ciled them to God.-But this is never reprefented in fcripture to be a vicarious punishment of Chrift; nor could it be fo if men were forgiven freely, as St. Paul declares: nor is it ever faid in fcripture, that Chrift was punished. Belides, God did not reconcile himself to us, but reconciled us to himfelf; and accordingly the apoftle fays, "Now then we are ambaffadors for Chrift; as though God did befeech you by us: we pray you in Chrift's flead, be ye reconciled to God."

It is therefore never faid in fcripture, either that God was econciled to man, or that Chrift reconciled God to man, for God was never at enmity with man; but, even when they were finners, "God fo loved the world, that he gave his only Son, to the end that all who believe in him fhould not perish, but have everlasting lite." The fcripture therefore founds our redemption upon the love of God, granting a free pardon, whereas you found it upon the refentment of God, demanding the pu nishment of the innocent perfon instead of the guilty; and which of these appears to be a conduct most agreeable to the nature of a just and g od God?

F But was not this a mediatorial interpofition?

Ch. That is the very thing I fay; God made his Son the only mediator between God and man, and gave him the power to forgive fin freely, and made him a prince and a Saviour in reward of his obedience to death. But his death was no vicarious punishment, nor any punishment at all; but was volun tarily undertaken, upon the pro pect of the reward which was fet before him; the profpect of gaining a power to confer a happy eternity upon millions. Whereas punishment is abfolutely inconfiftent with any reward or recompence in view. However,

I obferve, that in the note, where you are fo fanguine in defence of the word atonement, you have omitted the word vicarious : and indeed there is no fuch word in fcripture, nor were the Jewish facrifices of that nature.

F. But is not the punishment of vice a debt due to justice? Ch. I fuppofe you mean, that the fuffering punishment, is the payment of a debt due to God. But do you think the payment of this debt fo abfolutely neceffary, that it is not in the power of God to forgive it, whenever it may ferve the cause of righteoufnefs more effectually, than the exacting the payment of the debt?

1

F. There can be no forgivenefs without a compenfation." • Ch. I fhould rather think there can be no forgiveness fo far as the compenfation reaches; becaufe fo far, the debt is already paid and befides, there were many fins forgiven by Chrift, before the fuppofed compenfation was made; i. e. as foon as he took the character of the Son of Man.

F. Do not the Chriftian divines confider our fins as a debt, which Chrift has already paid for us?

ン

• Ch. They do; but the New Teftament never does fo: however, fuppofing it true; who is to pay the debt to Chrift? for

ac

according to this notion, the debt is only transferred from the Father to the Son, and the difficulty fill remains: for can we fuppofe, that the Son would forgive that debt without a compenfation, which the Father would not; and exalt the mercy of the Son at the expence of the Father? God forbid !-An hypothefis muft labour violently, that is involved in such blafphemy.

F. But if the vice is not punished, how can the debt be cancelled at all? You will not fay that repentance can do it. If any by profligacy or extravagance should contract a debt, can repentance cancel the bonds? He must be ever accountable; unlefs they are discharged by himself or fome other, and this difcharge Chriftianity holds out upon our repentance.

Ch. How can you tell us in the fame breath, that repentance will not discharge the debt; and that Christianity holds out a difcharge of it upon repentance? But fuppofe the creditor fhould have a great kindnefs for the debtor; and in hopes he might take up and amend his conduct, fhould actually forgive him the debt freely. Is not this a more probable fuppofition, than that he should think of requiring the payment of a debt by a person who did not owe it; and does not St. Paul declare this to be the cafe, as plainly as words can express it? Rom. iii. 24.

F. Thefe doctrines are fo far removed from every tract of human imagination, that it feems equally impoffible that they fhould be derived from the knowledge or artifice of men.

Ch. I have anfwered this impious argument in another place, where you are more explicit.'

