JHVD-JO S& 5 ivaan-v^ t i $. MNIUftv ANGELA >-l v* S -,>. >0 MNn-JttV* 3RARY^/ nvD-jo^" ? WWttJ^ ^2 = tiUfcf | e 5 = ^ O Q s > i a - $ & 11 5> p I 8 5 v**^\)3 ^^-^ % ^^^ * ^fojnva-jo^ 1 ^aojiivDao^ :> ^OF-CAIIFO^ .^OFCAIIFO/?^ f |N/T\t t(L/^\t SL 'S ; g ANCEltt. V-*^ Ci a x> t| MNn3\\V S AMCHOu , v-l I vL-g .g S y\ I I 1 ..iC.IIBDADV/l. BOOKS PUBLISHED BY J. H. PARKER, OXFORD, AND SOLD BY E. GARDNER, AT THE OXFORD WAREHOUSE, 7, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. Thucydides, with notes, chiefly historical and geographical. By Thomas Arnold, D.D. Head Master of Rugby School. 3 vols. 8vo. 21. 8s. Thucydides, from the Text of Arnold and Bekker; with the Argument to each Book in English. 8vo. 14s. Herodotus, ediclit Thomas Gaisford, A.M. Gr. Ling. Prof. Reg. Editio altera. 2 vols. 8vo. ll. 4s. Herodoti Historiarum Libri IX. Latine. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Polybii Megalopolitani Historiarum quidquid superest. Edidit J. Schweighaeuseri. 5 vols. 8vo. Ql. iss. 6d. Sophoclis Tragoediae Septem, cum Annotatione tantum non Integra Brunckli et Schaeferi et aliorum selecta. 8vo. 15s. Sophoclis Antigone, Trachiniae, Ajax, Philoctetes, Oedipus Coloneus, Oedipus Tyrannus, 8vo. each 2s. fid. Sophoclis Oedipus Tyrannus, ex recensione Petri Elmsley, D.D. accedunt Scholia. 8vo. 5s. 1825. Aeschyli Prometheus Vinclus, with notes. By John Griffiths, M.A. Fellow of Wadham College. 8vo. 5s. Aeschyli Septem contra Thebas, on the same plan. 8vo. 5s. Euripidis Tragoediae, ex nova recognitione Aug. Matthiae, accedunt Notae textui Matthaeiano accommodatae, et Index Copiosus Beckii. 5 vols. 8vo. 3l. Euripidis, Tragoediae, novo editio accurata, ex recogn. Aug. Matthiae. 2 vols. 8vo. 18s. Euripidis Tragoediarum Interpretatio Latina, ex ed. Musgravii. 8vo. 12s. Notae Philologicae et Grammaticae in Euripidis Tragoediis. 2 vols. 8vo. 18s. Index accuratus et copiosus in Euripidis Tragoediis curavit C. D. Beckius. 8vo. ll. Is. 2 Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. Euripidis Supplices Mulieres cum variarum lectionum delectu, et Notis Jer. Marklandi. 8vo. 6s. Euripidis Andromache, ex editione et cum annotationibus integris Augusti Matthiae. Svo. 4s. Index in Tragicos Graecos, edidit B. W. Beatson, Coll. Pemb. Cantab. 2 vols. Svo. 2l. 2s. 1830. Ciceronis Verrinarum libri septem. Svo. 10s. 1831. Livii Historia, ex recensione Drakenborchii. Accedunt Notae Crevierii. 4 vols. Svo. ll. l6s. Hederici Lexicon Manuale Graecum, edidit C. J. Blomfield, D.D. 4to. ll. 14s. A Greek Gradus, with a Latin and English Translation. By Edward Maltby, D.D. Svo. ll. 4s. Laws of the Greek Accents. By John Griffiths, B.A. Fellow of Wadham College. Second edition, Svo. 2s. Examination Papers for Class Candidates, at the Easter and Michaelmas Terms 1831 and 1832, each Is. Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary, revised and corrected by John Carey, LL.D. 4to. 31. 10s. 1823. An Abridgment of Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary, by the same, Svo. 15s. 1829. The Theatre of the Greeks. Third Edition. Svo. 15s. Illustrations of Aristotle on Men and Manners, from the Dramatic Works of Shakespeare. By J. E. Riddle, M.A. I 'int.. 3S. Roman Antiquities, or an Account of the Manners and Customs of the Romans. By A. Adam. Svo. 9s. Plates to Adam's Roman Antiquities, (by the Rev. T. V. Short, A.M. Ch. Ch.) Svo. 5s. Artis Logicae Rudimenta, accedunt Solutio Sophismatum, in usum juventutis Academicae, ab H. Aldrich, D.D. A new and improved edition. 12mo. 2s. 6d. Reflexions on the Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Analysis. By M. Carnot. Translated by the Rev. W. R. Browell, M.A. Pemb. Coll. Svo. 5s. A Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson, LL.D. with numerous'Jcorrections and additions by the Rev. H. J. Todd, M.A. Second edition. 3 vols. 4to. ?1. 7s. 1827. Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. 3 The Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, or Universal Dictionary of Knowledge, on an original plan, comprising the twofold advantage of a Philosophical and an Alphabetical Arrange- ment. Part I XXXIX. ll. Is. each. This Work is now republishing in volumes, of which the following are published. FIRST DIVISION. Pure Sciences. Vol. I. 4to. 2l. 2s. SECOND DIVISION. Mixed Sciences. Vol. I. 4to. 3l. 3s. Vol. 2. 4to. 21. 12s. 6d. THIRD DIVISION. History and Biography, arranged chrono- logically. Vol. 1. From the Creation to B. C. 198. 4to. 2l. 2s. Vol. 2. to A. D. 167. 21. 2s. Vol. 3. From A. D. 193, to 1204. 21. 2s. FOURTH DIVISION. Miscellaneous and Lexicographical. Vol. I. IX. A. to Ozo. A complete Index to the whole work will be given in the last Volume. It is also republishing in Monthly Parts, price 7s. each. The Roman History, from the Building of Rome to the Ruin of the Commonwealth. By N. Hooke, Esq. A new edition, 6 vols. 8vo. 31. 3s. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by E. Gibbon, Esq. A new edition in 8 vols. 8vo. 31. 4s. A new edition complete in 1 vol. 8vo. ll. The History of Modern Europe; by Dr. Russell. With a Continuation to 1832. New edition, 4 vols. 8vo. 2l. 12s. The Works of William Robertson, D.D. with^his Life, by Dugald Stewart. A new edition, 8 vol. 8vo. Si. 4s. A new edition complete in one volume, 8vo. ll. The History of England, by David Hume, Esq. and T. Smollet, M.D. A new edition, in 10 vols. 8vo. 41. 15s. The Works of John Locke. 9 vols. 8vo. 3l. 12s. The Poetical Works of John Milton, with Notes, principally from Newton, Dunster, and Warton. By E. Hawkins, D.D. Provost of Oriel College. 4 vols. 8vo. 11. 12s. Joannis Miltoni Fabulae Samson Agonistes et Comus, Graece. Interpretatus est Edvardus Greswell, S.T.P. Coll. C. C. Socius. 8vo. 5s. The Life of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, Founder of All Souls College. By O. L. Spencer, Esq. Svo. 7s. The Life of William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester, Founder of New College. By Robert Lowth, D.D. Svo, 7s, 6d. 4 Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. The Life of Sir Thomas Pope, Founder of Trinity College. By T. Warton, B.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d. The Life of Alexander Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's. By Ralph Churton, M.A. late Fellow of Brasen-nose College. With plates, 8vo. ll. Is. Oxford English Prize Poems: Eighth edition, 12mo. 6s. The Greek Testament, with English Notes. By Edward Burton, D.D. Hegius Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Ch. Ch. In two volumes 8vo. ll. 4s. A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by John Parkhurst, M.A. A new edition, comprising the more valuable parts of the works of some later writers, especially Schleusner, Bretschneider, and Wahl. By H. J. Rose, B.D. of Trinity College, Cambridge, royal 8vo. ll. 11s. 6d. $fovi Testamenti Graeci Concordantiae Opera Erasmi Schmiddii. 2 vols. 8vo. 11.4s. 1819- Criseos Griesbachianae in Nov. Test. Synopsis. Edidit J. White, S.T.P. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 1811. Reliquiae Sacrae : sive Auctorum fere jam perditorum Secundi Tertiique Saeculi Fragmenta quae supersunt, edidit M. J. Routh, D.D. Magd. Coll. Praeses. 4 vols. Svo. 3l. 1814. Thesaurus Theologicus, or a complete System of Divinity. By Bishop Beveridge. 2 vols Svo. ll. 4s. Private Thoughts upon Religion and a Christian Life. By the same. Svo. 7s. Sermons preached before a Country Congregation. By the Rev. William Bishop, M.A. Second Series, containing twenty Sermons. 12mo. 5s. Village Sermons on Pastoral and Relative Duties, the Sacra- ments, &c. By the same. 2 vols. 12mo. 7s. Bishop Bull's Sermons, with his Life, by R. Nelson, Esq. A new edition. 3 vols. Svo. 18s. Lectures on the Ecclesiastical History of the three First Cen- turies. By the Rev. Edward Burton, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Ch. Ch. In two vols. Svo. ll. 2s. 6d. An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic- Age, in Eight Sermons at Bampton's Lecture. By the same. Svo. 15s. An Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles. By the same. Svo. 3s. 6d. The Power of the Keys ; or, Considerations upon the Absolving Power of the Church, Svo. 3s. The Scheme of Divine Revelation considered. By George Chandler, LL.D. Svo. 8s. PuHMcd by J. a. Parker, Oxford. T Sixth edition. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Tenth edition. 18mo. 6s. Twelfth edition. 32mo. 5s. 6d ion f scri a P octrines f Necessity and Predesti- .6,1.' ^ aM C P lcston ' D.D. Second edition. 8vo. r^f/^tj-^c-i rt * /^\ ' i /~i 11 * * *JwWKins jD.ij l rovosi of Oriel College, and PrphpnrlaiM, ^e T> i o /? o * <**iu. A i eueijuciry or rtocnc^tor ^%T OP w a Lai V c^ A which 1 |E t t ? i " U . Strate . those Articles of the Church of England JSy /Ae *we Author. The Doctrine of the Church of England upon the Efficacy of 8^o P 10s'. V 6 dlCated from ""'representation. Second ecSion Ascensk) Isaiae Vatis opusculum pseudepigraphum, &c . 8vo. Primi Ezrae Libri Versio Aethiopica. 8vo. 12s The Book of Enoch the Prophet, a New Edition. 8vo. 10s. 6d, 6 Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. Authentic Documents relative to the Preclestinarian Controversy which took place among those who were imprisoned for their adherence to the Doctrines of the Reformation by Queen Mary; published from a Manuscript in the Bodleian Library, with an introduction. 8vo. 4s. Critical Reflections upon some important misrepresentations contained in the Unitarian Version of the New Testament. 8vo. 5s. Remarks upon the Critical Principles adopted by Writers who have recommended a new Translation of the Bible. 8vo. 5s. The Scholastic Philosophy considered it its relation to Christian Theology. By Renn Dickson Hampden, M.A. late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. 13s. Prayers to be used on Visiting the Sick : including the Offices of the Church. By T. Le Mesurier, B.D. 12mo. 4s. 6d. The Holidays of the Church : or Scriptural Narratives of our Blessed Lord's Life and Ministry ; and Biographical Notices of the Apostles, Evangelists, and other Saints. By Richard Mant, D.D. Bishop of Down and Connor. 2 vols. 8vo. ll. 6s. The Book of Common Prayer, with Notes, from approved Writers. Fourth edition, 4to. ll. l6s. Sermons intended to shew a sober application of Scriptural Principles in the Realities of Life. With a Preface addressed to the Clergy. By John Miller, A.M. late Fellow of Worces- ter College. 8vo. 12s. The Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as an evidence of Christianity, in Eight Sermons at Bampton's Lecture, 1827- By H. H. Milman, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d. The Works of William Paley, D.D. with additional Sermons, and a Life of the Author. By the Rev. E. Paley, M.A. New edition, 6 vols. 8vo. 21. Us. A View of the Evidences of Christianity. By William Paley, D.D. 24mo. 4s. 8vo. 7s. Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul. 24mo. 3s. 6d. Natural Theology. 24mo. 4s. 8vo. 7s. The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. 24mo. 4s. 6d. 8vo. 8s. Parochial Sermons, preached in the West Indies. By T. Parry, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d. On Christian Sincerity. By John Penrose, M.A. of C.C.C. 12mo. 6s. Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. 7 An Essay on the Means of Discovering the Senses of Words. By J. P. Potter, M.A. Oriel Coll. 8vo. 9s. A View of our Blessed Saviour's Ministry, and the Proofs of his Divine Mission arising from thence : with other Works. By Thomas Randolph, D.D. late President of C.C.C. 2 vols. 8vo. 12s. Lectures on the Catechism of the Church of England. By T. Seeker, LL.D. 12mo. 4s. 6d. Sermons on some of the Fundamental Truths of Christianity. By Thomas Vowler Short, A.M. Student of Ch. Ch. Svo. 10s. 6d. A Sketch of the History of the Church of England to the Revolution in 1688. By T. V. Short, B.D. Student of Christ Church. 2 vols. Svo. ll. Is. Sermons and Tracts, by John Rogers, D.D. A new edition. 