliation. Hammond, and after him, Le Clerc, (on Matt. v. 24.) remark, that the words. καταλλατίεσθαι and διαλλατίεσθαι, have a peculiar sense in the New Testament: that, whereas in ordinary Greek authors

P

they signify to be pacified, and so reconciled, here on the other hand, in the force of the reciprocal Hithpahel among the Hebrews, is implied to reconcile one's self to another, that is to appease, or obtain the favour of, that other: and in support of this interpretation, they adduce instances from Rom. v. 10. 1 Cor. vii. 11. 2 Cor. v. 20. and especially Matt. v. 24. in which last dianλaynes zw adia, must necessarily signify, take care that thy brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes before is not, that he hath done thee injury, but thou him: and this they derive from the force of the Hebrew word ng transferred to the Greek verb, in the use of it by Jewish writers. In this sense of the words καταλλαττεσθαι and διαλλαττεσθαι, as applied in the New * Tes tament, all the Commentators concur. See Rosenmuller and Wall on 2 Cor. v. 20. and Whitby on the words wherever they occur. Schleusner, in his excellent Lexicon, confirms by several instances the explication of the terms here contended for: and Palairet, in his Observ. Philolog. in Nov. Test. Mat. v. 24. maintains, that this use of the terms is not confined to the Jewish writers, transferring the force of the verb n to the Greek expression, but is frequent among writers purely Greek: he instances Theano in Opusc. Mytholog. and Appian. Alexandr. de Bell. Civil, and explains it as an elliptical form, the words szag being understood,

It is evident then, that the writers who have founded their objection against the propitiation of the divinity, on the use of the word reconciled in the New Testament, have attended rather to the force of the term, as applied in the language of the translation, than in that of the original. But, even without looking beyond the translation, it seems surprising that the context did not correct their error, clearly determining the sense, not only in Matt. v. 24, where it is perfectly obvious and unequivocal, as is shown in page 26; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19. in which the manner of reconciling the world to God is expressly described, viz. his not imputing their trespasses unto them, that is, his granting them forgiveness. There are upon the whole but five places in the New Testament, in which the term is used with respect to God;

The application of the word daarrera is precisely the same, as is made by the Seventy, in their translation of 1 Sam. xxix. 4. where they speak of David's appeasing the anger of Saul. Ev TIH AIAAAATHEETAI TO 'Kugio autou: Wherewith shall he reconcile himself to his master? according to our common version. Not surely, how shall he remove his own anger against his master; but, how shall he remove his master's anger against him; how shall he restore himself to his master's favour? If any additional instance had been wanting, to establish the use of the word in this sense among the Jewish writers, this one must prove decisive.

Rom. v. 10. and xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20. Ephes ii. 16. and Col. i. 20, 21. Whoever will take the trouble of consulting Hammond and Whitby on these passages, will be satified, that the application is diametrically opposite to that for which the Socinian writers contend. There are but two places besides, in which the term occurs, Matt. v. 24. and 1 Cor. vii. 11. in both of which the application is clear. And it deserves to be particularly noticed, that Dr. Sykes, (Script. Doctr. of Redemp. p. 57.) sinks the former passage altogether, and notices the latter alone, asserting that this is the only one in which the word is used, not in relation to the reconciliation of the world to God: and this, after having inadvertently stated in the preceding page, that there were two such passages. This will appear the less unaccountable, when it is considered, that the expression as applied in Matthew, could be got rid of by no refinement whatever: but that the application in 1 Corinthians, (not indeed in our translation which is not sufficiently explicit, but examined in the original,) will appear as little friendly to his exposition, Hammond and Le Clerc have abundantly evinced by their interpretation of the passage.

No. XXI.-ON THE TRUE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAYING ASIDE OUR ENMITY TO GOD, AND BEING RECONCILED TO GOD.

PAGE 31. (w)-It is well remarked in the Theological Repository, by a writer under the signature Verus,* that the laying aside our enmity to God must be a necessary qualification for, though without constituting the formal nature of, our reconciliation to God. This judicious distinction places the matter in a fair light. That God will not receive us into favour so long as we are at enmity with him, is most certain; but that thence it should be inferred that on laying aside our enmity, we are necessarily restored to his favour, is surely an odd instance of logical deduction.

No. XXII.-ON THE PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE, THAT THE SINNER IS THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE.

PAGE 31. (r)-Heb. x. 26, 27. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there

This writer I find to have been the Rev. Mr. Brekell: a writer certainly deserving of praise, both for the ability with which he combated the sophistry of the heterodox, and for the boldness with which he carried the war into the very camp of the enemy.