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 merely 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 Sacrifi ces; 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, however, 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 RECONCILED TO GOD.

PAGE 25. ()—See Theol. Repos. vol. 1. 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, simi lar 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 Hebr. vii. 27.) "of reconciling God to man, when he had already shewn 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 aтaala and διαλλατζεσθαι have a peculiar sense in the New Testament: that, whereas in ordinary Greek Authors 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 Mat. v. 24, in which last διαλλαγηθι τω αδελφω 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 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 Testament, 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

*The application of the word danλarreola 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

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 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 Xan 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 Mat. v. 24. where it is perfectly obvious and unequivocal, as is shewn in page 26; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19, in which

anger of Saul. Εν τω ΔΙΑΛΛΑΓΗΣΕΤΑΙ τω Κυρίω αυτούς Wherewith shall he RECONCILE HIMSELF to his master? according to our common version. Not surely, how shall be 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.