C. K. OGDEN DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES OP ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE; THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND THE MODE OF REASONING EMPLOYED, BY THE OPPONENTS OF THOSE DOCTRINES AS HELD BY THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH : AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING BOMK STRICTURES ON MR BELSHAM'S ACCOUNT OF THE UNITARIAN SCHEME, IN HIS REVIEW OF MR WILBERFORCE's TREATISE. BY THE LATE MOST REV. WILLIAM MAGEE, D.D. ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. LONDON: HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 1859. BT LIBRARY UNIVERSITY O SANTA BABBAIU TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM CONYNGHAM PLUNKET. IN placing at the head of these sheets a name, to which the respect and the admiration of tho public have attached so much celebrity, and in avowing, at the same time, that I have selected the name of a friend, with whom I have been united, almost from childhood, in the closest habits of intimacy, I am aware that I subject myself to the imputation of acting as much from a motive of pride as from a sentiment of affection. I admit the imputation to be well founded. To enjoy the happiness of having such a friend, and not to exult in the possession, would be not to deserve it. It is a pride which, I trust, may be indulged in without blame ; and the distinction of having been associated with a character so transcendently eminent for private worth, for public virtue, and for intellectual endowments, I shall always regard as one of the most honourable circum- stances of my life. But, independently of these considerations, the very nature of my subject supplies a reason for the choice which I have made. For I know not, in truth, to whom I could, with greater propriety, inscribe a work whose chief end is to expose false reasoning and to maintain true religion, than to one in whom the powers of just reasoning are so conspicuously displayed, and by whom the great principles of religion are so sincerely reverenced. With these views, I trust that I shall stand excused by you, my dear sir, in having, without your knowledge, thus availed myself of the credit of your name. The following treatise, in which so many additions have been made to a former publication, as in some measure to entitle it to the appellation of a new work, I submit to your judgment ; well satisfied, that if it meet your appro- bation, it will not find an unfavourable reception from the public. I am, my dear Sir, With the truest attachment, Your affectionate friend and servant, Tun A union. THINITV COLLEGE, DCBLIM, Sept, 21. 1'M'J. CONTENTS. DISCOURSE I. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, DISCOURSE II. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE, Page 7 . 17 ILLUSTRATIONS AND EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS. 1. On the Pre-existenee of Christ, ami the species of argu- mentsby which this article of the Christian Doctrine has been opposed, ..... 23 2. Unitarian objections to the religions observance of stated days, 28 3. On the importance of the Doctrine of Redemption, . ib. 4. Pardon not necessarily consequent upon Repentance, 29 6. The sense entertained by mankind of the natural ineffi- cacy of Repentance, proved from the history of human sacrifices, ...... 30 6. On the multiplied operation of the Divine Acts, . 3tt 7. Deist ical reasoning instanced in Chubb, . . ib. 8. On the consistency of Prayer with the Divine Immuta- bility, ...... 39 9. On the granting of the Divine forgiveness through a Me- diator or Intercessor, .... 41 10. On Unitarians, or Rational Dissenters, . . 42 11. On the distinction between Unitarians and Socinians, 43 12. On the corruption of man's natural state, . . 44 13. On the misrepresentation of the Doctrine of Atonement by Unitarians, ..... 48 14. On the disrespect of Scripture manifested by Unitarian writers, ...... ib. 15. On the Heathen notions of merit entertained by Uni- tarian writers, ..... 50 16. On Dr John Taylor's scheme of Atonement, . . ib. I/. The Doctrine of Atonement falsely charged with the pre- sumption of pronouncing on the necessity of Christ's death, ...... 62. 1 8 On the mode of reasoning whereby the sufficiency of good works without mediation is attempted to be defended from Scripture, . . . . .64 19. The want of a discoverable connection between the means and the end, equally applies to every scheme of atone- ment, . . . . . . Hi 50. On the Scripture phrase of our being Reconciled to God, 56 i 21. On the true distinction between the laying aside our enmity to God, and being reconciled to God, . 57 I 22. On the proofs from Scripture, that the sinner is the object of the Divine displeasure, . . . ib. 23. Instance, from the book of Job, of Sacrifice being pre- scribed to avert God's anger, . . . .68 24. On the Attribute of the Divine Justice, . . ib. 25. On the text in John, describing our Lord as " the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," 59 26. On the meaning of the word " propitiation " in the New Testament, ...... 60 27. On the texts describing Christ's death as a Sacrifice for Kin 61 28. On the word KATAAAAFH, translated " Atonement," in Rom. v. 11, . . . . . 66 2!). On the denial that Christ's death is described in Scripture as a Sin-offering, . . . . . ib. 30. On the sense in which Christ is said in Scripture to have died for us, . . . . . . 67 31. On the pretence of figurative allusion in the sacrificial terms of the New Testament, - .^ ._ gg 32. Arguments to prove the sacrificial language of the New Testament figurative, urged by H. Taylor and Dr Priestley, 69 33. On the sense entertained generally by all, and more espe- cially instanced amongst the Jews, of the necessity of propitiatory expiation, . . . ib. j 34. On II. Taylor's objection of the want of a literal corres- pondence between the Mosaic sacrifice and the death of Christ, . . . . . .78 35. On the arguments by which it is attempted to prove the Passover not to be a sacrifice, . . -79 36 On the meaning of the word translated " Atonement " In the Old Testament, . . .85 37. Ou the efficacy of the Mosaic atonement as applied to casts of moral transgression, ... 88 3H. On the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifice*, . 93 39. On the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim, 96 40. On the sufficiency of the proof of the propitiatory nature of the Mosaic sacrifices, independent of the argument which establishes their vicarious import, . 99 41. On the Divine institution of sacrifice ; and the traces there- of discoverable in the heathen corruptions of the rite, ib. 42. On the death of Christ as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind, .... 103 43. On the inconsistency of the reasoning whereby the death of Christ is maintained to have been but figuratively a sacrifice, ...... 124 44. On the nature of the sacrifice for sin, . . 125 45. On the effect of the Doctrine of Atonement in producing sentiments favourable to virtue and religion, . ib. 46. On the supposition that sacrifice originated in priestcraft, 126 47. On the supposition that the Mosaic sacrifice originated in human invention, . . . . 127 48. Sacrifices explained as gifts by various writers, . 13<> 49. Sacrifices considered as federal rites, . . 131 50. Bishop Warburton's theory of the origin of sacrifice, 133 51. The supposition that sacrifices originated in the idea of gifts, erroneous, . . . . ib. 62. On the date of the permission of animal food to man, 134 5.3. On the Divine origin of language, . . . la? 64. On the natural unreasonableness of the sacrificial rite, 143 55. On the universality of sacrifice, . . ib 66. On the universality of the notion of the expiatory virtue of sacrifice, ..... 144 67. On the objections against the supposition of tlie Divine institution of sacrifice, . . . ib. 58. On the sacrifice of Abel, as evincing the Divine institu- tion of sacrifice, . . . . .147 59. On the history and the book of Job, . . 14H 60. On Grotius's strange misconception of the nature of Abel's sacrifice, ..... 17'' 61. On the difference in the Divine reception of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, .... 176 62. On the true meaning of the phrase, HAEIONA 6T2IAN, attributed to the sacrifice of A bel, . . 1/7 63. On the nature and grounds of the faith evidenced by the sacrifice of Abel, ..... 180 64. On the probable time and occasion of the institution of sacrifice, ...... 181 65. On the true interpretation of the passage, Gen. iv. 7, containing God's expostulation with Cain, . 183 66. On the comparison between the sacrifice of Abel and that of Christ, . . . . . 18f> 67- On the nature of sacrifice before the Law : tending to shew its confinement to animal sacrifice, except in the case of Cain, ...... 1!!7 68. On the disproportion between the effects of the Mosaic and the Christian sacrifices, . . ib. 69. On the correspondence between the sacrificial language of the Old Testament and that employed in the New to describe redemption by the death of Christ : and the original adaptation of the former to the subject of the latter, ...... 18!< Postscript to No. 69 On Bolingbroke and Hume, . 1B!> 70. On the correspondence between the annual expiation under the Law, and the one great expiation under the Gospel, ....... 208 71. On the nature and import of the ceremony of the scape- goat, ...... 200 72. Socinian objections urged by a divine of the Established Church against the doctrine of the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifices, and against other doctrines of the Church of England, . . . .210 73. The atonement by the sacrifice of Christ more strictly vicarious than that by the Mosaic sacrifices, whereby it was typified, ..... 217 74. Concluding Number, . . . . .218 APPENDIX, COHTAJNIICO AN ACCOUNT OF THB U.VITARIAN SCHEME, AS DESCRIBED BY MR BBT.SHAM, IN HIS HEVTBW OP MR WriBRRFORCB'e T&KATI8B ; WITH OCCASIONAL STRICTURES ON TUB LEADING ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IV THAT PUBLICATION, Page 219 PREFATORY ADDRESS. TO THE STUDENTS IN DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. THE following Discourses, originally composed with a view to your instruction, are now with the same design submitted to your more deliberate examination. In these latter days Christianity seems destined to undergo a fiercer trial than it has for many centuries experienced. Its defenders are called upon, not merely to resist the avowed invader, who assails the citadel from without, but the concealed and treacherous foe, who undermines the works, or tampers with the garrison within. The temporising Christian, who, under the mask of liberality, surrenders the fundamental doctrines of his creed ; and the imposing Rationalist, who, by the illusions of a factitious . resemblance, endeavours to substitute Philosophy for the Gospel ; are enemies even more to be dreaded than the declared and systematic Deist. The open attacks of the one, directed against the Evidences of Chris- tianity, have but served to strengthen the great outworks of our faith, by calling to its aid the united powers of its adherents; whilst the machinations of the others, secretly employed against the Doctrines of our religion, threaten, by eluding the vigilance, and lulling the suspicions, of its friends, to subvert through fraud what had been found impregnable by force. To aid these machinations, a modern and depraved philosophy hath sent abroad its pernicious sopliistries, infecting the sources of morality, and enervating the powers of manly thought ; and, the better to effect these purposes, clad in those engaging colours which arc peculiarly adapted to captivate the imaginations of young and ardent minds. Against arts and enemies such as these, the most strenuous exertions of all who value the religion of Christ are at this moment imperiously demanded. In what manner to prepare for this conflict we are informed on high authority. We are to " take unto us the whole armour of God having on the breast-plate of righteousness ; and our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace : above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked : and taking the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." These arc the arms which are to ensure us victory in the contest ; and without these arms we neither can nor ought to stand. A conspiracy the most deep and deadly has been formed against Christianity. The " powers of darkness" have combined their mightiest efforts. If, then, the sentinels of the Gospel sleep upon their posts, if they do not instantly rouse to its defence, they are guilty of the blackest treason to their heavenly Master. There is no room for truce or accommodation. The " Captain of our salvation" has declared, that " he that is not with liim is agajnst him." The force of this declaration is at this day peculiarly manifest. It is now become necessary, that a broad and distinct line should be drawn between those who truly acknowledge the authority of revelation, and those who, whilst they wear the semblance of Christians, but lend the more effectual support to the enemies of Christianity. These reflections, though befitting all who profess the religion of Christ, press peculiarly on those who are destined to teach and to enforce his word. To you, my young friends, who look forward to the clerical office, they are important beyond description ; and, if allowed their due weight upon your minds, they cannot fail to stimulate to the most zealous and effectual exertions in your pursuit of sacred knowledge. Already, indeed, has a more enlivened spirit of religious inquiry been manifested amongst you. To promote that spirit, and to supply some additional security against the prevailing delusions of the day, these Discourses on the Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, doctrines against which, above all others, the Deist and the rationalizing Christian direct their attacks, were originally delivered, and are now published. The desire expressed for their publication by the existing divinity classes would have been long since complied with, but for the addition of certain arduous academic duties to the ordinary engagements of the author's collegiate situation. To those who are so well acquainted with the laborious employment which those duties and engagements necessarily impose, no apology can be requisite on the ground of delay. More than twelve months have elapsed since the greater part of these sheets were committed to the press ; and the prosecution of the subject has been unavoidably suspended during a considerable portion of the intervening period. The form in which the work is now presented seems more to require explanation. The first design extended only to the publication of the two Discourses, with a few occasional and supplementary remarks: PREFATORY ADDRESS. and on this plan the sermons were sent to press. But on farther consideration, it appeared advisable to enter into a more accurate and extensive examination of the subject, even though a short text should thereby be contrasted with a disproportionate body of notes. The great vice of the present day is a presumptuous precipitancy of judgment ; and there is nothing from which the cause of Christianity, as well as of general knowledge, has suffered more severely than from that impatience of investigation, and that confidence of decision upon hasty and partial views, which mark the literary character of an age undeservedly extolled for its improvements in reasoning and philosophy. A false taste in morals is naturally connected with a false taste in literature ; and the period of vicious dissipation is not likely to prove the era of dispassionate and careful inquiry. There is, however, no short way to truth. The nature of things will not accommodate itself to the laziness, the interests, or the vices of men. The paths which lead to knowledge are unalterably fixed, and can be traced only by slow and cautious steps. From these considerations, it was judged expedient to submit the subject of these discourses, and the crude and superficial reasonings which have of late been exercised upon it, to a stricter and more minute test of inquiry. For this purpose, the present plan has been adopted as best suited to that exactness of critical investigation which is due to the importance of the subject, and as the most fitly calculated to direct the thoughts of the student to the most useful topics of inquiry, and the most profitable sources of informa- tion. Such a plan, I have little doubt, will be favourably received by those whose minds, trained in the habits of close deduction, and exercised in the researches of accurate science, cannot but be readily disposed to accept, in the place of general assertion and plausible declamation, a careful review of facts, and a cautious examination of Scripture. One circumstance, which is of no mean value in the method here pursued, is, that it enables us, without interrupting the thread of inquiry, to canvass and appreciate the pretensions of certain modern writers, whose high tone of self-admiration, and loud vauntings of superior knowledge, have been but too successful in obtaining for them a partial and temporary ascendency in public opinion ; and who have employed the influence derived from that ascendency to weaken the truths of Christianity, and to subvert the dearest interests of man. I trust that you, my young readers, will see enough in the Illustrations and Explanatory Dissertations accompanying these Discourses, to convince you of the emptiness of their claims to that supe- riority, which, did they possess it, would be applied to purposes so injurious. You will probably see sufficient : reason to pronounce, that their pretensions to philosophic distinction, and their claims to critical pre-eminence, I stand on no better grounds than their assumption of the exclusive profession of a pure Christianity. The confident and overbearing language of such men you will then regard as you ought : and, from the review of their reasonings, and the detail of their religious opinions, you will naturally be led to feel the full value of the duly regulated discipline of the youthful understanding, in those severer exercises of scientific study, which give vigour to the intellect, and steadiness to the judgment ; and the still greater value of that early reverence for the mysterious sublimities of religion, which teaches the humility becoming man's highest powers when directed to the yet higher things of God. The half learning of modern times has been the fruitful parent of multiplied evils : and it is not without good cause, that the innovating theorist of the present day makes it his first object to abridge the work of education, and, under the pretence of introducing a system of more immediate practical utility, to exclude that wholesome discipline, and regular institution, which are essential to conduct the faculties of the young mind to sound and manly strength. I cannot conclude this prefatory address without indulging in the gratifying reflection, that, whilst the deceptions of wit and the fascinations of eloquence, combined with a wily sophistry and an imposing confi- dence, have but too frequently produced their pernicious effects, to the detriment of a true Christian faith, on the minds of the inexperienced and unreflecting ; these audacious attempts have seldom found, in this place, any other reception than that of contempt and aversion. And with true pleasure I feel myself justified in pronouncing with confidence, that, so long as the students of this seminary, intended for the office of the ministry, continue to evince the same serious attention to religious subjects which has of late years so honourably distinguished numbers of your body, and so profitably rewarded the zealous labours of your instructors in sacred literature, Christianity will have little to fear in this land from such attempts. That you may gloriously persevere in these laudable efforts to attain the most useful of all learning, and in the conscientious endeavour to qualify yourselves for the due discharge of the most momentous of all duties ; that so the work of God may not suffer in your hands ; and that, being judged fit dispensers of that " wisdom which is from above," you may hereafter be enabled to " turn many to righteousness," and finally to obtain the recompense of the " good and faithful servants" of Christ, is the ardent wish and prayer of your very sincere friend, THE AUTHOR. Apra S3, 1801. TWO DISCOURSES OK THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES OF ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE; DELIVERED IN THE CHAPEL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, ON GOOD FRIDAY, IN THE YEARS 1798 AND 1799. DISCOURSE I. " But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling- block, and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are called Christ the power of God, and the wudom of God." 1 COR. i. 23, 24. THAT the sublime mystery of the Redemp- tion should have escaped the comprehension both of the Jew and of the Greek ; that a crucified Saviour should have given offence to the worldly expectant of a triumphant Mes- siah, whilst the proud philosopher of the schools turned with disdain from the humi- liating doctrine which proclaimed the insuffi- ciency of human reason, and threatened to bend its aspiring head before the foot of the Cross, were events which the matured growth of national prejudice, on the one hand, and the habits of contentious discussion, aided by a depraved moral system, on the other, might, in the natural course of things, have been expected to produce. That the Son of God had descended from heaven ; that he had disrobed himself (No. I.) of the glory which lie had with the Father before the world be- gan ; that he had assumed the form of the humblest and most degraded of men ; that, submitting to a life of reproach, and want, and sorrow, he had closed the scene with a death of ignominy and torture ; and that, through this voluntary degradation and suf- fering, a way of reconciliation with the Su- preme Being had been opened to the whole human race, and an atonement made for those transgressions, from the punishment of which unassisted reason could have devised no means of escape, these are truths which prejudice and pride could not fail, at all times, to have rejected ; and these are truths to which the irreligion and self-sufficiency of the present day oppose obstacles not less insurmountable than those which the prejudice of the Jew, and the philosophy of the Greek, presented in the age of the apostle. For at this day, when we boast a wider diffusion of learning, and more extensive acquirements of" moral know- ledge, do we not find these fundamental truths of revelation questioned ? Do we not see the haughtiness of lettered scepticism presuming to reject the proffered terms of salvation, because it cannot trace, with the finger of hu- man science, the connection between the cross of Christ and the redemption of man ? But to these vain and presumptuous aspirings after knowledge placed beyond human reach, we are commanded to preach Christ crucified : which, however it may, to the self-fancied wise ones of this world, appear as foolishness, is yet, to those who will humble their under- standing to the dispensations of the Almighty, the grandest display of the divine perfections " Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." To us also, my brethren, who profess a con- viction of this truth, and who are called on by the return of this day, (No. II.) more particu- larly to recollect the great work of salvation, wrought out for us by the memorable event which it records, it may not be unprofitable to take a short view of the objections that have been urged against this fundamental doctrine (No. III.) of our religion ; that so we may the better discern those snares which beset the Christian path, and that, being guarded against the obstructions which are insidiously raised against that true and gospel faith, whereby alone we can hope for accep- 8 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. tance and happiness, we may be able to place the great pillar of our hopes upon a basis which no force can shake, and no art can un- dermine. In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly de- serving the closest examination, our atten- tion should be directed to two different classes of objectors, those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever, and those who question the particular nature of that media- tion which has been appointed. Whilst the Deist, on the one hand, ridicules the very no- tion of a Mediator ; and the philosophising Christian, on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis ; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the injurious attacks of both, and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous mis- representations of its false or mistaken friends. The objections which are peculiar to the former are, upon this subject, of the same description with those which they advance against every other part of revelation ; bear- ing with equal force against the system of Natural Religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of Revealed Religion, which they oppose. And, indeed, this single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection that is, if the Deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be might suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of Nature and the word of the Gospel being found to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one rebounds with undiminished force against the other, the conviction of their common origin must be the inference of un- biassed understanding. Thus, when, in the outset of his argument, the Deist tells us, that, as obedience must be the object of God's approbation, and disobe- dience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow, by natural consequence, that, when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had never offended ; he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the assertion, and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man who, *>y intemperance and voluptuousness, has in- jured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and deter- mining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation ? The difference in degree can- not affect the question in the least. It matters not whether the punishment be of long or of short duration ; whether in this world or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God require that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken place, it must be a violation of those attributes to per- mit any punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils of this life attendant upon vice are the effects of an established constitu- tion, and follow in the way of natural conse- quence. Is not that established constitution itself the effect of the divine decree ? and are not its several operations as much the ap- pointment of its Almighty Frainer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate direction? But, besides, what reason have we to suppose that God's treatment of us in a future state will not be of the same nature as we find it in this according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence ? Many circumstances might be urged, on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present pur- pose. It is sufficient that the Deist cannot prove that it will not. Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here : can he adduce a counter-experience to shew that it will hereafter ? The justice and good- ness of God are not, then, necessarily con- cerned, in virtue of the sinner's repentance, to remove all evil consequent upon sin in the next life ; or else the arrangement of events in this has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the Deist admits the latter, what becomes of his Natural Reli- gion? Now let us inquire whethei the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former trangressions ? (No. IV.) Can repen- tance annihilate what is past ? Or, can we do more, by present obedience, than acquit our- selves of present obligation ? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduc- tion of our former demerit? And is the jus- tification of the philosopher, who is too en- lightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation ? " We may as well affirm," says a learned divine, "that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obe- dience makes amends for antecedent trans- gressions." And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those who deny the possible efficacy of Christ's mediation ; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former : the necessary con- nection between the merits of one being, and DiscouasB I. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 9 the acquittal of another, not being less con- ceivable than that which is believed to subsist between obedience at one time, and the for- giveness of disobedience at another. Since, then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions ; and the abstract reason of the thing can furnish no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins ; it follows, that, however the contemplation of God's infinite goodness and love might excite some faint hope that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent, the animating certainty of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone, (No. V.) But it is yet urged by those who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason, that, admit- ting the necessity of a revelation on this sub- ject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to liavc made known to man his benevolent in- tention ; and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been su- perfluous for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin ; when this might have been effected, in a way infi- nitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free par- don, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment. To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he may best con- duct his creatures to happiness, we might, as before, reply, by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary events ; and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sus- tenance of life depending on the tedious pro- cess of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed, and conducting to tlie perfection fitting it for the use of man, the necessary article of nourishment, when the end might have been at once accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend, that bread has not been ordained for the support of man, because, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been mined down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the Philosopher (as he wishes to be Killed) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator. With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for all, to make this general observation. We find, from tlic whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which ho employs, in the ordinary works of his providence, are not physically necessary to his operations. He might have acted without them if he pleased. He might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of parents : but where then had been the beneficial con- nection between parents and children ; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society, from such connection ? The difficulty lies here : the uses, arising from the connec- tions of God's acts may be various ; and such are the pregnancies of his works, that a single act may answer a prodigious variety of pur- poses. Of these several purposes we are, for the most part, ignorant : ami from this igno- rance are derived most of our weak objections against the ways of his providence ; whilst we foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in view, (No. VI.) This observation we shall find of material use, in our examination of the remaining ar- guments adduced by the Deist, on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies thaii to that, by which he en- deavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with the divine immutability. It is either, he affirms, (No. VII.) agreeable to the will of God, to grant salvation on re- pentance, and then he will grant it without a Mediator ; or it is not agreeable to his will, and then, a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the mutability of the divine decrees. But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are agreeable to the will of God must be accom- plished, whether we pray or not ; and, there- fore, our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have a power of altering hi? will. And, indeed, with equal conclusiveness it might be proved, that repentance itself must be unnecessary. For, if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God will forgive us without repentance ; and if it be unfit, repentance can be of no avail, (No. VIII.) The error in all these conclusions is tho same. It consists in mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree, and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the intermediate steps whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas tho manner is sometimes as necessary as the act proposed ; so that if not done in that particu- lar way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation abundant illustration may be derived, as well from natural, as from re- vealed religion. "Thus, we know, from natural religion, that it is agreeable to tho will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be relieved ; and yet we see the desti- tute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fel- low-men ; and if not relieved by them, they are not relieved at all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, wo find that God was willing ho should 10 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. be healed of his leprosy ; but yet he was not willing that it should be done, except in one particular manner. Abana and Pharpar were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in them, and be clean ? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor the most important. The manner of the cure was of more consequence in the moral design of God, than the cure itself : the effect being produced, for the sake of manifesting, to the whole kingdom of Syria, the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was performed." And, in like manner, though God willed that the penitent sinner should receive forgiveness, we may see good reason, why, agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator, (No. IX.) Although, in the present stage of the sub- ject, in which we are concerned with the objections of the Deist, the argument should be confined to the deductions of natural reason ; yet I have added this instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written word of Revelation, adopt the very principle which we have just examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of Christians, (No. X.) in the sister kingdom, who glory in having brought down the high things of God to the level of man's understanding ? That Christ was a person sent into the world to promul- gate the will of God ; to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties ; by his life, to set an example of perfect obedience ; by his death, to manifest his sincerity ; and by his resurrection, to convince us of the great truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christi- anity. It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement ; its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature ; and its enforcement more ope- rative, as founded on a certainty of a state of retribution, (No XI.) And is, then, Christi- anity nothing but a new and more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of Christ but an attestation of his truth ? And are we, after all, left to our own merit for acceptance ; and obliged to trust, for our salvation, to the perfection of our obedience ? Then, indeed, has the great Au- thor of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross ; if, after having given to mankind a law which leaves them less excus- able in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or foil by their own personal deserts. It is said, indeed, that as by this new dis* pensation the certainty of pardon, on repen- tance, has been made knpwn, mankind has been informed of all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But, granting that no more was intended to be conveyed than the sufficiency of repentance, yet it remains to be considered in what way that repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration, that God would forgive the re- pentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his amend- ment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation ? What was there to alarm, to rouse, the sinner from the apathy of habi- tual transgression ? What was there to make that impression which the nature of God's moral government demands ? Shall we say, that the grateful sense of divine mercy would be sufficient ; and that the generous feelings of our nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our obedience ? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue, and of right, would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not, then, had abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies ? What is the his- tory of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continual trial of his natural strength ? And what has been the moral of that history, but that man is strong only as he feels himself weak ? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and, from a consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance upon God ? What is the description, which the Apostle of the Gentiles has left us, of the state of the world at the coming of our Saviour ? " Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wicked- ness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity ; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things arc worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them," (Rom. i. 2932. Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart, which is the favourite theme and fundamental principle with that class of Christians with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not, then, had full experiment of our natural powers? (No. XII.) And shall we yet have the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits, and to turn away from that gra- cious support, which is offered to us through the mediation of Christ ? No : lost as men were, at the time Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion ; lost as they must be to it, DISCOURSE I. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 11 at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own sufficiency ; nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God's abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and on the heart, what could prove a sufficient counter- action to the violent impulse of natural pas- sions ? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have in- fected the whole human race ? Besides, with- out a full and adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of for- giveness, unless conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without some proof of God's hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the greatness of his love. The simple promulgation, then, of forgive- ness on repentance, could not answer the pur- pose. Merely to know the condition, could avail nothing. An inducement, of sufficient force to ensure its fulfilment, was essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a new system, the system of humility. And for this purpose, what expe- dient could have been devised more suitable, than that which has been adopted ? the sac- rifice of the Son of God, for the sins of men : proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the immensity of the guilt, (No. XIII ;) and thence, at the same time, evincing, in the most fearful manner, God's utter abhor- rence of sin, in requiring such expiation ; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it. To this expedient for man's salvation, though it be the clear and express language of Scrip- ture, I have as yet sought no support from the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with the Deist, who denies all Revelation, and the pretended Christian, who, rationalising away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer, to urge the declara- tions of Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no purpose. Its authority, disclaimed by the one and evaded by the other, each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself the ground of general reason. But we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians, who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and meaning of Scripture, (No. XIV.) will enable us to try the subject of our discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And, indeed, it were most sincerely to bo wished, that the doctrines of Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scrip- turo itsolf; and that preconceived notions, and arbitrary theories, were not first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not there- by imposed a duty of submitting our under- standings to its perfect wisdom ? Shall weak, short-sighted man presume to say "If I find the discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right and fit, I will admit them : but if they do not, I am sure they cannot be the genuine sense of Scripture : and I am sure of it on this principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?" That is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him to do. The language of Scripture must, then, by every possible refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural mean- ing, to this predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of Revelation being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how differs the Christian from the Deist ? The only difference is this : that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation, the other, compelled by evi- dence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both, there is the same self- sufficiency, the same pride of understanding, that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wanting Humility. For in what consists the entire of Christianity but in this that, feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole selves, onr hearts and our understand- ings, to the divine disposal ; and, relying on God's gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety ? Nay, what is the very notion of religion, but this humble reliance upon God ? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claim- ing, as a debt, the reward of our good works, (No. XV ;) a sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own inde- pendence, and our own rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is ne- cessarily at war with Virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced ? Does not every page or Revelation peremptorily pronounce this ? And yet, shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly, if our pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mys- terious truths of Revelation ; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that the wisdom of man is but fool~ ishness with God, we may beaj tuo name of 12 MAQEE ON THE ATONEMENT. Christians, but we want the essence of Chris- tianity. These observations, though they apply, in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational, yet (ire, in a certain degree, applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that, in the death of Christ, there was no expiation for sin ; that the w r ord sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense ; and that the whole doctrine of the Redemption amounts but to this " that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it only in that way which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world ; and that He, having taught the pure doctrines of the Gospel, having passed a life of exemplary virtue, having en- dured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience ; and having risen again, to manifest the cer- tainty of a future state ; has, not only by his example, proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation ; but has, by the merits of his obe- dience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow par- don, and final happiness upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repen- tance ?" (No. XVI.) That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator : the mediation conducted through intercession : and that intercession successful, in recom- pense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer. Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemp- tion admitted : but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of pure intercession in opposition to that of atonement, we shall per- haps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of Redemption at large ; and the Deist, against that of Revela- tion itself. For the present, let us confine our attention to the objections which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines 'of that Church to which we more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged, with equal force, against the former : not a single difficulty, with which it is at- tempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of Scripture ; and for open- ing the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which, if persevered in, must render the word of God a nullity. The first and most important of the objec- tions we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement asfounded on the divine implacability in as much as it supposes, that, to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted ; and that, consequently, the sinner could not by any means have been released had not Christ suffered in his stead, (No. XVII.) Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had, indeed, been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer ; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness ; does it not follow, that, had not Christ thus suffered, and interceded, we could not have been for- given ? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict Judge ; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon ? Here the argument is ex- actly parallel, and the objection of implaca- bility equally applies. Now what is the answer ? " That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven ; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means by which God, origin- ally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word inter- cession be changed for sacrifice, and see whe- ther the answer be not equally conclusive. The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any, who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable ; but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, through which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself? " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but. have everlasting life," (John, iii. 16 ;) and, "Herein is love,not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins," (1 John, iv. 10. ;) and again we are told, that " we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world," (1 Pet. 1. 18 20 ;) and again, that Christ is " the Lamb slain from the foundation of tho world," DISCOURSE I. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 13 I (Rev. xiii. 8.) Since, then, the notion oJ the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, con- tained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure intercession merely as the means whereby God has thoughtfit to grant hisfavour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen crea- tures ; and since, by the same sort of repre- sentation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being is as applicable to the one scheme as to the other ; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both ; we may estimate with what candour this has been made, by those who hold the one doctrine, the fundamental ground of their objections against the other. For it is on the ground of the expression of God's unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave them freely, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ, cannot be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament, (No. XVIII.) But still it is demanded, " In what way can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the re- mission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherwise would not have forgiven us?" To this the answer of the Christian is, " I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is con- nected with the forgiveness of sins : it is enough that this is declared by God to be the medium through which mysalvationis effected. I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom : and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehen- sion." But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same objection. It lias been asked, how can the sufferings of one being be conceived to have any connection with the forgiveness of another? Let us likewise inquire, how the meritorious obedience of one being can be conceived to have any connec- tion with the pardon of the transgressions of another, (No. XIX.) : or whether the prayer of a righteous being in behalf of a wicked person can bo imagined to have more weight m obtaining forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure that for- giveness ? The fact is, the want of discover- able connection has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the intercession, has, so far as wo can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the other, is, that it has been appointed as the means by which God has determined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, ia not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator ; and, if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pur 3 Deism, and, perhaps, may not stop even there. Thus we have seen to what the general objections against the doctrine of atonement amount. The charges of di vine implacability, and of inefficacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine which is attempted to be substi- tuted in its room. We come now to the objections which are drawn from the immediate language of Scrip- sure, in those passages in which the nature of our redemption is described. And first, it is assorted, that it is nowhere said in Scripture, that God is reconciled to us by Christ's death, but that we are every where said to be recon- ciled to God, (No. XX.) Now, in this objec- tion, which clearly lays the whole stress upon our obedience, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which is set up in oppo- sition to the scheme of atonement ; we see that reluctance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the principle of Redemp- tion by the sacrifice of Christ is openly at war ; and, consequently, we see the essential differ- ence there is between the two doctrines at present under consideration, and the necessity there exists for separating them by the clearest marks of distinction. But, to return to the objection that has been made : it very fortu- nately happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their Scripture use, defined by no less an authority than that of our Saviour himself: " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and otter thy gift," (Matt._v. 23, 24.) Now, from this plain instance, in which the person offending is expressly described as the party to be recon- ciled to him who had been offended, by agree- ing to his terms of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him, it manifestly ap- pears in what sense this expression is to be understood, in the language of the New Testa- ment. The very words, then, produced for the purpose of shewing that there was no dis- pleasure on the part of God, which it was necessary by some means to avert, prove the direct contrary : and our being reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside our enmity to God, (No. XXI.) in which sense the ob- jection supposes it to be taken but the turn- ing away nis displeasure, whereby we are enabled to regain his favour. And, indeed, it were strange had it not meant this. What ! are we to suppose the God of the Christian, like the Deity of the Epicurean, to look on with indifference upon the actions of this life, and not to be offended at the sinner ? The displeasure of God, it is to bo remembered, ia 14 MAG HE ON THE ATONEMENT. not, like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapprobation ; which if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary, and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him what might appear to be the weakness of passion, that they, who trust to reason more than to Scripture, have been withheld from admitting any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they attended but a little to the plain language of Scripture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of God against the disobedient spoken of in almost every page, (No. XXII.) They would have found also a case, which is exactly in point to the main argument before us ; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but, the turning away of his displea- sure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job, in which God expressly says that his " wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right," (Job, xlii. 7 ;) and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger, (No. XXIII.) But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a Being of infinite love. True ; and the whole difficulty arises from building on partial texts. When men perpetually talk of God's justice as being necessarily modified by his goodness, (No. XXIV,) they seem to forget that it is no less the language of Scrip- ture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes of the Supreme Being as so many distinct quali- ties ; when we should conceive of them as inseparably blended together, and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best. As to God's displeasure against sinners, there can be then, upon the whole, no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of atonement, no difficulty can arise from the Scripture phrase, of men being reconciled to God ; since, as we have seen, that directly implies the turning away the displeasure of God, so as to be again restored to his favour and protection. But, though all this must be admitted by those who will not shut their eyes against reason and Scripture, yet still it is contended, that the death of Christ cannot be considered as a propitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described as " the Lamb (No. XXV.) of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," (John, i. 29 ;) when we are told, that " Christ nath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God," (Ephes. v. 2 ;) and that he " needed not, like the High Priests under the law, to offer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people's ; for that this he did once, when he offered up himself," (Hebrews, vii. 27 ;) when he is ex- pressly asserted to be the " propitiation for our sins," (1 John, 5i. 2 ;) and God is said to have " loved us, and to have sent his Son to be the propitiation (No. XXVI.) for our sins," (1 John, iv. 10 ;) when Isaiah, (liii. 10) describes " his soul as made an offering for sin," (No. XXVII.) ; when it is said that " God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," (Rom. viii. 32 ;) and that "by him we have received the (No. XXVIII.) atonement," (Rom. v. 11 ;) when these and many other such passages, are to be found ; when every expression, referring to the death of Christ, evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and propitiation ; when this sacri- fice is particularly represented as of the nature of a sin offering, which was a species of (No. XXIX.) sacrifice " prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned :" it may well appear sur- prising on what ground it can be questioned that the death of Christ is pronounced in Scripture to have been a sacrifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men. It is asserted that the several passages which seem to speak this language contain nothing more than figurative allusions ; that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life for, that is, on account of, mankind, (No. XXX.) ; and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacri- fices of the law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but figurative, (No. XXXI.) it is contended, (No. XXXII.) 1st, That the death of Christ did not corres- pond literally, and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice : 2dly, That being, in different places, commred to different kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any : and lastly, That there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propitiation or expiation of sin, under the Mosaic dispen- sation at all, this notion having been entirely of heathen origin, (No. XXXIII.) As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration. The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic sacrifice is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that because Christ was not of the species of animal which had usually been offered up ; or because he was not slain in the same manner ; or because he was not offered by the High Priest, there could have been no sacrifice, (No. XXXIV.) But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in DISCOURSE I. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 15 expiation, be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those who mean to cavil, not to discover truth. Again, as to the second argument, which, from the comparison of Christ's death to the different kinds of sacrifices, woxild infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be re- plied, that it will more reasonably follow that it was of the nature of all. Resembling that of the Passover, (No. XXXV.) inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of .Egyptian bondage ; par- taking the nature of the Sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression ; and similar to the institution of the Scape-goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all ; may we not reasonably suppose that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and comple- tion of the whole sacrificial system ; and that so far from being spoken of in figure, as bear- ing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the Law, they were, on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells us, ^Hebrews, x. 1,) but figures, or faint and partial representations, of this stupendous sacrifice, which had been ordained from the beginning? And, besides, it is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, that the striking resem- blance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced just the con- trary effect upon the sacred writers ; since they must have been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a founda- tion for error in that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people whose religion was en- tirely sacrificial, in what, but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial representations of the death of Christ have been understood ? We come now to the third and principal ob- jection, which is built upon the assertion, that no sacrifices of atonement (in the sense in which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under the Mosaic Law ; such as were called by that name having had an entirely different import, (No. XXXVI.) Now, that certain offerings under this denomination re- lated to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremonial worship, must undoubtedly bo admitted. That others were again appointed to relieve persons from ceremonial incapacities, so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature strictly propitiatory, nnd ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor not only of the ceremo- nial, but, in some cases, even of the moral law, (No. XXXVII.) will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus, we find it decreed, that " if a soul sin, and com- mit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely, then, because he hath sinned in this, he shall not only make restitution to his neighbour j but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock ; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be for- given him," (Levit. vi. 2 7.) And again, in a case of criminal connection with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered to " bring his trespass-offering, and the priest is to make atonement for him with the trespass- offering, for the sin which he hath done ; and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him," (Levit. xix. 20 22.) And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description of presumptuous, it is manifest, from the slightest inspection of the book of j Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed wag > appointed as the means whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender. Again, as to the vicarious (No. XXXVIII.) import of the Mosaic sacrifice, or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had deserved ; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free-will offering, " he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, (No. XXXIX.) and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him," (Levit. i. 4 ;) but the ceremony of the scape- goat on the day of expiation appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, how- ever, as not being necessary to my argument, (No. XL.) I shall not at present enlarge. That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians, (No. LIX.) in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and dis- figured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every can- did inquirer will find little reason to doubt, (No. XLI.) But, be this as it may, it must beadmitted, that propitiatory sacrifices notonly existed throughout the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument, then, which, from the non-exist- ence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ to indicate such sacrifice, necessarily falls to the ground, (No. XLII.) But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that any such sacrifice over did exist, by divine appointment. 16 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. For on what principle do they deny the :'ornier, but this ? that the sufferings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God ; cannot render him more ready to forgive, more bene- volent, than he is in his own nature ; and, consequently, can have no power to avert from the offender the punishment of his trans- gression. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the expiation of sin must be im- possible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin ; and why they feel it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the Old, (No. XLIII.) Setting out with a preconceived, erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest contradiction, they hold themselves justified in rejecting every accepta- tion of Scripture which supports it. But, had they more accurately examined the true im- port of the term in Scripture use, they would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away, by strained and unnatural in- terpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text. They would have seen that a sacrifice for sin, in Scripture language, implies solely this, "a sacrifice wisely and graciously appointed by God, the moral gover- nor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender," (No. XLIV.) To ask why God should have appointed this particular mode, or in what way it can avert the punish- ment of sin ; is to take us back to the general point at issue with the Deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under any modification, such matters cannot be subject of inquiry. But, even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural connection and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered as a sensible and striking repre- sentation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God's justice : and then, on the part of God, it becomes a publicdeclarationofhisholydispleasureagainst sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sin- ner ; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere con- fession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtain- ing pardon : and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his trangression. This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testament. Now, is there any thing in this degrading to the honour of God, or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason 1 And, in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that may not, in n certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For, according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins ; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacrifice ; that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this ; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God's love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious subject. Whether, in the expanded range of God's moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begot- ten Son, it is not for us to inquire ; nor does it in any degree concern us. What God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe. One remarkable circumstance, indeed, there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the subject of the offering, but the priest who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor ; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by which " he offered himself without spot to God." We are not only, then, in virtue of the sacrifice, forgiven ; but, in virtue of the intercession, admitted to favour and grace. And thus the Scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure intercession seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains the great advantage (No. XLV.) of impressing mankind with a due sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from itV effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue HUMILITY. And the fact is plainly this, that, in every attempt to get rid of the Scrip- ture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or less, to prevail : we find a fondness for the opinion of man's own sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit, with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of Re- velation. If, now, upon the whole, it has appeared, that natural reason is unable to evince the efficacy of repentance ; if it has appeared, that, for the purpose of forgiveness, the idea of a DISCOURSE II. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE. 17 mediatorial scheme is perfectly consistent with our ordinary notions ; if it has appeared, that Revelation has most unequivocally pronounced, that, through the mediation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our redemption has been effect- ed ; if it has appeared, that Christ is declared to have effected that redemption by the sacri- fice of himself for the sins of mankind ; if it has appeared, that in the Scripture meaning of sacrifice for sin, is included atonement for transgression ; and if it has appeared, that the expression has been applied to Christ, in the plain and literal sense of the word, as the pro- pitiation of an offended God, I trust we are sufficiently fortified against the Deist, who denies thedi vine mission ; against the Socinian, who denies the redeeming mediation ; and against the modern rationalising Arian, who denies the expiatory sacrifice of Christ : in short, against all, who would deprive us of any part of the precious benefits, which, as on this day, our Saviour died to procure for us ; against all, who would rob us of that humble feeling of our own insufficiency, which alone can give us an ardent and animating faith in the death and merits of our blessed Redeemer. DISCOURSE II. " And without shedding of blood is no remission." HEB. ix. 22. ON the last commemoration of the awful sub- ject of this day's observance, it was attempted, in this place, to clear the important doctrine of redemption from those difficulties in which it had been artfully entangled by the subtle speculations of the disputatious Deist, and of the philosophising Christian. The impotence of reason to erect the degraded sinner to an assured hope of the sufficiency of repentance, pointed out to us the necessity of an express revelation on this head : that revelation, in announcing the expedient of a Mediator, was seen to fall in with the analogies of the provi- lential economy ; the Mediatorial scheme was y God ; and both instituted in reference to that true and efficient Sacrifice, which was one day to be offered ; the rite, as practised before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a sacramental memorial, " shewing forth the Lord's death until he came," (1 Cor. xi. 26 ;) and when accompanied with a due faith in the promises made to the early believers, may reasonably be judged to have been equally acceptable with that sacramental me- morial, which has been enjoined by our Lord himself to his followers, for the " shewing forth his death until his coming again." And it deserves to be noticed, that this very ana- logy seems to be intimated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the institution of that solemn Christian rite. For, in speaking ..if his own blood, he calls it, in direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses established and sanctified the first covenant, " the blood of the new covenant, which was shed for the remis- sion of sins," (Matt. xxvi. 28 ;) thus plainly marking out the similitude in the nature and object* of the two covenants, at the moment that he was prescribing the great sacramental commemoration of his own sacrifice. From this view of the subject, the history of Scripture sacrifice becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abel, and the Patriarchal sacrifices down to the giving of the Law, record and exemplify those momen- tous events in the his-torv of man the death incurred by sin, and that inflicted on our Redeemer. When length of time, and mis- taken notions of religion leading to idolatry and every perversion of the religious principle, had so far clouded and obscured this expressive act of primeval worship, that it had ceased to be considered by the nations of the world in that reference, in which its true value con- sisted ; when the mere rite remained, without any remembrance of the promises, and con- sequently unaccompanied by that faith in their fulfilment which was to render it an accep- table service ; when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart, and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each offended deity; when, with the recollection of the true God, all knowledge of the true worship was effaced from the minds of men ; and when, joined to the absurdity of the sacrificial rites, their cruelty, devoting to the malignity of innumer- able sanguinary gods endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine inter- ference ; then we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by express revelation, the I knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species of worship, ordnined by him from the ; beginning, particularly enjoined. The prin- cipal part of the Jewish service we accordingly find to consist of sacrifice ; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement is expressly annexed : and, in the manner of it, the par- ticulars appear so minutely set forth, that, when the object of the whole law should be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to I its intended application. The Jewish sacrifices, therefore, seem to have been designed, as those from the beginning had been, to prefigure that one, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And as, in this, all were to receive their consummation, so with this, they all conclude ; and the institution closes with the completion of its object. But, as the gross perversions, which had pervaded the Gentile | world, had reached likewise to the chosen people ; and as the temptations to idolatry, J which surrounded them on all sides, were so | powerful as perpetually to endanger their i adherence to the God of their fathers, we find | the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal habits. And, since the Law itself, with its accompanying sanctions, seems to have been principally temporal ; so, the worship it enjoins is found to have been, for the most part, rather a public and solemn declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to theGentile idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed to succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit. That the sacrifices of the Law should, there- fore, have chiefly operated to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the ceremonial worship ; whilst, at the same time, they were designed to pre- figure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and possessed the transcendent virtue of atoning for all moral pollution involves no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true proportion of the entire dispen- sations is preserved. And to this point it is particularly necessary that our attention should be directed in the examination of the present subject ; as upon the apparent disproportion in 22 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. the objects and effects of sacrifice in the Mosaic and Christain schemes, the principal objections against their intended correspondence have be*n founded, (No. LXVIII.) The sacrifices of the Law, then, being pre- paratory to that of Christ ; " the Law itself being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ ;" the sacred writers in the New Tes- tament naturally adopt the sacrificial terms of the ceremonial service ; and, by their refer- ence to the use of them as employed under the Law, clearly point out the sense in which they are to be understood, in their application under the Gospel. In examining, therefore, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the New Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in the Old. Thus, when we find the virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like manner as it had been to those under the law ; by attending to the representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled to comprehend its true import in the former, (No. LXIX.) Of the several sacrifices under the Law, that one which seems most exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly compared with it by the writer to the He- brews, is that which was offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expi- ation, (No. LXX.) The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly significant, that they de- serve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the priest is com- manded to offer a bullock and a goat, as sin- offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people : and, having sprinkled the blood of these in due form before the mercy- seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated the scape-goat, and after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness : in this manner expressing, by an action which cannot be misunderstood, that the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by a symbolical translation to the animal. For it is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a distinct one ; it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part, and symbolical consummation, of the sin-offering, (No. LXXI.) So that the trans- fer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness, manifestly imply, that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of those iniquities. What, then, are we taught to infer from this cere- mony ? That, as the atonement under the Law, or expiation of the legal transgres- sions, was represented as a translation of those transgressions in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain, and the people thereby cleansed from their legal hnptu'ities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred ; so, the great atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, under- going, for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death, which had been denounced against sin ; and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to him, as those of the congregation had been symbolically transferred to the sin- offering of the people. That this is the true meaning of the atone- ment effected by Christ's sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both the Old and the New Testament ; and that, thus far, the death of Christ is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total disregard of the sacred writings. It has, indeed, been asserted, by those who oppose the doctrine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sacrifices, (No. LXXII.) With what justice this assertion has been made, may be judged from the instance of the sin- offering that has been adduced. The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities,) this accompanied with the death of the victim ; and the consequence of the whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the offerers, and the ablution of all legal offensiveness in the sight of God, thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the Law thus sets forth as its ex- press meaning directly determines that which we must attribute to the great atonement, ol which the Mosaic ceremony was but a type : always remembering carefully to distinguish between the figure and the substance ; duly- adjusting their relative value and extent ; estimating the efficacy of the one, as real, intrinsic, and universal ; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived, and emblematic, (No. LXXIII.) It must be confessed, that, to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atone- ment has been explained in this, and a former discourse, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced, (No. LXXIV.) These, however, cannot now be examined in this place. The most impo* DISCOURSE II. ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE. tant have been discussed ; and as for such as remain, I trust that, to a candid mind, the general view of the subject which has been given will prove sufficient for their refutation. One word more, my young brethren, and I have done. On this day we have assembled to commemorate the stupendous sacrifice of himself, offered up by our blessed Lord for our redemption from the bondage and wages of sin : and, on next Sunday, we are invited to participate of that solemn rite, which he hath ordained for the purpose of making us par- takers in the benefit of that sacrifice. Allow me to remind you, that this is an awful call, and upon an awful occasion. Let him who either refuses to obey this call, or presumes to attend upon it irreverently, beware what his condition is. The man who can be guilty of either deliberately is not safe. Consider seriously what has been said, and " may the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." ILLUSTRATIONS AND EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS. No. I. Page 7. Col. 1. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, AND THE SPECIES OF ARGUMENTS BY WHICH THIS ARTICLE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS BEEN OPPOSED. cy strictly, "emptied him- selfviz. of that "form of God that Glory which he had with God before the world was" see Phil. ii. 6, 7, compared with John xvii. 5. see also Krebs. Observ. Flav. p. 329. Fortuita Sacra, p. 217 219. Eisner. Obs. Sac. ii. p. 240 245. See also Schleusner, on I the word \x.tva passage of Hebrews; but directs his attention, almost entirely, to the text in Colossians, and to that in Ephes. iii. 9. And this is the more remarkable, because he refers to a passage to the same purport, in the very same chapter of Hebrews. The reason of this, however, it may 3 I do not mean by this expression to intimate, that Grotiu is, strictly speaking, to be ranked among the followers of Socinus lam aware, that this charge advanced against htm by the autlm of L'Esprlt a8.