applying particularly to the expression in the present text, is evinced in numerous instances adduced by Hammond and 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.” (Edinb. Rev. vol. xiii. p. 358.) The Critical Reviews for July and November, 1764, contain some masterly 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 publi. cation to a name of no mean note in the republic of letters. Undoubtedly the vigour of conception, the richness of imagery, 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 Repub Whitby in locum. And to this very text, the passage from Isaiah, which has just been discussed, bears an exact correspondence: for, as in that his soul, or life, was to be made Dur, anagria, or as the LXX render it, weg auagɣias, a sinoffering, so here Christ is said to have been made aμagria, a 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 (Isai. liii. 10.) deserves particularly to be consulted. Among other valuable observations, he shows, that περι αμαρτίας, υπερ αμαρτίας, and aμagria, 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 αμαρτία. lics. In the Translation of Demosthenes, Leland unites the man of taste with the man of learning, and shows 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 self-created despot." Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian, pp. 193, 194—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 Jess 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 connexion 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 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 Doctor 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 come from Ireland ; or was it imagined that the knowledge of its true origin would diminish the profits of its circulation ? In reference probably to the very words in this passage it is, that our Saviour declares, (Matt. xx. 28) that he gave thy fuxur aur8 λUTGOV MYTE goaλæv, or as St. Paul afterwards expresses it, (1 Tim. ii. 6.) aytınUTROV UMEL Now from this plain and direct sense of the passage in 2 Cor. supported by the known use of the word aμagra 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, εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτίας, 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 wigi apagtias, 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 any farther remark. No. XXVIII.-ON THE WORD KATAAAATH, TRANSLATED AS ATONEMENT, IN ROM. V. 11. PAGE 32. (d)-The word xaraλλays, 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 or reconciliation, (Rom. ch. 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 RECEIVED the atonement, I feel no difficulty in adopting this correction. * 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 N. T. 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 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. pp. 121, 122. whereas by these, it is manifest both from the reason of the thing, and the express language of scripture, 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 ιλασκομαι and εξιλασκομαι, which signify to appease, or make propitious, are almost always used by the LXX for 2, 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 (IS TO αoxer) the sins of the people; and again, he is twice in 1 John entitled avμos, a propitiation, &c. see Number XXVI. p. 130. Now in all these, 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 xataλayn, 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.-ON THE DENIAL THAT CHRIST'S DEATH 18 DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE AS A SIN-OFFERING. PAGE 32. (e)-I have, in the page here referred to, adopted the very words of Dr. Priestley himself, (Theol. Rep. v. i. 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. p. 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 Isa. liii. 10. which has been fully examined and refuted in the afore-mentioned Number. 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 Rosenmuller. The note of the former upon it is this: "Apagtiar, a sin-offering. There are many passages in the Old Testament, where aungria, 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.-Rosenmuller observes as follows," Auagria, victima pro peccato, ut Hebr. Levit. vii. 2. non et non, quod sæpe elliptice ponitur pro non nai, ut Ps. xl. 7. Exod. xxix. 14. pro quo LXX. usurpant regs aμagtias, sc. Ivoia, Levit. v. 8, 9, 11. alliisque locis. Alliis abstractum est pro concreto, et subaudiendum est us, pro: as aμagtavovta ETOINσey, tractavit eum ut peccatorem; se gessit erga eum, uti erga peccatorem. Sensus est idem." No. XXX.-ON THE SENSE IN WHICH CHRIST IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE TO HAVE DIED FOR US. PAGE 33. (f)-Dr. Priestley's remarks on this subject deserve to be attended to, as they furnish a striking specimen of the metaphysical ingenuity with which the rational expositors of the present day, are able to extricate themselves from the shackles of scripture language. Christ being frequently said in scripture to have died FOR us, he tells us that this is to be interpreted, dying on our account, or for our benefit. "Or if, (he adds) when rigorously interpreted, it should be found, that if Christ had not died, we must have died, it is still however only consequentially so, and by no means properly and directly so, as a substitute for us: for if in consequence of Christ's not having been sent to instruct and reform the world, mankind had continued unreformed; and the necessary consequence of Christ's coming was his death, by whatever means, and in whatever manner it was brought about it is plain, that there was in fact, no other alternative but his death or ours; how naturally then |