other reasons, because it is the judgment of Protestants as well as Catholics, that salvation may be had in the faith of the Roman church; but none besides Protestants are of opinion that it may be had in another religion." Thus orthodox Protestants invite to their communion those who otherwise, without doubt, shall perish everlastingly! But who art thou that judgest another man's servant? The three annexed papers shall be described in the following number. VERMICULUS. SIR. March 8th, 1815. EELING no small degree of in FEELING no small degree of in the diffusion of Unitarianism, I cannot The whole history of the Septuagint is comprized in two short sentences, and if any of your readers can gain any distinct ideas from the last of them, they are more fortunate than myself. But whatever ideas they may obtain from it, I will venture to assert they will not be such as Walton meant to convey. The Chaldee Paraphrase, we are rightly told, was made by various authors, but of these no more than three are mentioned. Why has Philo-Biblicus stopped short in his account, and given no hint of the translation of any other books than those of the law and the prophets? Must we suppose that he was deterred by the appearance of difficulty in the succeeding sentences in his author; and that he did not know the meaning of the terms Hagiographa and Megilloth? Not one half even of the little which Walton has said in this place concerning the Targums, is given by his pretended translator. No one can read the last sentence in the account of the Ethiopic version, without supposing that in the New Testament it has followed the Vulgate, (of which, by the bye, not a word is said in this professed account of ancient versions) although Walton has carefully stated that its agreement with the Vulgate serves only to show that both versions followed the same Greek copies. The Armenian version was but little known when the London Polyglott was published. Nine years afterwards, when Walton was no more, the first edition of this version was printed at Amsterdam. The history of the version is now pretty well known, and it is only trifling with your readers, Mr. Editor, to present them with a bad translation of a necessarily-imperfect account of it, extracted from the Prolegomena to the Polyglott. This, however, would have been more tolerable, had not Philo-Biblicus done all in his power to injure the reputation of that learned and excellent man, whose words he pretends to translate, by ascribing to him such a remark as the following: " without the assistance of another copy, they" (i. e. the Arminian gospels in his possession)" could not be engraven on types." Whoever heard of such engraving? or who could suppose it possible for any one to undertake to write about the ancient versions of the Bible, who cannot properly render the simple phrase, typis imprimi! Walton, studying brevity in his 5th 152 Inquiry concerning Mr. Frend's Views of the Atonement. Prolegomenon, which Philo-Biblicus has ventured to mangle, has not given a full and clear account of the labours of Origen; but our translator has been very solicitous to misrepresent his text, and to make bad worse. When he tells us that Origen arranged the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, in his Tetra pla and Hexapla, he closely copies Walton; the confusion is not chargeable upon him, though the addition of a word or two might have rendered all plain and intelligible; but when he goes on to say that he added a fifth and sixth with the Hebrew text, whence he called these volumes Octapla, he palms a blunder upon the truly learned editor of the Polyglott which he has not committed. Supposing your readers to know that the Tetrapla was formed by the three Greek versions just mentioned and the Septuagint, arranged in four columns, how can they conceive of this becoming the Octapla by the addition of three columns more? He indeed, who can comprehend engraving upon types, may well be imagined to have powers of conception superior to his neighbours, and to find no difficulty in making four and three equal to eight. The fact, however, seems to be, that our scholar was unable to discover in the following words "unde cum Hebræo textu literis Hebræis et Græcis exarato, Octapla nominavit hæc volumina," the important fact that Origen disposed the Hebrew in two columns, one in Hebrew, the other in Greek characters! I pass over the revolt of Aquila and the strangely-confused account of Theodotion's versatility, to notice the last, but by no means the least blunder of this unfortunate biblical critic. "The Coptic or Egyptian, as Athanasius conjectures, was made about the time of the Council of Nice." As Athanasius conjectures! thought I to myself, when I read this extraordinary sentence, as Athanasius conjectures! Passing strange! that Athanasius, a native of Alexandria, and who succeeded to the see of that city in the very year after that in which the Council of Nice was held, should conjecture about such an interesting fact as the translation of the scriptures into his native tongue! What has Walton been about?" Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus." Yet I could not help suspecting that the fault would not be found to lie with Walton, and under this impression I had recourse to him again. Sure enough, he has written ut conjicit Athanas., and Athanas. as every body knows, stands for Athanasius; but fortunately for our great Prolegomenist, though most unfortunately for the credit of his translator, Athanas. is immediately followed by these important words, Kircherus in Prodr. Coptico. The mystery was at once solved. Of Athanasius, Philo-Biblicus had heard or read something, as every one has who can hear or read at all, but of Kircher he had never either read or heard, and of an Athanasius Kircher he could no more form a conception, than a man born blind, of colours. Kircherus in Prodr. Coptico has very much the air of a reference, as such it passed with our sagacious translator of Walton; and since" omne ignotum pro magnifico est," the authority of this unknown Kircher is deemed by him amply sufficient to establish the fact, that Athanasius of Alexandria conjectured concerning the date of a version made in his own times, for the use of the churches under his immediate jurisdiction. I beg your pardon, Mr. Editor, for having extended these remarks so far; it is, I acknowledge very much like "breaking a butterfly upon a wheel,” but I could not restrain my hand, under a deep conviction of the importance of deterring, if possible, such adventurers in biblical criticism as Philo-Biblicus from disgracing the pages of your Miscellany in future. I am, &c. &c. WALTONIANUS. I SIR, Feb. 26, 1815. PERCEIVE that your learne correspondent, Mr. Frend (pp. $2, 3S), avows that there is a difference between himself and other Unitarians on the subject of the atonement. Having read with much satisfaction and profit several of the publications of this gentleman, which indeed years ago helped me on the road to Unitarianism, I should be particularly obliged if he would condescend to explain, through the medium of your pages, what are his views upon this subject. I cannot learn thein from the communication to which I have referred. To me it appears, at present, that there is no middle scheme between the hypothesis that Christ was the procuring cause of salvation, and the hypothesis that he was simply its revealer and minister. If he were the procuring cause of salvation, he must, I should think, be equal to God from whom he obtained this great gift, and in this case goodness appears to belong to him rather than to the Father: if he were simply the revealer and minister of salvation, he needed not to be more than man, nor is there any thing in this supposition which every Unitarian writer that I am acquainted with does not acknowledge or assert. All Unitarians, I believe, hold the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be the earnest of an universal resurrection, and consider him as appointed by the Father to raise the dead. What more than this can your correspondent intend? Can so good a reasoner content himself with high-sounding words which convey no distinct ideas? Writing solely for the sake of information, I am, SIR. An Inquiring Unitarian. Feb. 25, 1815. APPREHEND that a large proportion of Christians of the present day hold the doctrine of atonement without any definite ideas upon the subject. They attach to the death of Christ a certain mysterious efficacy, which they are not anxious to explain, and which indeed they do not understand. This is a convenient scheme, for it allows its advocates to disown the objectionable principles of substitution and satisfaction, and at the same time to use the popular phraseology, and so to pass themselves off for sound believers. But do the scriptures represent that there is any mystery in the redemption by Jesus Christ, any mystery at least which is not now made known? If there be a mystery in it, how can it be understood, how can it be believed? And wherein consists the practical efficacy of a doctrine into which the understanding cannot penetrate? Men laying claim to moderation, though the virtue of moderation where truth and error are concerned is surely equivocal, sometimes represent the death of Christ as necessary as a display of the divine indignation against sin: but then the death of Christ must have been a punishment, and therefore this hypothesis labours under nearly the same objections as the popular system. Other moderate men consider the salvation of mankind as the reward, on the part of the Father, of Christ's obedience to death; but are we at liberty to believe that if Christ had not proved pre-eminently virtuous, all God's other children would have been lost in death for ever? That Christ is exalted to be Lord of all, in reward of his virtuous sufferings, the New Testament clearly asserts; but does it not at the same time represent that his reward is not so much the salvation of the sons of men, as his own appointment to be the minister of that salvation? The unchangeable, exuberant goodness of God is thus provided for, whilst also, allowance is made for the merit of Christ, the efficacy of his death and the