->agc of Colosaians ? " The interpretation which refers what a here said uf our Saviour to the new creation. or the renovation of all things, is so forced and violent, that it can hardly be thought that men would ever have espoused it, but for the lake of an hypothesis. The reader may meet with a con- futation of it in most commentators." Paraphraie, Ac. p. 12. note \v. 26 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. of the Socinian hypothesis, from the mode of expounding Scripture, which he will there find employed for its support. Let him try if he can even comprehend the distinct pro- positions contained in the first fourteen verses. Let him try if he can annex any definite no- tions to the assertion, that wisdom (meaning thereby an attribute of God) was God ; or to the assurance, so strongly enforced by repeti- tion, that the wisdom of God was with God ; in other words, that the Deity had not existed before his own essential attributes : or, again, if he can conceive how the Evangelist (supposing him in his senses) could have thought it necessary, after pronouncing the true light to be God, formally to declare that John was not that light : or, how he could affirm, that the wisdom, of which he had spoken but as an attribute, was made flesh, and became a person, visible, and tangible : in short, let him try if he does not find, both in the translation and the explanatory notes, as much unintelligible jargon as was ever crowded into the same compass ; nay, as is even, according to Mr Wakefield's notion, to be found in the Athanasian creed itself. This, however, is called a candid and critical inves- tigation of Scripture ; and this, it is to be re- membered, is the latest, 6 and therefore, to be supposed the best digested, production of the Socinian school : it comes also from the hands of a writer certainly possessed of classi- cal erudition, a quality of which few of his Unitarian fellow-labourers in the sister coun- try are entitled to boast. But, to add one instance more of the inge- nious mode of reasoning employed by these writers on the subject of Christ's pre-exis- tence : in the 8th chap, of John we find our Saviour arguing with the Jews, who, on his asserting that Abraham had seen his day, im- mediately reply, " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, be- fore Abraham was, I AM." The inference from this, that our Saviour here declared himself to have existed before the time of Abraham, appears not to be a very violent one ; his answer being immediately and necessarily applied to the remark made by the Jews upon his age, which rendered it impossible that he 8 Note* on all the Book* of Scripture, by Dr Priestley, have issued from the press since the first edition of this work : and to the exposition there attempted of the introduction of Saint John's Gospel, the remarks, which I have made on Mr Wake- field's translation, apply as aptly, as if for that they bad been originally designed. Whoever has a curiosity to discover whether Mr Wakefield or Dr Priestley be the more unintelli- gible, may consult tfottt, &c. voL iii. pp. 18, 19, compared with Mr Wakefield's comment already referred to. In addition to this work, there has yet more lately been given to the public from the Socinian press, what the authors are pleased to call, An improved Vertion of the New Tettament. What new lights this improved Version has thrown upon this part of Scripture, will be seen when we come more particularly to notice this per- formance in another part of this work. could have seen Abraham : so that this pas- sage will be admitted to be one of those, that " seem directly to assert the pre-existence of Christ." Now, in what way have Socinus and his followers got rid of this seeming con- tradiction to their opinions? " HPIV 'A^etxft yevsaOou, eyu tiftt, must be thus translated : Before Abram can be ABRAHAM, that is, the father of many nations, I must be the Mes- siah, or Saviour of the world." This famous discovery, which belongs to Socinus, was in- deed esteemed of a nature so far above mere human apprehension, that his nephew, Fa'.is- tus Socinus, informs us, he had received it from divine inspiration. " Non sine multis preci- bus ipsius, Jesu nomine invocato, impetravit ipse." (Socinus contr. Eutrop. torn. ii. p. 678.) This sublime interpretation has, it must be confessed, been relinquished by later Socinians, who, in imitation of Grotius, consider Christ as asserting only, that he was before Abra- ham in the decree of God. But how this could serve as a reply to the objection of the Jews, respecting priority of actual existence ; or how, in this, Christ said any thing of him- self, that was not true of every human being, and therefore nugatory ; or why the Jews, upon a declaration so innocent and so un- meaning, should have been fired with rage against him as a blasphemer ; or (if the sense be, that Christ existed in the divine mind an- tecedent, not to Abraham's birth, but to his existence in the divine mind likewise) what the meaning can be of a priority in the divine foreknowledge, I leave to Mr Belsham and his assistant commentators to unfold. Indeed, this last interpretation seems not to have given entire satisfaction to Sociniansthemselves,as we find from a paper signed " Discipulus," in the fourth volume of the Theol. Repos. in which it is asserted, " that the modern Unitarians have needlessly departed from the interpretation given by Slichtingius, Enjidinus, and other old Socinians, and have adopted another in its stead, which is not to be supported by any just grammatical construction." This gentle- man then goes on to furbish up the old Soci- nian armour, and exults in having rendered it completely proof against all the weapons of Orthodoxy. Mr Wakefield, however, seems to think it safer to revert to the principles of Grotius's interpretation ; and, accordingly, having for- tified it against the charge of grammatical inaccuracy, he presents it in somewhat of a new shape, by translating the passage, " Before Abraham was born, I am HE" viz. the Mes- siah. By which, he says, Christ means to im- ply, that "his mission was settled and certain before the birth of Abraham." That Mr Wakefield has, by this construction, not only avoided the mystical conceits of Socinus's interpretation, but also some of the errors chargeable on that of Grotius, cannot be o. 1 _PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 27 denied ; but, besides that he has built his entire translation of the passage upon the arbitrary assumption of an ellipsis, to which the texts quoted as parallel furnish no support what- ever, it remains, as before, to be shewn, what intelligible connection subsists between our Lord's answer and the question put to him by the Jews. If he meant merely to say, that his mission, as the Messiah, had been ordained before the birth of Abraham, (which is in it- self a tolerable strain upon the words even of this new translation,) it will require all Mr Wakefield's ingenuity to explain in what way this could have satis^ed the Jews as to the possibility of Christ's having actually seen Abraham, which is the precise difficulty our Lord proposes to solve by his reply. Doctor Priestley, in his later view of this subject, has not added much in point of clearness or con- sistency to the Socinian exposition. He con- fesses, however, that the " literal meaning of our Lord's expressions" in the 56th verse, was, that " he had lived before Abraham," and that it was so considered by the Jews : but at the same time he contends, that our Lord did not intend his words to be so understood ; and that, when he afterwards speaks of his prio- rity to Abraham, his meaning is to be thus explained : " that, in a very proper sense of the words, he may be said to have been even before Abraham ; the Messiah having been held forth as the great object of hope and joy for the human race, not only to Abraham, but even to his ancestors," (Notes, &c. vol. iii. pp. 329, 330. 333, 334.) Such is what Dr Priestley calls the proper sense of the words, " Before Abraham was, I am." I have nere given a very few instances, but such as furnish a fair specimen of the mode of reasoning by which those enlightened com- mentators, to whom Mr Belsham refers, have been enabled to explain away the direct and evident meaning of Scripture. I have ad- duced these instances from the arguments which they have used relating to the pre-ex- istence of Christ, as going to the very essence of their scheme of Christianity, (if such it can be called,) and as being some of those on which they principally rely. I have not ticruplcd to dwell thus long upon a matter not necessarily connected with the subject of these discourses, as some benefit may be derived to the young student in divinity, (for whom this publication has been principally in- tended,) from exposing the hollowness of the ground on which these high-sounding gentle- men take their stand, whilst they trumpet forth their own extensive knowledge, and the ignorance of those who differ from them. These few instances may serve to give him some idea of the fairness of their pretensions, and the soundness of their criticism. He may be still better able to form a judgment of their powers in scriptural exposition, when he finds, upon trial, that the formula; of interpretation, which have been applied to explain away the notion of Christ's pre-existence from the pas- sages that have been cited, may be employed, with the best success, in arguing away such a meaning from any form of expression that can be devised. Thus, for example, had it been directly asserted that our Lord had existed for ages before his appearance in this world ; it is replied, all this is true, in the decree of God, but it by no means relates to an actual exist- ence. Had Christ, as a proof of his having existed prior to his incarnation, expressly declared, that all things had been created by him ; the answer is obvious he must have been ordained by the divine mind, long before he came into being, as by him it had been decreed, that the great moral creation, where- by a new people should be raised up to God, was to be wrought. Should he go yet farther, and affirm that he had resigned the God-like station which he filled, and degraded himself to the mean condition of man ; a ready solu- tion is had for this also he made no ostenta- tious display of his miraculous powers, but offered himself to the world like an ordinary man. If any stronger forms of expression should be used, (and stronger can scarcely be had, without recurring to the language of Scripture,) they may all be disposed of in like manner. But should even all the varieties of critical, logical, and metaphysical refinement be found in any case insufficient, yet still we are not to suppose the point completely given up. The modern Unitarian commentator is not dis- comfited. He retires with unshaken fortitude within the citadel of his philosophic convic- tion, and under its impenetrable cover bids defiance to the utmost force of his adversary's argument. Of this let Dr Priestley furnish an instance in his own words. Endeavouring to prove, in opposition to Dr Price, that the expres- sions in John, vi. 62, " What and if ye shall see theSon of Man ascendup where he w;is before?" furnish no argument in favour of Christ's pre- existence, he uses the following remarkable language: that " though not satisfied with any interpretation of this extraordinary pas- sage, yet, rather than believe our Saviour to have ! existed in any other state before the creation of the world, or to have left some state of great dignity and happiness when he came hither, he would have recourse to the old and exploded Socinian idea of Christ's actual ascent into heaven, or of his imagining that he had been carried up thither in a vision ; which, like that of St Paul, he had not been able to distin- guish from a reality : nay, he would not build an article of faith of such magnitude, on the correctness of John's recollection and represen- tation of our Lord's language : and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a pro- 28 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. existent state appear, that, sooner than admit it, he would suppose the whole verse to be an interpolation, or that the old Apostle dictated one thing, and his amanuensis wrote another." (Letters to Dr Price, pp. 57, 58, &c.) Thus is completed the triumph of Unitarian philo- sophy over revelation : and thus is the charge of incredulity against the pretended philoso- pher of the present day refuted ! For what is there too monstrous for his belief, if you except only the truths of the Gospel ? No. II. Page 7. Col. 2. UNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS OBSER- VANCE OF STATED DAYS. That the day on which the Saviour of men laid down his life for their transgressions, should have attached to it any feelings of reverence, or should be in any respect distin- guished from the number of ordinary days, has long been denied by different classes of dissenters from the established form ; forget- ting that its celebration was designed to awaken livelier feelings of devotion, by asso- ciating circumstances ; and not reflecting, that the argument which went to prove that no one day could possess a sanctity above another, should have carried them much farther, and have ended in the abolition of the Sabbath itself. The writer, however, already alluded to in the last number, has, in his answer to Mr Wilberforce's most excellent and truly pious work on the present state of religion, completely removed the charge of inconsis- tency, by directly asserting, that "Christianity expressly abolishes all distinction of days." " To a true Christian," he observes, " every day is a sabbath, every place is a temple, and every action of life an act of devotion" " whatever is lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week, is, under the Christian dispensation, equally lawful and expedient on any other," (Belsham's Review, &c. p. 20.) Lest we should, however, imagine that this writer means to impose upon Christians so severe a duty, as to require them to substitute, for occasional acts of devotion, that unceasing homage, which the unbroken continuity of the Christian's Sabbath, and the ubiquity of his temple, might seem to demand, he informs us (p. 133,) that " a virtuous man is perform- ing his duty to the Supreme Being, as really, and as acceptably, when he is pursuing the proper business of life, or even when enjoying its innocent and decent amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him, in the closet, or in the temple." And thus we see the matter is rendered perfectly easy. A Christian may be employed, through the en- tire of his life, in worshipping his God, by never once thinking of him, but merely pur- suing his proper business, or his innocent amusements. This, it is true, is a natural consequence from his first position ; and gives to the original argument a consistency, which before it wanted. But is consistency of argu- ment a substitute for Christianity ? Or could the teacher of divinity at Hackney have expected, that, from such instructions, his pupils should not so far profit, as to reject not only Christianity, but, many of them, the public worship, and with it the recollection, of a God ? It may be worth while to inquire, ! what has been the fact, respecting the students \ of the late academy at Hackney ; and, indeed, what is the state of all dissenting academies ! throughout Great Britain, into which the sub- ! verting principles of Unitarianism have made their way. Do any of this description now exist ? And wherefore do they not ? T But, on this subject, more in the Appendix. No. III. Page 7. Col. 2. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. There is no one article of the Christian faith which, considered in itself, is more deserving of our closest attention, than that of our redemption by Jesus Christ. This is, in truth, the very corner-stone of the fabric. Against this, accordingly, every framer of a new hypothesis directs his entire force. This once shaken, the whole structure falls in ruins. We therefore find the collective powers of heterodox ingenuity summoned to combat this momentous doctrine, in a work published some years back, entitled the Theo- logical Repository. Of \^iat consequence, in the frame and essence of Christianity, it was deemed by the principal marshal ler of this controversial host, may be inferred, not only from the great labour he has bestowed on this one subject, (having written five different essays in that work, in opposition to tlio received doctrine of atonement,) but also from his express declarations. In Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 429, he pronounces this doctrine to be " one of the radical, as well as the most gene- rally prevailing, corruptions of the Christian scheme ;" and in p. 124, he calls it " a dis- grace to Christianity, and a load upon it, which it must either throw off, or sink under." And lest the combined exertions of the authors of this work might not prove sufficient to over- turn this unchristian tenet, he renews his attack upon it with undiminished zeal in his History of the Corruptions of Christianity ; among which he ranks this as one of the most , important, stating, (vol. i. p. 152,) that "as ! the doctrine of the Divine Unity was infringed , by the introduction of that of the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost (as a persou No. 4. PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. 29 distinct from the Father ;) so the doctrine of the natural placability of the Divine Being, and our ideas of the equity of his government, have been greatly debased by the gradual introduction of the modern doctrine of atone- ment." And, on this account, he declares his intention of shewing, in a fuller manner than with respect to any other of the corruptions of Christianity, that it is totally unfounded both in reason and Scripture, and an entire depar- ture from the genuine doctrine of the Gospel. Indeed, the avowed defender of the Socinian heresy must have felt it indispensable to the support of his scheme, to set aside this doc- trine. Thus (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 272) he says, " it immediately follows from his" (Socinus's) " principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death could not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men." Accordingly, both in his History of the Corruptions, and in the Theological Repository, he bends his prin- cipal force against this doctrine of our Church. Shall not then so determined a vehemence of attack upon this doctrine, in particular, con- vince us still more of its importance in the Christian scheme ; and point out to the friends of Gospel truth, on what ground they are chiefly to stand in its defence 1 No. IV. Page 8. Col. 2. PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. Balguy, in his Essay on Redemption, (and after him Dr Holmes, 1 ) has argued this 1 The late Dr Holmes, for some years Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, and afterwards Dean of Winchester. I can- not mention this gentleman's name, without paying to it that tribute of respgct which it so justly claims. To his indefatigable and learned research the public is indebted for one of the most valuable additions to biblical literature, which, at this day, it is capable of receiving. Treading in the steps of that great Benefactor to the biblical student, Dr Kennicott, he devoted a life to the collection of materials for the emendation of the text >f the Septuagint Scriptures, ns his distinguished predecessor had done for that of the Hebrew. After the most assiduous, and, to a person not acquainted with the vigour of Dr llolmvs's mind, almost incredible labour, in the collation of MSS. and versions, he was enabled to give to the public the valuable result of his inquiries, in one complete volume of the Pentateuch, and the Book of Daniel. That it was not allotted to him to finish the great work in which he had engaged, is most deeply to be regretted It is, however, to be hoped, that the learned Uni- versity, on whose reputation his labours have reflected additional lustre, will not permit an undertaking of such incalculable utility to the Christian world to remain unaccomplished, especially as the materials for its prosecution, which the industry of Dr Holmes has so amply supplied, and which remain deposited in the Bodleian Library, must leave comparatively but little to be done for its final execution. The preface to the volume which has been published concludes with these words : " Hoc unum sunerest monendum, quod Collationes istae ex omni genere, qu* ad hoc opus per hos quindecim annos jam fuerunt elabo- rate, in BibliothecA Bodleiana reponantur, atquc vel a me, si Tiram ct valeam, vcl, si aliter accident, ab alio quodani Editore, point with uncommon strength and clear- ness. The case of penitence, he remarks, is clearly different from that of innocence : it implies a mixture of guilt pre-contracted, and punishment proportionally deserved. It is consequently inconsistent with rectitude, that both should be treated alike by God. The present conduct of the penitent will receive God's approbation : but the reformation of the sinner cannot have a retrospective effect. The agent may be changed, but his former sins cannot be thereby cancelled : the convert and the sinner are the same individual person : and the agent must be answerable for his whole conduct. The conscience of the penitent furnishes a fair view of the case. His senti- ments of himself can be only a mixture of approbation and disapprobation, satisfaction and displeasure. His past sins must still, however sincerely he may have reformed, occasion self-dissatisfaction : and this will even be the stronger, the more he improves in virtue. Now, as this is agreeable to truth, then- is reason to conclude that God beholds him in the same light. See Balguy's Essay, 1785, p. 31 55 ; and Mr Holmes's Four Tracts, p. 138, 139. The author of the Scripture Ac- count of Sacrifices, part i. sect. 6, and part iv. sect. 4, has likewise examined this subject in a judicious manner. It may be worth re- marking also, as Dr Shuckford has done, that Cicero goes no farther on this head than to assert, " Q,uem pcenitet peccasse, pene est in- nocens." Lamentable it is to confess, that the name of Warburton is to be coupled with the defence of the deistical objection, against which the above reasoning is directed. But no less true is it than strange, that in the account of natural religion, which that eminent writer has given, in the ninth book of the Divine Legation, he has expressed himself in terms the most unqualified upon the intrinsic and necessary efficacy of repentance ; asserting that it is plainly obvious to human reason, from a view of the connection that must subsist be- tween the creature and his Maker, that, when- ever man forfeits the favour of God by a vio- lation of the moral law, his sincere repentance entitles him to the pardon of his transgressions. I have been led, with the less reluctance, to notice this pernicious paradox of the learned bishop, because it affords me the opportunity of directing the reader's attention to the judi- cious and satisfactory refutation which it has lately received, in a prize essay in one of the sub auspicio Colendisaimonim Typographel Clarendoniani Ox- oniensis Curatorum, in publicum emittentur." The language also of the valuable and much to be lamented author, (with whom I was personally acquainted, and had for some years the satisfaction of corresponding,) was always such as to encourage the expectation here held out That this expectation should be gratified, and with all practicable despatch, cannot but be the anxious wish of every person interested In the pure and unadul- terated exposition of Scripture truth. 30 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. sister universities. See Mr Pearson's Critical Essay on the Ninth Book of the Divine Legation, p. 25 34. The reasons that induced War- burton to adopt so heterodox a position are assigned by himself in one of his private letters to his friend Dr Hurd, and are, to the full, as insufficient as the position is untenable. These, together with the alarm given to Dr Hurd by the new doctrine taken up by his friend, will be found noticed in the letters from a late eminent Prelate, p. 421 423. Locke and Nye (as well as Warburton) have given but too much countenance to the erro- neous opinion combated in this number. No. V. Page 9. Col. 1. THE SENSE ENTERTAINED BY MANKIND OF THE NATURAL INEFFICACY OF REPENTANCE, PROVED j FROM THE HISTORY OF HUMAN SACRIFICES. If we look to the practices of the Heathen world, we shall find the result of the reasoning, which is advanced in the page referred to, confirmed from experience by abundant proof. We shall find that almost the entire of the religion of the Pagan nations consisted in rites of deprecation. Fear of the Divine displeasure seems to have been the leading feature in their religious impressions ; and in the diversity, the costliness, and the cruelty, of their sacrifices, they sought to appease Gods, to whose wrath they felt themselves exposed, from a consciousness of sin, unrelieved by any information as to the means of escaping its effects. So strikingly predominant was this feature of terror in the Gentile superstitions, that we find it expressly laid down by the Father of Grecian history, TO i7ov aoiv q>dov=(>6v re x.a.1 T*%*x,ul=-; (Herod, lib. i. cap. 32 :) and Porphyry directly asserts, " that there was wanting some universal method of delivering men's souls, which no sect of philosophy had ever yet found out :" (August, de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 32) that is, that something besides their own repentance was wanting to appease the anger of their Gods. The universal prevalence of human sacri- *ices, throughout the Gentile world, is a deci- sive proof of the light in which the human mind, unaided by Revelation, is disposed to view the Divinity, and clearly evinces how little likelihood there is in the supposition, that unassisted reason could discover the suffi- ciency of repentance to regain the favour of an offended God. Of this savage custom, M. de Pauw (Rech. Phil, sur les Americ. vol. i. p. 211) asserts, that there is no nation men- tioned in history whom we cannot reproach with having, more than once, made the blood of its citizens stream forth, in holy and pious ceremonies, to appease the Divinity when he appeared angry, or to move him when he appeared indolent. Of this position, both ancient and modern historians supply the fullest confirmation. Heliodorus (J&tkiopic. lib. x. p. 465, ed. 1630) informs us, that the Ethiopians were required by their laws to sacrifice boys to the sun, and girls to the moon. Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Philo, (Euseb. Prcep. Eranr/. lib. i. cap. 10,) asserts, that among the Phoenicians it was customary, in great and public calamities, for princes and magistrates to offer up, in sacrifice to the avenging demons, the dearest of their offspring, tig ^vr^ov rot; Ti/Augotf ^utiftoat. This practice is also attributed to them by Porphyry (Euseb. P. Ev. lib. iv.) Herodotus (lib. iv. cap. 62) describes it as a custom with the Scythians to sacrifice every hundredth mail of their prisoners to their God Mars. And Keysler, who has carefully investigated the antiquities of that race, represents the spread- ing oaks, under which they were used to per- form their sanguinary rites, as being always profusely sprinkled with the blood of the expiring victims, (Antiq. Septentr. Dissert. iii.) Of the Egyptians, Diodorus relates it (lib. i. p. 99, ed. Wessel.) to have been an established practice, to sacrifice red-haired men at the tomb of Osiris ; from which, he says, misunderstood by the Greeks, arose the fable of the bloody rites of Busiris. This charge brought by Diodorus ;igainst the Egyptians is supported by Plutarch, on the authority of Manetho, (Isid. et Osir. p. 380.) At Helio- polis, also, three men were daily offered up to Lucina ; which practice, Porphyry informs us, was put a stop to by Amasis, (see Wessel. Diod. p. 99, n. 86.) And we are told by an Arabian writer, Murtadi, that it had been customary with the Egyptians to sacrifice, to the river Nile, a young and beautiful virgin, by flinging her, decked in the richest attire, into the stream : and, as Mr Maurice remarks, a vestige of this barbarous custom remains to this day ; for we learn from Mr Salary's Let- ters on Epypt, (vol. i. p. 118,) that the Egyp- tians annually make a clay statue in the form of a woman, and throw it into the river, previous to the opening of the dam see Maurice's Indian Antiquities, p. 433. That this cruel practice existed also among the Chinese, appears from their histories, which record the oblation of their monarch Chingtang, in pacification of their offended deity, and to avert from the nation the dread- ful calamities with which it was at that time visited. This sacrifice, it is added, was pro- nounced by the priests to be demanded by the will of Heaven : and the aged monarch is represented as supplicating at the altar, that his life may be accepted, as an atonement for the sins of the people, (Martin. Hist. Sin. lib. iii. p. 75, ed. 1659.) Even the Persians, whose mild and beneficent religion appears at this day so repugnant to this horrid usage, were not exempt from its contagion. Not only No 5 PREVALENCE OF HUMAN SACRIFICES. 31 wore their sacred rites, like those of other nations, stained with the blood of immolated victims, as may be seen in Herodotus (lib. i. cap. 132, and lib. vii. cap. 113,) Xenophon (Cyrop. lib. viii.) Arrian (De Exped. Alex. lib. vi. ad finem,) Ovid (Fast. lib. i.) Strabo (lib. xv. p. 1065, ed. 1707,) Suidas (in M/0jj) and, as is fully proved by Brissonius (De Reg. Pers. Princ. lib. ii. a cap. v. ad cap. xliii.): but Herodotus (lib. vii. cap. 114,) expressly pronounces it to have been the Persian cus- tom to offer human victims by inhumation ; ris^triKov fe TO {aoyTcts xctTOQwativ : and, in support of his position, adduces two striking instances of the fact ; hi one of which his testimony is corroborated by that of Plutarch. The mysteries also of the Persian God Mithra, and the discovery of the Mithriac sepulchral cavern, as described by Mr Maurice, have led that writer, in the most decisive manner, to affix to the Persian votary the charge of human sacrifice, (Indian Antiquities, pp. 965, 984, &c.) The ancient Indians, likewise, however their descendants at this day may be described by Mr Orme (Hist, of Indost. vol. i. p. 5,) as of a nature utterly repugnant to this sangui- nary rite, are represented both by Sir W. Jones (Asiat. Res. vol. i. p. 265,) and Mr Wilkins (in his Explanatory Notes on the Heetopades, note 292,) as having been polluted by the blood of human victims. This savage practice appears also to have been enjoined by the very code of Brahma ; as may be seen in the Asiatic Researches, as already referred to. The self-devotions, so common among this people, tend likewise to confirm the accusation. On these, and the several species of meritorious suicide extracted from the Ayeen Akbery, by Mr Maurice, see Ind. Antiq. pp. 164, 166. The same writer asserts (p. 434,) that the Maho- metans have exerted themselves for the aboli- tionof this unnatural usage, both in India and Egypt. This author, indeed, abounds with proofs, establishing the fact of human sacrifice in Ancient India. Of the same horrid nature were the rites of the early Druids, as may be seen in Diod. Sic. (vol. i. pp. 354, 355, ed. Wess.) The Massi- lian Grove of the Gallic Druids is described by Lucan, in his Pharsalia, (lib. iii. 400, &c.) in terms that make the reader shudder: " that every branch was reeking with human 9fore," is almost the least chilling of the poetic .lorrors with which he has surrounded this Ireadful sanctuary of Druidical superstition. We are informed", that it was the custom of the Gallic Druids to set up an immense gigan- tic figure of a wicker man, in the texture of which they entwined above an hundred human victims, and then consumed the whole as an offering to their gods. For a delineation of this monstrous spectacle, see Clarke's Ccesar, p. 131, fol. ed. 1712. Nor were the Druids of Mona less cruel in their religious ceremonies than their brethren of Gaul : Tacitus (vol. ii. p. 172, ed. Brot.) represents it as their constant usage, to sacrifice to their gods the prisoners taken in war : " cruore captivo adolere aras, fas habebant." In the Northern nations these ! tremendous mysteries were usually buried in the gloom of the thickest woods. In the extended wilds of Arduenna, and the great Hercynian forest particularly, places set apart for this dreadful purpose abounded. Phylarclius, as quoted by Porphyry, affirms, that, of old, it was a rule with every Grecian state, before they marched against an enemy, to supplicate their gods by human victims ; and, accordingly, we find human sacrifices attributed to the Thebans, Corinthians, Mes- senians, and Temessenses, by Pausanias : to the Lacedaemonians by Fulgentius, Theodoret, and Apollodorus; and to the Athenians by Plutarch, (Themist. p. 262, et Arist. p. 300, ed. Bryan ;) and it is notorious, that the Athe- nians, as well as the Massilians, had a custom of sacrificing a man every year, after loading him with dreadful curses, that the wrath of the gods might fall upon his head, and be turned away from the rest of the citizens. See Suidas on the words gA//>^, x.a.6ot.^, and (petofAetx.6;. The practice prevailed also among the Ro- mans ; as appears not only from the devotions so frequent in the early periods of their his- tory, but from the express testimonies of Livy, Plutarch, and Pliny. In the year of Rome 657, we find a law enacted in the Consulship of Lentulus and Crassus, by which it was pro- hibited : but it appears, notwithstanding, to have been in existence so late even as in the reign of Trajan ; for, at this time, three Vestal virgins having been punished for incontinence, the Pontiffs, on consulting the books of the Sibyls to know whether a sufficient atonement had been made, and finding that the offended Deity continued incensed, ordered two men and two women, Greeks and Gauls, to be buried alive, (Univ. Hist. vol. xiv. p. 588, ed. Dub.) Porphyry also assures us, that, even in his time, a man was every year sacrificed at the shrine of Jupiter Latialis. The same cruel mode of appeasing their offended gods we find ascribed to all the other Heathen nations : to the Getae, by Herodotus (lib. iv. c. 94 ;) to the Leucadians, by Strabo (lib. x. p. 694 ;) to the Goths, by Jordandes (Dc Reb. Getic. cap. xix. ;) to the Gauls, by Cicero (pro Fonteio, p. 487, ed. 1684,) and by Cassar (Bell. Gall. lib. vi. sec. 15 ;) to the Heruli, by Procop. (Bell. Goth. lib. ii. c. 15 ;) to the Britons, by Tacitus (AnnaL xiv. 30,) and by Pliny (lib. xxx. cap. 1 ;) to the Ger- mans, by Tacitus (De Mor. Germ. cap. ix. ;) to the Carthaginians, by Sanchoniathon (Euseb. P. Ev. lib. i. cap. 10,) by Plato (in Minoe, Opera, p. 665, ed. 1602,) by Pliny (lib. xxxvi. cap. 12,) by Silius Italicus (lib. MAGFE ON THE ATONEMENT. iv. lin. 767, &c.) and by Justin (lib. xviii. cap. 6, and lib. xix. cap. 1.) Emiius says of them, (ed. Hess. 1707, p. 28,) " Poenei "sont soliti sos sacruficarepuellos." They are report- ed,by Diodorus, to have offered two hundred human victims at once : and to so unnatural an extreme was this horrid superstition car- ried by this people, that it was usual for the parent himself to slaughter the dearest and most beautiful of his offspring at the altars of their bloody deities. Scripture proves the practice to have existed in Canaan before the Israelites came thither, (Levit. xx. 23.) Of the Arabians, the Cretans, the Cyprians, the Rhodians, the Phocseans, those of" Chios, Les- bos, andTenedos, the same may be established ; : see Porphyr. apud Euseb. P. Ev, lib. iv. cap. 16. Moiiimus, as quoted by Clem. Alexand. (Euseb. ibid,) affirms the same of the inhabi- tants of Pella. And Euripides has given to i the bloody altars of the Tauric Diana a cele- brity that rejects additional confirmation. So that the universality of the practice in the ancient Heathen world cannot reasonably be questioned. In what light, then, the Heathens of anti- quity considered their deities, and how far they were under the impression of the exist- ence of a Supreme Benevolence requiring nothing but repentance and reformation of life, may be readily inferred from this review of facts. Agreeably to the inference which these furnish, we find the reflecting Tacitus pronounce (Hist. lib. i. cap. 3,) " that the gods interfere in human concerns, but to punish Non esse curae deis securitatem nos- tram, esse ultionem." And in this he seems but to repeat the sentiments of Lucan, who, in his Pharsalia, (iv. 107, &c.) thus expresses himself: " Felix Roma, quidem, civcsque liabitura beatos, Si libertatis Super is tain cura placeret, Quam vindicta placet " On this subject the Romans appear to have inherited the opinions of the Greeks. Meiners (Historia Doctrince de vero Deo, p. 208) asserts that the more ancient Greeks imagined their gods to be envious of human felicity ; so that, whenever any great success attended them, they were filled with terror, lest the gods should be offended at it, and bring on them some dreadful calamity. In this the learned professor but affirms what, we have seen, (p. 30,) is the formal declaration attri- buted to Solon by Herodotus : a declaration repeated and confirmed by the historian, in the instances of Polycrates and Xerxes : in the former of which, the prudent Amasis grounds his alarm for the safety of the too prosperous prince of Samos on the notoriety of the envious nature of the divine being, TO $fio i-jiitrr etf^fvu as fdoi/ft>oi/ (lib. iii. cap. 40) and in the latter, the sage Artabanus warns Xerxes, that even the blessings which the gods bestow in this, life are derived from an envious motive, 6 Se Sfoc, '/KVX.VU ysvaa.; TOU ettavec (p$oyipo; ev etirru fvpiaxeTou kuv (lib. vii. cap. 46.) That fear of the gods, was not an unusual attendant on the belief of their exist- ence, may be inferred likewise from the saying of Plutarch (De Superst.) r&of rw py !>o/ui'sii/ eoi>; fty tpoZsiaSoti : and Pliny, (lib. ii. cap. 7,) speaking of the deification of death, diseases, and plagues, says, that "these are ranked among the gods, whilst with a trembling fear we desire to have them pacified, dum esse placatas, trepido metu cupimus." Cudworth also (Intell. Syst. p. 664,) shews, in the instances of Democritus and Epicurus, that terror was attached to the notion of a divine existence : and that it was with a view to get free from this terror, that Epicurus laboured to remove the idea of a providential adminis- tration of human affairs. The testimony of Plato is likewise strong to the same purpose : speaking of the punishment of wicked men, he says, all these things "hath Nemesis- decreed to be executed in the second period, by the ministry of vindictive terrestrial de- mons, who are overseers of human affairs ; to which demons the Supreme God hath com- mitted the government of this world." De AnimaMundi. Opera, p. 1096, ed. Franc. 