2 vols. Svo. 12s. The whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, D.D. With a Life of the Author, by Reg. Heber, D.D. 15 vols. Svo. 9!. The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying. By the same. Svo. 10s. A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year. By the same. 2 vols. Svo. ll. 4s. The Life of Jeremy Taylor, with a Critical Examination of his Writings. By R. Heber, D.D. Svo. 10s. 6d. An Inquiry into the General Principle of Scripture Interpretation, in Eight Sermons at Bampton's Lecture, 1814. By William Van Mildert, D.D. Bishop of Durham. Third edition. Svo. 10s. 6d. The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity asserted. By D. Waterland, D.D. Svo. 6s. A short View of the Scripture History. By I. Watts, D.D. 12mo. 3s. A Comparison of Mahometism and Christianity, in Sermons at Bampton's Lecture, 1784. By Joseph White, D.D. A new edition, Svo. 12s. Some Thoughts concerning a Proper Method of Studying Divinity. By W. Wotton, D.D. A new edition, with Notes. By Henry Cotton, D.C.L. late Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library, now Archdeacon of Cashel. Svo. 3s. Analogies of Organized Beings. ByJ. S. Duncan, D.C.L. New Coll. Svo. 5*. An Introduction to the Atomic Theory. By C. Daubeny, M.D. F.R.S. Professor of Chemistry. Svo. 6s. Sermons originally composed for a Country Congregation. By the Rev. Cornelius Ives, Rector of Bradden, and late of Exeter College. Second edition. 12mo. 6s. 8 Published by J. H. Parker, Oxford. The Curate's Memorandum Book, and Parochial Visitor's Guide. 12mo. 3s. Discourses on Prophecy, in which are considered its structure, use, and inspiration ; being the substance oj Twelve Sermons preached in (he Chapel of Lincoln s Inn, at the Lecture founded by the Right Rev. William IVarburton, Bishop of Gloucester. By John Davison, B.D. late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Third Edition, Svo. 12 s. A few copies may still be had of Considerations on the Poor Laws, by the same Author. Second Edition, Svo. 4-s. The Book of Psalms in Hebrew metrically arranged ; with selec- tions from the various readings of Kennicott and De Rossi, and from the ancient versions. By J. Rogers, M.A. Canon Resi- dentiary of Exeter Cathedral, and Rector of Mawnan. De- dicated, by permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 2 vols. 127o. l6s. The Life of Mr. Ambrose Bonwicke. To which are added, Thoughts on Christian Education, by William Beveridge, D.D. Bishop of St. Asaph. 12zo. 2*. 6d. MEMORIALS OF OXFORD, Edited by the Rev. J. INGRAM, D.D. President of Trinity College. THE ENGRAVINGS BY J. LE KEUX, from Original Drawings by F. Mackenzie. Vol. I. Octavo, 18s. Quarto, ll. Us. Quarto, with proofs on India Paper, 2l. 10s. Containing, Christ Church, Magdalene, University, Balliol, Merton, and Oriel Colleges The University Press The Churches and Parishes of St. Peter in the East, St. Mary the Virgin, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Giles. With Thirty-two Engravings on steel, and Sixty- seven on wood. BHITISH PH^ENOGAMOUS BOTANY, or figures and descriptions of The Genera of BRITISH FLOWERING PLANTS, by W. Baxter, A.L.S. F.H.S. &c. Curator of the Oxford Botanic Garden. Vol. I. Second edition. Svo. containing Eighty Plates, coloured ll. Is. plain 10s. 6d. In order to reduce the work within moderate limits, it will be confined to one species in each genus, with dis- sections shewing the essential characters, and descriptions of the Plants figured; and will be completed in six Volumes. BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES OF ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE. VOL. I. LONDON : Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, New-Street-Square. DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES OF ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE: AND ON THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND THE MODE OF REASONING EMPLOYED, BY THE OPPONENTS OF THOSE DOCTRINE AS HELD BY THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH: WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME STRICTURES ON MR. BELSHAM'S ACCOUNT OF THE UNITARIAN SCHEME, IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WILBERFORCE's TREATISE : TOGETHER WITH REMARKS ON THE VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE UNITARIANS. BY THE LATE MOST REVEREND WILLIAM MAGEE, D.D. ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. THE FIFTH EDITION, WITH NUMEROUS AND IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. I. LONDON: PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, STRAND; AND W. BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH. 1832. PREFATORY REMARKS. THERE is reason to believe, that if the life of the most reverend and learned author of this celebrated work on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice had been prolonged, he would have made im- portant additions to these volumes. But, if his lamented death prevented the public from receiving the benefit of those farther productions of his talents, it afforded a striking and impressive evidence of the deep sincerity of his conviction of the reli- gious truth which he had laboured to esta- blish in the minds and hearts of others. The late Archbishop of Dublin, the most Rev. Dr. William Magee, was distinguished, from early life, by brilliant talents and a penetrating judgment ; by a quickness of perception very rarely equalled, perhaps never exceeded ; and at the same time by an indefatigable patience and diligence of investigation. In the University of Dublin, A 3 . .** 2067373 VI of which for many years he was the great and admired ornament, those endowments raised him to the highest rank in literary eminence. The charms of his lively, in- nocent, and instructive conversation ren- dered his society delightful : and the warm sincerity of his friendship was a subject even of proverbial as well as reverential remark. He was ever ready and zealous to support genius and merit. Often was the student in his solitary labours cheered and animated by the kind visit and en- couraging conversation of Dr. Magee: often were his drooping spirits raised, his heart consoled, his hopes supported, and his course to useful eminence directed and confirmed, by him who was the most active protector of talents and merit in others, as he was himself the brightest example of both, which graced the University. Raised on account of his useful literary labours, his piety, and pre-eminent abilities, to the high station of Archbishop of Dublin, at a period of violent religious dissensions in his country, it was impossible that he should not be regarded by some zealous enemies of the Established Protestant Church with feelings tinctured by their hostility to that Vll church of which he was looked to as a pillar. And his own zeal in support of what he was deeply convinced to be true and right was so ardent, that no consideration of his per- sonal ease could induce him to remit or relax his conscientious and active exertions in his high calling. While, therefore, vio- lent political opposition was blended with the strongest theological enmity in the breasts of many of his countrymen against the Protestant Established Church, it was not to be expected that such a character as Dr. Magee, in the prominent and exalted station of Archbishop of Dublin, should not be assailed with a portion of the hos- tility which was directed against the Pro- testant church in Ireland. But, in his sense of high duty, and in his trust in his Divine Master, whom he faithfully served, he found his support. Could the public eye have traced him to his domestic retire- ment, there it would have beheld him the engaging example of all the tender family affections. And it is not only consoling to his dearest relatives and friends, but edi- fying to the public, that the death of the author of the great work on the Atonement was that of a most devoted believer in the Vlll Christian truth, which he had there so powerfully vindicated; and that in that trying time, while he showed this firm con- viction of his mind, he exhibited all those graces of the dying Christian, which mani- fest the " faith of heart." The writer of these few remarks feels a melancholy gratification in paying this just tribute to the revered memory of the kindest and best of friends. A. H. K. The following Dedication of the Work was ad- dressed to the present Lord High Chancellor of Ireland. 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 the 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 affec- tion. 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 honour- able circumstances 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 reli- gion, 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 approbation, it will not find an unfavourable reception from the public. I am, my dear Sir, With the truest attachment, Your affectionate Friend and Servant, THE AUTHOR. Trinity College, Dublin, Sept. 21. 1809. 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 deli- berate examination. In these latter days Christianity seems des- tined to undergo a fiercer trial, than it has for many centuries experienced. Its defenders are called upon, not merely to resist the avowed in- vader, who assails the citadel from without, but the concealed and treacherous foe, who under- mines the works, or tampers with the garrison within. The temporising Christian, who, under the mask of liberality, surrenders the funda- mental 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 Xll dreaded, than the declared and systematic Deist. The open attacks of the one, directed against the Evidences of Christianity, have but served to strengthen the great outworks of our faith, by calling to its aid the united powers of its adher- ents ; whilst the machinations of the others, se- cretly 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 sophistries, 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 are pecu- liarly adapted to captivate the imaginations of young and ardent minds. Against arts and ene- mies 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 Jiery darts of the wicked : and taking the hel- met of jsalvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is THE WORD OF GOD. These are the Xlll arms which are to ensure us victory in the con- test: 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 in- stantly 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 him is against 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 effec- tual support to the enemies of Christianity. These reflections, though befitting all who pro- fess 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 import- ant beyond description ; and, if allowed their due weight upon your minds, they cannot fail to stimulate to the most zealous and effectual exer- tions in your pursuit of sacred knowledge. Al- ready, indeed, has a more enlivened spirit of religious inquiry been manifested amongst you. To promote that spirit, and to supply some addi- XIV tional security against the'pre vailing delusions of the day, these Discourses on the doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, doctrines, against which, above all others, the Deist and the Ra- tionalising 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 un- avoidably suspended during a considerable por- tion 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 sup- plementary remarks : 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 XV 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 im- patience of investigation, and that confidence of decision upon hasty and partial views, which mark the literary character of an age, unde- servedly extolled for its improvements in rea- soning and philosophy. A false taste in morals is naturally connected with a false taste in liter- ature : 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 ex- pedient 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 