importance of his mediation. SIR. R. BROOK. LETTER II. Harlow, March 1, 1815. APPROVING, in the correspondent, in the first number of the present volume (p. 38), I mean to make a little slow haste further to consider the Jewish sacrifices, that Imay clear the encumbered way, obtain a nearer approach to the doctrine of the atonement, and view it in the unobstructed light of common sense and scriptural truth. But I would first invite your readers' attention to that institute which is called the Passover; "For Christ our passover was slain for us." That solemn festival was not a sacrifice, though it has been called so, to serve a system. The appointment of this Mosaic rite is recorded in Exodus xii., and its allusion evidently was, to the deliverance of the Israelites from slavery and oppression. They were to partake of this supper with "their loins girded, their sandals on their feet, and their staff in their hand;" thus they declared themselves pilgrims, sojourners and strangers in the land of Egypt, as their fathers were before them. Pharaoh and his people had broken all the laws of hospitality with regard to these strangers, they had oppressed, they had enslaved them. The Hebrews were about to quit a country where they had enjoyed little good and experienced much evil; they had been long under the 154 The Doctrine of Common Sense with regard to Sacrifices. Letter II. government of a succession of subtle, cruel and cowardly tyrants, but they were to be ready to escape from their rapacious grasp at a moment's warning; God was about to inflict his crowning judgment on the land of Ham; at night the cry of death was heard in the houses of the Egyptians, and that "self-same day* (viz. the morning after the passover), the Lord brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies," or according to their muster. The side-post and upper door-post of the houses where the passover was eaten were to be smeared with the blood of the paschal lamb, thus claiming the protection of the Abrahamic covenant; and thus were the habitations of the children of Jacob distinguished from those of the Egyptians; the blood was to be the mean of their preservation. No part of the lamb was to be left till morning, if it could be eaten by those for whom it was prepared, and if any were left, because it was a thing devoted to sacred uses, it was to be burnt; none but the circumcised were to partake of it, that is, none but the Israelites and their families. Now had they neglected this mean of their preservation, they would have proved their want of confidence in their great Deliverer, and had they in future ages omitted this commemorative festival, they would have shewn deep ingratitude and sad forgetfulness of the conditions of that covenant which a faithful God had made with their fathers. If this national Mosaic festival had been intended to represent any future and greater deliverance, surely something explanatory would have been found, either in the writings of Moses, or in those of the prophets, and above all, if it referred to the Messiah, to his death and to his blood which was shed," not for the Jews only, but also for the Gentiles." We can find, therefore, no reference to future events in the feast of the passover or in the circumstances that accompanied it. We may, indeed, go out of the record, we may conjecture, we may misapply Old-Testament institutes to New-Testament facts; or we may, like some authors of the scriptures, with perfect fairness accom "The evening and the morning were the first day." Gen. i. 5. modate them together; but we can find no proofs that either Moses, Aaron, or any of the Levites, or the prophets, or the people, in any age before Christ, had the most remote ideas of the facts recorded in the New Testament communicated to them by the annual paschal supper; nor did our Lord convey a hint of this kind, when he and his disciples celebrated it and when he partook of it himself. Symbols and types must always be significant if they are to be understood. Our Lord partook not of the symbols by which Christians are "to shew forth his death till he come." The whole reason for this annual, festive memorial is assigned in the next chapter, Exod. xiii. 8; "Thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, this is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came out of the land of Egypt, &c., that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth, &c." It is more than probable that if any thing of greater importance had been intended, it would have been mentioned. In fact, the passover was a covenant-festival, a renewal of that agreement which God made with Abraham, and the blood upon the lintels, &c. was the sign of it. It was a most solemn act, claiming the promise and supplicating the protection of Jehovah the God of Israel. See Genesis xv. 7, to the end of the chapter. In Exodus, xxiv. 4, and the verses following to the eighth inclusive, you have another instance of a covenant-ceremony, accompanied by holocausts and burnt-offerings. Here Israel as a nation, engaged with God to keep his laws, and God with them to afford them