Let us, however, come to the simple story told by the Evangelist. One would think Mr. Nicol had not seen the original, and only meant to quote the improved Version of the Unitarians. To the chapter itself (John vi.) he certainly refers.

In examining this portion of Scripture, we shall beg to premise, that we are not stopped by any very material various readings; Griesbach himself, the Unitarian's great authority, being judge. One reading he notices, indeed, of the Sahidic Version, in regard to ver. 33. which would greatly favour the orthodox opinions, but we need not stop now to notice it.

The Jews were pressing our Saviour to work more miracles, and shew some more signs, to satisfy their inordinate curiosity. "Our fathers," say they, ver. 31. "did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat."-" Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread"—mistaking his meaning, as though he still spake of some extraordinary supply of food from heaven; and therefore, "Jesus," intending to speak more plainly to their understandings," said unto them, I am the bread of life," ver. 35. "For I came down from heaven," ver. 38. "The Jews," continues the Evangelist, ver. 41, "then murmured at him, beeause he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" As the Bible, we hope, is a book any of our readers can easily consult for themselves, we shall not go through the whole of the relation, nor transcribe the many repeated declarations of our Lord, verses 51. 58. &c.: that He himself, (not his doctrine, though that must of course be included, under either system) actually came down from heaven, as the Jews understood him, because, in ver. 62. he proves the same thing in another way. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before. true enough the Editors of the Improved Version, take pains to explain this away, though they cannot alter the Greek so as to express the passage otherwise; for their own rendering is as follows, "What then if ye shall see the Son of man going up where he was before." And as they profess (strangely enough) to make Archbishop Newcome's Translation the basis of their own, in their very title-page, we shall subjoin the

It is

Archbishop's own comment on the passage. "My future ascension to heaven will be a proof to you that I came from heaven, a fact which I have repeatedly asserted;" see verses 32, 33. 38. 50. 58.

We now come to Mr. Nicol's account of the ark of the covenant, "by far the most sacred," as Mr. Nicol justly observes," of all the utensils of the most holy place"-" and requiring, therefore, the minutest attention."

To those at all conversant with the writings of the Socinians and Unitarians, it must be well known, that they omit no opportunity of doing away, as far as they can, every impression likely to be made, by the precise words of Scripture, in favour of the received doctrine of atonement or propitiation. As Mr. Nicol, however, in this part of his work, refers to another performance of his on original sin, which we happen never to have seen, but in which he professes to have given such an account of the way in which the ark of the covenant adumbrated our Lord, as to render the adaptation of the symbol to the reality, perfectly clear and convincing, we must speak with some caution. In two positions, however, we perfectly agree with Mr. Nicol, namely, that "the cover was," indisputably, "the emblem of our Saviour, and that what purpose soever the symbol accomplished under the Law, our Saviour accomplished much more perfectly under the Gospel." The mere interpretation of ancient symbols can neither be Scripture nor reason; so that Mr. Nicol's notions concerning the particular emblem in question, is no authority whatsoever: we may believe that he speaks truth when he says, that to his apprehension, that celebrated passage of Scripture, Rom. iii. 25. has been misunderstood by all the commentators" that he ever saw. But we cannot be deterred by any such assertion, from supposing that it has been understood, and adequately explained by some one commentator at least. For we are advanced more than eighteen centuries from the preaching, if not from the publication, of the Gospel, as well as from the date of the several Epistles admitted into the Canon; and if there be one passage in any of these writings still unexplained, it must be something very remarkable.

On turning to Dr. Magee's third edition of his Sermon on the Atonement, we find that he has actually given credit to a living Divine, for having, as it were, finally settled the meaning of this passage; for having "caught the true spirit of it," to use the Archbishop's own words; it is Dr. Nares, the author of the Remarks on the Version of the New Testament, edited by the Unitárians, to whom the Archbishop gives

VOL. I. NO. I.