pur- pose 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 information. Such a plan, I have little doubt, will be favourably received by those whose XVI 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 know- ledge, have been but too successful in obtaining for them a partial and temporary ascendency in public opinion ; and who have employed the in- fluence 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 Illustra- tions and Explanatory Dissertations accompany- ing these Discourses^ to convince you of the emptiness of their claims to that superiority, which, did they possess it, would be applied to purposes so injurious. You will, probably, see sufficient reason to pronounce, that their pre- tensions to philosophic distinction, and their claims to critical pre-eminence, stand on no better grounds than their assumption of the ex- clusive profession of a pure Christianity. The confident and overbearing language of such men you will then regard as you ought : and, xvu from the review of their reasonings, and the detail of their religious opinions, you will na- turally be led to feel the full value of the duly regulated discipline of the youthful understand- ing, 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 mul- tiplied 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 intro- ducing a system of more immediate practical utility, to exclude that wholesome discipline, and regular institution, which are essential to con- duct the faculties of the young mind to sound and manly strength. I cannot conclude this prefatory address, with- out indulging in the gratifying reflection, that, whilst the deceptions of wit and the fascinations of eloquence, combined with a wily sophistry and an imposing confidence, have but too fre- quently 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 VOL. i. a xvm 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 pro- fitably rewarded the zealous labours of your instructers 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. APRIL 22. 1801. ADVERTISEMENT SECOND EDITION. IT is now nearly seven years since application was made to the Author, by his Bookseller, for a new Edition of the DISCOURSES ON THE SCRIP- TURAL DOCTRINES OF ATONEMENT AND SACRI- FICE. As it was his design to introduce into the work considerable alterations in point of form, and considerable additions in point of matter, he deferred complying with the Bookseller's desire, until he should be able to accomplish this in- tention. The same impediments, to which, in the PREFATORY ADDRESS TO THE STUDENTS, he had occasion formerly to advert, again operated to produce delay, and have occasioned this late appearance of the promised publication. The work which now issues from the press was, he is almost ashamed to avow, committed to it in June, 1807. It is only to those, however, who are unacquainted with the nature of the Author's academic occupations, that he feels any explan- ation to be necessary upon this head. SEPT. 21. 1809. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION. IN the Edition now given to the public, addi- tional matter, which, it is hoped, may bestow some additional value, has been introduced; and a few changes, (conceived to be improve- ments) in form and arrangement, have been adopted. The principal additions will be found in Numbers VII. VIII. XII. XIV. XVII. XXVII. XXX. XLI. XLII. LIII. LXV. LXIX. and its Postscript ; and in the last forty pages of the Appendix. The Index of Matters, and List of Books, are likewise enlarged : and a new Index of Texts is introduced. The alter- ations of arrangement chiefly affect Numbers XXXV. LIX. LXlX. The Syriac quotations are printed in their proper character; which could not be done in the former Editions, from the want of a Syriac type. It should be re- marked also, for the better understanding of certain parts of the work, especially the notes in page 160. and page 479. of the first volume, that the Edition was sent to press early in the year 1810 ; although, from unavoidable delays, it only now makes its appearance. JANUARY 1. 1812. a 3 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FOURTH EDITION. IT was not the Author's intention, on putting this Edition to press, to add so much to the di- mensions of a work already considerably en- larged. But the extraordinary and increasing exertions of that Body, against whose pernicious errors it is principally directed, have forced upon him what has exceeded his original design : and that which was at first calculated upon as likely to form little more than a pamphlet, has unavoid- ably grown into a volume. JUNE 1. 1816. CONTENTS. VOL. I. PREFATORY REMARKS, respecting the Author Page v DEDICATION ix PREFATORY ADDRESS to the Students in Divinity, in the University of Dublin xi ADVERTISEMENT to the Second Edition xix ADVERTISEMENT to the Third Edition xxi ADVERTISEMENT to the Fourth Edition xxiii DISCOURSE I On the Scriptural doctrine of ATONEMENT 1 DISCOURSE II On the Scriptural doctrine of SACRIFICE 41 ILLUSTRATIONS and EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS. No. I. On the PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, and the species of arguments by which this article of the Christian Doctrine has been opposed 69 No. II. Unitarian objections to the religious observ- ance of stated days 88 No. III. On the importance of the doctrine of RE- DEMPTION 90 No. IV. Pardon not necessarily consequent upon Re- pentance 92 No. V. The sense entertained by mankind of the na- tural inefficacy of Repentance, proved from the history of HUMAN SACRIFICES 96 No. VI. On the multiplied operation of the Divine acts 1 28 No. VII. Deistical reasoning instanced in CHUBB 129 No. VIII. On the consistency of Prayer with the Di- vine immutability , 134 No. IX. On the granting of the Divine forgiveness through a Mediator or Intercessor 139 No. X. On UNITARIANS, or Rational Dissenters 146 XXVI CONTENTS. No. XI. On the distinction between UNITARIANS and SOCINIANS Page 148 No. XII. On the corruption of man's natural state ... 152 No. XIII. On the misrepresentation of the doctrine of Atonementby Unitarians 168 No. XIV. On the disrespect of Scripture manifested by Unitarian Writers 170 No. XV. On the Heathen notions of merit entertained by Unitarians 175 No. XVI. On Dr. JOHN TAYLOR'S scheme of Atone- ment 177 No. XVII. The doctrine of Atonement falsely charged with the presumption of pronouncing on the neces- sity of Christ's death 185 No. XVIII. On the mode of reasoning, whereby the sufficiency of good works without mediation is at- tempted to be defended from Scripture 191 No. XIX. The want of a discoverable connexion be- tween the means and the end, equally applies to every Scheme of Atoneinent 196 No. XX. On the Scripture phrase of our being recon- ciled to God 199 No. XXI. On the true distinction between the laying aside our enmity to God, and being reconciled to God 203 No. XXII. On the proofs from Scripture, that the Sinner is the object of the Divine displeasure 201- No. XXIII. Instance from the book of Job, of Sacri- fice being prescribed, to avert God's Anger 208 No. XXIV. On the Attribute of the DIVINE JUSTICE 210 No. XXV. On the text in John, describing our Lord as the Laml> of God, which taketh away the sins of the world 212 No. XXVI. On the meaning of the word PROPITI- ATION in the New Testament 216 No. XXVII. On the texts describing Christ's death as a SACRIFICE FOR SIN 218 No. XXVIII. On the word KATAAAAFH translated as Atonement in Kom. v. 11 238 CONTENTS. XXVli No. XXIX. On the Denial that Christ's death is de- scribed in Scripture as a SIN-OFFERING Page 240 No. XXX. On the sense in which Christ is said in Scripture to have DIED FOR us 242 No. XXXI. On the pretence of FIGURATIVE ALLU- SION in the Sacrificial terms of the New Testament 247 No. XXXII. Arguments to prove the sacrificial lan- guage of the New Testament figurative, urged by H. TAYLOR and DR. PRIESTLEY 251 No. XXXIII. On the sense entertained generally by all, and more especially instanced amongst the Jews, of the NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPI- ATION 251 No. XXXIV. On H. Taylor's objection, of the want of a literal correspondence between the MOSAIC SACRIFICE and the DEATH of CHRIST 286 No. XXXV. On the arguments by which it is at- tempted to prove the PASSOVER NOT TO BE A SA- CRIFICE 290 No. XXXVI. On the meaning of the word translated ATONEMENT, in the OLD TESTAMENT 314 No. XXXVII. On the efficacy of the MOSAIC ATONE- MENT, as applied to cases of MORAL TRANSGRES- SION 326 No. XXXVIII. On the VICARIOUS IMPORT of the Mosaic sacrifices 344 No. XXXIX. On the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim 358 No. XL. On the sufficiency of tJie proof of the PRO- PITIATORY NATURE OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, independent of the argument which establishes their vicarious import 369 No. XLI. On the divine institution of sacrifice, and the traces thereof discoverable in the heathen corruptions of the rite 370 No. XLII. On the Death of Christ, as a TRUE PROPI- TIATORY SACRIFICE for the sins of mankind 385 XXV1I1 CONTENTS. No. XLIII. On the inconsistency of the reasoning whereby the death of Christ is maintained to have been BUT FIGURATIVELY a sacrifice Page 471 No. XLIV. On the nature of the SACRIFICE FOR SIN 472 No. XLV. On the effect of the doctrine of Atonement, in producing sentiments favourable to Virtue and Religion 473 No. XL VI. On the supposition that sacrifice origin- ated in PRIESTCRAFT 477 No. XL VII. On the supposition that the Mosaic sacri- fices originated in HUMAN INVENTION 478 No. XL VIII. Sacrifices explained as GIFTS by various writers ... .. 493 VOL. II. No. XLIX. Sacrifices explained as FEDERAL RITES ... 1 No. L. BISHOP WARBURTON'S Theory of the Origin of Sacrifice 8 No. LI. The supposition that sacrifices originated in GIFTS erroneous 9 No. LII. On the date of the permission of ANIMAL FOOD to man 11 No. LIII. On the DIVINE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE 24 No. LIV. On the natural unreasonableness of the Sa- crificial rite 47 No. LV. On the universality of Sacrifice 48 No. LVI. On the universality of the notion of the EXPIATORY VIRTUE of Sacrifice 51 No. LVII. On the objections against the supposition Of the DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE 53 No. LVIII. On the SACRIFICE OF ABEL as evincing the divine institution of Sacrifice 64 No. LIX. On the history and the book of JOB 67 No. LX. On Grotius's strange misconception of the nature of Abels sacrifice , 173 No. LXI. On the difference in the divine reception of the sacrifices of CAIN and ABEL 178 CONTENTS. No. LXII. On the true meaning of the phrase, nAEl- ONA 0TEIAN attributed to the Sacrifice of Abel, Page 183 No. LXIII. On the nature and grounds of the FAITH evidenced by the Sacrifice of Abel 193 No. LXIV. On the probable TIME AND OCCASION of the institution of Sacrifice 198 No. LXV. On the true interpretation of the passage GEN. iv. ?., containing God' s expostulation with Cain 203 No. LXVI. On the comparison between the sacrifice of ABEL and that of CHRIST 219 No. LXVII. On the nature of SACRIFICE BEFORE THE LAW : tending to show its confinement to animal sacrifice, except in the case of Cain 220 No. LXVIII. On the DISPROPORTION between the ef- fects of the Mosaic and the Christian Sacrifices... 223 No. LXIX. On the CORRESPONDENCE between the sa- crificial 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 231 Postscript to Number LXIX. : on BOLINGBROKE and HUME 265 No. LXX. On the CORRESPONDENCE between the An- nual Expiation under the Law, and the One Great Expiation under the Gospel 306 No. LXXI. On the nature and import of the ceremony of the SCAPE GOAT 308 No. LXXII. 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 311 No. LXXIII. The Atonement by the sacrifice of Christ more strictly vicarious, than that by the Mosaic sa- crifices whereby it was typified... 