protection and favour. Blood is his sprinkled on the altars and on the people, and Moses having read the law to the congregation, they answered," All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient;" then answered their legislator, “Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." I need not say that here is no typical reference to the Messiah. That I may avoid prolixity, suffice it to say, that the Hebrews had, according to the Mosaic institutious, strictly speaking, but three kinds of sacrifice, the holocaust or whole burnt-offering, the peace-offering or the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and the sacrifice for sin. As the two former were common to the patriarchs, and as in fact, they were both thank-offerings to God, we shall therefore make no further inquiry about them. There were other offerings enjoined by Moses, such as those of corn, meal, cakes, fruits, wine, &c. The methods of devoting or sacrificing animals also differed, as in the case of two sparrows and the scape-goat, Levit. chap. xiv. and chap. xvi.; all these may be explained on the same principles. We come now to that important, hallowed and much-disputed kind of sacrifice, the sin-offering; and here, possibly, good Sir, you and several of your readers may conscientiously differ in opinion from me; but I trust we shall agree to differ under the correction of Christian charity. I may err, so may you, but if we cannot help it, I hope God will not lay the sin of ignorance to our charge. Let us then, not with fear and trembling, but with the Bible before us, and with upright hearts, having but one view, the discovery of truth, come to the inquiry. The first account we have of this kind of sacrifice is to be found in Exodus, chap. xxix., from the beginning to the 14th verse inclusive, and Levit. viii. Moses officiated on the occasion.-It was a solemn consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priest's office, "a sin-offering," ver. 14. There is no proof that all these ceremonies were repeated at the consecration of future priests. See Numbers, xx. xxv. and xxvi., where you have an account of the induction of Aaron's successor into the high-priest's office. While God was delivering the law to Moses on mount Sinai, Aaron and the people were framing and worshipping the golden calf, and insulting the Holy One of Israel to his face by their vile idolatry; it seems, therefore, that "a sin-offering," as well as "a burntsacrifice to the Lord, a sweet savour," Exod. xx. 18., was very suitable and significant on this occasion. But what did it represent? Certainly not the transfer of moral guilt to the innocent animal; that was impossible: if Aaron had committed idolatry, he was guilty of the crime. But it appears to me that this act of Moses in behalf of his brother, expressed the contrition, humiliation, repentance and devotion of the penitent sinner. Here then, we have a new idea connected with a sacrifice, a refinement on the original intention of burnt-offerings, "Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock of the, sin-offering." Levit. viii. 14. Was this expressive of a sense of demerit? Did it speak thus? "We are the penitent transgressors, this is the victim, this creature is to die, and we deserve death; for like Adam we have rebelled against thee, we have broken thy covenant.” “It is a sin-offering," of course it is the offering of a sinner to a holy God. Like all the rest of the sacrifices, this was symbolical, it expressed the case and heart of the worshipper and it was accepted. In this chapter Exod. xxix. you have the first mention of atonement, ver. 36, "Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering for atone ment;" so that the sin-offering was expressive of atonement or reconciliation. (There will be no dispute, I believe, about the meaning of this word, especially as it is explained in the New Testament, but the question is, in what sense is it called reconciliation?) To say that God is not reconciled to a wicked and impenitent man, and that such an one is an enemy to God, is natural. But let such a man repent and forsake his sins, and prove that he does so by the fruits of his faith, (for a man must first believe that God is, and that he rewards them that seek him, before he can be disposed to serve him) then, being no longer the enemy of his merciful Creator, and seeking his forgiveness and favour in the way of his appoint-、 ment, let that appointment be what it may, reconciled to God, he seeks and he receives the atonement. It is the pledge of his reconciliation and of God's forgiveness. See Rom. v. 10, 11. It is, however, to be observed, that though the institute of sin-offerings and atonement in the Old Testament are, by accommodation very properly applied to the New-Testa ment doctrines of reconciliation, yet we have not the least evidence, that the ancient Israelites formed any idea that the sacrifices or atonements which they offered to God were typical of the death of Christ; nor did any of the enlightened of them conceive that the blood of their sacrifices could cleanse away the guilt of their |