1602. Thus the Gentile religion, in early ages, evidently appears to have been a religion o;' fear. The same it has been found likewise in later times ; and such it continues to this day. Of the length of time during which this prac- tice of human sacrifice continued among the Northern nations, Mr Thorkelin, who was perfectly conversant with Northern literature, furnishes several instances, in his Essay on the Slave Trade. Ditmarus charges the Danes with having put to death, in their great sacri- fices, no fewer than ninety-nine slaves at once. (Loccen. Antiq. Sue. Goth. lib. i. cap. 3.) In Sweden, on urgent occasions, and particularly in times of scarcity and famine, they sacrificed kings and princes. Loccenius (Histor. Rer. Suecic. lib. i. p. 5) gives the following ac- count : " Tanta fame Suecia afflicta est, ut ei vix gravior unquam incubuerit ; cives inter se dissidenteSjCiim poenam delictorum divinam agnoscerent, primo anno boves,altero homines, tertio, regem ipsum, volut ine coelestis piacu- lum, ut sibi persuasum habebant, Odino im- molabant :" and we are told that the Swedes, at one time, boasted of having sacrificed five kings in a single day. Adam of Bremen, (Hist. Eccles. cap. 234,) speaking of the awful grove of Upsal, a place distinguished for the celebration of those horrid rites, says, " There was not a single tree in it, that was not reve- renced, as gifted with a portion of the divinity, because stained with gore, and foul with hu- man putrefaction." In all the other Northern nations, without exception, the practice is found to have prevailed : and to so late a No 5 PREVALENCE OF HUMAN SACRIFICES. period did it continue, that we learn from St Boniface, that Gregory II. was obliged to make the sale of slaves for sacrifice by the German converts, a capital offence ; and Car- Ionian, in the year 743, found it necessary to pass a law for its prevention. Mallet, whose account of this horrid custom among the Northern nations deserves particularly to be attended to, affirms that it was not abolished in those regions until the ninth century, (Northern Antiquities, vol. i. pp. 132 142.) And Jortin (Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. v. p. 233) reports, from Fleury, an adhe- rence to this custom, in the island of Rugia, even so late as at the close of the twelfth cen- tury. The same dreadful usage is found to exist, to this day, in Africa ; where, in the inland parts, they sacrifice the captives, taken in war, to their fetiches : as appears from Snelgrave, who, in the king of Dahoome's camp, was ! witness to his sacrificing multitudes to the i deity of his nation. Among the islanders of the South Seas we likewise learn from Captain Cook, that human sacrifices were very fre- quent : he speaks of them as customary 'in Otaheite, and the Sandwich Islands ; and in the island of Tongataboo he mentions ten men offered at one festival: All these, however, are far exceeded by the pious massacre of human beings in the nations of America. The accounts given by Acosta, Gomara, and other Spanish writers, of the monstrous carnage of this kind, in these parts of the world, are almost incredible. The annual sacrifices of the Mexicans required many thousands of victims ; and in Peru two hundred children were devoted for the health of the Ynca. (Acost. Hist, of Ind. pp. 379388, ed. 1604. Anton, dc Solis. and Clavig. Hist, of Mex. lib. vi. sect. 18, 19, 20.) Mr Maurice also in- forms us, that, at this day, among certain tribes of the Mahrattas, human victims, dis- tinguished by their beauty and youthful bloom, are fattened like oxen for the altar (Ind. Antiq. p. 843.) ; and the same writer (pp. 1077, 1078) instances other facts from Mr Crauford's Sketches of Indian Mythology, from which he concludes, that the notion of the efficacy of human sacrifice is by no means extinct in India at the present time. This position is certainly contradictory to the tes- timonies of Dow, Holwcl, and Grose. But, as the laborious research of Mr Maurice has drawn together numerous and authentic docu- ments in corroboration of his opinion, it may fairly be questioned whether the authority of these writers is to be considered as of much weight in the opposite scale. The learned professor Meiners (Historia Doct. de vero Deo. sect, iv.) does not hesitate to pronounce the two former unentitled to credit : the first, as being of a disposition too credulous ; and the second, as deserving to be reckoned, for fiction and folly, another Megasthenes. 1 Mr Dow's incompetency, on the subject of the Indian theology, has also been proved by Mr Halhed, who has shewn, in the preface to his transla- tion of the Gentoo Code, (p. 32, ed. 1776,) that writer's total deficiency in the knowledge of the sacred writings of the Hindoos ; and as to Mr Grose, I refer the reader to the Indian Antiquities (pp. 249, 255) for instances of his superficial acquaintance with the affairs of Hindostan. It is of the greater importance to appreciate truly the value of the testimony given by these writers ; as on their reports has been founded a conclusion directly sub- versive of the fact here attempted to be esta- blished. 2 1 In addition to the authorities already referred to upon this head, I would suggest to the reader a perusal of Mr Mickle's Enquiry into the Brahmin Philosophy, suffixed to the seventh Book of his Translation of Camoens' Lusiad. He will find in that interesting summary abundant proofs not only of the exist- ence of the practice of human sacrifice in modern India, but also of the total incredibility of the romances of Dow and Holwel ; and he will at the same time discover the reason why these authors are viewed with so much partiality by a certain description of writers. The philosophic tincture of their observa- tions upon religion, and the liberties taken, by Mr Ilolwel especially, with both the Mosaic and Christian revelations, were too nearly allied to the spirit of Unitarianism not to have had charms for the advocates of that system. The superiority of the revelation of Brahma over that of Moses, Mr Ilolwel instances in the creation of man. In the former, he says, " the creation of the human form is clogged with no difficulties, no ludicrous unintelligible circumstances, or inconsistencies. God previously constructs mortal bodies of both sexes for the recep- tion of the angelic spirits," (Mickle's Lusiad, vol. ii. p. 253.) Mr Holwell, also, in his endeavours to prove the revelation of Birmah and of Christ to be the same, gravely proceeds to solve the difficulty which arises from their present want of resemblance, by asserting, that " the doctrine of Christ, as it is delivered to us, is totally corrupted ; that age after age has discoloured it ; that even the most ancient record of its history, the New Testa- ment, is grossly corrupted ; that St Paul by his reveries, and St Peter by his sanction to kill and eat, began this woful de- clension and perversion of the doctrines of Christ," (Mickle's Lutiad, vol. ii. p. 264.) After this, can we wonder, that Dr Priestley considered this writer sufficiently enlightened, to be admitted as undoubted evidence in the establishment of what- ever facts he might be pleased to vouch ? Yet it is whimsical enough, that this writer, who is so eminently philosophical, and, as such, is so favourite a witness with Dr Priestley, should have disclosed an opinion with respect to philosophers, so disreputable as the following: " The devil and his chiefs have often, as well as the good angels, taken the human form, and appeared in the character of tyrants, and corrupters of morals, or of phi- losophers, who are the devil's faithful deputies," (Mickle'* Lvxind, vol. ii. p. 250.) 3 To the curious reader, who may wish to sec the latest and most interesting account of the sanguinary superstitions of the Hindoos, and of the general state of that people in p int of civilisation at the present day, I would strongly recommend Dr Buchanan's Memoir on the Expediency of an Eccletiattical Esta- blithmentfor Britiih India / in which he will not only find ample confirmation of Mr Maurice's statements, as to the dreadful extent of human sacrifice among the natives of Ilindostan o'7ricifAei, -ai^f^/Yt/n, and (xou.xx.o:, the ancients meant to convey the idea of a piacular sacri- fice averting the anger of the gods, he who is at all conversant with their writings needs not to be informed. The word vipi^uet, particu- larly, Hesychius explains by the synonymous terms, dmh.vT%r>v, *VT tyvxov : and Suidas de- scribes its meaning in this remarkable manner " Gurus iirthfyov, ( A0ji/io/) Ttf X.MT tviotwrov ffwexovTi -K/X.VTUV x.otx.x" (This Schleusner affirms to be the true reading) yf*av yivw, fact au/T^iet x.*l uvotvtl Nor is the idea of propitiatory atonement more clearly expressed by the Greek, than it is by the Latin writers of antiquity. The words placare, propitiare, expiare, It tare, pla- camen, piaculum, and such like, occur so frequently, and with such clearness of appli- cation, that their force cannot be easily mis- apprehended, or evaded. Thus Horace, (lib. ii. sat. 3,) " Prudens placavi sanguine Divos :" and (lib. i. ode 28/) " Teque piacula nulla resolvent :" and in his second -de, he proposes the question, " cui dabit partes scelus expiandi Jupiter?" ("to which," says Parkhurst, whimsically enough, " the answer in the Poet is, Apollo the second person in the Heathen Trinity.") Caesar, likewise, speaking of the Gauls, says, as has been already noticed, " Pro vita hominis nisi vita hominis reddatur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur." Cicero, (pro Fonteio. x.) speak- ing of the same people, says, "Si quandoaliquo metu adducti, deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funes- tant." The same writer (De Nat. Dear. lib. iii. cap. 6) says, " Tu autem etiam Deciorum devo- tionibus placatos Deos esse censes." From Silius Italicus and Justin, we have the most explicit declarations, that the object of the unnatural sacrifices of the Carthaginians was to obtain pardon from the gods. Thus, the former (lib. iv. lin. 767, c.) " Mos fuit in populis, quoscondidit advena Dido Poscere csede deos veniam, ac flagrant ibus aria (Infandum diem) parvos imponere natos" And, in like manner, the latter (lib. xviii. cap. 6) expresses himself : " Homines at victimas immolabant : et impuberes aris ad- movebant ; pacem sanguine eorum expos- centes, pro quorum vita dii rogari maxime solent." Lucan also, referring to the same bloody rites, usual in the worship of the cruel gods of the Saxons, thus speaks of them (Pharsal. lib. i. lin. 443, &c.) " Et quibus immites placatur sanguine diro Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Hcsus, Et Tharamis Scjthise non initiur ara Diana:." Virgil likewise, (Mn. ii. lin. 116) " Sanguine placastis ventos, et virgine csesa, Sanguine quaeiMidi reditus, aniuiaque litandum Argulica " Suetonius relates of Otho, (cap.7) " Per omnia piaculorum genera, manes Galbaj propitiare tentasse." And Livy (lib. vii. cap. 2^ says, "Cum vis morbi nee humanis consiliis, nee opedivinalevaretur, ludi quoque scenici, inter alia co3lestis irae placaminainstitui dicuntur :" and the same writer, in another place, directly explains the object of animal sacrifice ; " Per dies aliquot, hostile majores sine litationo csesae, diuque non impctrata pax Deum." Tho word litare is applied in the same manner by Pliny, (De Viris Illust. Tull. Host.) " Duin Numam sacrifices irnitatur, Jovi Ehcio lituro non potuit ; fulmine ictus cum regia confla- gravit." This sense of the word might be confirmed by numerous instances. Serviua (jEn. iv. lin. 60) and Macrobius (lib. iii. cap. 6) inform us, that it implies " facto sacrificio placare numen :" and Stephanus says from Nonius, that it differs from sacrificare in tln.^ that the signification of the latter is, veniuai 38 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. petergy but that of the former, veniam impe- trare. But to produce all the authorities on this head were endless labour : and, indeed, to have produced so many, might seem to be an useless one, were it not of importance to enable us to appreciate, with exactness, the claims to literary pre-eminence, set up by a writer, who, on all occasions, pronounces ex cathedra; and on whose dicta, advanced with an authoritative and imposing confidence, and received by his followers with implicit reliance, has been erected a system embracing the most daring impieties that have ever dis- graced the name of Christianity. If the ob- servations in this number, of the length of which I am almost ashamed, have the effect of proving to any of his admirers the incom- petency of the guide whom they have hitherto followed with unsuspecting acquiescence, I shall so far have served the cause of truth and of Christianity, and shall have less reason to regret the trouble occasioned both to the reader and to myself, by this prolix detail. No. VI. Page 9. Col. 2. ON THE MULTIPLIED OPERATION OF THE DIVINE ACTS. This thought we find happily conveyed by Mr Pope, in his Essay on Man : " In human works, though labour'd on with pain, A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain ; In God's, one single does its end produce ; Yet serves to second, too, some other use " In the illustration of this part of my subject, I have been much indebted to the excellent Sermons of the Bishop of London, On the Christian Doctrine of Redemption ; and also to the sixth Letter of H. Taylor's BenMordecaVs Apology a work which, though it contains much of what must be pronounced to be erroneous doctrine, is, nevertheless, in such parts as do not take their complexion from the tinge of the author's peculiar opinions, executed with acuteness, learning, and re- search. No. VII. Page 9. Col. 2. DEISTICAL REASONING INSTANCED IN CHUBB. The objection stated in the page here referred to, is urged by Chubb, in his reasoning on Redemption. The species of argument here employed is a favourite one with this deistical writer. He applies it, on another occasion, to establish a conclusion no less extraordinary, than that the conversion of the Jews or Heathens to Christianity was a matter of little consequence, either as to the favour of God, or their own future safety ; " for," adds he, " if they were virtiious and good men, they were secure without such conversion ; and if they were bad vicious men, they were not secured by it !" (Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 33.) Thus, with the simple apparatus of an if and a dilemma, was this acute reasoner able, on all occasions, to stibvert any part of the system of revelation against which he chose to direct his attacks. The AO2 HOT 2Tfl was never wanting to this moral Archi- medes ; and the fulcrum and two-forked lever were always ready at hand to aid the designs of the logical mechanician. Yet this man was one of the enlightened in his day. And even at the present time, there ' is good reason to think that he is held in no | small estimation by those who claim to be ; distinguished by that appellation, amongst ] the professors of Christianity : for, in the treatises of Unitarian and other philosophic Christians of these later times, we find the arguments and opinions of this writer plenti- fully scattered ; and at the same time all ostentatious display of the source from which they are derived, most carefully avoided : circumstances, from which their serious reve- rence of the author, and the solid value they attach to his works, may reasonably be inferred. Now, as this writer is one of the oracles from which these illuminating teachers derive their lights, it may afford some satisfaction to the reader, who may not have misemployed time in attempting to wade through the swamp of muddy metaphysics which he has left behind him, to have a short summary of his notions concerning Christianity laid before him. Having altogether rejected the Jewish re- velation, and pronounced the New Testament to be a " fountain of confusion and contradic- tion," and having, consequently, affirmed every appeal to Scripture to be " a certain way to perplexity and dissatisfaction, but not to find out the truth ;" he recommends our return from all these absurdities to " that prior rule of action, that eternal and invariable rule of right and wrong, as to an infallible guide, and as the solid ground of our peace and safety." Accordingly, having himself returned to this infallible guide, he is enabled to make these wonderful discoveries 1. That there is no particular Providence; and that, consequently, any dependence on Providence, any trust in God, or resignation to his will, can be no part of religion ; and, that the idea of application to God for his assistance, or prayer in any view, has no foundation in reason. 2. That we have no reason to pronounce the soul of man to be immaterial, or that it will not perish with the body. 3. That if ever we should suppose a future state in which man shall be accountable, yet the judgment, which shall take place in that state, will extend No. 7. DEISTICAL REASONING INSTANCED IN CHUBB. 39 ! but to a small part of the human race, and but to a very few of the actions which he may perform to such alone, for example, as affect the public weal. Such are the results of argument triumph- ing over Scripture; and such is the wisdom of man when it opposes itself to the wisdom of God ! Yet this strange and unnatural blasphemer of divine truth declares, that the work, which conveys to the world the mon- strous productions of insanity and impiety above cited (and these are but a small portion of the entire of that description,) he had com- pleted in the decline of life, with the design to leave to mankind " a valuable legacy," conducing to their general happiness. The reader will hardly be surprised, after what has been said, to learn, that the same infallible guide which led this maniac to revile the Jewish and Christan Scriptures, and to con- demn the apostles and first publishers of Christianity as blunderers and impostors, prompted him at the same time to speak with commendation of the religion of Mahomet. 1 1 It deserves to be noticed, that a complacency for the religion of Mahomet is a character by which the liberality of the Socinian or Unitarian is not less distinguished, than that of the Deist. The reason assigned for this by Dr Van Mildert is a just one. Mahometanism is admired by both, because it sets aside those distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, and the sacrifice upon the cross ; and prepares the way for what the latter are pleased to dignify with the title of Natural Religion, and the former with that of Rational Chris- tianity. Van Mildert's Boyle Lect., vol. i. p. 208. The same writer also truly remarks, (p. 202,) that, besides exhibiting a strange compound of Heathen and Jewish errors, the code of Mahomet comprises almost every heterodox opinion that has ever been entertained respecting the Christain faith. Indeed, the decided part which the Unitarians have heretofore taken with the prophet of Mecca seems not to be sufficiently adverted to at the present day. The curious reader, if he will turn to Mr Leslie's Theoloy. Workt, vol. i. p. 207- , will not be a little entertained to see conveyed, in a solemn address from the English Unitarians to the Mahometan ambassador of Mo- rocco, in the reign of Charles the Second, a cordial approbation of Mahomet and of the Koran. The one is said to have been raised up by God, to scourge the idolizing Christians, whilst the other is spoken of as a precious record of the true faith. Ma- homet they represent to be "a preacher of the Gospel of Christ ;" and they describe themselves to be " his fellow-cham- pions for the truth." The mode of warfare they admit, indeed, to be different ; but the object contended for they assert to be the same. "We, with our Unitarian brethren, have been in all ages exercised, to defend with our pens the faith of one supreme God ; as he hath raised your Mahomet to do the same with the sword, as a scourge on those idolizing Christians," (p. 200.) Leslie, upon a full and deliberate view of the case, ad- mits the justice of the claim set up by the Unitarians to bo admitted to rank with the followers of Mahomet ; pronouncing the one to have as good a title to the appellation of Christians as the other, (p. 337.) On a disclosure, by Mr Leslie, of the attempt which had thus been made by the Socinlans, to form a confederacy with the Mahometans, the authenticity of the address, and the plan of the projected coalition, at the time, were strenuously denied. The truth of Mr Leslie's statement, however, (of which from the character of the man no doubt could well have been at any time entertained,) has been since most fully and incontrovertibly confirmed. See Whitaker's Origin of Arianirm, p. 399. Mr Leslie also shews, that this Unitarian scheme, of extolling Mahometanism as the only true Christianity , continued, for a length of time, to be acted on with " Whether the Mahometan revelation be of a divine original or not, there seems," says he, " to be a plausible pretence, arising from the circumstances of things, for stamping a divine character upon it !" However, at other times he seems disposed not to elevate the religion of Mahomet decidedly above that of Christ : for he observes, that " the turning from Ma hometanism to Christianity, or from Chris- tianity to Mahometanism, is only laying-aside one external form of religion and making use of another ; which is of no more real benefit than a man's changing the colour of his clothes." His decision upon this point, also, he thinks he can even defend by the authority of St Peter, who, he says, has clearly given it as his opinion, in Acts, x. 34, 35, that all forms of religion are indifferent. I should not have so long detained my reader with such contemptible, or rather, pi- tiable, extravagancies, but that the specimen they afford of the wild wanderings of reason, when emancipated from Revelation, may pre- pare his mind for a juster view of what is called Rational Christianity. No. VIII. Page 9. Col. 2. ON THE CONSISTENCY OF PRAYER WITH THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. See Price's Dissertations 2d edit. pp. 209, 210. There are some observations of this excellent and serious writer upon the nature of prayer, which are not only valu- able in themselves, but, with some exten- sion, admit so direct a bearing upon the sub- ject before us, that I cannot resist the desire I feel of laying them before the reader. In answer to the objection derived from the unchangeableness of God, and the conclusion thence deduced, that prayer cannot make any alteration in the Deity, or cause him to be- stow any blessings which he would not have bestowed without it ; this reply is made : If it be in itself proper, that wo should humbly apply to God for the mercies we need from him, it must also be proper, that a regard activity and perseverance. He establishes this at large, by extracts from certain of their publications, in which it is endea- voured to prove, "that Mahomet had no other design liut to restore the belief of the unity of God, which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation ; that Mahomet meant not, that his religion should be esteemed a new religion, but only tho restitution of the true intent of the Christian religion ; that the Mahometan learned men call themselves the true disciples of the Messias :" and, to crown all, " that Mahometanism has pre- vailed so greatly, not by force and the sword ; but by that one truth in the Koran, the Unity of God." And, as a just conse- quence from all this, it is strongly contended, that "the Tartars had acted more rationally in embracing tho sect of Mahomet, than the Christian faith of the Trinity, Incarnation," &c Leslie, vol. i. pp. 216, 217- MAGKE ON THE ATONEMENT. should be paid to such applications ; and that there should be a different treatment of those who make them, and those who do not. To argue this as implying chnngeableness in the Deity, would be extremely absurd : for the unchangeableness of God, when considered in relation to the exertion of his attributes in the government of the world, consists, not in always acting in the same manner, however cases and circumstances may alter ; but in always doing what is right, and in adapting his treatment of his intelligent creatures to the variation of their actions, characters, and dispositions. If prayer, then, makes an alter- ation in the case of the supplicant, as being the discharge of an indispensable duty ; what would in truth infer changeableness in God, would be, not his regarding and answering it, but his not doing this. Hence it is manifest, that the notice which he may be pleased to take of our prayers by granting us blessings in answer to them, is not to be considered as a yielding to importunity, but as an instance of rectitude in suiting his dealings with us to our conduct. Nor does it imply that he is backward to do us good, and therefore wants to be solicited to it ; but merely that there are certain conditions, on the performance of which the effects of his goodness to us are suspended ; that there is something to be done by us before we can be proper objects of his favour ; or before it can be fit and consistent with the measures of the divine government to grant us particular benefits. Accordingly, to the species of objection alluded to in page 9, (namely, that our own worthiness or un- worthiness, and the determined will of God, must determine how we are to be treated, absolutely, and so as to render prayer alto- gether unnecessary,) the answer is obvious, that before prayer we may be unworthy ; and that prayer may be the very thing that makes us worthy : the act of prayer being itself the very condition, the very circumstance in our characters, that contributes to render us the proper objects of divine regard, and the neglect of it being that which disqualifies us for re- ceiving blessings. Mr Wollaston, in his Religion of Nature, (pp. 115, 116,) expresses the same ideas with his usual exact, and (I may here particularly say) mathematical, precision. " The respect, or re- lation," he observes, " which lies between God, considered as an unchangeable being, and one that is humble, and supplicates, and endea- vours to qualify himself for mercy, cannot be the same with that which lies between the same unchangeable God, and one that is obsti- nate, and will not supplicate, 2 or endeavour 1 irtfvieen f)tif, Hierocl. to qualify himself: that is, the same thing, or being, cannot respect opposite and contradic- tory characters in the same manner. a It ia not, in short, that by our supplication we can Eretend to produce any alteration in the Deity, utby an alteration in ourselves we may alter the relation or respect lying between him and us." The beautiful language of Mrs Barbauld, upon this subject, I cannot prevail upon my- self to leave unnoticed. Having observed upon that high toned philosophy, which would pro- nounce prayer to be the weak effort of an infirm mind to alter the order of nature and the decrees of Providence, in which it rather becomes the wise man to acquiesce with a manly resignation ; this elegant writer pro- i ceeds'to state, that they who cannot boast of i such philosophy may plead the example of ( Him, who prayed, though with meek submis- sion, that the" cup of bitterness might pass from him ; and who, as the moment of separation approached, interceded for his friends and followers with all the anxiety of affectionate tenderness. But (she adds) we will venture to say, that practically there is no such philosophy. If prayer were not enjoined for the perfection, it would be per- mitted to the weakness of our nature. We should be betrayed into it, if we thought it sin : and pious ejaculations would escape our lips, though we were obliged to preface them with, God forgive me for praying! To those (she proceeds) who press the objection, that we cannot see in what manner our prayers can be answered, consistently with the govern- ment of the world according to general laws ; it may be sufficient to say, that prayer, being made almost an instinct of our nature, it cannot be supposed but that, like all other instincts, it has its use : but that no idea can be less philosophical, than one which implies, that the existence of a God who governs the world, should make no difference in our con- duct ; and few things less probable, than that the child-like submission which bows to the will of a father, should be exactly similar in feature to the stubborn patience which bends under the yoke of necessity. Remarks on Wakefield's Enquiry, pp. 1114. See also the excellent remarks of Dr Percival to the same purport, cited in the appendix to this work. 3 This position he exhibits thus, in language which will be intelligible to mathematicians only. " The ratio of G to M -{- q, is different from that of G to M q : and yet G re- mains unaltered." To the opponents of the argument thii formula of its expositioc will no doubt afford ground rather ol jocularity than of conviction. For, of men capable of maintain- ing a contrary opinion, there can be no great hazard in pro nouncing, that they are not mathematicians. No. 9. OF THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS THROUGH A MEDIATOR. 41 No. IX. Page 10. Col. 1. ON THE GRANTING OF THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS THROUGH A MEDIATOR OR INTERCESSOR. See H. Taylor's Ben. Mord. 5th Letter ; in which a number of instances are adduced from the Old Testament, to shew that God's dealing with his creatures is of the nature here described. Thus we find, that, when God had declared that he would destroy the entire nation of Israel, for their idolatry at Horeb (Numb, xiv.), and again, for their intended violence against Caleb and Joshua (Deut. ix.), yet upon the intercession of Moses, he is said to have forgiven them. In like manner, for the sake of ten righteous per- sons, he would have spared Sodom, (Gen. xviii. 32.) In remembrance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for their sakes, he is repre- sented as being merciful to their posterity, (Gen. xxvi. 24.) He forgave Abimelech also upon the prayer of Abraham, (Gen. xx. 7;) and the friends of Job, upon the solicitation of that patriarch, (Job, xlii. 10 ;) and what renders these two last instances particularly strong, is, that whilst he declares the purpose of forgiveness, he at the same time expressly prescribes the mediation by which it was to be obtained. To quote more of the numerous instances which the Old Testament supplies on this head, must be unnecessary. What has been urged will enable us to form a true judgment of that extraordinary position, on which Dr Priestley relies not a little (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 156,) viz. that " the declarations of divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, through all the books of Scripture, without the most dis- tant hint of any regard being had to the suf- ferings or merit of any being whatever." Very different indeed were the sentiments of the pious writer referred to in the last Num- ber. He not merely admits the contrary of this position to be founded in the facts of reve- lation ; but he maintains the abstract reason- ableness of the principle, with a force and feel- ing, that must render his remarks upon this lir.-i'l particularly acceptable to the reader. " If it be asked," he says, " what influence our prayers can have upon the state of others ; what benefit they can derive from our inter- cessions ; or, whether we can conceive that God, like weak men, can be persuaded by the importunity of one person, to bestow upon an- other blessings which he would not else have bestowed : the proper answer is to be derived from the consideration, that it is by no means necessary to suppose, that the treatment which beings shall receive depends, in all cases, solely on what they are in themselves. This, with- out doubt, is what the universal Governor chiefly regards ; but it is not all. And though there are some benefits of such a nature, that no means can obtain them for beings who have not certain qualifications, there are other benefits which one being may obtain for an- other, or for which he may be indebted entirely to the kind offices of his fellow-creatures. An advantage may become proper to be granted to another, in consequence of some circum- i stances he may be in, or some relations in j which he may stand to others, which, abstract- ; ed from such circumstances and relations, i would not have been proper. Nothing more frequently happens in the common course of ; events. " The whole scheme of nature seems, in- deed, to be contrived on purpose, in such a manner, as that beings might have it in their power, in numberless ways, to bless one an- j other. And one great end of the precarious and mutually dependent condition of men ap- pears plainly to be, that they might have room and scope for the exercise of the beneficent affections. From this constitution of things it is, that almost all our happiness is conveyed to us, not immediately from the hands of God, but by the instrumentality of our fellow-be- ings, or through them as the channels of his beneficence ; in such a sense, that, had it not been for their benevolence and voluntary agency, we should have for ever wanted the blessings we enjoy. " Now, with respect to prayer, why may not this be one thing that may alter a case, and be a reason with the divine Being for shewing favour ? Why, by praying for one another, may we not, as in many other ways, be useful to one another ? Why may not the universal Father, in consideration of the humble and benevolent intercessions of some of his children for others, be pleased often, in the course of his providence, to direct events for the advantage of the persons interceded for, in a manner that otherwise would not have been done ? No truly benevolent and pious man can help lifting up his heart to the Deity in behalf or his fellow-creatures. No one whose breast is properly warmed with kind wishes to his brethren about him, and who feels within himself earnest desires to do them all possible good, can avoid offering up his kind wishes and desires to the common Bene- factor and Ruler, who knows what is best for : every being, and who can make those we love infinitely happy. In reality, supplications to ; the Deity for our friends and kindred, and all in whose welfare we are concerned, are no less natural than supplications for ourselves. And are they not also reasonable ? What is there in them, that is not worthy the most exalted benevolence ? May it not be fit, that a wise and good Being should pay a regard to them ? And may not the regarding and answering them, and, in general, granting blessings to some on account o/ the virtue of others, bo a MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. proper method of encouraging and honouring virtue, and of rewarding the benevolence of beings to one another ? Perhaps, there may not be a better way of encouraging righteous- ness in the creation, than by making it as much as possible the cause of happiness, not only to the agent himself, but to all connected with him ; since there is no virtuous being who would not, in many circumstances, choose to be rewarded with a grant of blessings to his fellow-beings, rather than to himself. " That our prayers for others may be at- tended with beneficial effects upon their con- dition, he considers also to be a prevailing sentiment : otherwise wherefore should we feel ourselves impelled to offer them ? Our immediate view in praying must be to obtain what we pray for. This, which is true as applied to prayers on our own behalf, must be also true of our supplications for others. We cannot mean, in addressing to the Deity our desires for others, merely to obtain some benefit to ourselves. And this in itself proves, that the effect of prayer is not merely to be estimated by its tendency to promote our moral and religious improvement." At the same time, I cannot but lay before the reader the edifying and delightful repre- sentation, given by the author, in another place, of the beneficial influence of interces- sionary prayer on the mind of him who offers it. " No one can avoid feeling how happy an effect this must have in sweetening our tem- pers, in reconciling us to all about us, and causing every unfriendly passion to die away within us. We cannot offer up prayers to God for our fellow-men, without setting them before our minds in some of the most engaging lights possible ; as partaking of the same na- ture with ourselves, liable to the same wants and sufferings, and in the same helpless cir- cumstances ; as children of the same Father, subjects of the same all-wise government, and heirs of the same hopes. He who prays for others with understanding and sincerity, must see himself on the same level with them ; he must be ready to do them all the good in his power ; he must be pleased with whatever happiness they enjoy : he can do nothing to lessen their credit or comfort ; and fervent desires will naturally rise within him, while thus engaged, that his own breast may be the seat of all those good dispositions and virtues, which he prays that they may be blessed with. Resentment and envy can never be indulg- ed by one, who, whenever he finds himself tempted to them, has recourse to this duty, and sets himself to recommend to the divine favour the persons who excite within him these passions. No desire of retaliation or re- venge, nothing of unpeaceableness, ill nature, or haughtiness, can easily shew itself in a heart kept under this guard and discipline. How is it possible to use him ill, for whom we are constant advocates with God ? How excellent a parent or friend is he likely to make, who always remembers before God the concerns and interests of his children and friends, in the same manner that he remembers his own ? Is there a more rational way of expressing benevolence than this? or a more effectual way of promoting and enlarging it ? Nothing is more desirable or more delightful than to feel ourselves continually under the power of kind affections to all about us. Would we be thus happy ? Would we have our hearts in a constant state of love and good-will ? Would we have every tender sentiment strong and active in our breasts ? Let us be constant and diligent in this part of devotion, and pray continually for others, as we do for ourselves." (Price's Four Dissertations, pp. 207, 221227 237239.) Such was the language of a man, who, whilst (unlike Dr Priestley and his Unitarian asso- ciates) he really possessed, and by the habits of his studies daily strengthened, the powers of accurate thinking, had not rationalized away those just and natural sentiments which be- long to the truly religious character, and which, whilst the highest exercises of mere intellect cannot reach, its soundest decisions cannot but approve. At the same time, how deeply is it to be deplored, that, in certain of his theolo- gical opinions, such a man should have de- parted widely from the truth of Scripture ! I have willingly permitted myself in this extract to wander beyond what the immediate subject demanded ; because, amidst the thorny mazes of polemics, the repose and refreshment which these flowers of genuine piety present would, I apprehended, afford to the reader a satisfaction not less than they had yielded to myself. No. X. Page 10. Col. 1. i ON UNITARIANS J OR RATIONAL DISSENTERS. It is obvious, that the sect, to which I here allude, is that known by the title of Unitarians : a title by which it is meant modestly to insinuate that they are the only worshippers of One God. From a feel- ing similar to that which has given birth to this denomination, they demand, also, to be distinguished from the other Non-conformists, by the appellation of Rational Dissenters. Mr Howes has observed, (Critical Observ. vol. iv, p. 17.) that the term Unitarian, has been used with great vagueness by the very writers who arrogate the name : being applied by some to a great variety of sects, Arians, Ebionites, Theodotians, Sabellians, and Soci- nians ; to any sect, in short, which has pre- tended to preserve the unity of the Deity, better than the Trinitarians according to the No. 11. UNITARIANS DISTINGUIHSED FROM SOCINIANS. 43 council of Nice : whilst by others, and parti- cularly by Dr Priestley, it is attributed ex- clusively to those who maintain the mere hnmanity of Christ. On this account Mr Howes proposed to substitute the word Hu- manist, as more precisely expressing the chief principle of the sect intended : and this word he afterward exchanged for Humanitarian, Mr Hobhouse and other Unitarians having adopted that appellation, (Grit. Obs. vol. iv. p. 91 .) However, as I find the latest writers of this description prefer the denomination of Unitarian, I have complied with their wishes, in adopting this term throughout the present work ; perfectly aware, at the same time, of the impropriety of its appropriation, but be- ing unwilling to differ with them merely about names, where so much attention is demanded by things. For a full account of the doctrines of this new sect, (for new it must be called, notwith- standing Dr Priestley's laboured, but unsub- stantial, examination of " Early Opinions") the reader may consult the Theological Repo- sitory, the various theological productions of Dr Priestley, and, particularly, Mr Belsham's Review of Mr Wilberforce's Treatise. Indeed this last publication presents, on the whole, so extraordinary a system, and conveys so comprehensive a view of all the principles and consequences of the Unitarian scheme, not to be found in any other work of so small a compass, that I think it may not be unac- ceptable to subjoin to these pages a brief abstract of it, as described by the author. A summary of the tenets of this enlightened sect may furnish matter of speculation, not merely curious but instructive, to those who are not yet tinctured with its principles ; and to those who are, it may, perhaps, suggest a salutary warning, by shewing it in all its frightful consequences. Unitarianism, it is true, has not yet made its way into this country in any digested shape ; but wherever there are found to prevail a vain confidence in the sufficiency of human reason, and a consequent impatience of authority and control, with a desire to reject received opinions, and to fritter away, by subtle distinctions, plain and established pre- cepts, there the soil is prepared for its recep- tion, and the seed is already sown. No. XI. Page 10. Col. 1. ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN UNITARIANS AND SOCINIANS. The doctrine here stated is that maintained by all the Socinian writers. It may be found so laid down (Theol, Rep. vol. i.) in the first article written by Dr Priestley, under the title of Clemens. It is, however, to bo noted, that Doctor Priestley, his follower Mr Belsharn, and others of the same theological opinions, disclaim the title of Socinian ; and desire to be distinguished by that of Unitarian, for the reason assigned in the preceding Number. Mr Belsham goes so far as to say (Review, &c. p. 227,) that his " creed is as far removed from that of Socinus, as it is from the peculiar doctrines of Mr Wilberforce." Indeed, to do Socinus justice, it must be admitted that the creed of the Unitarian differs materially from his. He had not reached the acme of modern illumination. He had not sufficient penetra- tion to discern the various mistakes in the application of Scripture, and the numerous errors in reasoning, committed by the Evan- gelists and Apostles, which have been detect- ed and dragged to light by the sagacious Uni- tarian. He had not discovered that Christ was the human offspring of Joseph and Mary. He had not divested our Lord of his regal, as well as his sacerdotal character, and reduced him to the condition of a mere prophet. He had weakly imagined, that, by virtue of his regal office, Christ possessed the power of delivering his people from the punishment of their sins. But Doctor Priestley has rectified this error. In his Hist, of Cor. (vol. i. p. 272) he expressly points out the difference between himself and Socinus, on this head. " It im- mediately follows," he says, " from his (Soci- nus's) principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death could not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men. He was, however, far from abandoning the doctrine of Redemp- i tion, in the Scripture sense of the word, that is, of our deliverance from the guilt of sin, by his Gospel, as promoting repentance and refor- mation ; and from the punishment due to sin, by his power of giving eternal life to all that obey him. But, indeed, if God himself freely forgives the sins of men, upon repentance, there could be no occasion, properly speak- ing, for anything farther being done to avert the punishment with which they had been threatened." This passage, whilst it marks the distinction between the Socinian and the Unitarian, fully opens up the scheme of the latter. But, on this system, it may be curious to inquire in what light the death of our blessed Lord is represented. Dr Priestley ( Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 39) gives us this information : " Christ being a man, who suffered and died in the best of causes, there is nothing so very different in the occasion and manner of his death from that of others who suffered and died after him in the same cause of Christianity, but that their sufferings and death may be considered in the same light with his." This extraordinary assertion exactly agrees with what is recorded of Solomon Eccles, a great preacher and pro- phet of the Quakers ; who expressly declares, " that the blood of Christ was no more than 44 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. the blood of any other saint," (Leslie's Works, fol. vol. ii. p. 195.) Thus strangely do the philosophy of Doctor Priestley, and the fanaticism of the Quaker, concur with that which both would pronounce to be the gross absurdity of Popery. For, if the death of Christ be viewed in the same light with the death of any other martyr, the invocation of the popish saints may appear a consequence not so revolting to Christian piety. That the lines of error, in their manifold directions, should sometimes intersect, if not for a certain length of way coincide, is not however matter of surprise. But the death of Christ being treated in this manner by Doctor Priestley and his Unitarian followers, one is naturally "led to inquire what their notions are of his state subsequent to his resurrection. Mr Belsham (Review, &c. p. 74) gives us satisfaction on this head. The Unitarians, he says, here entirely differ from the Socinians : for that the latter hold the " unscriptural and most incredible notion, that, since his resurrection, he has been advanced to the government of the universe : but a consistent Unitarian, acknowledging Jesus as a man in all respects like to his brethren, regards his kingdom as entirely of a spiritual nature." We are not, however, to suppose our blessed Lord altogether banished from existence ; for this gentleman admits again, (p. 85) that he is " now alive" some- where, " and without doubt employed in offices the most honourable and benevolent ; " in such, of course, as any of his brother- men, to whom he is above described as in all respects similar, might be engaged. On this, and other such wild blasphemies of this sect, as represented by Mr Belsham, see the Appendix. No. XII. Page 10. Col. 2. ON THE CORRUPTION OF MAN'S NATURAL STATE. They who may wish to see this subject ex- tensively treated, will find it amply discussed in Leland's work on the Advantage and Ne- cessity of the Christian Revelation. In Mr Wil- berforce's Practical View, also, we meet with a description of the state of unassisted nature, distinguished not less, unhappily, by its truth, than by its eloquence. After a forcible enumeration of the gross vices into which the heathen world, both an- cient and modern, had been sunk ; and this not only amongst the illiterate and the vulgar, but also amongst the learned and the refined, even to the decent Virgil and the philosophic Cicero ; he proceeds, in the following ani- mated tone, to examine the state of morals among those who have been visited by the lights of the Gospel : " But you give up the heathen nations as indefensible ; and wish rather to form your estimate of man, from a view of countries which have been blessed with the light of revelation. True it is, and with joy let us re- cord the concession, Christianity has set the general tone of morals much higher than it was ever found in the pagan world. She has every where improved the character, and multiplied the comforts of society ; particu- larly to the poor and the weak, whom, from the beginning, she professed to take under her special patronage. Like her divine Author, ' who sends his rain on the evil and on the good,' she showers down unnumbered bless- ings on thousands who profit from her bounty, while they forget or deny her power, and set at nought her authority. Yet, even in this more favoured situation, we shall discover too many lamentable proofs of the depravity of man. Nay, this depravity will now become even more apparent and less deniable. For what bars does it not now overleap ? over what motives is it not now victorious ? Consider well the superior light and advantages which we enjoy, and then appreciate the superior obligations which are imposed on us. Con- sider well," &c. " Yet, in spite of all our knowledge, thus powerfully enforced and pressed home upon us, how little has been our progress in virtue! It has been by no means such as to prevent the adoption, in our days, of various maxims of antiquity, which, when well considered, too clearly establish the depravity of man." Having adduced several instances in proof of this assertion, he thus proceeds : "But surely, to any who call themselves Christians, it may be justly urged as an astonishing instance of human depravity, that we ourselves, who en- joy the full light of revelation, to whom God has vouchsafed such clear discoveries of what it concerns us to know of his being and attri- butes ; who profess to believe that in him we live, and move, and have our being ; that to him we owe all the comforts we here enjoy, and the offer of eternal glory purchased for us by the atoning blood of his own Son ; that we, thus loaded with mercies, should every one of us be continually chargeable with for- getting his authority, and being ungrateful for his benefits ; with slighting his gracious pro- posals, or receiving them, at best, but heart- lessly and coldly." " But to put the question concerning the natural depravity of man to the severest test, Take the best of the human species, the watch- ful, diligent, self-denying Christian, and let him decide the controversy ; and that, not by inferences drawn from the practices of a thoughtless and dissolute world, but by an ap- peal to his personal experience. Go with him into his closet, ask him his opinion of the cor- ruption of his heart ; and he will tell you, No. 12. THE CORRUPTION OF MAN'S NATURAL STATE. 45 that he is deeply sensible of its power, for that he has learned it from much self-observation, and long acquaintance with the workings of his own mind. He will tell you, that every day strengthens this conviction ; yea, that hourly he sees fresh reason to deplore his want of simplicity in intention, his infirmity of purpose, his low views, his selfish, unworthy desires, his backwardness to set about his duty, his languor and coldness in perform- ing it : that he finds himself obliged conti- nually to confess, that he feels within him two opposite principles, and that he cannot do the things that he would. He cries out in the language of the excellent Hooker, ' The little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound : we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had him in our debt books ; our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, and par- don our offences !' " (Wilberforce's Practical View, pp. 28 37.) Such is the view which a pious and im- pressive writer has given of what all, who reflect, must acknowledge to be the true con- dition of man. Another writer, not less pious and impressive (Mrs Hannah More,) has, with her usual powers of eloquence, presented the same picture of the moral and religious his- tory of the world, in her admirable Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education. To observations similar to those of Mr Wil- berforce, on the doctrine of human depravity, she adds this remark : " Perhaps one reason why the faults of the most eminent saints are recorded in Scripture, is, to add fresh confir- mation to this doctrine. If Abraham, Moses, Noah, Elijah, David, and Peter, sinned, who, shall we presume to say, has escaped the univer- sal taint ?" (H. More's Works, iv. 330, 331.) How easily is this question answered by the follower of Priestley, or I may add, (strange as the combination may appear,) of Wesley ! The former produces his philosopher, the latter his saint, in refutation of such unwor- thy and disparaging notions of human nature. They differ, indeed, in one material point. The one contends, that by his own virtuous resolutions he can extricate himself from vicious propensities and habits : whilst the other is proud to admit, that the divine favour has been peculiarly exerted in his behalf, to rescue him from his sins. The one denies that he was ever subject to an innate depra- vity ; the other confesses that he was, boasts even of its inveteracy, but glories that he has been perfectly purified from its stains. But both are found to agree, most exactly, in that vain self-complacency, which exults in the reflection that they "are not as other 4 men 4 The contemptuous language which the overweening Metho- dist is too apt to employ, with respect to all who arc not within are ;" and in the arrogant presumption, that they are lifted above that corruption of nature from which the more humble and more de- serving Christian feels himself not to be exempt. In the philosoplrizing Christian all this is natural and consistent. But in the Methodist, (I speak of the Arminian Metho- dist, or follower of Wesley,) it is altogether at variance with the doctrines which he professes to maintain. Accuracy of reasoning, how- ever, is not among the distinctive marks of this latter description of religionists. A warm fancy, with a weak intellect ; strong passions and vehement conceit, almost always go to the composition of the character. That such qualities should find many minds of congenial aptitude, is a thing not to be wondered at. And therefore, that this mixture of fanati- cism, hypocrisy, vanity, and ignorance, should be widely spreading in both countries, is per- fectly natural. It is, however, to be lamented, that such a mischievous corruption of true religion should receive countenance from any of its real friends, and it is a matter equally of surprise and con- cern, that a system, which no longer covertly, but openly and avowedly, works in continued hostility to the established religion, has not met with more effectual resistance from those who may be supposed to take an interest in the well-being of the Establishment. On the contrary, examples are not wanting of cases, in which the clergy have been set aside in the work of religious instruction ; whilst men, who uphold the Wesleyan chimera of perfec- tion, who openly reject the Liturgy 5 and Articles, and oppose the doctrines of the Esta- his sanctified pale, but more especially with respect to the clergy of the Establishment, affords hut too strong a justification of this charge as it applies to him. The clergy are uniformly, with re- ligionists of this description, " dumb dogs," " watchmen who sleep upon their posts," " priests of Baal," " wolves in sheep's clothing," &c. &c. Indeed, Mr Whitefield informs us in his Work* (vol. iv. p. 67, ) that " Mr Wesley thought meanly of Abraham, and, he believes, of David also :" whilst of Mr Wesley himself we are told, that " wherever he went, he was received as an apostle ;" and that " in the honour due to Moses he also had a share, being placed at the head of a great people by Him who called them," &c. (Ilampson's Life qf Wetley, vol. iii. p. 35. Coke's Life of Wetley, p. 520.) Mr Wesley has taken care to let mankind know, that Methodism " is the only religion worthy of God " ( Hamps. vol. iii. p. 30 ;) and the miracles which repeatedly attested his divine mission for the propagation of this religion he has most copiously recorded throughout his Journals. Whoever wishes to form a just idea of the pernicious extrava- gances of this arch enthusiast, and of his followers, will find ample satisfaction in BUhop Lavington's Enthiitiasm of Metho- dittt and Papittt compared, (a book, which B. Warburton, in one of his private letters to his friend Hurd, very unfairly de- scribes, as " a bad copy of Still in qhYct's famous book of the Fanaticirm jf the Church of Rome,'') and in the later publica- tion of Nott's Reliffiouf Enthuiiarm contidered. 8 The treatment which the Liturgy and the Articles have ex- perienced from Mr Wesley, is, I apprehend, very little under- stood by the generality of those who are disposed to look with complacency upon the sect of which he has been the founder. Professing to adopt the Liturgy of the Church of England, he has framed one fur his followers, differing from it in many and 46 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. Wished Church, have been deemed fit objects of preference to the recognized religious teachers of the land. Against abuses such as these, and particu- larly against the open outrages upon decency and upon the rights of the Establishment, of which many of this wild and fantastic sect have been guilty, I am happy to say that some re- spectable members of the National Church have lifted their voices in both countries. Amongst these I allude with particular pleasure to my respected friend and brother academic, Dr Hales; and I allude to him the more will- ingly, not only because he has with much ability and good temper combated and con- futed the extravagent dogmas of sinless per- fection, and miraculous impulses, which are the distinguishing tenets of this sect ; but be- cause he has, in opposition to their wild essential particulars. He confesses, indeed, that he has made some slight alterations ; which he enumerates in such a way as would naturally induce the supposition, that the difference is altogether unimportant : whilst, in truth, he has not only newly modified the Common Prayer, and nearly abolished the whole of the bap- tismal office ; but, besides mutilating above sixty of the Psalms, has discarded thirty-four others, and newly rendered many of the remainder. Of the Psalms which he has discarded, six, at least, are admitted to be eminently prophetic of our Saviour, of his incarnation, his sufferings, and his ascension ; whilst the rea- son assigned for the expurgation is, their being " improper for the mouth of a Christian congregation ! " But this is not all : the Kubrick and the appointed Lessons are in most place* altered ; and the Catechism, and the two Creeds (the Nicene and Athana- sian) totally discarded. Of these last-mentioned alterations, it is also particularly to be obseved, that Mr Wesley gave to his followers no notice whatever ; whilst the former were represented by him as of a nature altogether unimportant : so that the igno- rant amongst his adherents were led to imagine that they were not materially departing from the forms of the Establishment : when, in truth, they were altogether drawn away from the offices of the Church. To complete the whole, Mr Wesley provided his Communion also with a new set of Articles ; reducing the number from thirty-nine to twenty-five, and making such changes in those which he retained as he found most convenient. Not to dwell too long upon this subject, suffice it to adduce two instance* of omitted Articles ; from which the spirit that governed the whole may easily be divined. The eighteenth Article, which pronounces, that "Eternal salvation is to be obtained only by the name of Christ ;" and the fifteenth, which asserts, " that Christ alone was without sin," are two of those, which the founder of Methodism has declared to be unfit objects of a Christian's belief. Thus it appears that the Socinian is not the only sectary that would degrade the dignity of Christ Such are the people from whom certain weak members of the Establishment apprehend no mischief. On the points which have been here noticed, see particularly Nott's Itelig. Enth. pp. ISO 167. It may be satisfactory to the reader to know exactly what are the Articles and Psalms that have been rejected by Mr Wesley. The Articles rejected are, the third, eighth, the greater part of the ninth, thirteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-sixth, much of the twenty-seventh, twenty-ninth, thirty-third, and three others of the less important ones at the end. Those marked in italics are more particularly to be noticed. The Psalms rejected are, the 14th, 21t, 52d. 53d, 54th, 58th, 60th, 64th, 72d, 74th, 78th 83d, 87th, 88th, 94th, 101st, 105th, 106th, 108th 110th, 120th, 122d, 129th, 132d, 134th, 136th, 137th, 140th, 149th. The general character of the rejected Articles and Psalms will pretty clearly establish what has been alleged as to the nature of the opinions which Mr Wrsley and his followers maintain, or, at least, of the doctrines which they reject. rhapsodies, exhibited such a portrait of the true Christian, and of the nature of that per- fection which it is permitted him in this life to attain, as is strictly warranted by Scripture, and highly edifying to contemplate. I, there- fore, here subjoin it, both as being naturally connected with the present subject, and as being calculated to afford satisfaction and im- provement to the Christian reader. " The perfect Christian, according to the representation of Holy Writ, is he who, as far as the infirmity of his nature will allow, aspires to universal holiness of life ; uniformly . and habitually endeavouring to ' stand per- fect and complete in all the will of God,' and to ' fulfil all righteousness,' in humble imita- tion of his Redeemer ; who daily and fer- vently prays for ' increase of faith,' like the Apostles themselves; and strenuously labours to 'add to his faith, virtue ; and to virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, temperance ; and to temperance, patience ; and to patience, godliness ; and to godliness, brotherly kind- ness ; and to brotherly kindness, charity.' Such is the assemblage of virtues necessary to constitute the character of the perfect Chris- tian ; ever aiming at, though never attaining to, absolute or sinless perfection, in this pre- sent state of trial, probation, and preparation for a better ; and meekly resting all his hopes of favour and acceptance with God, not on his own defective and imperfect righteous- ness, but on 'the free grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ;' ' for by grace we are saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God ; not of works, that no one should boast.' " Metho- dism Inspected, pp. 30, 31. This is the lan- guage of reason and of Scripture, 6 by which the Christian, though ever aspiring to a higher and a better nature, is still reminded of that nature which belongs to him, and against the infirmities of which he can never either relax in vigilance, or remit in exertion. How strongly contrasted with such lan- guage are the above dogmas alluded to and the authorities adduced in their support! That the nature of those dogmas, and the extent to which they are maintained, may be the better understood, I must here detain the reader with a few passages from the writings of Mr Wesley. As possessing the advantages of education, talents, and knowledge of man- kind, in a degree which places him much above the level of those who have succeeded him in the Methodist ministry, he may well 8 Dr Stack also uses a language of like sobriety and scriptural correctness, in those passages of his very useful Lectures on the Actt, and on the liomant, in which he has occasion to speak of the influence of the Holy Spirit. See particularly pp. 35. 36. of the former work, and pp. 148 150. of the latter. Attend also to the excellent observations of Dr Tomline, on the degree of purity attainable by the Christian, and the nature of the en- deavours which he is to make after perfection. Elem. of Chritt TheoL vol. ii. p. 285. No. 12. THE CORRUPTION OF MAN'S NATURAL STATE. 47 be supposed not to have propounded the opinions of the sect in a shape more extra- vagant than that in which they are embraced by his followers. And first, on the subject of miraculous manifestations and impulses in the forgiveness of sins and assurance of salvation, he tells us : " God does now, as aforetime, give remissions of sin and the gift of the Holy Ghost to us ; and that always suddenly, as far as I have known, and often in dreams, and in the visions of God," (Hamp- son's Life of Wesley r , ii. 81.) Again : " I am one of many witnesses of this matter of fact, that God does now make good this his promise daily, very frequently during a representation (how made I know not, but not to the outward eye) of Christ, either hanging on the cross, or standing on the right hand of God," (Hamps. ii. 55.) Again : " I saw the fountain opened in his side we have often seen Jesus Christ crucified, and evidently set forth before us," (B. Lavingt. vol. i. part i. p. 51.) And Coke, in his Life of Wesley, says, that " being in the utmost agony of mind, there was clearly represented to him Jesus Christ pleading for him with God the Father, and gaining a free pardon for him." Secondly, as to the tenet of perfection, Mr Wesley affords us the follow- ing ample explanation : " They (the puri- fied in heart) are freed from self-will : as de- siring nothing, no not for a moment, but the holy and perfect will of God : neither supplies in want, nor ease in pain, nor life, nor death, but continually cry in their inmost soul, ' Father, thy will be done.' " " They are freed from evil thoughts, 7 so that they can- 7 That he, who could use such language as this, would feel it necessary to reject the fifteenth Article of the Church, as the reader is already apprised Mr Wesley did, will nut appear sur- prising on a perusal of that article. " Christ, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all tilings, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit, lie came to be a lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sin* of the world : and sin, as St John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things ; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Such is the doctrine of the Established Church ; and Fuch is the direct contrary of the doctrine which Mr Wesley and his followers hold upon the subject of this Article; for which reason they have, with perfect consistency, rejected it from their code of Christian belief. And, for the tame reason, the cry of the party la every where loudly raised against every work that intimates the corruption of man's nature, in the language of the Article. As to the rejection of the eighteenth Article, Mr Wesley's lan- guage has not been so explicit as to enable us to pronounce, with perfect certainty, upon the precise ground of that rejection. But when we consider, that in that Article there is contained a condemnation of the assertion " that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he profeseth ;" and that it is at the same time affirmed, that " Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved ;" and when at the same time we recollect, that "the name of Jesus Christ " implies certain belief and doctrines respecting the nature of the Saviour and the religion which he has taught ; whilst Mr Wesley considers doctrines, or right opinions, to be of little value, and holds the religious feelings which distinguish the rue Methodist to be the only sure pledge and passport of salva- not enter into them, no not for an instant. Aforetime, (i. e. when only justified) when an evil thought came in, they looked up, and it vanished away : but now it does not come in ; there being no room for this in a soul, which is full of God. They are freed from wanderings in prayer : they have an unction from the Holy One, which abideth in them, and teacheth them every hour what they shall do, and what they shall speak." (Pref. to second volume of Wesley's Hymns, Hamps. iii. 52; and Coke's Life of Wes. pp. 278, 344.) Theseextracts from the writings of the father of Methodism fairly open up to us the two great fundamental doctrines of the sect : viz. 1. That the assurances of forgiveness and of salvation arise from a sudden infusion of divine feeling, conveyed by some sensible and miraculous manifestation of the Spirit : and 2. That the true believer attains in this life such perfection, as to be altogether free from sin, and even from the possibility of sin. Holding such doctrines, it is not at all won- derful that the Wesleyan Methodist is indiffe- rent about every other. Mr Wesley fairly says upon the subject of doctrines, " I will not quarrel with you about any opinions : believe them true or false!" (Third Appeal, p. 185.) In another place he confesses, " The points we chiefly insisted upon were, that Orthodoxy, or Right Opinions, is at best a very slender part of religion, 8 if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all !" This, it must be admitted, is an excellent expedient for adding to the numbers of the sect. A perfect indifference about doctrines, and a strong persuasion that the divine favour is secured, whilst the fancy of each individual is counted to him for faith, are such re- commendations of any form of religion, as can scarcely be resisted. But what can be more mischievous than all this? What more destructive of true religion ? The sound prin- ciples of Christian doctrine disparaged as of no value to the believer ; and the serious feel- ings of Christian piety caricatured, and there- by brought into general disrepute ; whilst the sober and regulated teaching of the na- tional clergy is treated with contumely and contempt ; and separation from the national tl >n : when we compare these things together, we seem to run no great risk in concluding, that this article was condemned by the founder of Methodism, as clearly marking, that religious opinions were by no means a matter of indifference ; that, on the contrary, just notions concerning Christ were requisite for salvation ; and that for the want of these, no association with any particular sect or religious description whatever could make compensation. "On this favourite position of Mr Wesley, Bishop Warburton justly remarks, that here is a complete separation between reason and religion. For when reason is no longer employed to dis- tinguish right from wrong opinions, religion has no farther con- nection with it. But, reason once separated from religion, mutt not piety degenerate either into nonsense or madness ? And for the fruits of grace what can remain but the froth and dregs of enthusiasm and superstition ? In the first ages of Christianity, 48 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. church deemed a decisive criterion of godly sincerity ! In the contemplation of such a state of things, it seems as if one were sur- veying the completion of the following pro- spective description given to us by Sir Walter Raleigh : " When all order, discipline, and church government shall be left to newness of opinion, and men's fancies ; soon after, as many kinds of religion will spring up as there are parish churches within England : every contentious and ignorant person clothing his fancy with the Spirit of God, and his imagi- nation with the gift of revelation : insomuch as when the Truth, which is but one, shall appear to the simple multitude no less varia- ble than contrary to itself, the faith of men will soon after die away by degrees, and all religion be held in scorn and contempt." Hist, of the World, b. ii. ch. v. sect. 1. No. XIII. Page 11. Col. 1. ON THE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT BY UNITARIANS. On this subject Dr Priestley (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 153) thus represents the ar- guments of the Orthodox. " Sin, being an offence against an infinite Being, requires an infinite satisfaction, which can only be made by an infinite person ; that is, one who is no less than God himself. Christ, therefore, in order to make this infinite satis- faction for the sins of men, must himself be God, equal to God the Father." With what candour this has been selected, as a specimen of the mode of reasoning by which the doc- trine of Atonement, as connected with that of the divinity of Christ, is maintained by the Established Church, it is needless to remark. the glory of the Gospel consisted in its being a reasonable service. By this it was distinguished from the several modes of Gentile religinn, the essence of which consisted in fanatic raptures and superstitious ceremonies ; without any articles of belief or for- mula of faith ; " right opinion being," on the principles of the Pagan priesthood, "at best, but a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all." But Christianity arose on different princi- ples. St Paul considers right opinion as one full third part of religion, where, speaking of the three great fundamental princi- ples on which the Christian Church is erected, he makes truth to be one of them : " The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth." So different was St Paul's idea, from that entertained of Christianity by Mr Wesley, who comprises all in the new birth, and makes believing to consist entirely in feel- ing. On the whole, therefore, we may fairly conclude (with Warburton,) that that wisdom which divests Christianity of truth and reason, and resolves its essence rather into mental and spiritual sensations, than tries it by moral demonstration, can never be the wisdom which is from above, whose first charac- teristic attribute is purity. The same writer truly adds, that if Mr Wesley's position be well founded, the first Reformers of Religion from the errors of Popery have much to answer for : who, for the sake of " right opinion, at best a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all," occasioned so much turmoil, and so many revolutions in civil as well as in religious systems See Warburton's Principle! qf Eat. and Rev. Reliyion, vol. i. pp. 263967. That some few, indeed, have thus argued, ii certainly to be admitted and lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it needed not the acuteness of Dr Priestley to discover. On their own principle, the reply is obvious, that sin being committed by a finite crea- ture, requires only a finite satisfaction, for which purpose a finite person might be an adequate victim. But the insinuation, that our belief in the divinity of Christ has been the offspring of this strange conceit, is much more becoming the determined advocate of a favourite cause, than the sober inquirer after truth. Our mode of reasoning is directly the reverse. The Scriptures proclaim the divinity of Christ ; and so far are we from inferring this attribute of our Lord from the necessity of an infinite satisfaction, that we infer, from it, both the great love of our Almighty Father, who has " spared not his own Son, but deli- vered him up for us all ;" and the great heinousness of human guilt, for the expiation of which it was deemed fit that so great a Being should suffer. The decent manner in which Mr Belsham has thought proper to represent the orthodox notion of the Atone- ment, is, that man could "not have been saved, unless one God had died, to satisfy the justice, and appease the wrath of an- other" (Review, &c. p. 221.) This is language with which I should not have disgraced my page, but that it may serve to shew how dan- gerous a thing it is to open a door to opinions, that can admit of treating subjects the most sacred with a levity which seems so nearly allied to impiety. No XIV. Page 11. Col. 1. ON THE DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE MANIFESTED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. Perhaps I may be charged with having made a distinction in this place, which gives an unfair representation of Unita- rians, inasmuch as they also profess to derive their arguments from Scripture. But whether that profession be not intended in mockery, one might be almost tempted to question, when it is found, that, in every instance, the doctrine of Scripture is tried by their abstract notion of right, and rejected if not accordant ; when, by means of figure and allusion, it is every where made to speak a language the most repugnant to all fair critical interpretation ; until, emptied of its true meaning, it is converted into a vehicle for every fantastic theory, which, under the name of rational, they may think proper to adopt ; when, in such parts as propound Gospel truths of a contexture too solid to admit of an escape in figure and allusion, the sacred writers are charged as bunglers, pro- . !-*. -DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. 4y ducing " lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings," (Dr Priestley's 12th Letter to Mr Burn,'} and philosophy is consequently called in to rectify their errors ; when one writer of this class (Steinbart) tells us, that " the narrations" (in the New Testament) " true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion ;" and again, that " Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to one people, and hating all other nations ;" when another (Semler,) remark- ing on St Peter's declaration, that " prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved I by the Holy Spirit," says, that " Peter speaks here according to the conception of the Jews," and that, " the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine ; revelations," (Dr Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Ch. Hist. No. 3, pp. 66, 71 ) ; when a third (Engedin) speaks of Saint John's por- tion of the New Testament, as written with " concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories ;" and Gagneius glories in having given " a little light to Saint Paul's darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected ;" when we find Mr Evan son, one of those able com- mentators referred to by Mr Belsham in his Review, &c. p. 206, assert, (Dissonance, &c. p. 1) that " the evangelical histories contain gross and irreconcileable contradictions," and consequently discard three out of the four, retaining the Gospel of St Luke only ; at the same time drawing his pen over as much of this, as, either from its infelicity of style, or other such causes, happens not to meet his approbation ; when we find Dr Priestley, besides his charge against the writers of the New Testament before recited, represent, in his Letter to Dr Price, the narration of Moses concerning the creation and the fall of man, as a lame account ; and thereby meriting the praise of " magnanimity," bestowed on him by theologians equally enlightened ; when, finally, not to accumulate instances where so many challenge attention, we find the Gospel openly described by Mr Belsham, (Review, &c. p. 217,) as containing nothing more than the Deism of the French Theo-Philanthrope, save only the fact of the resurrection of a human being (see Appendix ;) and when, for the purpose ot establishing this, he engages, that the Unitarian writers shall prune down the Scriptures to this moral system and this single fact, by shewing that whatever supports any thing else is either " interpolation, omis- sion, false reading, mistranslation, or erro- neous interpretation" (Review, pp. 206, 217, 272 ;) when, I say, all these things are con- sidered, and when we find the Bible thus con- temned and rejected by the gentlemen of this new light, and a new and more convenient Gospel carved out for themselves, can the occasional profession of reverence 9 for Scrip- ture, as the word of God, be treated in any other light, than as a convenient mask, or an insulting sneer ? It might be a matter of more than curious speculation, to frame a Bible according to the modifications of the Unitarian commentators. The world would then see, after all the due amputations and amendments, to what their respect for the sacred text amounts. Indeed it is somewhat strange, that men so zealous to enlighten and improve the world have not, long before this, blessed it with so vast a treasure. Can it be, that they think the execution of such a work would impair their claim to the name of Christians ? Or is it rather, that even the Bible, so formed, must soon yield to another more perfect, as the still increasing flood of light pours in new know- ledge ? That the latter is the true cause, may perhaps be inferred, as well from the known magnanimity of those writers, which cannot be supposed to have stooped to the former consideration, as from Dr Priestley's own declarations. In his Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, (part ii. pp. 33 35.) he inform? us, that he was once " a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect." Afterwards, he adds, he " became a high Arian ; next a low Arian, and then a Socinian ; and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and pec- 9 The fathers of the Socinian School are as widely distinguished from their followers of the present day, by their modesty and moderation, as by their learning and their talents. Yet, that it may be the more plainly discerned how remote the spirit of 80- cinianism has been, at all times, from the reverence due to the authority of Scripture, I here subjoin, in the words of two of their early writers, specimens of the treatment which the sacred volume commonly receives at their hand. Faitstus Socinus, after pronouncing with sufficient decision against the received d .ctrine of the Atonement, proceeds to say, " Ego quidem, etinmii non temel, ted tape id in tacrit monimentis tcri/'tum extaret; non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem." Socin. Opera, torn. ii. p. 204. And with like determination, Smalcius affirms of the Incarnation ; " Credimus, ctiamii non temel alque itentm, ted tatit crebro et dissertissime scriptum extaret Deum cssc Imminent factum, nuilto satins esse, quia h.