342 No. LXXIV. CONCLUDING NUMBER 343 APPENDIX, containing an account of the UNITARIAN SCHEME, as described by Mr. BELSH AM 347 On the Unitarian Version of the New Testament 417 XXX CONTENTS. VOL. III. Supplement to the Remarks on the Unitarian Version Page 1 INDEX of the Principal Matters 353 INDEX of Texts 383 LIST OF BOOKS 398 TWO DISCOURSES ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES OF ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE; DELIVERED IN THE CHAPEL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, o* GOOD FRIDAY, IN THE YEARS 1798 AND 1799. DISCOURSE I. 1 COR. i. 23, 24. " But we preach CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are called CHRIST the power of GOD, and the wisdom of GOD." THAT the sublime mystery of the Redemption should have escaped the comprehension both of the Jew, and of the Greek ; that a crucified Sa- viour should have given offence to the worldly expectant of a triumphant Messiah, whilst the proud philosopher of the schools turned with dis- dain from the humiliating doctrine which pro- claimed the insufficiency 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 de- scended from heaven j that he had disrobed him- VOL. I. B self a of the Glory which he had with the Father, before the world began ; 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 suffering, a way of reconciliation with the Supreme 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 insurmount- able 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 knowledge, do we not find these fundamental truths of Revela- tion 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 human science, the con- nexion 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 * No. I. 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 understanding 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 more b particularly to re- collect 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 c doctrine 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 acceptance 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 undermine. In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly deserving of the closest examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors : those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever ; and those who question the particular b No. II. c NO. III. nature of that mediation which has been ap- pointed. Whilst the Deist, on the one hand, ridicules the very notion of a Mediator ; and the philosophising Christian, on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis ; we are called on to vindi- cate 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 misrepresentations of its false, or mistaken friends. The objections which are peculiar to the for- mer are, upon this subject, of the same descrip- tion with those which they advance against every other part of Revelation ; bearing with equal force against the system of Natural Religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of Revealed Re- ligion, 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 unbiassed 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 disobedience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow, by na- tural consequence, that, when men have trans.- gressed 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, by intemperance, and voluptuousness, has injured 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 determining 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 cannot 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 re- quire that punishment should not be inflicted, when repentance has taken place ; it must be a violation of those attributes, to permit any pun- ishment 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 constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution, itself, the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as much the appointment of its Almighty Framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate di- rection ? 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 cir- cumstances might be urged, on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. 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 con- sequence of repentance here : can he adduce a counter-experience to show that it will be so hereafter ? The justice and goodness of God are not then necessarily concerned, in virtue of the sinner's repentance, to remove all evil consequent upon sin in the next life ; or else the arrange- ment of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictate of justice and goodness. If the Deist admits the latter, what becomes of his Natural Religion? Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the de- ductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repent- ance release us from the punishment of former transgressions ? d Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or, can we do more by present obe- " No. IV. dience, than acquit ourselves of present obliga- tion? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, con- j stittite a surplusage of merit, which may be trans- ferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the Philosopher, who is too enlightened 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 obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions." And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny the pos- sible efficacy of Christ's mediation; since the ground, on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former: the ne- cessary connexion between the merits of one being and the acquittal of another not being less conceivable than that which is imagined to sub- sist between obedience at one time, and the for- giveness of disobedience at another. Since, then, upon the whole, experience (so far as it extends) goes to prove the natural in- efficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions ; and the abstract reason of the thing can furnish no link, whereby to con- nect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins ; it follows, that, however the contemplation of God's infinite goodness and love might excite B 4. some faint hope that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent, the animating cer- tainty of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone* 6 But it is yet urged by those who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason, that* admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention j and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been superfluous for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin ; when this might have been effected, in a way infinitely more simple, and intelligible^ and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment. To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he can best conduct 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 de- mand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sustenance of life depending on the tedious process of human labour and con- trivance, in rearing from a small seed, and con- No. V. 9 ducting to the 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 rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness ? On grounds such as these, the Philosopher (as he wishes to be called) 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 the whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by in- dependent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which he employs, in the ordinary works of his providence, are not physically ne- cessary to his operations. He might have acted without them if he pleased. He might, for instance, have created all men, without the in- I tervention of parents : but where then had been the beneficial connexion between parents and children ; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society, from such connexion ? The difficulty lies here : the uses, arising from the con- nexions 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 purposes. Of these several purposes we are, for the most 10 part, ignorant : and from this ignorance are de- rived most of our weak objections against the ways of his providence ; whilst we foolishly pre- sume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in view/ This observation we shall find of material use, in our examination of the remaining arguments adduced by the Deist, on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that, by which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with the divine immutability. It is either, he affirms, 5 agreeable to the will of God, to grant salvation on repentance, 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 ad- mit 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 accomplished, whether we pray or not ; and, therefore, our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have the power of altering his will. And, indeed, with equal con- clusiveness 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, VI. , g No. VII. b No. VIII. 11 The error in all these conclusions is the same. It consists in mistaking a conditional for an ab- solute decree, and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the intermediate steps whereby that end is to be ac- complished. Whereas the manner is sometimes as necessary as the act proposed : so that if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation abundant illustration may be derived as well from natural, as from revealed religion. " Thus, we know, from natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be re- lieved : and yet we see the destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fellow-men j and if not re- lieved by them, they are not relieved at all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, \ve find that God was willing he should be healed of his leprosy ; but yet he was not will- ing that it should be done, except in one particu- lar 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 12 the whole kingdom of Syria the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was per- formed." And, in like manner, though God willed that the penitent sinner should receive forgive- ness, 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. 1 Although, in the present stage of the subject, 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/ in the sister country, 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; byhisdeath, 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 Christianity. It furnishes a purer < No. IX, * No. X. 13 morality, and a more operative enforcement : its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature ; and its enforcement more operative, as founded on a certainty of a state of retribution. 1 And is, then, Christianity 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 Author of our Religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross ; if, after having given to mankind a law which leaves them less excusable in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts. It is said, indeed, that, as by this new dispens- ation the certainty of pardon, on repentance, has been made known, mankind has been informed of all that is essential in the doctrine of media- tion. 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 repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his amendment ? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm, to i No. XI. rouse, the sinner from the apathy of habitual trans- gression? What was there to make that impres- sion which the nature of God's moral govern- ment 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 history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continued 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 unrighte- ousness, fornication, wickedness, 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 un- derstanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit 15 such things are worthy of death, not only do the same t but have pleasure in them that do them, f 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 con- cerned. And have we not, then, had full ex- periment of our natural powers ? m And shall we yet have the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits, and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us through the mediation of Christ ? No : lost as men were, at the time when Christ appeared, to all sense of true Religion ; lost as they must be to it, at all times, when left to a proud con- fidence 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 counteraction to the violent impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have infected the whole human race ? Besides, without 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- f Rom. i. 29, 30, 31, 32. > No. XII. 16 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 forgiveness on repentance, could not answer the purpose. Merely to know the condition could avail nothing. An inducement, of sufficient force to ensure its fulfilment, was essential. The system of suffi- ciency 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 expedient could have been devised more suitable, than that which has been adopted? the sacrifice 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 ; a 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 Scripture, 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 pretending Christian, who, rationalising away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer, No. XIII. 17 to urge the declarations 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 unassail- able on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself j 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, 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 be wished, that the doctrines of Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture itself; and that pre- conceived 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 thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings 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 o No. XIV. VOL. I. C 18 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 meaning, to this pre- determination 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 evidence 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 fa- vour 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, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal ; and that, 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, claiming, as a debt, the reward of our good works p ; a sort p No. XV. 19 of contracting party with the Almighty, contri- buting nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is necessarily at war with Virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced? Does not every page of Revelation peremptorily pronounce this ? And yet, shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself ? God forbid ! If our pride of understanding, and self- sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of Revelation ; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that the wisdom of man is but foolishness with God, we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity. These observations, though they apply, in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational, are yet, in a certain degree, applicable to the description of Chris- tians, 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 word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense j and that the whole doctrine of the c 2 20 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 doc- trines of the Gospel, having passed a life of exemplary virtue, having endured many suffer- ings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience j and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state ; has, not only, by his example, proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation ; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon, and final happiness, upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repentance?" q That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator : the mediation is conducted through intercession : and that intercession is successful, in recompense 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 atonementy we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend q No. XVI. 21 against the idea of Redemption at large j and the Deist, against that of Revelation 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 one, 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 attempted 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 rbr opening 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 objections we have now to consider, is that which repre- sents the doctrine of atonement as founded on the divine implacability inasmuch as it sup- poses, that, tp 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. r Were ' No. XVII. c 3 this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atone- ment, 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 rea- soning 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 suf- fered, and interceded, we could not have been forgiven ? 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 exactly pa- rallel, and the objection of implacability 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, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word intercession be changed for sacri- fice, and see whether 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. 23 And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacri- fice 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 * 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 t ; and again we are told, that we are redeemed with the pre- cious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot who verily was fore- ordained before the foundation of the world $ and again, that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since, then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure intercession, merely as the means whereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures ; and since, by the same sort of representation, 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 ob- * John, iii. 16. f 1 John, iv. 10. t 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, 20. $ Revel, xiii. a C 4 j actions against the other. For it is on the ground of the expression of God's unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scrip- ture, and of his several declarations that he forgave ihemfreely, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament.* 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 connected with the for- giveness of sins : it is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium through which my sal- vation is 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 comprehension." But now let us try the doctrine of pure inter- cession by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being be conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another ? Let us likewise inquire, how the meri- torious obedience of one Being can be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the transgressions of another ' : or whether the prayer No. XVIII. t NO. XIX. of a righteous being in behalf of a wicked person can be imagined to have more weight in obtain- ing forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness ? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the in- tercession, has, so far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the other, is, that it has been ap- pointed as the means by which God has deter- mined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator ; and, if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure Deism, and, perhaps, may not stop even there. Thus we have seen, to what the general objec- tions against the doctrine of atonement amount. The charges of divine implacability, and of ineffi- cacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine which it is attempted to substitute in its room. We come now to the objections which are drawn from the immediate language of Scripture, in those passages in which the nature of our re- demption is described. And first, itis asserted, that it is nowhere said in Scripture, that God is recon- ciled to us by Christ's Death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled to God. v Now, in v No. XX. this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon our obedience, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement : we see that reluc- tance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the principle of Redemption by the sacri- fice of Christ is openlyat war; and, consequently, we see the essential difference 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 re- turn to the objection that has been made : it very fortunately 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. Ifthou 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 offer thy gift. * Now, from this plain instance, in which the person offending is expressly described as the party to be reconciled to him who had been offended, by agreeing to his terms of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him, it manifestly appears 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 showing that there was no displeasure on the part of God, which it was necessary by * Matt. v. 23, 24. 27 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 (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken), but the turning away his displeasure, whereby we are en- abled 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 be remembered, is not, like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion ; but a judicial disapproba- tion : 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 with- held from admitting any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they at- tended but a little to the plain language of Scrip- ture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of God against the disobedient spoken of in almost every page.* They would have found also a case, which is exactly in point to the main argument w No. XXI. * No. XXII. 28 before us ; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but, the turning away of his displeasure 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 tJie friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right * ; and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger. y But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a Being of infinite love. True j 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 2 , they seem to forget that it is no less the language of Scripture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own nar- row views, which compel us to consider the attri- butes of the Supreme Being as so many distinct qualities; when we should conceive of them as in- separably blended together, and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best. As to God's displeasure againt 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 * Job xlii. 7. y No. XXIII. * No. XXIV. 29 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* of God, which taketh away the sins of the world * ; when we are told, that Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God\ ; and that he needed not, like the High Priests under the law, to offer up sacrifice daily, Jirst for his own sins, and then for the people's ; for that this he did once, when he offered up himself *t ; when he is expressly as- serted to be the propitiation for our sins \\ ; and God is said to have loved us, and to have sent his Son to be tlie propitiation* 3 for our sins / when Isaiah^]" describes his soul as made an offering for sin" ; when it is said that God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all * * ; and that by him we have received the d atonement 1 1 ; 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 ; * John, i. 29. f Ephes. v. 2. | Hebr. vii. 27. || 1 John, ii. 2. $ 1 John, iv. 10. ^ liii. 10. ** Rom. viii. 32. f f Rom. v. 11. a No. XXV. b No. XXVI. c No. XXVII. i No. XXVIII. so when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of the nature of a sin offering ; which was a spe- cies of c sacrifice " prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the of- fending person was considered as if he had never sinned : " it may well appear surprising 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 f ; and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacrifices 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 8 , it is contended, h lst, That the death of Christ did not correspond literally, and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic Sacrifice : 2dly, That being, in different places, compared to dif- ferent 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 propiti- ation or expiation of sin, under the Mosaic dis- e No. XXIX. f No. XXX. * No. XXXI. i' No. XXXII. 