D

this credit. And we must needs suppose, that Dr. Nares is condemned by Mr. Nicol to take his place amongst those commentators, who, notwithstanding Archbishop Magee's testimony in his favour, have, in Mr. Nicol's estimation, misunderstood the passage. We have taken the pains to look again at Dr. Nares's interpretation of the passage, with which, notwithstanding Mr. Nicol's insinuations, we feel so satisfied, that we cannot help referring all our readers to it; whosoever, at least, may be disposed to investigate matters so far. Dr. Nares very fairly demands to have many things taken into account in the interpretation of this passage, which the Socinians and Unitarians would slur over, and pass unnoticed. Mr. Nicol seems to lay great stress upon points, which Dr. Nares is quite willing to grant, as in no manner affecting the Anti-Socinians. Thus he is quite ready to allow the substitution of the term mercy-seat, for that of propitiation, in the common Version, and yet is ready to contend, that it equally applies to the death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice. Mr. Nicol wastes many words in his endeavours to prove, that moral rectitude was the great object of the Jewish as well as of the Christian dispensation; for, surely, many of the orthodox, as he chooses to call his opponents, generally consider moral rectitude to be at the bottom of both dispensations, as much as Mr. Nicol. He speaks, indeed, of one description of orthodoxy, with which we are unacquainted; an orthodoxy which admits that sinners may obtain mercy and forgiveness, not only without any holiness and righteousness, but even without repentance. This, we must beg leave to say, is not consistent with our southern orthodoxy. How matters may stand on the other side of the Tweed we pretend not to say.

There is a great deal of verbal criticism in this part of Mr. Nicol's book, and much pains taken to give the reader just notions as well of the Hebrew term, and its derivatives, as of the Greek iλasnpiov, ihasμos, &c.: but as there is nothing of this kind which has not received the fullest consideration in Dr. Nares's illustration of the passage referred to, we cannot possibly do better than send our readers thither, for a regular reply to all that Mr. Nicol has advanced against the orthodoxy in the work before us. (See Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Version, 2d Edition, 154-165.) Dr. Nares's discussion of the passage, however, cannot be expected to reach those opinions of Mr. Nicol which are really novel and peculiar, and of this nature we consider some of his observations on the term "propitiatory," as applied to the mercyscat, or proposed to be substituted for "propitiation," by cer

tain "eminent theologians." It is nothing new in a Socinian to be afraid of any term that should imply "a change effected upon God rather than upon men," or to raise objections against any theory that should give a piacular import to the services or symbols of the tabernacle-so far Mr. Nicol is steppingupon old ground, but as he has substitutes to offer, for all the expressions hitherto adopted, to express the angiov of St. Paul, it would be unpardonable not to allow him to speak for himself upon this head. After many remarks on the term 5, which he wishes had been the only term ever adverted to, instead of going to the Greek Version of the LXX., for an explanation of it, he proceeds thus:

"But if the simple term, covering,' will not satisfy my reader-if a word expressive of moral character is required, I have not the smallest hesitation in recommending the compound term, righteousnessseat, as far superior to the common name, in every point of view, except that we have not been accustomed to it. The seat of sanctity, and the seat of rectitude, have also occurred to me; but all these are liable to the objection, that the word seat has not the least affinity to the word cover, which, it must be confessed, enters deeply into the Hebrew term. If we are to have a compound word, descriptive of some moral quality, the righteousness-cover, or the cover of rectitude, appears, all things considered, the most eligible name which I could propose. But if it were allowed to drop the idea of covering, and to form a word expressive of the moral import of the symbol only, then, in imitation of the formation of the term propitiatory, from the word propitious, I would form the term rectitudory, from the word rectitude. At the same time, were this term adopted, it would be necessary to remember, that whilst it denoted the place where the sincere worshippers of God, were covered with holiness and righteousness, it would likewise leave it fairly to be implied, that wherever that moral change should be effected upon the worshippers, there the Almighty would undoubtedly exercise his mercy, his goodness, his wisdom, his powerin short, all the attributes of his nature, to promote the dignity and happiness of man." P. 115.

Is justice, then, we would ask, an attribute of God, or not? for if it be, Mr. Nicol, we think, has overlooked it; and we think we also know why. St. Paul did not forget it; see ver. 26. Dr. Magee did not forget it. Dr. Nares did not forget it. Nay, even the Improved Versionists did not forget it in their rendering of the verse referred to; though they also in their notes would willingly slur it over; but as Dr. Magee and Dr. Nares consider the whole force of the passage to turn upon this point, and that the Apostle had in view, such a particular

display of God's interposition, in the redemption of our sinful race, as might shew forth at once both his mercy and his justice, we must beg to request our reader's attention to this, in the judgment they pass on the nature of the symbol, we have been obliged to dwell upon so long, but which we shall now dismiss; adding only this one remark, that in truth Mr. Nicol's book should not, we think, have been suffered to pass the Tweed; the orthodox, against whom he directs some of his sharpest attacks, not being to be found, answering to that description, here*.

* As Mr. N. in the foregoing extract appears to be so very scrupulous of departing from the original meaning of the term we cannot avoid adding one interpretation of the symbol, from an old writer, which certainly deserves attention. "The cover of this ark (75) was called Masnotov, the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, because it covered, and hid the Law, that it appeared not before God, to plead against man. It was a type of Christ." See Godwin's Moses and Aaron, 63.