stable, which the Improvers take in relation to patriarchal and Mosaick sacrifices, it would be sufficient for their purpose: but the ground is here conceived to be

untenable.

The subject has been already treated of under the second section: but the introducing of it at present, is owing to the application of a general sentiment to particular texts.

The first place in which the purpose becomes manifest, is in the interpretation of Matt. xxvi. 28--"This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." The last words being not found in the institution of the Eucharist, as related by the other Evangelists and by St. Paul; the insertion of them is supposed to have been foreign to the condition of the Gentiles, and accommodated to the case of the Jewish believers. Now setting aside the contrariety of this to fact, since the distinction presumes that the ideas of sacrifice and its effects were less current among the Gentiles, than among the Jews; it is certain that St. John, who wrote expressly for the information of the former, but who gives no narrative of the institution of the Eucharist, makes similar references in several places; as where he describes the Baptist saying-" Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." *There might also be mentioned the like, in various instances of the apostle of the Gentiles.

For a further developement of the principle, there shall be noticed 2 Cor. v. 25-" He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It was certainly desirable, to get rid of "sin" and "righteousness" in the abstract: accordingly, the version makes the former "a sin;" varying the latter part of the verse to---"That we may be justified before God, through him." In the New Testament, the Greek word translated "sin" in the common version, is uniformly so † Αμαρτία.

* i. 29.

rendered, except in 1 John v. 16, 17; where it is "a sin:" but might have been "sin," without impropriety. On the contrary, in many instances, to translate "a sin," would be manifestly unmeaning. It appears so on the present occasion: for it is difficult to know what idea could have been in the minds of the authors of the version, under the expression-" a sin;" while "sin" in the abstract may be conceived of, as figuratively expressing that vicarious character of the Redeemer, of which it has been thought designed. According to the judgment of the present writer, the true rendering is that exhibited as Newcome's---" a sinoffering:" it being the subject, to which the Septuagint applies the word. But neither this nor the common version was consistent with the principle, which the version under review was intended to sustain. This presumed, that the death of Christ was independent on sacrifice, except in the way of illustration: or, as expressed by Dr. Priestley in the theological repository*

"The death of Christ may be called a sacrifice for sin, and a ransom; not as having immediate relation to the forgiveness of sin, but only as a necessary circumstance in the scheme of the gospel, which was necessary to reform the world." But to support the sentiment, the license before noticed was not deemed sufficient. Accordingly, "righteousness" in the abstract is changed into---" be justified:" for which no authority can be given.

It is merely for the clearer developement of the principle, that attention is called to the following text"Who needeth not daily as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the peoples': for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Here the authors of the version take the very extraordinary step, of applying "this he did once," to Christ's imitating of the high priest in offering for his own sins, as well as for those of the people; although in the verse the next before, he is said to have ↑ Heb. vii. 27.

Vol. i. p. 147.

been "separate from sinners." It is true, that what is so predicated of him, is confined to ceremonial sins. But what was there of this description, in the person of the Redeemer, for which to offer sacrifice? The version is ready with its solution: It says "Being of the house of Judah, he was, as to the priesthood, in an unconsecrated state." But on what ground is this alleged to be a sin in any sense? For the support of the position, it ought to appear, that the high priests offered sacrifice for all the Israelites of eleven of the tribes, on account of the ceremonial disqualification of their not being of the priesthood. But there is no such provision in the ritual law. It is an ungrounded hypothesis: so that the words "this he did once," refer altogether to his offering for the people. It was however necessary to extend the position to the person of the Redeemer; in order to sustain the avowed doctrine of the notes, that--." In the same sense in which Christ offered up a sacrifice for his own sins, in that very sense did he offer himself a sacrifice for the sins of the people." Thus there is put out of the question all moral effect, or whatever is strictly opposed to the idea of sin; in order to make it appear, that there was no offering on this account. It is surprising, that the framers of the version did not anticipate the contradiction to their theory in the next chapter, in which the blood of Christ is spoken of, as cleansing from all sin. Indeed, the whole of the ninth and the tenth chapters are in contrariety to the theory. Accordingly, the version gives notice, that they are to be interpreted by the clue given to the eighth chapter; which it would have been difficult for an ordinary reader to keep in mind, during his progress through the succeeding chapters; if it were not continually presented to him by notes of the like vitiated complexion.

There are however other sacrificial references, which the authors of the version are not content to leave to the effect of the aforesaid plan of interpretation. And yet, some of the places being addressed principally to Gentile converts, there seems to have been an imperious

call, to account for the addressing of these through the medium of Jewish habits. A few of such places shall be mentioned.

One of them is---" Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast."* Although the version under review has left this, substantially, as it was found; yet there seems to have been the design of weakening the force of its apparent sense, by substitut. ing "slain" for "sacrificed." Doubtless, the signification of the Greek verb† has a reference to slaughter; and yet it is so constantly applied in the Septuagint to the peculiar species of slaughter, which is in sacrifice; that the latter idea ought to have governed in a passage, which must be explained by the rite of the Jewish passover. What occasion had St. Paul, in writing to a Church composed principally of Gentile converts, to express his sentiments through the medium of a transaction, not to be explained without a statement of the nature of a rite, in which there must especially have appeared the blood sprinkled on the side posts and on the upper door-posts of the houses? This is intelligible, if taken as the type of a more precious victim--such as is the Redeemer, according to the commonly received idea of his character; but is utterly insignificant, if limited to his enduring of death in attestation of his doctrine.

The like may be said of the following text--." The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." The version leaves the sense to be unlocked, by the key before given: but with what propriety such language can be applied to the parting with life, merely as the seal of a divine mission, must be submitted to every serious mind.

On other occasions however, they call the attention of their readers to the operation of their principle. Accordingly, they apply it to the following passage... "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received # 1 John i. 7.

Rom. v. 7, 8.

† Θνω.

by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."* It is represented, that the whole effect of what is thus described, is deliverance from a state of heathenism, prejudice and vice. This was indeed an effect of redemption, but does not come up to the sense of the price paid for it; which, by its reference to the legal sacrifices, conveys the idea of its being for sin. It is also the legitimate construction of the twentyfourth verse of the next chapter..." Who, his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree." But here, the framers of the version conceive of an advantage arising to them from what is said-.." Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses;"+ referring to the words of Isaiah..." He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows:"+ which two places are considered as verified by Christ's miraculous healing of diseases, this being a necessary circumstance of the Christian economy. But it was not thus, that he took on him our infirmities and bare our sicknesses, relatively to the present life; to which the miracle of removing them from others does not apply. It was by that sympathy with the sufferers, which called his miraculous power into act. With this agree the two Greek verbs made use of; the former of which may be rendered "took on himself," as where it is said---" took on him the form of a servant:"|| and the latter, sustaining or suffering in mind; as where it is---" We *** ought to bear the infirmities of the weak." But in the interpretation under review, the aforesaid passage only of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is presented; which only was pertinent to the passage of St. Matthew: while other passages, in the next verse of the chapter, and in the first and twelfth verses are overlooked. These must have been the part in the contemplation of St. Peter. They are..." He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniqui

1 Pet. 18, 19. † Matt. viii. 17. ‡ liii.4. § Eλabe. Ebaotagey. Philipp. ii, 7. Rom. xv. 1.