31 pensation at all ; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin. 1 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 sa- crifice." But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in expiation, be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those who mean to cavil, not to dis- cover truth. Again, as to the second argument, which, from the comparison of Christ's death to the dif- ferent kinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow that it was of the nature of all. Resembling that of the l Passover, inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage ; partaking the nature of the Sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression ; and simi- lar to the institution of the Scape Goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all ; may we not reason- ably suppose that this one great sacrifice con- No. XXXIII. k No. XXXIV. i No. XXXV. tained the full import and completion of the whole sacrificial system ; and that so far from being spoken of in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the Law, they were on the con- trary, as the apostle expressly tells us *, 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 figura- tive application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, that the striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the Law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers j since they must have been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error in that which con- stitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people whose religion was entirely 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. 1 " Now, that certain offerings * Hebr. x. 1. * No. XXXVI. - ' 33 under this denomination related to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremo- nial worship, must undoubtedly be 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, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases, even of the " moral law, will ap- pear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus, we find it decreed, that if a soul sin, and commit 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 neigh- bour but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto tJie Lord, a ram without blemish out of the Jlock ; and the Priest shall make an ATONEMENT for him before the Lord, and it shall be FOR- GIVEN HIM.* And again, in a case of criminal connexion 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 n No. XXXVII. * Levit. vi. 27. VOL. I. D done shall be FORGIVEN him. * And in the case of all offences which fell not under the descrip- tion of presumptuous, it is manifest, from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed was appointed as the means whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender. Again, as to the vicarious import of the Mo- saic sacrifice, or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had de- served ; 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 9 of the burnt offering, and it shall be ACCEPTED FOR him, to make atonement for )um^ \ but the ceremony of the Scape-Goat on the day of expiation appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, however, as not being necessary" 1 to my argument, I shall not at present enlarge. That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and pro- per sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no suf- ficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians', in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its univer- sal prevalence in the Heathen world, though cor- * Levit. xix. 2022. No. XXXVIII. P No. XXXIX. f Levit. i. 4. i No. XL. r No. LIX. 35 rupted and disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to doubt.* But, be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed through- out the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument, then, which, from the non-existence 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. 1 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 ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what principle do they deny the former, 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 benevolent, than he is in his own nature ; and, consequently, can have no power to avert from the offender the punish- ment of his transgression. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the expiation of sin must be impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the lan- guage 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 * No. XLI. t NO. XLII. 36 away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the Old/ Setting out with a preconceived, erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest con- tradiction, they hold themselves justified in re- jecting every acceptation of Scripture which supports it. But, had they more accurately ex- amined the true import of the term in Scripture use, they would have perceived no such contra- diction, nor would they have fbund themselves compelled to refine away, by strained and unna- tural interpretations, the clear and obvious mean- ing of the sacred text. They would have seen that a sacrifice for sin, in Scripture language, im- plies solely this, "a sacrifice wisely and gra- ciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender." ' To ask why God should have ap- pointed this particular mode, or in what way it can avert the punishment 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 a subject of inquiry. But, even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be consi- T No. XLIII. w No. XLIV. 37 dered as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God's justice: and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner ; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilf, and a hearty desire of obtaining pardon : and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his trans- gression. This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Tes- tament. Now, is there any thing in this de- grading to the honour of God, or, in the smallest degree, inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason ? And, in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of man- kind, that may not, in a certain degree, be em- braced by our natural notions ? For, according to the explanation just given, is it not a declar- ation to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins ; and of the proportionate mercy and com- passion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attri- butes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacrifice j that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received D 3 38 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 de- termination, with an humble faith in the suffi- ciency 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 begotten Son, it is not for us to inquire ; nor does it in any degree concern us to know. 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. There- fore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor j 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 fa- vour and grace. And thus the Scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ includes every advan- tage, which the advocates for the pure interces- sion seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains 39 the great advantage * 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 its 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 Scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this Evan- gelic quality, more or less, to prevail : we find a fondness for the opinion of man's own suffi- ciency, and an unwillingness to submit, with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of Revelation. 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 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,owr redemption has been effected ; if it has appeared, that Christ is declared to have effected that redemption, by the sacrifice 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 ap- peared, that the expression has been applied to Christ, in the plain and literal sense of the * No. XLV. D 4 40 word, as the propitiation of an offended God ; I trust we are sufficiently fortified against the Deist, who denies the DIVINE MISSION ; against the Socinian, who denies the REDEEMING ME- DIATION ; 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. 41 DISCOURSE II. HEBR< ix. 22, And without shedding of blood is no Remission. 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 Re- demption from those difficulties in which it had been artfully entangled by the subtle speculations of the disputatious Deist, and of the philoso- phising 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 Providential economy: the Mediatorial scheme was shown to have been accomplished, through the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God ; and this sacrifice to have been effective to the expiation of the sins of the whole human race. What the peculiar nature, and true import, of this sacrifice are, and in what sense the expiation 42 effected by it is strictly to be understood, it is my purpose on this day to inquire. And as, on the one hand, there is no article of Christian know- ledge of deeper concern, and, on the other, none that has been more studiously involved in ob- scurity, I trust that you, my young Brethren, will not refuse your patient attention, whilst I endeavour to unfold to your apprehension the genuine, because the Scriptural, interpretation of that great Sacrifice, whereby we are redeemed from the power of sin, and have received the promise of an eternal inheritance. In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error de- serves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christ, has been first examined ; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ's sacrifice has been derived: whereas, in fact, by this, all former sacrifices are to be inter- preted ; and in reference to it only, can they be understood. From an error so fundamental, it is notwonderful that the greatest perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in general, and that they should ultimately fall, with cumulative confusion, on the nature of that par- ticular sacrifice, to the investigation of which fan- ciful and mistaken theories had been assumed as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early and universal practice of sa- crifice to an irrational and superstitious fear of an 43 imagined sanguinary divinity, and have been led, in defiance of the express language of Revelation, to reject and ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness of * superstition ; others, not equally destitute of reverence for the sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal disrespect, have yet ascrib- ed its origin to human z invention ; and have thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the Jewish sacrifices, as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice ; and, con- sequently, to admit even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human excogitation. Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various. In one, sacrifices are re- presented in the light of gifts a , intended to soothe and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are found to conciliate the favour of men : in another, they are considered as federal rites b , a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were, at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of friendship with him, by re- pentance and confession of sins : in a third, they are described as but symbolical actions, or a more expressive language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are eucharistical ; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of, and contrition for sin, strongly expressed by the death ' No. XLVI. - No. XL VII. No. XLVIII. b NO. XLIX. 44 of the animal, representing that death, which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.' To these different hypotheses, which, in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names of Spencer, Sykes t and Warburton, it may generally be replied, that the fact of Abel's sa- crifice seems inconsistent with them all : with the first, inasmuch as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on which alone ex- perience of the effects d of gifts upon men could have been founded : with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages prior to that period, at which, both the words of Scripture, and the opi- nions of the wisest commentators, have fixed the permission 6 of animal food to man : with the third, inasmuch as the language, which Scripture ex- pressly states to have been derived to our first pa- rents from divine f instruction, cannot be supposed so defective in those terms that related to the wor- ship of God, as to have rendered it necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the sentiment of gratitude or sorrow ; and still less likely is it, that he would have resorted to that species of action, which, in the eye of reason, must have appeared displeasing to God,- the slaughter of an unoffending animal. 8 To urge these topics of objection in their full force against the several theories which have been e No. L. d No. LI. No. LII. f No. LIII. No. LIV. 45 mentioned, would lead to a discussion far ex- ceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the general idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the universality h of the practice ; the sameness ' of the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations anH ages the most remote ; and the unreasonableness of supposing any natural connexion between the slaying of an animal and the receiving pardon for the violation of God's laws ; all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as both the ge- neral idea, and the particular theories which have endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice, have been caused by a depar- ture from the true and only source of knowledge, let us return to that sacred fountain ; and, whilst we endeavour to establish the genuine Scripture notion of sacrifice, at the same time provide the best refutation of every other. It requires but little acquaintance with Scrip- ture to know, that the lesson which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience had fallen under the displeasure of his Maker ; that to be reconciled to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a Re- deemer was appointed ; and that this Redeemer laid down his life, to procure for repentant sin- ners forgiveness and acceptance. This surrender No. LV. No. LVI. 4G of life has been called by the sacred writers, a sacrifice ; and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such as have been de- sirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system it has been a favourite object to repre- sent this sacrifice as entirely figurative, k founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices of the law ; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers as a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect but as types or shadows, is evident from various pas- sages of Holy Writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews ; in which it is ex- pressly said, that the law, having a shadow of good things to come, can never with those sa- crifices, which they offered year by year con- tinually, make the comers thereunto perfect : but this man, after he had offered one sa- crifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.* And again, when the writer of this epistle speaks of the High Priest entering into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the sacrifice, he asserts, that this was a figure for the time tJien present, in which were of- fered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect ; but Christ being come, an High Priest of good things to come; not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered once " Nos. XXXI. and XLIII. * Hebr. x. 1. 12. 47 into the hoty place, hating obtained eternal re- demption for us ; for, he adds, if the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the Jlesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- science from dead works to serve the living God ? * It must be unnecessary to detail more of the numerous passages, which go to prove that the sacrifice of Christ was a true and ef- fective sacrifice, whilst those of the Law were but faint representations, and inadequate copies, intended for its introduction. Now, if the sacrifices of the Law appear to have been but preparations for this one great Sacrifice, we are naturally led to consider, whether the same may not be asserted of sacrifice from the beginning; and whether we are not war- ranted by Scripture in pronouncing the entire rite to have been ordained by God, as a type of that ONE SACRIFICE, in which all others were to have their consummation. That the institution was of divine * ordinance may, in the first instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of m Abel j again, in that of Noah ; afterwards, in that of Abraham j and also from the systematic esta- blishment of it, by the same divine authority, * Hebr. ix. 914. > No. LVII. m No.LVIII. 4.8 in the dispensation of Moses. And, whether we consider the Book of n Job as the production of Moses ; or of that pious worshipper of the true God, among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears ; or of some other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the materials left by Job himself; the repre- sentation there made of God as prescribing sacrifice to the friends of Job, in every suppo- sition, exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon this question. These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary hypothesis to which I have already alluded, might, perhaps, be sufficient to satisfy an in- quiring and candid mind, that sacrifice must have had its origin in DIVINE INSTITUTION. But if, in addition, this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected with the sacrifice of Christ, confessedly of divine appointment, little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us, then, examine, more particularly, the circumstances of the first sacrifice offered up by Abel. It is clear from the words of Scripture, that both Cain and Abel made oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwithstanding the well known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commen- No. LIX. 49 tator*, that Abel's was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear that Abel's was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now, what could have occasioned the distinction? The acknowledg- ment of the Supreme Being, and of his universal dominion, was no less strong in the offering of the fruits of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the flock by Abel ; the intrinsic ef- ficacy of the gift must have been the same in each, each giving of the best that he possessed : the expression of gratitude was equally significant and forcible in both. How then is the differ- ence 1 ' to be explained ? If we look to the writer to the Hebrews, he informs us that the ground, on which Abel's oblation was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his in faith ; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opinion of this writer, the animal sacrifice. The words are remarkable By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacri- fice than Cain, by 'which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. * The words here translated, a more ex- cellent sacrifice, are in an early version rendered a much more sacrifice, q which phrase, though un- couth in form, adequately conveys the original. The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that, which was much more of the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by Cain. No. LX. P No. LXI. * Hebr. xi. 4. 1 No. LXII. VOL. I. E $0 Abel, consequently, was directed by faith ; and this faith was manifested in the nature of his offer- ing. What, then, are we to infer? Without some revelation 'granted, some assurance held out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue : and without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made, we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider, whether this could have a connexion with any divine as- surance, communicated at that early day. It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents conveyed an intimation of some fu- ture deliverer, who should overcome the tempter that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to con- ceive how the principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this funda- mental article of religious belief among the de- scendants of Adam, some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the promised deliverance, would naturally be appointed. s And, if we admit, that the scheme of Redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God was determined from the beginning ; that is, if we admit, that, when God had ordained the deliverance of man, * No. LXIII. No. LXIV. 51 he had ordained the means ; if we admit, that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ; what more apposite memorial could be devised than that of animal sacrifice? ex- emplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience: thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of Sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind: and hereby connecting in one view the two great, cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL, and the RECOVERY; the death denounced against sin ; and the death appointed for that Holy One, who was to lay down his life to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems, then, to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge : and the adop- tion of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer ; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's transgression ; and a full reliance upon the pro- mises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment. If this view of the matter be just, there is no- thing improbable even in the supposition, that that part of the signification of the rite, which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been 52 in some degree made known from the beginning. But, not to contend for this (Scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assump- tion), room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea, that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the promise"of Redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that Abel's offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice, which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith ; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or, at least, disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty, in acknowledging the general superintendence of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Su- preme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good things, which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first-fruits of his Parent's disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of Re- velation, because they