-rc res sit absurda, et santc ration! plane contraria, et in Deum blasphema, modum aligucnt dicendi comminitci, quo ista de Deo dici possint, quam itta timpliciter ita ut verba tonant intetti- gerc." (Homil. viii. ad cup. 1. Job.) Thus it appears from these instances, joined to those which have been adduced above, to those which have been noticed at the end of No. I. and to others of the like nature, which might be multiplied from writers of the Socinian School without end ; that the most explicit, and precise, and emphatical language, announcing the doctrines which the philosophy of that school condemns, would, to its disciples, be words of no meaning ; and the Scripture, which adapted such language, but an idle fable. A'on pertuadebit eti- iiinti pertuaterit, is the true motto of the Unitarian. And the reader, I trust, will not think that I have drawn too strong con- clusions upon this subject at the close of the first Number, when be finds the proof of what is there advanced strengthening to powerfully & we proceed. MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. cable as Moses, or any other prophet." And, after all, he tells us, (Def. of Unit, for 1787, p. 111.) that he "does not know when his creed will be fixed." Mr Belsham having set out and ended at the same point with Dr Priestley, it is not improbable that he has gone through the same revolution : and that he, and others who have enjoyed the same progressive illumination, would, equally with Dr Priestley, still contend for the freedom of an unsettled creed, is not perhaps too violent a presumption. Now, as every step in such an indefinite progress, must induce a corres- ponding change of canon, it is not wonder- ful that they whose creed is in a perpetual state of variation, and whose Bible must be, like their almanack, suited only to a particular season, should not have attempted any fixed standard 10 of the Sacred Word. No. XV. Page 11. Col. 2. ON THE HEATHEN NOTIONS OV MERIT ENTERTAINED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. A writer, whom I cannot name but with respect, to the beauties of whose com- position no one, that possesses taste or feel- ing, can be insensible, speaking of Dr Price, in her captivating defence of public worship against Mr Wakefield (to which publication I have already referred the reader in a pre- ceding Number,) uses this extraordinary language : " When a man like Dr Price is about to resign his soul into the hands of his Maker, he ought to do it not only with a reliance on his mercy, but his justice" (Mrs Barbauld's Remarks on Mr WakefielcTs En- quiry, p. 72.) In the same style do Unitarian writers, in general, express themselves on this subject, representing good works as giving a claim of right to the divine acceptance. Indeed, the manner in which some Soci- nians, of the new school, speak of their virtues, their merits, and their title to the rewards of a happy immortality, is such as might lead us to suppose ourselves carried back to the days of the old heathen schools of the Stoics, and receiving lessons, not from the followers of the humble Jesus, but from the disciples of the arrogant and magniloquent Chrysippus, Seneca, or Epictetus. When Chrysippus tells us, that, " as it is proper for Jupiter to glory in himself, and in his own life, and to think and speak magnificently of himself, as living in a manner that deserves to be highly spoken of; so these things are becoming all good men, as being in nothing exceeded by Jupiter," Since the date of the above observation, (2d. edit. 1809.) a Testament has been published by the Unitarians, under the title of An Improved Verrion of the New Tettament. Of this Im- proved Vertion some notice has been already taken in the pre- ceding pages, and more shall be said hereafter. (Plut. De Stoic. Repugn. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1038. ed. Xyl. :) when Seneca pronounces, that " a good man differs only in time from God," (De Provid. cap. 1. ;) that "there is one thing, in which the wise man excells God, that God is wise by the benefit of nature, not by his own choice," (Epist. 53. ;) and that " it is shameful to importune the Gods in prayer, since a man's happiness is entirely in his own power," (Epist. 31. :) and when Epictetus, (Disc. lib. iv. cap. 10.) represents the dying man making his address to God, in a strain of self-confidence, without the least acknowledgment of any one failure or neglect of duty ; so that, as Miss Carter with a be- coming piety remarks, it is such an address, " as cannot, without shocking arrogance, be uttered by any one born to die ;" when, 1 say, we hear such language from the ancient Stoic, what do we hear, but the sentiments of the philosophising Christian of the present day ? and, on casting an eye into the works of Priestley, Lindsey, Evanson, Wakefield, Belsham, and the other Unitarian writers, do we not instantly recognize that proud, and independent, and, I had almost said, heaven - defying self-reliance, which had once distin- guished the haughty disciple of the Stoa ? No. XVI. Page 12. Col. 1. ON DR JOHN TAYLOR'S SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. The scheme of Atonement, as it is here laid down, is that which has been main- tained in the Letters of Ben Mordecai, by the learned and ingenious, but prejudiced and erroneous, H. Taylor. It is substantially the same that has been adopted by other theo- logians, who, admitting a mediatorial scheme in the proper sense of the word, have thought right to found it upon the notion of a pure benevolence, in opposition to that of a retri- butive justice, in the Deity. But I have selected the statement of it given by this writer, as being the best digested, and most artfully fortified. It seems to avoid that part of the scheme of Dr Taylor of Norwich, which favours the Socinian principles ; but, as will appear on examination, it cannot be entirely extricated from them, being originally built on an unsound foundation. With respect to the system of Dr Taylor of Norwich, as laid down in his Key to the Apostolic Writings, and his Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, it is obvious to remark, that it is nothing more than an artificial accommo- dation of Scripture phrases to notions utterly repugnant to Scripture doctrine. A short view of his scheme will satisfy us on this head. "By a sacrifice," he says, (Script. Doct. ch. ii. No. 24 5.) "is meant a symbolical address to God, intended to express before No. 16. DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 51 him the devotions, affections, &c. by signi- ficant, emblematical actions ;" and, conse- quently, he adds, " whatever is expressive of a pious and virtuous disposition, may be rightly included in the notion of a sacrifice ; as prayers, thanksgivings, labours," &c. &c. Having thus widened up the notion of sa- crifice, it becomes necessary that sacrificial atonement should be made of equally exten- sive signification ; and, accordingly, because the word "1M, which we commonly translate as making atonement, is, as he says, found to be applied in the Old Testament, in its gene- ral sense, to all means used for procuring any benefit, spiritual or temporal, at God's hands, whether for ourselves or others, such as obe- dience, a just life, sacrifices, prayers, inter- cessions, self-denials, &c. &c., he therefore thinks himself justified in extending to all these that particular species of atonement, which is effected by sacrifice ; and thereby he is enabled to pronounce the sacrifice of Christ to be a ground of atonement, without taking in a single idea that truly and properly be- longs to sacrifice, or sacrificial atonement. And so, he triumphantly concludes, (Script. Doct. &c. No. 152.) that he has made out the sacrifice of Christ to be " truly and properly, in the highest manner, and far beyond any other, piacular and expiatory, to make an atonement for sins, or take them away ; not only to give us an example, not only to assure us of remission, or to procure our Lord a commission to publish the forgiveness of sin, but, moreover, to obtain that forgiveness, by doing what God in his wisdom and goodness judged fit and expedient to be done, in order to the forgiveness of sin." But in what, according to this explication, consists the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, and how has it made atonement for sin ? He informs us himself, (Key, &c. No. 148.) " Obedience, or doing the will of God, was the sacrifice of sweet smelling savour, which made atonement for the sins of the world ; in this sense, that God, on account of his (Christ's) goodness and perfect obedience, thought fit to grant unto mankind the forgiveness of those sins that were past ; and, farther, erected a glorious and perfect dispensation of grace, ex- ceeding any which had gone before, in means, promises, and prospects, at the head of which he set his Son our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. &c. Thus, then, the obedience of Christ was the sacrifice : and the benefits procured to us by that obedience, constitute the atonement effected by it. And the nature of these benefits, and the way in which they are wrought out for us by Christ's obedience, as we find them explained by this writer, will help us to a just view of the true nature of that which he calls our atonement. " Truth required," says he, (Key, &c. No. 149,) " that grace be dispensed, in a manner the most proper and probable to produce reformation and holiness. Now this is what our Lord has done. He has bought us by his blood, and procured the remission of sins, as what he did and suffered was a proper reason for granting it, and a fit way of conveying and rendering effectual the grace of God," &c. " Now this could be done no otherwise, than by means of a moral kind, such as are apt to influence our minds, and engage us to forsake what is evil, and to work that which is good," &c. " And what means of this sort could be more effectual, than the heavenly and most illustrious example of the Son of God, shew- ing us the most perfect obedience to God, andthemost generousgoodnessandloveto men, recommended to our imitation, by all possible endearments and engaging considerations ?" And again, he says, (Script. Doct. No. 170,) " By the blood of Christ God discharges us from the guilt, because the blood of Christ is the most powerful mean of freeing us from the pollution and power of sin." And he adds, " it is the ground of redemption, as it is a mean of sanctification." What then means the blood of Christ ? " Not a mere corporeal substance; in which case,"as hesays, "it would be of no more value in the sight of God, than any other thing of the same kind : nor is it to be considered merely in relation to our Lord's death and sufferings, as if mere death or suffering could be of itself pleasing and acceptable to God :" no, the writer informs us, (Key, &c. No. 146,) that the " blood of Christ is his perfect obedience and goodness ; and that it implies a character," which we are to transcribe into our lives and conduct. And, accordingly, he maintains, (Script. Doct. No. 185,) that "our Lord's sacrifice and death is so plainly represented, as a powerful mean of improving our virtue, that we have no sufficient ground to consider its virtue and efficacy in any other light." To what, then, according to this writer, does the entire scheme of the Atonement amount ? God, being desirous to rescue man from the consequences and dominion of his sins, and yet desirous to effect this in such a way, as might best conduce to the advance- ment of virtue, thought fit to make forgive- ness of all sins that were past, a reward of the meritorious obedience of Christ ; and, by ex- hibiting that obedience as a model for uni- versal imitation, to engage mankind to follow his example, that, being thereby improved in their virtue, they might be rescued from the dominion of sin : and thus making the example of Christ a " mean of sanctification," redemption from sin might thereby be effected. This, as far" as I have been able to collect it, is a faithful transcript of the author's doc- trine. And what there is in all this, of the nature of Sacrifice or Atonement, (at least so far as it affects those who have lived since MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. the time of Christ,) or in what material respect it differs from the Socinian notion, which represents Christ merely as our instructor and example, I profess myself unable to discover. I have been thus full in my account of this writer's scheme, because, by some strange oversight, and possibly from his artful accom- modation of scriptural phrases to his own notions, whereby he is enabled to express himself in the language of Scripture, his works have received considerable circulation, even among those whose opinions on this subject are of an opposite description. Nay, the erroneous tenets of this author have been conveyed in a collect] on of Theological Tracts, some time since published by an able and learned Prelate in the sister country : and the candidates for orders in this, are by authority enjoined to receive part of their theological instruction from his writings. Those, who wish to see the errors of this scheme more amply reviewed and refuted, I refer to the examination of the doctrine, in the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, by Mr Portal, and in the Criticisms on Modern Notions of Atone- ment, by Dr Richie : in the latter of which, particularly, the fallacy of the author's prin- ciples, and the gross ambiguity of his terms, are exposed with no less truth than ingenuity. With respect to H. Taylor, who, in his B. Mord. partly coincides with this writer in his explication of atonement, it is but justice to say, that he gives a view of the subject, in the main, materially different ; inasmuch as he represents Christ's concern for mankind, and his earnest intercession recommended by his meritorious obedience, to be the appointed means of his obtaining from God that king- dom, which empowers him to dispense for- giveness, &c. Whereas Dr. J. Taylor makes the obedience of Christ (with regard to such as have lived since his time) the means of redemption, as being the means of man's improvement in virtue ; and, so far from attributing any efficacy to Christ's obedience, as operating through intercession, (to which we find, from Scripture, God has frequently bestowed his blessings, see Number IX. p. 41,) he considers the intercessions and prayers of good men for others, in no other light, than as acts of obedience, goodness, and virtue. So that, in fact, the whole of his scheme, when rightly considered, (excepting only with respect to those who lived before Christ, in which part he seems inconsistent with himself, and on his own principles not easy to be understood,) falls in with the notion of good works and moral obedience, as laid down by the Socinian. And here lies the secret of Mr Belsham's remark, (Review, &c. p. 18,) that " Dr Taylor has, in general, well explained these Jewish phrases" (viz. propi- tiation, sacrifice, redemption through Christ's blood, &c.) " in his admirable Key." As Mr Belsham rejects the notion of redemption by Christ, and of faith in Christ, in toto, (see Re- view, &c. pp. 18, 104, 145,) it is not difficult to assign the cause of this commendation. No. XVII. Page 12. Col. 2. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT FALSELY CHARGED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF PRONOUNCING ON THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH. That men could not have been forgiven, unless Christ had suffered to purchase their forgiveness, is no part of the doc- trine of Atonement, as held by the Church of England. What God could, or could not have done, it presumes not to pronounce. What God declares he has done, that merely it asserts ; and on his express word alone is it founded. But it is to be remembered, that on this, as on many other occasions, that a priori reasoning, which so frequently misleads those who object to the doctrines of our Church, is imputed by them to us. Not being themselves in the habit of bowing with humble reverence to the Sacred Word, they consider not that we speak merely its sug- gestions ; * and that, if we do at any time 1 The language of Witsius upon this subject is worth attend- ing to. " Supposito extare Revelationem de mysteriis, at in- quiri in sensum verborum quibus ista Revelatio mihi exponitur ; non est in ista inquisitione ita jirocedendum, ut primo rationem meam consulam, quid ea, in idearum ac notionum suarum scriniis, rei de qua agitur simile aut adversum habeat, ut seeun- dum eas quas ibi invenio notiones verba revelationis exponam, id unice operam dans, ut sensum tandem aliquem quanta maxi- ma possum commoditate iis dem ; qui istis meis praenotionibus optime conveniat. Sed attendeiidum est ad ipsa verba, quid in omnibus suis circumstantiis sk'niricare apta nata sint, quidque s cundum Scripture stilum significare soleant ; atque liae via reperto sensu quern verba fine torsione per se fundunt, secure in eo acquicscendum est, omniaque rationis scita subjicienda sunt isti sensui quern iis me verbis d lici atque humili mente audituri atque accepturi quidquid. Deo nos placcat docere. Consideramus verba in nativo suo significant, et pr.mt passim in sacris literis usurpantur ; expen- dimus quid \i>iXy>j& r adsKQa aw, must necessarily signify, " Take care that thy brother be recon- ciled to thee," since that which goes before, is not, that he hath done thee injury, but thou him : and this they derive from the force of the Hebrew word T^T\ transferred to the Greek verb, in the use of it by Jewish writers. In this sense of the words x.a.Toe.'K^ix.TrtaSa.i and (WxxTTe<70/, as applied in the New Testa- ment, l all the commentators concur. See Rosenmuller and Wall on 2 Cor. v. 20, and Whitby on the words, wherever they occur. Schleusner, in his excellent Lexicon, confirms, by several instances, the explication of the i terms here contended for : and Palairet. in his Observ. Philolog. in Nov. Test. Matt. v. 24, maintains that this use of the terms is not confined to the Jewish writers, transferring the force of the verb HU") to the Greek expression, but is frequent among writers purely Greek : he instances Theano in Opusc. Mytholog. and Appian. Alexandr. de Bell. Civil, and explains it as an elliptical form, the words tig x*g;i> being understood. It is evident, then, that the writers who have founded their objection against the pro- pitiation of the Divinity, on the use of the word reconciled in the New Testament, have attend- ed rather to the force of the term, as applied in the language of the translation, than in that of the original. But, even without looking beyond the translation, it seems surprising that the context did not correct their error ; since that clearly determines the sense, not only in Matt. v. 24, where it is perfectly obvi- ous and unequivocal, as is shewn in page 13 ; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19, in which the manner 1 The application of the word tiuXKamrBxi is precisely tha same as is made by the Seventy, in their translation of 1 Sam. xxix. 4, where they speak of David's " appeasing the anger ol Saul." 'E, rni AIAAAAfHSETAI ra *i/ ? <> :,irn; " Where- with shall he reconcile himtelf to his master?" according to our common version. Not, surely, how shall he remove his own anger against his master ; but, how shall he remove his master's anger against him ; how shall he restore himself to his master'* favour ? If any additional instance had been wanted to esta- blish the use of the word in this sense among the Jewish writers, this one must prove decisive. No. 22. THE SINNER THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE. 57 of reconciling the world to God is expressly described, viz. his not imputing their trespasses unto them, that is, his granting them forgive- ness. There are, upon the whole, but five places in the New Testament, in which the term is used with respect to God ; Rom. v. 10, and xi. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18 20 ; Ephes. ii. 16, and Col. i. 20, 21. Whoever will take the trouble of consulting Hammond and Whitby on these passages, will be satisfied, that the application is diametrically opposite to that for which the Socinian writers contend. There are but two places besides, in which the term occurs, Matt. v. 24, and 1 Cor. vii. 11, in both of which the application is clear. And it deserves to be particularly noticed, that Dr Sykes (Script. Doct. of Redemp. p. 57,) sinks the former passage altogether, and notices the latter alone, asserting that this is the only one, in which the word is used, not in relation to the reconciliation of the world to God : and this, after having inadvertently stated in the preceding page that there were two such pas- sages. This will appear the less unaccountable, when it is considered, that the expression, as applied in Matthew, could be got rid of by no refinement whatever : but that the application in 1 Corinthians (not, indeed, in our transla- tion, which is not sufficiently explicit, but examined in the original,) will appear as little friendly to his exposition, Hammond and Le Clerc have abundantly evinced by their inter- pretation of the passage. No. XXI. Page 13. Col. 2. ON THE TRUE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAYING ASIDE OUR ENMITY TO GOD, AND BEING RECON- CILED TO GOD. It is well remarked in the Theological Repo- sitory, by a writer under the signature Verus, 1 that the laying aside our enmity to God must be a necessary qualification for, though without constituting the formal nature of, our recon- ciliation to God. This judicious distinction places the matter in a fair light. That God will not receive us into favour so long as we are at enmity with him, is most certain ; but that thence it should be inferred, that, on laying aside our enmity, we are necessarily restored to his favour, is surely an odd in- stance of logical deduction. 1 This writer I find to have been the Rev. Mr Brekell : a writer certainly deserving of praise, both for the ability with which he c >mbated the sophistry of the heterodox, and for the hoMnesn with which he carried the war into the very camp of the enemy. No. XXII. Page 14. Col. 1. ON THE PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE, THAT THE SINNER IS THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE DIS- PLEASURE. Heb. x. 26, 27, " For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacri- fice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries:" and again, " For we know him that hath said, Ven- geance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord :" and again, " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God :" and again, (Rom. v. 9, 10,) " Much more, then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him for if, when we were enemies, we were recon- ciled to God through his Son," &c. In this last passage, it is not only clearly expressed, that we are from disobedience exposed to the divine displeasure, but also that the way where- by we are rescued from the effects of that displeasure, or, as is here held an equivalent form of expression, reconciled to God, is by the death 01 Christ. To quote all the passages that speak a simi- lar language, were a tedious task. Nor indeed was the voice of Revelation wanted to inform men, that the sinner is the object of God's displeasure. Reason has at all times loudly proclaimed this truth : and in that predomi- nating terror, that Auadaifiovi'ec, which, as shewn in Number V. has, in every age and clime, disfigured, or rather absorbed, the reli- gion of the Gentiles, the natural sentiment of the human mind may be easily discerned. What is the language of the celebrated Adam Smith on this subject ? " But if it be : meant, that vice does not appear to the Deity to be, for its own sake, the object of abhor- rence and aversion, and what, for its own sake, it is fit and right should be punished, the truth of this maxim can, by no means, be so easily admitted. If we consult our natural sentiments, we are apt to fear, lest, before the holiness of God, vice should appear to be more worthy of punishment, than the weakness and imperfection of human nature can ever seem to be of reward. Man, when about to appear before a Being of infinite perfection, can feel but little confidence in his own merit, or in the imperfect propriety of his own conduct. In the presence of his fel- low-creatures, he may often justly elevate himself, and may often have reason to think highly of his own character and conduct, compared to the still greater imperfection of theirs. But the case is quite different when about to appear before his infinite Creator. To such a Being, he can scarce imagine, thaf MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. his littleness and weakness should ever seem to be the proper object, either of esteem or of reward. But he can easily conceive, how the numberless violations of duty, of which he has been guilty, should render him the object of aversion and punishment ; neither can he see any reason why the divine indignation should not be let loose, without any restraint, upon so vile an insect, as he is sensible that he himself must appear to be. If he would still hope for happiness, he is conscious that he cannot de- niandit from justice, but that he mustentreat it from the mercy of God. Repentance, sorrow, humiliation, contrition at the thought of his past conduct, are, upon this account, the sen- timents which become him, and seem to be the only means which he has left for appeas- ing that wrath which, he knows, he has justly provoked. He even distrusts the efficacy of all these, and naturally fears, lest the wisdom of God should not, like the weakness of man, be prevailed upon to spare the crime, by the most importunate lamentations of the crimi- nal. Some other intercession, some other sacrifice, some other atonement, he imagines, must be made for him, beyond what he him- self is capable of making, before the purity of the divine justice can be reconciled to his manifest offences. " The doctrines of Revelation coincide, in every respect, with those original anticipa- tions of nature ; and, as they teach us how little we can depend upon the imperfection of our own virtue, so they shew us, at the same lime, that the most powerful intercession has been made, and the most dreadful atonement has been paid for our manifold transgressions and iniquities." ( Theory of Moral Sentiments, pp. 204206.) Such were the reflections of a man, whose powers of thinking and reasoning will surely not be pronounced inferior to those of any even of the most distinguished champions of the Unitarian school, and whose theological opinions cannot be charged with any sup- posed tincture from professional habits or interests. A layman, (and he too the familiar friend of David Hume,) whose life was em- ployed in scientific, political, and philosophical research, has given to the world those senti- ments as the natural suggestions of reason. 1 1 When these observations were before committed to the press, I was not aware that the pious reflections, to which they particularly advert, are no longer to be found as constituting a part of that work from which they have been quoted. The fact is, that in the later editions of the Theory of Moral Sentiment*, no one sentence appears of the extract which has been cited above, and which I had derived from the first edition, the only one that I possessed. This circumstance, however, does not in any degree affect the truth of what had been said by the author, nor the justness of the sentiments which he had uttered in a pure and unsophisticated state of mind. It evinces, indeed, that he did not altogether escape the infection of David Hume's society ; and it adds one proof more to the many that already existed, of the danger, even to the most enlightened, from a familiar contact with infidelity. How far Adam Smith's par- Yet these are the sentiments which are the scoff of sciolists and witlings. Compare these observations of Adam Smith with what has been said on the same subject in Numbers IV. IX. and XV. No. XXIII. Page 14. Col. 1. INSTANCE, FROM THE BOOK OF JOB, OF SACRIFICE BEING PRESCRIBED TO AVERT GOD'S ANGER. It was not without much surprise, that, after having written the sentence here re- ferred to, I found, on reading a paper of Dr Priestley's in the Theol. Rep. (vol. i. p. 404,) that the Book of Job was appealed to by him as furnishing a decisive proof, not only " that mankind in his time had not the least apprehension that repentance and refor- mation alone, without the sufferings or merit of any being whatever, would not sufficiently atone for past offences :" but that " the Al- mighty himself gives a sanction to these sentiments." Let the Book of Job speak for itself : " The Lord said to Eliphaz the Te- manite, My wrath is kindled against thee and thy two friends : for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my servant Job shall gray for you : for him will I accept : lest I eal with you after your folly," (Job, xlii. 7, 8.) If this be not a sufficient specimen, we are supplied with another in chap. i. 4, 5, in which it is said, that, alter the sons of Job had been employed in feasting, " Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all : for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job conti- nually." I leave these without comment, to confront the assertions of Dr Priestley, and to demonstrate the value of his representations of Scripture. I shall only add, that in the very page in which he makes the above asser- tions, he has quoted from Job a passage that immediately follows the former of those here cited. No. XXIV. Page 14. Col. 1. ON THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE DIVINE JUSTICE. Dr Priestley (Theol Rep. vol. i. p. 417) asserts, that "Justice, in the Deity, can tiality to Hume did ultimately carry him, may easily be collected from his emphatical observations on the character of his deceased friend, to which I shall have occasion to direct the reader's attention in another part of this work. No. 24. ON THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIVINE JUSTICE. 59 be no more than a modification of that goodness and benevolence, which is his sole governing principle :" from which he of course infers, that " under the administration of God, there can be no occasion to exercise any severity on penitent offenders ;" or, in other words, that repentance must of itself, from the nature of the Deity, cancel all for- mer offences ; and that the man who has spent a life of gross vice and audacious impiety, if he at any time reform, shall stand as clear of the divine displeasure, as he who has uni- formly, to the utmost of his power, walked before his God in a spirit of m?ek and pious obedience. This is certainly the necessary result of pure benevolence : nay, the same principle followed up must exclude punish- ment in all cases whatever ; the very notion of punishment being incompatible with pure benevolence. But surely it would be a strange property of justice, (call it, with Dr Priestley, a modification of benevolence, or whatever else he pleases,) to release all from punishment ; the hardened and unrelenting offender, no less than the sincerely contrite, and truly hum- bled penitent. But in his use of the term justice, as applied to the Deity, is not Dr Priestley guilty of most unworthy trifling ? Why speak of it as " a modification of the divine benevolence," if it be nothing different from that attribute? and if it be different from it, how can benevolence be the "sole governing principle" of the divine administration ? The word justice, then, is plainly but a sound made use of to save appearances, as an attribute called by that name has usually been ascribed to the Deity ; but in reality nothing is meant by it, in Dr Priestley's application of the term, different from pure and absolute benevolence. This is likewise evident, as we have seen, from the whole course of his argument. Now, could it be conceded to Dr Priestley, that the whole character of God is to be resolved into simple benevolence, then the scheme, which, by re- jecting the notion of divine displeasure against the sinner, involves impunity of guilt, might fairly be admitted. But, as it has been well remarked, " If rectitude be the measure and rule of that benevolence, it might rather be presumed, that the scheme of redemption would carry a relation to sinners, in one way as objects of mercy, in another as objects of punishment ; that God ' might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth' in the Redeemer." See the second of Holmes's Four Tracts, in which he confirms, by parallel in- stances, the use of the word XM\, as applied in the above passage by Whitby in his Para- phrase. On the subject of this Number at large, see also Numbers IV. XXII. and Bal- guy's Essay on Redemption. No. XXV. Page 14. Col. 1. ON THE TEXT IN JOHN, DESCRIBING OUR LORD AS " THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH A WAT THE SINS OF THE WORLD." What efforts are made to get rid of those parts of Scripture, that lend support to the received doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ, is evident from the remark made on this passage by the ingenious author of Sen Mordecafs Apology. " The allusion here," he says, " seems to be made to the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah ; but the lamb is not there consi- dered as a lamb to be sacrificed, but as a lamb to be sheared." (Let. vii. p. 794, 2d ed. 8vo.) Now upon what principle this author is enabled to pronounce that the allu- sion in this place is made to the lamb spoken of in Isaiah, rather than to the paschal lamb, or to the lamb which, under the Jewish law, was offered daily for the sins of the people, it is difficult to discover. His only reason seems to be, that, in admitting the reference to either of the two last, the notion of sacrifice is neces- sarily involved ; and the grand object in maintaining the resemblance to a lamb that was to be sheared, not slain, was to keep the death of Christ out of view as much as pos- sible. But of the manner in which Scripture is here used to support a particular hypothesis, we shall be better able to form a right judg- ment, when it shall have appeared that the reference in John is not made to Isaiah ; and also, that the lamb in Isaiah is considered as a lamb to be slain. The latter is evident, not only from the entire context, but from the very words of the prophet, which describe the person spoken of (liii. 7,) to be "brought as a lamb to the slaughter ;" so that one cannot but wonder at the pains taken to force the application to this passage of Isaiah, and still more at the peremptory assertion, that the lamb here spoken of was a lamb to be sheared only. It is true, indeed, there is subjoined, "and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb ;" but il Mr Wakefield's remark on Acts, viii. 32, in which he contends that the word translated shearer should have been translated slayer, be a juet one, the objection vanishes at once. Retaining, however, the clause as it stands in the present version, that which follows, " so he openeth not his mouth," clearly explains, that the character intended to be conveyed by the prophet, in the whole of this figurative ' representation, was that of a meek and un- I complaining resignation to suffering and death. And this also shews us that the passage in Isaiah could not have been the one imme- diately referred to by John ; because in it the 60 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. lamb is introduced but incidentally, and as furnishing the only adequate resemblance to that character, which was the primary object of the prophet's contemplation : whereas, in the Baptist's declaration, that Jesus was " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world," the reference must naturally be to a lamb before described, and understood, as possessed of some similar or corresponding virtue, such as Saint Peter alludes to when he says, (1 Peter, i. 18, 19,) "Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish." In this an allusion is evidently made to a lamb whose blood, under the Jewish law, bore analogy to that of Christ : that is, either to the paschal lamb, by the sprinkling of whose blood the Israelites had been delivered from destruction, or to the lamb that was daily sacrificed for the sins of the people, and which was bought with that half shekel, which all the Jews yearly paid, etvrav, "as the price of redemption of their lives, to make an atonement for them," (Exod. xxx. 12, 14, 16.) With a view to this last it is, that Saint Peter most probably uses the expressions, " Ye were not redeemed with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb," &c. i. e. it is not by a lamb purchased with silver and gold that you have been redeemed, but by Christ, that truly spotless Lamb, which the former was intended to prefigure ; who, by shedding his blood, has effectually redeemed you from the consequences of your sins ; or, as the Baptist had before described him, " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world :" and as Saint John, who records these expres- sions of the Baptist, again speaks of him in the Apocalypse, (v. 9,) the Lamb which had been slain, " and by its blood redeemed men out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation," or, in other words, " that had taken away the sins of the world." The author indeed admits (what it was impossible for him to deny) that, in the Apo- calypse, Christ " is spoken of as a lamb that was slain :" but then he says, that " he is not spoken of as a vicarious sacrifice ; for the Jews had no sacrifices of that nature," (vol. ii. p. 789.) Be it so for the present : it is clear, however, that the lamb to which the allusion is made in the figurative representations of Christ in fhe New Testament, is a lamb that was slain and sacrificed ; and that nothing but the prejudices arising from a favourite hypo- thesis could have led this writer to contend against a truth so notorious, and upon grounds so frivolous. No. XXVI. Page 14. Col. 2. ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD " PROPITIATION*' IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. The word l"ha. and explains both by the words expiate, atone, propitiate, " whatever the means w r ere," he adds, " by which this was to be done." Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 132, 135. In Rom. iii. 25, /Aowrsjov 1 is translated in the same sense with /A subaudiendum videtur h^iitt aut S-D/tta, ex- piatorium tacrificium, quemadmodum eadem ellipsis frequen- tissima est apud THUS a in voce ftiTr,^iot, et in x x ?" rr ^""' apud Auctores. Ilesychius exponit Kfl{-(o> eadem ellipsi; nisi substantive sumptum idem significare malis qucid /X, et similia; adeoque Christus eodem mudu vocabitui :*a.rrr,(i(>i, quo iXa. has been taken by some in the sense of mercy-tent, but that Kypke has properly preferred the translation propitiatory sacrifice.'" Michaelis was surely no superficial nor bigoted expositor of holy writ. of the most expeditious and effectual method of evading the authority of Scripture. First, overlook a considerable majority, and parti- cularly of the strongest texts, that go to sup port the doctrine you oppose ; in the next place assert, that, of the remainder, a large proportion belongs to a particular writer, whom you think proper to charge with meta- phor, allegory, &c. &c. : then object to the residue, as too few on which to rest any doc- trine of importance : but, lest even these might give some trouble in the examination, explode them at once with the cry of figure, &c. &c. This is the treatment that Scripture too frequently receives from those who choose to call themselves rational and enlightened commentators. There are two texts, however, on which Dr Priestley has thought fit to bestow some criti- cal attention, for the purpose of shewing that they are not entitled to rank even with those few that he has enumerated, as bearing a plausible resemblance to the doctrine in ques- tion. From his reasoning on these, we shall be able to judge what the candour and justice of his criticisms on the others would have been, had he taken the trouble to produce them. The two texts are, Isai. liii. 10, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin ;" and 2 Cor. v. 21, " He made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Against the first he argues from the dis- agreement in the versions, which, he observes, may lead us to suspect some corruption in our present copies of the Hebrew text. Our trans- lation, he says, makes a change of person in the sentence " He hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed," &c., in which, he adds, it agrees with no ancient version what- ever. In the next place, he asserts, that the Syriac alone retains the sense of our transla- tion, and at the same time remarks that this version of the Old Testament is but of little authority. He then gives the reading of the clause by the LXX and the Arabic, " If ye offer a sacrifice for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived offspring." He concludes with the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, which is different from all. And from the whole he draws this result, that the uncertainty as to the true reading of the original must render the passage of no authority. ( TheoL Rep. vol. i. p. 127.) But the real state of the case is widely diffe- rent from this representation : for, 1. Our translation does not absolutely pronounce up- on the change of person, so as to preclude an agreement with the ancient versions. 2. The Syriac is not the only version that retains the sense of ours, the Vulgate, which Dr Priestley has thought proper to omit, exactly correspond- ing in sense. 3. The Syriac version of the Old 62 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. Testament, so far from being of little autho- rity, is of the very highest. 4. The concur- rence of the LXX and the Arabic is not a joint, but a single testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be little more than a version of the LXX, 1 and, consequently, can lend no farther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX, at the time when this version was made : and that it does not even authenticate the reading of the LXX, at an early day, may be collected from the Prolegom. of Walton, and Kennicott's State of the Hebr. Text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan is remarkable (as Bishop Lowth states in his Prelim. Dissert.) " for a wordy, allegorical explanation," so that an exactness of translation is not here to be expected. And, lastly, the apparent differences of the versions may be explained by, and fairly reconciled to, the present reading of the Hebrew text. These several points will be best explained, by beginning with the last. The state of the Hebrew text, as it stands in all our present Bibles, (at least in such of them as I have consulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, Doederlein, &c., and scarcely undergoing any variation, however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies examined by Kennicott and De Rossi,) is as Allows, y-ir rmi T la;, " a sin offering," 7 so here Christ is said to have been made ixf^oi^Tim;, and ac-pairr let, 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 Now from this plain and direct sense of the passage in 2 Cor. supported by the known use of the word Aftetgrlet 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 like- ness of sinful flesh," sv oftoiu/x.oc.Ti actox.og oc.ft.eic- Ti'xg, he would infer, that when in 2* Cor. Go.lvt, or, as Saint Paul afterwanlj expresses It, (1 Tim. ii 6,) arr/Xi/rgvr "*<{ ara.trm. MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. No. XXVIII. Page 14. Col. 2. ON THE WORD KATAAAAFH, TRANSLATED " ATONE- MENT," IN ROM. V. 11. The word *Ty), which is here trans- lated " atonement," it is remarked by Sykes, (On Redemp. pp. 56, 201) and H. Taylor, (B. Aford. p. 807) and others who oppose the re- ceived doctrine of the atonement, should not have been so rendered, but should have been translated " reconciliation." The justice of this remark 1 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 Tes- tament, in which it is so rendered, (being elsewhere uniformly translated " reconciling," or " reconciliation," (Rom. 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 1 the atonement," I feel no difficulty in adopting this correction. But whilst I agree with these writers, in the use of the word reconciliation in this pas- sage, I differ from them entirely in the infe- rence they would derive from it. Their no- tion of reconciliation altogether excludes the idea of propitiation and atonement, as may be seen in Number XX. p. 56 ; whereas by these, it is manifest, both from the reason of the thing and the express language of Scrip- ture, that 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 foa.ax.opoe.1 and If /x.e> ro "i6io( iTX}T*i. Raphelii Annot. torn. u. pp. 253, 254. How forcibly the word vxi( is felt to imply tubitittition, is indirectly admitted in the strongest manner even by Unitarians themselves: the satisfaction manifested by commentators of that description, whenever they can escape from the emphatical bearing of this preposition, is strikingly evinced in their late Ver- rion of the Seta Testament. See their observations on Gal. i. 4. MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. from the plain language of Scripture, it may be worth while to notice a distinction which has been judiciously suggested upon this subject, by Mr Veysie. (Bampt. Lecture, Sermon 5.) Figurative language, he says, does not arise from the real nature of the thing to which it is transferred, but only from the imagination of him who transfers it. Thus, a man who possesses the quality of courage in an eminent degree, is figuratively called a lion ; not because the real nature of a lion belongs to him, but because the quality which characterizes this animal is possessed by him in an eminent degree : therefore the imagination conceives them as partakers of one common nature, and applies to them one common name. Now, to suppose that lan- guage, if it cannot be literally interpreted, must necessarily be of the figurative kind here described, that is, applied only by way of allusion, is erroneous ; since there is also a species of language, usually called analogical, which, though not strictly proper, is far from being merely figurative ; the terms being transferred from one thing to another, not because the things are similar ; but because they are in similar relations. And the term thus transferred, he contends, is as truly significant of the real nature of the thing in the relation in which it stands, as it could be were it the primitive and proper word. With this species of language, he observes, Scripture abounds. And, indeed, so it must ; for if the one dispensation was really intended to be prepa- ratory to the other, the parallelism of their parts, or their several analogies, must have been such as necessarily to introduce the terms of the one into the explanation of the other. Of this Mr Veysie gives numerous instances. I shall only adduce that which immediately applies to the case before ue ; namely, that of " the death of Christ being called, in the New Testament, a sacrifice and sin-offering." " This," says he, " is not, as the Socinian hypothesis asserts, figuratively, or merely in allusion to the Jewish sacrifices, but analogically, because the death of Christ is to the Christian Church, what the sacrifices for sin were to the worshippers of the taber- nacle :" (or, perhaps, it might bo more correctly expressed, because the sacrifices for sin were so appointed, that they should be to the worshippers of the tabernacle, what it had been ordained the death of Christ was to be to. the Christian Church :) " And, accordingly, the language of the New Testament does not contain mere figurative allusions to the Jewish sacrifices, but ascribes a real and immediate efficacy to Christ's death, an efficacy corresponding to that which was anciently produced by the legal sin-offerings." This view of the matter will, I apprehend, be found to convey a complete answer to all No. 33. OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. 69 that has been said upon this subject, concern- ing figure, allusion, &c. Indeed, some distinction of this nature is absolutely necessary. For, under the pretence of figure, we find those writers, who would reject the doctrine of atonement, endeavour to evade the force of texts of Scripture, the plainest and most positive. Thus, Dr Priest- ley (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 214,) asserts, that the death of Christ may be called a sacrifice for sin, and a ransom ; and also, that Christ may in general be said to have died in our stead, and to have borne our sins ; and that figura- tive language even stronger than this may be used by persons who do not consider the death of Christ as having any immediate relation to the forgiveness of sins, but believe only, that it was a necessary circumstance in the ^cheme of the Gospel, and that this scheme .vas necessary to reform the world. That, however, there are parts of Scripture which Uave proved too powerful even for the figura- tive solutions of the historian of the Corrup- tions of Christianity, may be inferred from this remarkable concession. " In this, then, let us acquiesce, not doubting but that, though not perhaps at present, we shall in time be able, without any effort or straining, to explain all particular expressions in the apostolical epistles," &c. (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 279.) Here is a plain confession on the part 01 Dr Priestley, that those enlightened theories, in which he and his followers exult so highly, are wrought out of Scripture only by effort and straining ; and that all the powers of this polemic Procrustes have been exerted to adjust the apostolic stature to certain pre-ordained dimensions, and in some cases exerted in vain. The reader is requested to compare what has been here said, with what has been ulready noticed in Numbers I. and XIV., on the treatment given to the authority of Scripture by Dr Priestley and his Unitarian fellow-labourers. No. XXXII. Page 14. Col. 2. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THE SACRIFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FIGURATIVE, URGED BY B. TAYLOR AND DR PRIESTLEY. The several arguments enumerated in the page referred to are urged at large, and with the utmost force of which they are capable, in the 7th Letter of Ben. Mordecai's Apology, by H. Taylor. Dr Priestley has also endeavoured to establish the same point, and by arguments not much dissimilar. Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 121 136. No. XXXIII. Page 14. Col. 2. ON THE SENSE ENTERTAINED GENERALLY BY ALL, AND MORE ESPECIALLY INSTANCED AMONGST THP JEWS, OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. The last of the three arguments here referred to is urged by H. Taylor (Ben. Mord \ pp. 784, 785, 797,) as applied particularly to i the notion of vicarious sacrifice ; but it is clear from the whole course of his reasoning, j that he means it to apply to all sacrifice, of a nature properly expiatory; that is, to all j sacrifice in which, by the suffering and death of the victim, the displeasure of God was averted from the person for whom it was offered, and the punishment due to his offence remitted, whether the suffering of the victim was supposed to be strictly of a vicarious nature or not. Such a notion of sacrifice applied to the death of Christ, this writer ascribes to the engrafting of heathenish notions on Jewish customs ; whereby the language of the Jews came to be interpreted by the customs and ceremonies of the heathen philosophers who had been converted to Christianity. Whether this notion be well founded, will appear from the examination of the origin of sacrifice, in the second of these Discourses, and from some of the explanatory dissertations connected with it. But it is curiotis to remark how Dr Priestley and this author, whilst they agree in the result, differ in their means of arriving at it. This author traces the notion of sacrifice, strictly expiatory, to heathen interpretation. Dr Priestley, on the contrary, asserts, that the heathens had no idea whatever of such sacrifice. He employs almost one entire essay in the Theological Repository (vol. i. p. 400, c.) in the proof, that in no nation, ancient or modern, has such an idea ever existed ; and as we have already seen in Number V. he pronounces it to be the un- questionable result of an historical examina- tion of this subject, that all, whether Jews or heathens, ancient or modern, learned or unlearned, have been " equally strangers to the notion of expiatory sacrifice ; equally destitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atonement." To pass over, at present, this gross contradiction to all the records of antiquity, how shall we reconcile this gentle- man to the other? or, which is of greater importance, how shall we reconcile him to himself? For, whilst in this place he main- tains, that neither ancient nor modern Jews ever conceived an idea of expiatory sacrifice, he contends in another, (ibid. p. 426,) that this notion has arisen from the circumstance, of the simple religion of Christ having been " intrusted to such vessels as were the 70 apostles :" " for," adds he, " the apostles were Jews, and had to do with Jews, and conse- quently represented Christianity in a Jewish dress," and this more particularly, " in the business of sacrifices." Now, if the Jews had no notion whatever of expiatory sacrifice, it remains to be accounted for, 'how the clothing the Christian doctrine of redemption in a Jewish dress, could have led to this notion. It is true, he adds, that over the Jewish disguise, which had been thrown on this doctrine by the apostles, another was drawn by Christians. But if the Jewish dress bore no relation to a doctrine of atonement, then the Christian disguise is the only one. And thus the Christians have deliberately, without any foundation laid for them, either by heathens or Jews, superinduced the notion of an expiatory sacrifice upon the simple doctrines of the Gospel : converting figurative language into a literal exposition of what was known never to have had a real existence ! To leave, however, this region of contradic- tions, it may not be unimportant to inquire into the facts which have been here alleged by Dr Priestley. And it must be allowed, that he has crowded into this one essay as many assertions at variance with received opinion, as can easily be found comprised in the same compass, on any subject whatever. He has asserted, that no trace of any scheme of atone- ment, or of any requisite for forgiveness, save repentance and" reformation, is to be discovered either in the book of Job, or in the Scriptures of the ancient, or any writings of the modern Jews ; or amongst the heathen world, either ancient or modern. These assertions, as they relate to Job, and the religion of the heathens, have been already examined ; the former in Number XXIII. the latter in Number V. An inquiry into his position, as it affects the Jews, with some farther particulars concerning the practices of the heathen, will fully satisfy us as to the degree of reliance to be placed on this writer's historical exactness. With respect to the sentiments of the ancient Jews, or, in other words, the sense of the Old Testament upon the subject, that being the main question discussed in these Discourses, especially in the second, no inquiry is in this place necessary : it will suffice at present to examine the writings of the Jews of later times ; and we shall find that these give the most direct contradiction to his assertions. He has quoted Maimonides, Nachmanidt-s, Abarbanel, Buxtorf, and Isaac Netto, and concludes, with confidence, that among the modern Jews no notion has ever existed " of any kind of mediation being necessary to reconcile the claims of justice with those of mercy ;" or, as he elsewhere expresses it, of " any satisfaction beside repentance being necessary to the forgiveness of sin." (TheoL Rep. vol. i. pp. 409 411.) MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. Now, in direct opposition to this, it is noto- rious, that the stated confession made by tho Jews, in offering up the victim in sacrifice, concludes with these words, " Let this (the victim) be my expiation." 1 And this the Jewish writers directly interpret as meaning, " Let the evils, which in justice should have fallen on my head, light upon the head of the victim which I now offer." Thus Baal Aruch says, " That wherever the expression, ' Let me be another's expiation,' is used, it is the same as if it had been said, ' Let me be put in his room, that I may bear his guilt ;' and this, again, is equivalent to saying, ' Let this act, whereby 1 take on me his transgres- sion, obtain for him his pardon.' " In like manner, Solomon Jarchi (Sanhedr. ch. 2,) says, " ' Let us be your expiation,' signifies, ' Let us be put in your place, that the evil, which should have fallen upon you, may all light on us :' " and in the same way Obadias de Bartenora, and other learned Jews, explain this formula. Again, respecting the burnt-offerings, and sacrifices for sin, Nachmanides, on Levit. i. says, that " it was right that the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt : but that the Creator, in his mercy, hath accepted this victim from him, as a vicarious substitute (JT"nDJ"l>) an d an atonement (~133>) that its blood should be poured out instead of his blood, and its life stand in place of his life." R. Bechai also, on Lev. i. uses the very same language. Isaac Ben Arama, on Levi- ticus, likewise says, that " the offender, when he beholds the victim, on account of his sin, slain, skinned, cut in pieces, and burnt with fire upon the altar, should reflect, that thus he must have been treated, had not God in his clemency accepted this expiation for his life." David de Pomis, in like manner, pronounces the victim the vicarious substitute (i"mO.n) for the offerer. And Isaac Abar- banel, affirms, in his preface to Levit. that " the offerer deserved that his blood should be poured out, and his body burnt for his sins ; but that God, in his clemency, accepted from him the victim as his vicarious substitute (rVY)QJ"l), and expiation ("1ED)> whose blood was poured out in place of his blood, and its life given in lieu of his life." I should weary the reader and myself, were I to adduce all the authorities on this point. Many more may be found in Outram de Sacrificiis, pp. 251 259. These, however, will probably satisfy most readers, as to the fairness of the representation which Dr Priestley has given of the notion entertained by modern Jews concerning the doctrine of atonement, and of their total ignorance of any satisfaction for sin, save only repentance and amendment. One thing there is in this 1 See the form of confession ID Maim, de Cult. Divin. de VeU. pp. 152, 15i No. 33. OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. review, that cannot but strike the reader, as it did me, with surprise ; which is this, that of the three writers of eminence among the Jewish Rabbis, whom Dr Priestley has named, Maimonides, Abarbanel, and Nach- manides, the two last, as is manifest from the passages already cited, maintain in direct terms the strict notion of atonement : and though Maimonides has not made use of language equally explicit, yet on due exami- nation it will appear, that he supplies a testimony by no means inconsistent with that notion. Dr Priestley's method of managing the testimonies furnished by these writers will throw considerable light upon his mode of reasoning from ancient authors in support of his favourite theories. It will not then be time misemployed, to follow him somewhat more minutely through his examination of them. He begins with stating, that Maimonides considered sacrifice to be merely a heathen ceremony, adopted by the Divine Being in his own worship, for the gradual abolition of idolatry. This opinion, he says, was opposed by R. Nachmanides, and defended by Abar- banel, who explains the nature of sacrifice, as offered by Adam and his children, in this manner : viz. " They burned the fat and the kidneys of the victims upon the altar, for their own inwards, being the seat" (not as it is erroneously given in Theol. Rep. as the seal) " of their intentions and purposes ; and the legs of the victims for their own hands and feet ; and they sprinkled their blood, instead of their own blood and life ; confessing that in the sight of God, the just Judge of things, the blood of the offerers should be shed, and their bodies burnt for their sins but that, through the mercy of God, expiation was made for them by the victim being put in their place, by whose blood and life, the ; lood and life of the offerers were redeemed." (Exordium Comment, in Levit. de Veil. pp. 291, 192.) Now it deserves to be noted, that Sykes, whose assistance Dr Priestley has found of no small use in his attempts upon the re- ceived doctrine of atonement, deemed the testimony of this Jewish writer, conveyed in the above form of expression, so decisive, that without hesitation he pronounces him to have held the notion of a vicarious substitute, in the strictest acceptation (Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 121, 122 ;) and, that the sense of the Jew- ish Rabbis at large is uniformly in favour of itonement by strict vicarious substitution, he feels himself compelled to admit, by the over- bearing force of their own declarations, although his argument would have derived much strength from an opposite conclusion. (Ibid. pp. 149, 150, 157, 168.) The same ad- mission is made by the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices^ (Append, pp. 17, 18) notwithstanding that it is equally repugnant to the principles of his theory. But, after stating the passage last quoted at full length, what is Dr Priestley's remark ? That " all this is evidently figurative, the act of sacri- ficing being represented as emblematical of the sentiments and language of the offerer." And the argument by which he establishes this is, that " this writer could never think that an animal could make proper satisfac- tion for sin," &c. What then is Dr Priest- ley's argument? The modern Jews have never entertained an idea of any expiation for sin save repentance only ; for we are told by Abarbanel, that "expiation was made for the offerer by the victim being put j in his place ;" and by this he did not mean i that the animal made expiation for the sin j of the sacrificer, because he -could never think j that an animal could make satisfaction for ; sin ! Now might not this demonstration have j been abridged to much advantage, and with- out endangering in any degree the force of ; the proof, by putting it in this manner? I Abarbanel did hold, that by the sacrifice of \ an animal no expiation could be made for i sin, for it is impossible that he could have j thought otherwise. Complete as this proof is in itself, Dr j Priestley however does not refuse us still farther confirmation of his interpretation of this writer's testimony. He tells us, " that , he repeats the observation already quoted from him, in a more particular account of sacrifices for sins committed through igno- rance, such as casual uncleanness, &c. in j which no proper guilt could be contracted:" and that lie also " considers sin-offerings as , fines, or mulcts, by way of admonitions not to offend again," ( Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 410.) Now, as to the former of these assertions, it is to be noted, that Abarbanel, in the passage referred to, is speaking of an error of the High Priest, which might be attended with the most fatal consequences by misleading the people, perhaps in some of the most essential points of their religion. And as the want of sufficient knowledge, or of due consideration, in him who was to expound the law, and to direct the people to what was right, must be considered as a degree of audacity highly criminal, for which, he says, the offender deserved to be punished with death, ignorance not being admissible in such a case as an ex- cuse, therefore Lfc was, that the sin-offering was required of him, " the mercy of God accepting the sacrifice of the animal in his stead, and appointing that in offering he should place his hands on the animal, to re- mind him that the victim was received as his (miD/l) vicarious substitute." De Veil. Ex- ord, pp. 313 317.) " For the same reasons," he says, (p. 317) " the same method was to be observed in the sin-offering of the Sanhe- drim ;" and he adds also, (p. 326) that " in 72 MAGFE ON THE ATONEMENT. the case of an error committed by a private person, whereby he had fallen into any idola- trous practice, the sin-offering appointed for him was to be of the same nature exactly, and the animal offered the same, as in the case of a similar error in the High Priest or the Prince : and for this reason, that although in all other offences the criminality of the High Priest or Prince exceeded that of a private individual, yet in this all were equal ; for the unity of the true God having been proclaimed to all the people, at Sinai, no one was excus- able in his ignorance of this fundamental truth." 2 Thus the crimes of ignorance, of which this writer speaks in the passages referred to, are evidently not of the nature represented by Dr Priestley, namely, casual and accidental lapses, in which no proper guilt could be contracted : and consequently his argument, which from the application of the same form of sacrifice to these cases as to those in which guilt did exist, would infer, that in none was it the intention by the sacrifice to make expiation for trans- gression, must necessarily fall to the ground. Had Dr Priestley, however, taken the pains to make himself better acquainted with the works of the writer, whose authority he has cited in support of his opinion, he would never have risked the observations just now alluded to. He would have found, that, in the opinion of this, as well as of every other, Jewish writer of eminence, even those cases of defilement which were involuntary, such as leprosy, child-bearing, &c. uniformly implied an idea of guilt. Thus Abarbanel, speaking of the case of puerpery in the 12th chapter of Levi- ticus, says, that " without committing sin no one is ever exposed to suffering ; that it is a principle with the Jewish Doctors, ' that there is no pain without crime,' and that, therefore, the woman who had endured the pains of childbirth was required to offer a piacular sacrifice." And again, on the case of the Leper in the 14th chapter of Leviticus, the same writer remarks, that the sin-offering was enjoined, "because that the whole of the Mosaic religion being founded on this princi- ple, that whatever befalls any human creature is the result of providential appointment, the leper must consider his malady as a judicial infliction for some transgression." And this principle is so far extended by Maimonides, i [Moreh NevocMm, p. 380) as to pronounce, that " even a pain so slight as that of a thorn wounding the hand, and instantly extracted, must be ranked as a penal infliction by the Deity for some offence :" see also Clavering Annot. in Maim. De Poenitentia, pp. 141, 142. Other Jewish writers carry this matter farther. Thus R. Bechai, on Levit. vii. 7, says, that 8 Maimonides gives the same account of this matter. See Maim, de Sacrif. De Veil. p. 116; also, Moreh Neuochim, pp. 464, 465. " the woman after childbirth is bound to bring a sin-offering, in expiation of that original taint, derived from the common mother of mankind, by whose transgression it was caused that the procreation of the species was not like the production of the fruits of the earth, spontaneous and unmixed with sensual feelings." Whether these opinions of the Jewish Rab- bis be absurd or otherwise, is a point with which I have no concern. The fact, that such were their opinions, is all I contend for. And this I think will satisfy us respecting the competency of Dr Priestley as an interpreter of their writings ; when we find him thr.s arguing from the actual impossibility that they j could hold an opinion, which they themselves i expressly assert they did hold ; and when w find him maintaining the rectitude of his theory by their testimony, whilst he explains their testimony by the unquestionable recti- tude of his theory. This is a species of logic, and a mode of supplying authorities from an- cient writers, in which Dr Priestley has been long exercised; as may abundantly appear, not only from several parts of these illustrations, but from the collection of very able and useful Tracts published by the late Bishop Horsley. A few words more concerning the Rabbis. Dr Priestley endeavours to insinuate, as we have seen, p. 71, that " Abarbanel considers sin-offerings as fines or mulcts, by way of ad- monition not to offend again." Now, who- ever will take the trouble of consulting that writer himself, will find, that this subordinate end of sacrifice is mentioned by him, only in connection with offences of the slightest kind, and amounting, at the most, to the want of a sufficient caution in guarding against the pos- sibility of accidental defilement. When this want of caution has been on occasions and in stations so important, as to render it a high crime and capital offence, as in the case of tlie High Priest, the expression used is, that the offender deserves to be mulcted with death, but that the victim is accepted in his stead, &c. (De Veil. Abarb. Exord. pp. 313. 315.) Whether, then, the sin-offering was intended to be considered by this writer merely as a fine, the reader will judge. Indeed Dr Priest- ley himself has already proved that it was not ; inasmuch as he has asserted that he has represented sacrifices for sin as emblematical actions. Now if they were solely emblemati- cal actions, they could not have been fines : and if they were solely fines, they could not have been emblematical actions. But if the author, whilst he represented them as fines, considered them likewise as emblematical actions, then the circumstance of his having viewed them in the light of fines, is no proof that he might not likewise have considered them as strictly propitiatory. The introduc No. 33. OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. tion, therefore, of this remark by Dr Priestley, is either superfluous or sophistical. The observations applied to Abarbanel ex- tend with equal force to the opinions of Mai- monides : for the former expressly asserts more than once, (Exord. Comment, in Lemt. pp. 2.31, 235) that he but repeats the sentiments of the latter, on the import of the sacrificial rites. Nor will the assertion of Maimonides, (which has been much relied on by Sykes,) viz. that " repentance expiates all transgres- sions," invalidate in any degree what has been here urged ; for it is evident, that, in the treatise on Repentance, in which this position is found, he is speaking in reference to the Jewish institutions, and endeavouring to prove, from the peculiar condition of the Jews since the destruction of their temple, that re- pentance is the only remaining expedient for restoration to the divine favour : " since we have no longer a temple or altar, there remains no expiation for sins, but repentance only and this will expiate all transgressions." (Maim. De Poenit. Clavering, p. 45.) And with a view to the proving its sufficiency, (now that sacrifice was no longer possible, and to prevent the Jews, who had been used to attribute to the sacrifice the principal efficacy in their reconciliation with God, from thinking lightly of that only species of homage and obedience which now remained,) it seems to l>e that both here, and in his Moreh Nevochim, (p. 435) he endeavours to represent prayer and confession of sins, as at all times constitu- ting a main part of the sacrificial service. But this by no means proves, that the sacrifice was not in his opinion expiatory ; on the con- trary it clearly manifests his belief that it was ; since it is only because it was no longer possible for the Jews according to the Mosaic ordinances, that he considers it as laid riside : for if repentance and prayer were in themselves perfectly sufficient, then the reason assigned for the cessation of sacrifice, and the e'ticacy of repentance per se under the existing circumstances, would have been unmeaning. But this writer's notion of the efficacy of repentance, and of the ceremonial rites, may be still better understood from the following remarks. Speaking of the scape goat, he says, (Moreh Nevochim, p. 404,) that " it was be- lieved to pollute those that touched it, on account of the multitude of sins which it carried :" and of this goat he says again, (De Poenit. pp. 44, 45,) that " it expiated all the sins recounted in the law, of whatever kind, with regard to him who had repented of those sins ; but that with respect to him who had not repented, it expiated only those of a lighter sort :" and those sins of a lighter sort, he defines to be all those transgressions of the law against which excision is not denounced. So that, according to this writer, there were cases, and those not a few, in which repen- tance was not necessary to expiation. And again, that it was not in itself sufficient for expiation, he clearly admits, not only from his general notion of sacrifices throughout his works, but from his express declarations on this subject. He says, that with respect to certain offences, " neither repentance, nor the day of expiation" (which he places on the same ground with repentance as to its expia- tory virtue,) " have their expiatory effect, unless chastisement be inflicted to perfect the expiation." And in one case, he adds, that " neither repentance followed by uniform obedience, nor the day of expiation, nor the chastisement inflicted, can effect the expia- tion, nor can the expiation be completed but by the death of the offender." (De Poenit. pp. 46,47.) The reader may now be able to form a judg- ment, whether the doctrines of the Jewish Rabbis really support Dr Priestley's position, that amongst the modern Jews no notion of any scheme of sacrificial atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness, save repentance and reformation, has been found to have had existence. And I must again remind him of the way in which the authorities of the Jewish writers have been managed by Dr Priestley, so as to draw from them a testimony appa- rently in his favour. The whole tribe of Rabbinical authors, who have, as we have seen, in the most explicit terms avowed the doctrine of atonement, in the strictest sense of the word, are passed over without mention, save only Nachmanides, who is but transiently named, whilst his declarations on this sub- ject, being directly adverse, are totally sup- pressed. Maimonides and Abarbanel, indeed, are adduced in evidence, but how little to Dr Priestley's purpose, and in how mutilated and partial a shape I have endeavoured to evince. These writers, standing in the fore- most rank of the Rabbinical teachers, as learned and liberal expositors of the Jewish law, could not but feel the futility of the sacrificial sys- tem, unexplained by that great sacrifice, which, as Jews, they must necessarily have rejected. Hence arises their theory of the human origin of sacrifice, and hence their occasional seeming departure from the princi- ples of the sacrificial worship, maintained by other Rabbis, and adopted also by themselves, in the general course of their writings. From these parts of their works, which seem to be no more than philosophical struggles to colour to the eye of reason the inconsistencies of an existing doctrine, has Dr Priestley sought support for an assertion which is in open con- tradiction, not only to the testimony of every other Rabbinical writer, but to the express language of these very writers themselves. But Dr Priestley is not contented with forcing upon these more remote authors a language which they never used, but ho endea- 74 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. vours also to extract from those of later date a testimony to the same purpose, in direct opposition to their own explicit assertions. Thus, in Buxtorf's account of the ceremony observed by the modern Jews of killing a cock on the preparation for the day of expia- tion, he thinks he finds additional support for his position, that, amongst the modern Jews, no idea of a strict propitiatory atonement has been known to exist. Now, as to Dr Priest- ley's representation of Buxtorf, I cannot op- pose a more satisfactory authority than that of Buxtorf himself, I shall quote the passage as given in that writer, and that no pretence of misrepresentation may remain, I give it untinged by the medium of a translation. " Quilibet postea paterfamilias, cum gallo prae manibus, in medium primus prodit, et ex Psalmis Davidis ait ; ' Sedentes in tenebris,' &c. item, ' Si ei adsit Angelus interpres, unus de mille, qui illi resipiscentiam exponat, tune miserebitur ejus, et dicet, redime eum, ne descendat in fossam : inveni enim expiationem' (gallum nempe gallinaceum, qui peccata mea expiabit.) Deinde expiationem aggreditur, et capiti suo gallum ter allidit, singulosque ictus his vocibus prosequitur, ^JlSJvH i"U n? vr3 nr vnn nr * Hie Gallus sit permutatio pro me, hie in locum meum succedat, hie sit expiatio pro me, huic gallo mors afferetur, mihi vero et toti Israeli vita fortunata. Amen.' Hoc ille ter ex ordine facit, pro se, sc. pro filiis suis, et pro peregrinis qui apud ilium sunt, uti Sum- mus Sacerdos in vet. test, expiationem quoque fecit. Gallo deinde imponens manus, ut in sacrificiis olim, eum statim mactat, cutemque ad collum ei primum contrahit et constringit, et secum reputat, se, qui praefocetur aut stran- guletur, dignum esse : hunc autem gallum in suum locum substituere et ofFere ; cultello postea juguluin resolvit, iterum animo secum per- pendens, semetipsum, qui gladio plectatur, dignum esse ; et confestim ilium vi e manibus in terrain projicit, ut clenotet, se dignum esse, bus qui lapidibus obruatur : postremo ilium assat, ut hoc facto designet, se dignum esse, qui igne vitam finiat : et ita quatuor hsec mortis genera, pro Judaeis gallus sustinere debet. Intestina vulgo supra domus tectum jaciunt. Alii dicunt id fieri, quia quum pec- cata internum quid potius quam externum sint, ideo galli intestinis peccata haerere : corvos itaque advenire, et cum Judaeorum peccatis in desertum avolare debere, ut hircus in vet. test, cum populi peccatis in deser- tum aufugiebat. Alii aliam reddunt cau- sam. Causa autem, cur gallo potius quam alio animante utantur, haac est, quia vir ebraice "Q.3 Gebher appellatur. Jam si Geb- her peccaverit, Gebkeretiam peccati poenam sus- tinere debet. Quia vero gravior esset posna, quam ut illam subire poss< nt Judaei, gallum gallinaceum qui Talmudicii seu Babylonia dialeeto "1.