The answer here alluded to, with the remark which occa fioned it, is as follows:

You can not pretend to fay that this cuftom was derived from reafon, for it directly contradicts it: nor from ignorance, for that could never have contrived fo unaccountable an expedient: It must therefore be derived from natural instinct, or supernatural revelation, both which are equally the operations of divine power..

• Ch. I don't wonder that a man has a bad opinion of reafon, if he reafons in this manner. Is it poffible for a Christian to believe that human facrifices were inftituted by God, and rest his belief upon fuch an impious argument; that because the doctrine is too contradictory to reafon to be invented by men, therefore it must be derived from God! if this argument be just, the more abfurd a doctrine is, it bids the fairer to be a divine revelation. However, it appears very plainly to me, that human facrifices arofe from fuperftition; from an ignorance of the nature of God, from men's imagining him to be like themfelves before they had caft-off their favage natures, from not diftinguishing between Deifm and Demonifm, or between Jehovah and Moloch: from believing God to be of a cruel unforgiving nature

G 4

nature, and pleafed with his creatures mifery. And indeed what folly is not fuperftition equal to ? For to speak in your own way, did reafon teach the Romans to appease the gods by driving a nail into the Capito!? or to come to the Chriftian ages, was it reafon, or was it not far from the tract of human imagination, to think of making and eating the God of the univerfe-Yet we fee this is the belief of very learned and pious men, which fhews, that if we once difcard our reafon in divinity, nothing is too abfurd to be digefted as a facred mystery.'

It would lead us beyond the limits of our Review to go on, and cite thofe paffages, which deferve particular attention; and therefore we fhall only add, that the author has afcertained the ufe of reafon, the prerogative of natural religion, and the genuine doctrines of Chriftianity, with more accuracy and precifion, than we have ever met with in any other writer; and that whoever wishes to form rational notions on these interefting fubjects, will receive (provided he is a fenfible and impartial reader) the highest fatisfaction, in the perufal of this excellent Dialogue,

Archæologia: or Mifcellaneous Traits relating to Antiquity. Pub fbed by the Society of Antiquaries of London. Val. IV. 4to. 11. is. in sheets.

AR

Whifton,

RT. I. Account of Roman and other Antiquities in Brecknockshire. By John Strange, Efq.-It has been a received opinion among antiquaries, that the principality of Wales contains but few veftiges of the Romans; however, as no diligent fearch after antiquities had been made in that country, Mr. Strange conceived the fuppofition to be groundless, and was prompted to make inquiries, the refult of which confirmed him in that belief. In a former paper he mentioned the discovery of a Roman ftation at Cwm, which he now takes to be the Magnis of Antoninus. A Roman caufeway leads in a direct line from this place to Buahlt. It is elevated, and between 30 and 40 feet wide, confifting of clayey fcil, mixed with large pebbles and gravel bound hard together, and at prefent overgrown with grafs.' Mr. Strange here takes occafion to observe, that the other Roman roads in Wales were made with pebbles in the same manner. Between Caftlemadcc and Llanworthid alfo, there are remains of another causeway in a western direction. This, according to Mr. Strange, may perhaps be part of a road that led to Caermarthen, the Maridunum of the Romans; or, perhaps it may

have joined another, which is fuppofed to have led, from the Gaer near Brecknock into Carmarthenshire over Trecastle hill. As a proof of the exiftence of this laft road, Mr. Strange mentions that a ftone with a Roman infcription has been found on that hill. The words Ic fACIT are legible, from whence we may suppose, the stone to have been erected in memory of the dead, whom the Romans generally buried along the roadfide. Some other stones with Roman letters and a gold coin, maximi moduli, of Vespasian, have also been found near Yftraedvelty.