^3 Gebher appellatur, in locurn suum substituunt, et ita justitiae Dei satis/it; quia quum -Q.3 Gebher peccaverit, ~)33 Gebher etiam, i. e. Gallus gallinaceus plectitur." Synagoga Judaica, ed. 4, pp. 509 512. I leave this extract, without comment, to confront Dr Priestley's representation of it ; viz. that it indicates nothing of the strict notion of atonement. ( Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 410, 411.) He adds, indeed, for the pur- pose of confirming his account of this passage, that this cock is afterwards eaten ; as if thence to infer, that the offerers could not consider the animal as a real substitute for them, in respect to their sins and their punishment : and yet Buxtorf expressly asserts, that when it had been the custom to distribute amongst the poor the animals slain in the manner above described, it created much murmuring ; the poor recoiling with horror from the gift, say- ing that they were required to eat the sins of the rich : and that the rich offerers were therefore obliged to bestow their charitable donations on the poor in money, to the amount of the value of their offering ; and " thus having redeemed the offering from God, by its equivalent in money, they then feasted upon it," (Syn. Jud. pp. 515, 516.) Again, Dr Priestley insinuates, that the Jews could not consider this offering as a strict expiation, because " that when they themselves die, they pray that their own deaths may be considered as an expiation or satisfaction for their sins." Dr Priestley does not recollect that the atone- ment made at the day of expiation extended only to the sins of the past year, and that those which were committed after that day, must remain unexpiated until the day of ex- piation in the succeeding year. The dying person had consequently to account for all the sins committed since the last preceding day of expiation. And as every natural ill was deemed by the Jews a penal infliction for sin, death was consequently viewed by them in the same light, and in the highest degree ; and therefore it was reasonable that they should hope from it a full atonement and satisfaction for their transgressions. Thus we see that even the authorities quoted by Dr Priestley as supporting his theories, are found to be in direct contradiction to them. And from this, and the numerous other in- stances of his misrepresentation of ancient writers, which may be found in the course of these remarks, we may learn a useful lesson respecting his reports of authors in those voluminous writings in which he has laboured to convert the religion of Christ into a system of heathen morality. I have, for this pur- pose, been thus copious on his representations of the opinions of the modern Jews ; and, without dwelling longer on this point, or ad- No. 33. OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. 75 verting to Isaac Netto, who happened in a *' very good sermon" to speak with confidence of the mercy of God, without hinting any thing of mediation as necessary to satisfy his justice, ( Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 411,) I turn back to what we are told three pages before con- cerning Philo and Josephus. These writers, who are nearly contemporary with our Saviour, Dr Priestley informs us, furnish no intimation whatever, in any part of their works, of " any ideas that have the least connection with those that are suggested by the modern doctrine of atonement," (pp. 408, 409 ;) and, according to his usual practice, he produces one or two insulated passages from the voluminous works of these authors to prove that their sentiments on the subjects of sacrifice, and of the divine placa- bility, correspond with his own. Now, were it true with respect to Josephus, as Dr Priest- ley asserts, that he suggests no idea in any degree similar to the received notion of atone- ment, yet could this furnish no proof that he entertained no such idea ; because he himself expressly informs us (Ant. Jud. lib. iii. cap. 9, sect. 3, p. 121, and cap. 11, sect. 2, p, 125 vol. i. ed. Huds.) that he reserves the more minute examination of the nature of the ani- mal offerings for a distinct treatise on the subject of sacrifice, which has either not been written, or has not come down to us. But although the historian, in consequence of this intention, has made but slight and incidental mention of the nature of sacrifice, yet has he said enough to disprove Dr Priestley's asser- tion, having in all places in which he has occasion to speak of the sin-offering, described the victim as sacrificed in deprecation of God's wrath, and in supplication of pardon for trans- gression. IIf/T*7TY)f<.j O/XiMv -a^otTuvl^it, has, indeed, exercised upon the Jewish doctrines an extraordinary degree of mystical refinement : he is also pro- nounced, by some of the highest authorities, to have been entirely ignorant both of the language and customs of the Jews, and con- sequently to have fallen into gross errors in his representation of the doctrines of their religion. 5 And yet from two detached pas- sages in this author's writings, one of which is so completely irrelevant, that it were idle even to notice it, Dr Priestley does not hesi- tate to decide upon the notion entertained by the Jews of his day respecting the nature of sacrificial atonement. He also asserts, indeed, that in no part of his works does he suggest any idea in the slightest degree resembling the modern notion of atonement. To hazard this assertion, is to confess an entire ignorance of the writings of this author ; for, on the contrary, so congenial are his sentiments and language to those of the first Christian writers, on the subject of the corruption of man's nature, the natural insufficiency of our best works, the necessity of an intercessor, a re- deemer, and ransom for sin, together with the appointment of the divine AOrO2 for these purposes, that the learned Bryant has been led to conclude, that he must actually have derived these doctrines from the sources of evangelical knowledge. That he had, indeed, the opportunity of doing so, from an intimate intercourse with Saint Peter, is attested by Hieronymus, (Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles.') Pho- tius, (Biblioth. cv.) and Suidas, (Historic.) by 4 See Photius Biblioth. cv. ed. 1635 j Thet. Temp. Jot. ScaKy. Animal, p. 7, ed. 1638 ; and Grotius, in Matt. zzxvL 18. 76 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. whom, as well as by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. ib. ii.) it is affirmed, that the beautiful eulo- gium contained in this writer's treatise, Tlepl B/of 0. was pronounced on the apostolic Christians settled at Alexandria, who were the followers of Saint Mark, the disciple of Peter. The arguments of Dr Allix, however, in his Judgment of the Jewish Church, &c. (p,76 83,) though they may justly be deemed invalid as to the impossibility of Philo's in- tercourse with the first Christians, for which he contends in opposition to the above autho- rities, yet seem sufficient to warrant us in pronouncing, that however similar his notions and expressions may be to those of the early Christians, they yet were not derived from Christian sources ; and that, consequently, they exhibit the doctrines of the Jewish church : such, at least, as they were held by the Jews of Alexandria in his day. But to instance a few of the numerous passages in the works of this author of the import above alluded to: He informs us, (lIe ? J trroi/ey. p. 217, ed. 1640,) that "man was made in the image of God" that he was placed in a state of perfect happiness, (ibid, pp. 219, 220, and Njy. pp. 56, 57,) but that, " having disgraced and deformed this likeness, by his fall from virtue, he like- wise fell from happiness, and from an immor- tal state, was deservedly doomed to misery and death," (IlegJ Evyev. p. 906) that being now "naturally prone to vice," (0. TL^ety. Kxj. p. 522,) and so degenerate, " that even his virtues are of no value, but through the goodness and favour of God," (nej TOV TO X. p. 166) mankind are consequently obliged " to trust to this alone for the purifi- cation of the soul, and must not imagine that they are themselves capable, without the divine favour and influence, to purge and wash away the stains which deform their nature." (FUg? ruv 'Ovfi^. pp. 1111, 1112.) And so great does he represent this corruption of the human mind, as to exclaim, that " no man of sound judgment, observing the actions of men, can refrain from calling aloud on the only Saviour God, to remove this burden of iniquity, and, by appointing some ' ransom and redemption for the soul,' (^vr^ xctl oi; oftwevuy,) and proclaiming peace to all the world, that through his intercession men might have a firm faith in God," (0/, IIjey Kx>jf. p. 509) that same Ao'yo?, who is also called by him " an High Priest, free from all sin," (ngi *yy3. p. 466, and Ilejj ruv 'Oi/f. p. 597) ; of whose mediation he acknowledges the intercession of Aaron to have been but a type, (IlEfJ vy8. p. 446, and ei. n^y. Kxf. p. 508) ; and whom he describes to be that " substitute and representation" of the Deity (uva.^? Qtw) through whom he is related in the Old Testament to have conversed with man, (iligl TUV 'Oveig. p. 600.) And, when he speaKs of that part of the law wherein it is said that the man of guilt should fly to an appointed city of refuge, and not be acquitted till the death of the high priest, he confesses (rifji vyS. pp. 465, 466) that by this the Levitical high priest cannot be literally meant, but that he must be in this case the type of one far greater ; for " that the high priest alluded to is not a man, but the sacred Logos, who is incapable of all sin, and who is said to have his head anointed with oil :" and that the death of this High Priest is that which is here intended : thus admitting the death of the Logos, whom he describes as the anointed, and allows to be typified by the Jewish high priest, to be the means of recovery from a state of spiritual bondage, and of giving liberty to the soul. It is true, he allegorizes away this meaning again, according to his usual cus- tom. But, whilst he refines upon the doctrine, he at the same time testifies its existence in his day. The reader will now judge, whether this writer deemed " repentance and good works sufficient for divine acceptance," or whether he entertained " any ideas resembling those that are suggested by the modern doctrine of atonement." Dr Priestley however contends, that he considered sacrifices but as gifts ; anil this he infers from the account given by him, [ of the preference of Abel's sacrifice to that of ' Cain : viz. that, " instead of inanimate things, j he offered animate ; instead of young animals, those that were grown to their full size ; in- , stead of the leanest, the fattest," &c. Dr , Priestley should at the same time have stated, that the whole of the account given by this writer of the history of Cain and Abel, is one continued allegory : that by the birth of the two brothers, he understands " the rise of two opposite principles in the soul ; one ascribing all to the natural powers of the individual, and thence represented by Cain, which signi- fies possession ; the other referring all to God, and thence denominated Abel" (n^i uv 'Ifjot^y. p. 130) : that this latter principle he also holds to be implied in the occupation of Abel, inasmuch " as by a tender of sheep, is meant a controller of the brute powers of the soul ; and that Abel, therefore, from his pious | reference of all to God, is properly described as a shepherd; and Cain, on the contrary, No. 33. OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. 77 from the deriving all from his own individual exertions, is called a tiller of the ground." (Ibid. pp. 136, 137.) The sacrifice of Abel consequently denotes the offering of the pious and devout affections of the heart ; this being " what is meant by the firstlings of the flock, and the fat thereof," (Ibid. pp. 137. 145. 154.) whilst that of Cain, on the other hand, repre- sents an offering, destitute of those affections, an offering of impiety, inasmuch "as the fruits of the earth import the selfish feelings : their being offered after certain days, indicates the backwardness of the offerer ; and the fruits, simply, and not the first-fruits, shew that the first honour was held back from the Creator, and given to the creature." (Ibid. pp. 137. 141, 142. 145.) And in this sense it is, that Abel is said by this writer, " neither to have offered the same things, nor in the same way : but instead of inanimate, things ani- mate ; instead of young and inferior animals, the matured and choicest :" in other words, that the most animated and vigorous senti- ments of homage are requisite to constitute an acceptable act of devotion. In this light the due value of Dr Priestley's quotation from this writer, as applied to the present question, may easily be estimated. But, had Dr Priestley looked to that part of this author's works, in which he treats ex- pressly of the animals offered in sacrifice, he would have seen, that he describes the sacrifice for sin as being the appointed means of " ob- taining pardon, and escaping the evil conse- quences of sin," jcx,uv dTTotKhstyri x,atxuv (puyil eiftvsoT txv ctbixififAotTuy atlrtiadtui : (Tltf>l Zaav. pp. 838. 843 ;) and that in the case of an injury committed, he represents the re- paration made to the person injured, joined to contrition for the offence and supplication of pardon from the Deity, as not sufficient to ob- tain the divine forgiveness, without offering an animal in expiation, (Ibid. p. 844.) Had Dr Priestley, indeed, asserted that this writer's notion of sacrifice was that of a symbolical and mystical representation, he had given a fair account of the matter. For, when he informs us, that " the blood of the victim was poured in a circle round the altar, because a circle is the most perfect figure ; and that the soul, which is figured by the blood, should through the entire circle of thought and action worship God :" when he tells us, that " the victim was separated into parts, to admonish us, that, in order to the true worship of the Deity, his nature must be considered and weighed in its distinct parts and separate perfections, (ibid. p. 839) : it will readily be admitted, that he soars into regions, whither a plain understanding will not find it easy to follow him. But to have stated this, would not have answered the purpose of Dr Priest- ley's argument : because this high strain of mysticism would have clearly disqualified him i as an evidence on behalf of Dr Priestley's, or of any intelligible, theory of sacrifice. Indeed, with respect to this ancient writer, the truth seems to be, 6 that viewing the Jew- ish system without that light which alone could give it shape and meaning, he found it impossible to account for it on any sound principles of reason. He, therefore, made his religion bend to his philosophy, and veiled in allegory whatever would not admit a satisfac- tory literal solution. And this he must have found still more necessary, if what is related concerning his intercourse with the early Christians be well founded. For, in his con- troversies with them, the sacrificial system, which they would not fail to press upon him as requiring and receiving a full completion in the sacrifice of Christ, he would have found himself compelled to spiritualize, so as to give it a distinct and independent import. Now, if to these considerations be added, what has been already stated, that this writer had not the means of being perfectly ac- quainted with the nature of the Hebrew rites, it will follow, that his testimony can- not be expected to bear strongly upon the present question. The same has been already shewn with respect to that of Josephus. So far, however, as they both do apply to the subject, instead of justifying Dr Priestley's position, they are found to make directly against it. Their silence on the subject of the vicarious import of animal sacrifice can- not, for the reasons alleged, be urged by Dr Priestley as an argument in support of that part of his system which denies the existence of that notion amongst the Jews : whilst the explicit declarations of Josephus, on the ex- piatory virtue of sacrifice ; and those of Philo, on the necessity of mediation and propitiation, to render even our good works acceptable to a God offended at the corruption of our nature, and of some means of ransom and redemption to restore man to his lost estate, sufficiently evince the existence of those great leading principles of the doctrine of atone- ment, expiation, and propitiation, which Dr Priestley utterly denies to have had any place amongst the Jews in the days of these two celebrated writers. The value of Dr Priestley's assertions con- cerning these writers, as well as of those respecting Jews of later date, being now suf- ficiently ascertained, I shall conclude this long discussion with a few remarks on the ideas en- tertained by the ancient heathens, with regard to the nature, and efficacy, of their sacrifices. To adduce arguments for the purpose of shew- 8 The above observation may supply an answer to many, who have objected against the alleged existence of a doctrine of vica- rious atonement amongst the early Jews the silence of Philo up- on that head, even when treating expressly upon the choice of victims for sacrifice See particularly Scripture Account q/ &icrj/lctt, App. p. 17. 78 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. ing that they deemed their animal sacrifices, not only of expiatory, but of a strictly vicarious nature, will, to those who are conversant with the history and writings of the ancients, ap- pear a waste of time. But, as Dr Priestley, m the rage of refutation, has contended even against this position, it may not be useless to cite a few authorities, which may throw addi- tional light, if not upon a fact which is too glaring to receive it, at least upon the preten- sions to historical and classical information, of the writer who controverts that fact. What has been already urged in Number V. might perhaps be thought abundant upon this head ; but as the testimony of Caesar respecting the Gauls, in p. 126, is the only one which goes to the precise point of the " substitution of the victim to suffer death in place of the trans- gressor," it may not be amiss to add the testi- monies of Herodotus, (lib. ii. cap. 39) and of Plutarch, (Isid. et Osir. p. 363. torn. ii. ed. 1620) respecting the Egyptian practice of im- precating on the head of the victim those evils which the offerers wished to avert from them- selves : as also of Servius, (jEn. 3, 57) and Suidas, (in voc. as^yiftee,,') ascribing the same sacrificial sentiment ; the first to the Massi- lienses, and the second to the Grecian states. Hesychius, likewise, in substituting for the word TsegtyYifta, ("an expiatory, or redeeming sacrifice") the word .vTtyvx,o8(uw>n.Jutt. Mart. Thirlb. p. 374. Patrick on Exod. iii. 13, remarks that the blood was "a sign by which the Israelites were assured of safety and deliverance." And, indeed, the words of the original are, " the blood shall be to you for a token." Patrick add* from Epiphanlus, that there passing, needed any such signal to distinguish between the Egyptians and the Israelites, (al- though the philosophy of Dr Priestley has not scrupled to admit the supposition see Th.Rep. vol. i. p. 215,) it cannot be necessary to contro- vert. For what purpose, then, can we conceive such a ceremony to have been instituted, but as a sensible token of the fulfilment of the divine promise of protection and deliverance? And are we not, from the language of Scripture, fully authorized to pronounce that it was, through this, intended as a typical sign of protection from the divine justice by the blood of Christ, which, in reference to this, is called in Heb. xii. 24, "the blood of sprinkling?" Indeed, the analogy is so forcible, that Cud- worth does not hesitate to pronounce the slaying of the paschal lamb, in its first insti- tution, to be an expiatory sacrifice ; the blood of the lamb sprinkled upon the door-posts of the houses, being the appointed means of preservation by Jehovah's passing over. In confirmation also of the typical import of the ceremony, he notices a very extraordinary pas- sage quoted by Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, from the ancient copies of the Bible, in which Ezra expounds, in a speech made before the celebration of the passover, the mystery of it as clearly relating to Christ, and which Justin concludes, was at a very early day expunged from the Hebrew copies by the Jews, as too manifestly' favouring the cause of Christianity. The passage is too re- markable to omit. " This passover" saith Ezra to the people, " is our Saviour and refuge ; 7 and if you can feel a firm persuasion that we are about to humble and degrade him in this sign, and afterwards should place our sure trust and hope in him, then this place shall never be made desolate, saith the Lord of Hosts : but if you do not believe in him, nor listen to that which he shall announce, ye was a memorial of the transaction preserved even among the Egyp- tians themselves, though ignorant of the original of the rite. For at the Equinox, (which was the time of the passover,) they marked their cattle and their trees, and oneanother, i* ^Xnu;, with red ochre, or gome such thing, which they fancied would be a preservative to them. See Patrick as above. Kcci ITI E;V a{J/.eu.lv a.lr(n TCCXtlvouti it ffr,u.lna, xeii a, return i>.Ti fuu.lv ttr' xiirtiy, tl u,r, iqriu.utty i rirot eturoi lit TT X{oVo, \iyti &ti( rut $vt*/j.tuf "E* Si JJ.YI if IT. rtufitn ctvru, /tt>)Xi iiratxturrm TOU xr^uy/u-artf etiirtu, IrurOi ir<'x.*(f** 7{ Wttfi. (Just. Mart. Thirlb. pp. 292, 293.) Justin says that this passage was among the il-*iy,rii{ St r.reir I->S{? i/'f TO /tt T wt^i TOU wa I subjoin the following observations. This Hebrew word, which we translate Passover, was rendered by almost all the early interpreters, in the sense which the English word implies ; namely passing over. Josephus, who calls it Tsda^et, and sometimes (fourx.*, ex- pressly affirms, that the Hebrew word signifies vvtp&otata., or " passing over ;" in commemo- ration of God's having " passed over" (vTnp^xg') the Hebrews, when he smote the Egyptians with his plague, (Antiq. p. 60.) Philo, in two distinct parts of his works, explains the word by the term /a as it occurs in Exod. xii., a sense different from that which we have hitherto assigned. In verse 11, the Targum and Persic both render the noun by pardon, sparing mercy, Sacrificium propi- tiationis (Arab.)Sacrif. pro misericordid coram Domino (Ch.) And again, verses 13, 23, 27. Syr. Arab. Pers. and Targ. render the verb in the same sense, that of sparing ; quod miser- tus est. (Ch.) propitiatus, (Syr. Arab.) with which, as we have hinted, the ax.iKot.as of the LXX possibly concurs. The Complutensian, in deference to the above authorities, has inter- preted the verb throughout this entire chapter by the words misereri, parcere ; and many re- spectable commentators have adopted the same interpretation. But, how does this connect with the sense of passing over, supported by the former ver- sions ? Perhaps, a little attention to the radical meaning of the verb J1D3 may point out that connection. Fagius, in locum, says, that the primary signification of the verb HD3 is saltare, transilare ; unde et claudum Heb- raei riD3> appellant, quod cum ingreditur, quasi saltare et subsilire videtur. Hence, he adds, the name is derived a saltuangeli devas- tatoris : and he adduces the authority of R. D. Kimchi to this head. That of R. Sol. Jarchi, adduced by Dr Geddes, is more precise. " Oblatio ista (agni paschalis) vocatur Pesach, propter saltum, quo sanctus ille Benedictus transibat domos Israelitarum inter domos Egyptiorum, et saliebat de Egyptio in Egyp- tium : Israelita autem intermedius incolumis relinquebatur." This primary sense, of spring- ing rapidly, or with a bound, is that which is admitted generally by Hebrew scholars, and seems undoubtedly to be the true one. If, then, we consider it in this light, Jehovah, who is represented as carrying with him the destroying plague, in mercy to the Israelite, passes rapidly over his house, and thereby saves it from the destruction which is borne along to the mansion of the Egyptian, on which it is allowed to rest and execute its fatal work. Thus the passing of Jehovah over (that is, his rapidly passing over) the houses of the Israelites, and the sparing or shelving mercy to the Israelites, become naturally con- nected ; and, therefore, either might reason- ably be used by interpreters, as the significa- tion of the term in this part of Scripture. From this view of the case it appears, that Dr GeddeS, in his translation, and still mort in his Critical Remarks, was not very far from a just idea of this subject : but, unfortunately for himself, (from a quaintness, a love ol' 84 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. singularity, and a total destitution of taste, which always made what was even right, appear wrong in his hands nullum quod tetigit non deformavit ) he clothed this just idea in a dress so grotesque, that even he him- self was afterwards brought to see and admit the ludicrousness of the garb which he had fixed upon this part of Holy Writ. It is curious enough to trace the origin of the ridiculous epithet skip-offering, which has been adopted by this translator, in the writings of one of the most elegant and classical of our Hebrew critics, the celebrated Bishop Lowth ; who expressly describes " the common notion of God's passing over the houses of the Israe- lites to be, that seeing the blood, he passed over, or skipped those houses," &c. This last named critic, following the steps of Vitringa, has in a note upon Isaiah xxxi. 5, given an explanation of the term JlDSj with which the signification of the English word Pass-over is totally at variance. Both he and Vitringa admit the primary sense of the verb to be that of springing forward, or leaping for- ward, with rapidity, as it has been before explained ; and seem to have altogether adopted the exposition of the word which we have quoted from Fagius. But the notion entertained by these distinguished critics, that two agents were concerned in the preservation of the Israelites on the night of the passover, has led them to assign to the word, as applied in Exodus, the signification of covering, i. e. " protecting by covering," as Vitringa, or " springing forward to cover and protect," as Lowth. " Here are manifestly," says the Bishop, " two distinct agents, with which the notion of passing over is not consistent ; for that supposes but one agent. The two agents are the destroying angel passing through to smite every house ; and Jehovah the pro- tector, keeping pace with him ; and who, seeing the door of the Israelite marked with the blood, the token prescribed, leaps forward, throws himself with a sudden motion in the way, opposes the destroying angel, and covers and protects that house against the destroying angel, nor suffers him to smite it." Here is, undoubtedly, an imposing picture of the transaction, presented to the imagina- tion of the reader ; but certainly without any foundation, save what exists in the fancy of the writer. An inaccurate translation, in- deed, of the 23d verse seems to afford some colour to this view of the transaction ; TJT being rendered in our common version, " And will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you." Rosenmiiller attributes this wrong translation to the Septuagint. " LXX verterunt 6 faodpivav, secuti Judaeorum opinionem, tribueutium angelo cuidam, fati ministro, fulgura, pestem, et similia homini- bus fatalla : quod commentum et multi Chris- tian! interpretes repetierunt. Sed nil tale in textu." Schol. in Exod. xii. 23. Rosenmiiller is undoubtedly right in asserting, that there is nothing whatever in the text to justify the idea of a second agent. Whoever reads over the entire chapter with any degree of care, will see, that the Jehovah, who prescribes the rite, is himself the agent throughout, without the least intimation of any other being concerned. For, as to the verse above referred to, its true translation, which I have given in a former part of this discussion, re- jnoves at once every semblance of support which it could be supposed to afford to the contrary opinion : the word JITI^D? (* ne same which is used in the 13th verse as well as in the 23d,) signifying perditio, vas- tatio, corruptio, exterminatio, (as see Pol. Syn. also Vatabl. on Exod. xii. 13,) and the JTnttfQ 1 ? Pp^ of the 13th verse, signifying exactly the same as the cpy? /TTTty D of the 23d, i. e. in both places, the destroying plague. Besides, it must be remarked, that the ex- pression suffer in the 23d verse, which seems to imply a distinct agent who would enter the house of the Israelite if not prevented, has no authority from the original ; the strict translation being " he will not yive," or " cause," (}/V N 1 ?) 5 the word ^J never being used in the sense of permitting, without the *} marking the dative case of that to which the permission was granted : but the word JTn&'Q not only wants the sign of the dative here, but has actually that of the accusative (JIN) in MS. 69. of Kennicott's. It appears, then, upon the whole, that the fancy of a twofold agent, indulged in by Vitringa, Lowth, and some other commen- tators, derives no support whatever from the text of Exodus : and, therefore, the objections, which that fancy alone suggested in opposition to the explanation which has been given of the word nD3 fall to the ground ; whilst the admissions of those writers, as to the primary acceptation of the word, must be allowed to stand in confirmation of those very conclusions which they were desirous to overturn. The passage in Isaiah, indeed, which they were engaged in elucidating, in some degree naturally led them to the view of the subject which we have just noticed. The prophet having there described Jehovah as protecting Jerusalem, in like manner as mother birds protect by hovering over their young ; and this being impossible to be conveyed by a term which merely implied passing over, and which, so far from indicating an overshadow- ing protection, on the contrary necessarily induced an exposure of the defenceless young, and this only the more sudden the more rapid was the transition ; the commentators deemed it indispensable to extend the mean- ing of the word HDS) (here employed) beyond the latter sense, and to give to it such a sig- No. 35. MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 85 nification as would admit the former ; and perceiving a strong similarity between the application of the term here, and to the deli- verance in Egypt, they endeavoured to explain it in such a sense as would embrace both transactions ; and were, accordingly, led to that interpretation of the term, which required the twofold agency of which we have spoken. But, why recur upon every occasion to the primary sense of a word ? Are there not in every language numerous words, in which the derivative becomes the prevalent and appropriate sense ? And, if we suppose the deliverance from Egypt to have been alluded to by the prophet, (which, as well from the general similitude of subject, as particularly from the use of the terms J1D3 and b^H which are conjointly used in speaking of the passover and its effect in Exod. xii. 27, seems scarcely to admit of doubt,) what could be more fit than to adopt that form of expression, which, from its familiar association with the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, had long been employed to designate that deliverance, without any reference whatever to its primary acceptation ? In other words, was it not most natural, that any providential preservation or deliverance of the Jewish people should be called by the word Pesach, the term used to denominate that recorded act whereby the first great preservation and deliverance of Israel was effected ? Might not, then, the prophet have properly and beautifully em- ployed the word nDHJ? in the passage referred to, in the sense of God's acting again as a protector and deliverer of his people, in like manner as he had done at the time of the HD3 ? This gives new beauty to the original passage, and relieves the comparison between its subject and the deliverance in Egypt from all embarrassment ; whilst it retains all that attractive imagery, with which the prophet embellishes the original idea. The passage would then stand thus : A the mother-birds hovering over their young ; So shall Jehovah, God of hosts, protect Jerusalem, Protecting and delivering, preserving (as by a second Passover) and rescuing her. Bishop Stock, in his translation, has much disfigured the beauty of this passage ; neither displaying taste in the expression, nor judg- ment in the criticism : Birds protecting the winged race, being neither elegant nor quite intelligible : and hopping round arid over, which is rather an odd signification of the word JT)D9, being a still odder reason for translating the word by flying round. Some have charged the Greeks with cor- rupting the original word FIDS) Pesach, by writing it -aa.^* ; and have seemed to intimate that the word was so used by them as if it were derived from TZO-U-^U patior, intimating the sufferings of our Lord, of which the slaying of the passover was a type. That such an allusion may have sometimes been made, as might afford some apparent justification to the charge, there seems reason to admit. (See Glass. Phil. Sacr. i. 692, also Greg. Naz. Serm. de Pasch. and Wolf. Cur. Phil. i. 365.) Yet, the fact is, that the HD3 of the Hebrew is written tfnD3 Pascha in the Chaldee, from which the Txaaxa. of the Greek haa immediately flowed. On the subject of the word Passover, 1 shall only add the following enumeration of its various applications : 1. It signifies the passing over of Jehovah, who spared the Israelites when he smote the first-born of the Egyptians. 2. It signifies, by a metonymy, the lamb slain in memory of that deliverance. 3. It signifies the feast-day on which the paschal lamb was slain viz. the 14th of the first month. 4. and lastly, It signifies the entire continuance and the whole employment of the festival, which commenced with the slaying of the lamb, and continued for seven days. No. XXXVI. Page 15. Col. 1. ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSLATED " ATONEMENT" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The meaning of the word "1HO, the original of the term atonement in the Old Testament, has been modelled, like that of other Scripture phrases, so as to fall in with the theories ol those, who are more anxious that Scripture should speak their language, than that they should speak the language of Scripture. The common artifice, by which the terms of Revelation have been discharged of all appro- priate meaning, has been here employed with considerable effect. By a comparison of the ! various passages in which the term occurs, its most general signification is first explored ; and in this generic sense it is afterwards ex- plained, in all the particular cases of its appli- cation. The manner in which Dr Taylor nas j exercised this strange species of criticism on the word atonement, in his Scripture Doctrine, has been already noticed, pp. 50, 51. One or two additional remarks will more fully ; explain the contrivance, by which this writer has been enabled to shape this expression to his purpose. Having laid it down as a principle, " that those passages in the Levitical law, in which atonement is said to be made for persons by sacrifice, supply not so many different in- stances of a known sense of the word atone- ment, but are to bo considered as exhibiting one single instance of a sense which is doubt- ful," (Scripture Doctrine, ch. iv. 69,) he pro- nounces, (ch. v. 70,) that "the texts which are to be examined, are those, where the word 86 MAGEE ON THE ATONEMENT. is used extra-levitically, or with no relation to sacrifices ; that we may be able to judge what it imports when applied to them." And agreeably to these notions he conducts his inquiry. Now, what is this, but to pro- nounce first upon the nature of the thing unknown, and then to engage in its investi- gation ? The meaning of the term, in the several instances of its Levitical application, though as yet supposed unknown, is presumed to be the same in all : and this, notwithstand- ing that these cases of its application must be as different as its objects, persons, and things ; moral and ceremonial disqualifications. But, not content with thus deciding on the uniformity of an unknown signification, he proceeds to discover the meaning of the term in those passages which relate to sacrifice, by examining it in others in which it has no such relation. The result of this singularly critical examination is, that from thirty-seven texts, which treat of extra-levitical atonements, it may be inferred " that the means of making atonement for sin in different cases are widely different ; being sometimes by the sole good- ness of God, sometimes by the prayers of good men, sometimes by repentance, sometimes by disciplinary visitation, sometimes by signal acts of justice and virtue : and that any mean, whereby sinners are reformed, and the judgments of God averted, is atoning, or making atonement, for their sins." (Cap. 6, L112.) What then follows respecting the mtical atonement? Not, that the word, which, when used extra-levitically, is taken in various senses, according to the natural efficacy of the different means employed, is to be applied in its Levitical designation in a sense yet different from these, agreeably to the difference of means introduced by the Levitical institutions : quite the contrary. When specifically restricted to an appropriate purpose, it ceases to have any distinguishing character ; and the term, whose signification, when it. had no relation to sacrifice, was diversified with the nature of the means and the circumstances of the occasion, is, upon assuming this new relation, pronounced in- capable of any new and characteristic meaning. This argument furnishes a striking instance of that species of sophism, which, from a partial, concludes a total agreement. Having discovered, by a review of those passages which treat of extra-levitical atonements, that these-and the sacrifices which were offered for sin agreed in their effect ; namely, in pro- curing the pardon of sin, or the removal of those calamities which had been inflicted as the punishment of it ; the writer at once pronounces the extra-levitical and the sacri- ficial atonements to have been of the same nature throughout ; without regarding the utter dissimilarity of the means employed, and without considering that the very ques- tion as to the nature of the atonement, is a question involving the means through which it was effected. But, whilst Dr Taylor has thus endeavoured to overturn the generally received notion of atonement, by an examination of such pas- sages as treat of those atonements which were not sacrificial, Dr Priestley professes to have carefully reviewed all those instances of atone- ment which were sacrificial ; and from this review to have deduced the inference, that the sacrificial atonement merely implies, " the making of any thing clean or holy, so as to be fit to be used in the service of God ; or, when applied to a person, fit to come into the presence of God : God being considered as, in a peculiar manner, the king and the sovereign of the Israelitish nation, and, as it were, keeping a court amongst them." (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 193.) Dr Priestley, by this representation of the matter, endeavours to remove from view whatever might lead the mind to the idea of propitiating the Deity ; and, by taking care to place the condition of persons and things on the same ground, he utterly discards the notion of offence and reconciliation. But, in order to effect this, he has been obliged wholly to overlook the force of the original word, which is translated atonement, as well as of that which the LXX have used as its equivalent. The term 133, in its primary sense, signifies to smear, or cover with pitch, as appears from Gen. vi. 14. : and from this covering with pitch, it has been metaphorically transferred to things of a different nature ; insomuch that, in all the thirty-seven instances of extra-levi- tical atonement adduced by Dr Taylor, he asserts that the word 133 retains something of this original sense (Script, Doct. ch. vi. 115 ;) and, agreeably to this, he pronounces " atone- ment for sin to be the covering of sin." This position seems fu-lly confirmed by Nehem. iv. 45, Psal. xxxii. 1, Ixxxv. 2, and other pas- sages in Scripture ; in which the pardon of sin is expressed by its being covered, and the punishment of it by its not being covered. And Schindler, in his Lexicon Pentaglotton, having in like manner fixed the general sig- nification of the word to be texit, operuit, modifies this generic signification according to the change of subject, thus : de facie, seu ira, placavit, reconciliavit ; de peccato, remisit, condonavit, expiamt ; de sordibus, expurgavit ; de aliis, abstulit, removit. Agreeably to this explanation of the word, in which Hebrew critics almost universally concur, the LXX render it by If