The Roman roads, though commonly ftrait-lined, were fometimes made to deviate confiderably, where circumftances required it; they were likewife led along high ground, in preference to bogs and marshes. Where the low land was unavoidable, the Romans raised the road above the level of the fields over which it paffed, by means of a foundation of brick. These foundations fometimes were laid over a vaft extent of ground, and whole cities built upon them. That which lies under the town of Marfal in Lorrain is of this nature, and defcribed at large in a pamphlet printed at Paris in 1740, in 8vo. entitled, Recherches fur la nature & l'eténdue d'un ancien ouvrage des Romains appellé communément Briquetage de Marfal. Mr. Strange obferves, that these caufeys are fometimes funk below the level, which he attributes to different natural caufes. The cylindrical stone at Skethrog mentioned by Lhwyd *, next attracted his attention. There is a Roman infcription on it, in which the name of Victorinus is distinguishable.

Mr. Strange then proceeds to examine the opinion of Camden relative to the ancient city of Loventium, which this learned antiquary fuppofes to have occupied the place of Brecon Meer, or Lake. It is currently received among the country people thereabouts, that the city was fwallowed up, and the lake formed at the fame time by an earthquake; but this Mr. Strange treats as fabulous. He acknowledges, however, that fuch changes have happened on the globe, and mentions the fall of feveral mountains in the Alps, which have left lakes in their ftead. Thefe changes, he contends, are not occafioned by volcanic fire, but by a fubterraneous rarefied vapour and explofion, abfque flammis, particularly becaufe, no lava, pumice, or other igneous concretions have ever been feen in the higher Alps. Notwithflanding this argument, the author immediately after declares himself to be firmly of opinion,' that granite, porphyry and other fimilar

Camden's Britannia, 2nd edit. vol. ii. p. 707.

1

vitrifiable compound flones, which conftitute the higher mountains of this chain are to be confidered as igneous concretions.' Thefe expreffions, however, are fo very vague, and fo unlike thofe of a mineralogift, that we will not enter on the merit of the affertion. An account of fome more modern British remains concludes this paper.

Art. II. On the term Lavant. By the hon. Daines Barrington. The river Lavant, near Chichefter, which is dry during part of the year, gave its name to three towns, fituated on its banks, viz. East,' Weft, and Middle Lavant. The term Lavant, however, is applied in Suffex to all brooks which are dry at fome feafons, and alfo to fands upon the fea coaft, which the tide leaves dry. The question is, from whence this term derives? Mr. Barrington deduces it from the Celtic, Llavan, to deprive. We cannot fay this explanation is quite fatisfactory.

Art. III. An Enquiry into the Nature and Caufe of King John's Death, wherein is fhewn that it was not effected by Poison. By the rev. Mr. Pegge.-Mr. Pegge proves, that no contemporary writer mentions the ftory of poisoning king John, and that no author fpeaks of it till about eighty years after that monarch's death. He alfo invalidates the ftory by reprefenting the inconfiftencies and difagreements of the different hiftories where it is recorded; and the fabulous turn of the whole. Some fay he was poifoned by means of fome pears, others by the juice of a toad, fqueezed into a cup of wine. In the first cafe, he obferves, the poifon could only be arfenic, which never causes a diarrhea, the symptom which it is faid to have produced on king John. In the fecond cafe, he refers to Mr. Pennant, the British zoologift, who fays, It is well known that quacks have eaten toads, and have befides squeezed their juices (which was the very cafe here) into a glafs, and drank them with impunity.' The circumftances with which both the ftories are introduced, undoubtedly give them the air of romances; but Mr. Pegge himfelf allows, that the monks of Swinefhead abbey were no friends to the king, who came thither for a night's lodging, in the hour of diftress, and not from choice.

Art. IV. Illuftration of a Gold enamelled Ring, fuppofed to have been the property of Alhstan, bishop of Sherburne, with fome Account of the State and Condition of Saxon Jewelry in the more early ages. By the rev. Mf. Pegge.-The ring here treated of is gold, enamelled, of good workmanship, and in fine prefervation. It weighs above an ounce, and is the more valuable on account of its Saxon infcription, which, except on coins, are generally very rare. This infcription is the

name