fell not within its appre- hension of right. He takes the first place in the 53 annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud re- jection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit which, in later days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ. This view of the subject receives strength from the terms of expostulation in which God ad- dresses Cain, on his expressing resentment at the rejection of his offering, and the acceptance of Abel's. The words in the present version are, If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door* which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply no very satisfactory mean- ing, and have long served to exercise the inge- nuity of Commentators to but little purpose. But, if the word, which is here translated SIN, be ren- dered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, a SIN OFFERING, the read- ing of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the door. 1 The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain for not conforming to that spe- cies of sacrifice, which had been offered by Abel. He refers to it, as a matter of known injunction ; and hereby points out the ground of distinction, in his treatment of him and his brother : and thus, in direct terms, enforces the observance of animal sacrifice. * Gen. iv. t. t No. LXV. 54 As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to have been of divine insti- tution, receives support from the passage just recited ; so, to that part of it, which maintains, that this rite bore an aspect to the sacrifice of Christy additional evidence may be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inas- much as he places the blood of Abel's sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently the blood of sprinkling* ; and represents both, as speaking good things, in different degrees. v What then is the result of the foregoing reflections ? The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was ac- cepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith, but the promise of a Redeemer : and of this faith, the offering of an animal in sacrifice appears to have been the le- gitimate, and, consequently, the instituted, ex- pression. The institution of animal sacrifice, then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But, as it had also an immediate, and most apposite, applica- tion to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essen- tially connected with, the work of redemption ; that likewise, we have reason to think, was in- cluded in its signification. And thus, upon the * Hebr. xii. 24. * No. LXVI. 55 whole, SACRIFICE appears to have been ordained, as a standing memorial of the death introduced ly sin, and of that death which 'was to be suffered by the Redeemer. We, accordingly, find this institution of animal sacrifice continue until the giving of the law : no other offering than that of an animal being recorded in Scripture down to this period, w except in the case of Cain ; and that, we have seen, was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind also were the sin-offerings presented by Job ; he being said to have offered burnt-offerings ac- cording to the number of his sons, lest some of them might have sinned in their hearts.* But, when we come to the promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal sacrifice and atonement, or reconciliation with God, clearly and distinctly announced. It is here declared, that sacrifices for sin should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of transgression. And, with respect to the pecu- liar efficacy of animal sacrifice, we find this re- markable declaration, the life ofthejlesh is in the blood, and I have given if to you upon the altar, to make atonement for the Soul f : in refer- ence to which words, the sacred writer, from whom I have taken the subject of this day's dis- w No. LXVII. * Job,i. f Lev. xvii. 11. E 4. 56 course, formally pronounces, that without shed' ding No. LXX. 62 bolical 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. a So that the transfer 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 ceremony ? That, as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the legal transgressions, was repre- sented 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 impurities, 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, undergoing, 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 atonement effected by Christ's sacrifice is fully confirmed in every part of both the Old and the New Tes- No. LXXI. 63 tament ; 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 op- pose the doctrine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sacrifices. b 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 atone- ment. Less than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the law thus sets forth as its express meaning directly determines that which we must attribute to the great Atonement, of 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; esti- mating the efficacy of the one, as real, intrinsic, b No. LXXII. and universal ; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived, and emblematic. 6 It must be confessed, that, to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atonement has been explained in this, and a former discourse, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced/ These, however, cannot now be examined in this place. The most important 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 redemp- tion from the bondage and wages of sin : and we are invited to participate, on next Sunday, of that solemn rite, which he hath ordained for the purpose of making us partakers 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 * No. LXXIII. < No. LXXIV. 65 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. VOL. I. ILLUSTRATIONS EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS. ILLUSTRATIONS EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS. NO. I. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, AND THE SPECIES OF ARGUMENTS BY WHICH THIS ARTICLE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS BEEN OPPOSED. PAGE 2. ( a ) 'Exivaxrtv laoro'v strictly, emptied himself viz. 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. Ehner. Obs. Sac. ii. p. 240 245. See also Schleusner, on the word sxe- vaxrsv. On the whole of the passage from Philip- pians, I would particularly recommend the ob- servations of Bishop Tomline, Elements, &c. vol. ii. p. Ill 115. Middleton likewise (Doc- trine of the Greek Article, p. 537 539.) de- serves to be consulted. It has, indeed, been pronounced, in a late extra- ordinary publication, distinguished, at least, as F 8 70 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, much by strength of assertion as by force of ar- gument, that " a person who has not paid parti- cular attention to the subject would be surprised to find how very few texts there are, which even seem directly to assert the PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST." How this matter may appear to those who have " not paid particular attention to the subject," I leave to the author of this work to determine. With those who have, it is unneces- sary to say what must be the reception of an ob- servation so directly opposed, not more to the plain and uniform language of Scripture, than to every conclusion of a just and rational criticism applied to the sacred text. Bold, however, as this writer appears in assertion, he seems by no means deficient in prudence ; for, whilst he affirms that even those Jew texts (as he chooses to represent them), furnish no real support to the doctrine they are adduced to confirm, he has on this posi- tion, as on almost every other throughout his book, affecting the interpretation of Scripture, declined exposing his proof to hazard, We are referred, indeed, to "the Commentary of Grotius, Dr.Lardner's Letter on the Logos, Mr.Lindsey's Apology for resigning the Vicarage of Catterick, and the Sequel to that apology, Hopton Haynes on the Attributes of God, and Dr. Priestley's History of early Opinions." These, we are told, will completely overturn the unscriptural notion of the pre-existence of Christ. And this they are to accomplish, by showing, that all such pas- AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 71 sages as contribute to its support, " are either in- terpolated, corrupted, or misunderstood" (See Mr. Thomas Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilber- force's Treatise, pp. 272, 273.) Entrenched be- hind this oddly marshalled phalanx, this gentle- man feels perfectly secure. It seems, indeed, somewhat strange, that, encouraged by such powerful aid, he has not thought fit to offer a single text in support of his own opinion, nor a confutation of any one of those which have been urged by his adversaries in defence of theirs. In the face, however, of this polemic array, and in defiance of those extraordinary powers of mo- difying Scripture which we find here ascribed to it, I have not hesitated to cite the passages refer- red to in the beginning of this Number. And when we find the great Person who is there spoken of, described, repeatedly, as having come downfrom heaven, as from a place of settled abode previous to his appearance among men, (see John iii. 13. 31. vi. 38. 62. xiii. 3. xvi. 28, &c.); when we find him declared by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 4>7.) to be the Lord from Heaven ; and, again, (Phil, ii. 6, 7 8.) to have been in the form of God, yet to have taken upon him the form of a servant, and to have been made in the likeness of man ; when, again, we find him represented (Hebr. i. 2, 3.) as that Being, by whom God made the worlds : and as the brightness of his glory ; which GLORY, as has been already noticed, he had with God be- F 4 72 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, fore the world was ; and when, again, we are told (Colos. i. 15, 16.) that he is the image of the in- visible God; and that by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth; when these passages, and many others of the same import, are to be met in the Evangelic and Apostolic writings, and the whole tenor of Scripture is found perfectly corresponding, I own I cannot feel this essential article of the Christian faith much endangered, either from the confidence of this writer's assertions, or from the force of those arguments, under whose mighty shade he is content triumphantly to repose. Lest, however, curiosity may have been excited with respect to those avctTroSs/xro/ o-tA7y.oyr/x,o/, which Mr. B. and his friends profess to have at their command, I subjoin the following speci- men. The passage in Heb. i. 2. which directly assigns the work of CREATION to Christ, will be admitted to be one of those that " seem to assert his pre-exi$tence." In what manner is this falla- cious semblance to be removed ? A/' ou xa] TOU$ altbvots 7ro/75va$ (which elsewhere in this very epistle (xi. 3.) is allowed to mean the material world, and which is always used pluralty by the Jews, as implying the inferior and superior worlds, and, in its connexion here, exactly corresponds with the things in Heaven, and the things in Earth (Col. i. 16.) ; and, upon the whole, clearly means the physical world, or the Heavens and the Earth* ,) is yet strained by the Socinians to imply the Evange- lical dispensation : so that the entire passage is made to signify, merely, that, by Christ's ministry, there should be, as it were, a new creation ; that is, a new church begun upon earth. Now, it de- serves to be considered, on what principle of just interpretation such a translation can be adopted. It is true, that Christ, in some of the Greek ver- be judged sufficient to redeem him from the appellation. But his exposition of most of the passages of Scripture relating to the divinity of Christ is so clearly favourable to the main principle of the Socinian scheme, that, with some latitude, the term Socinian is not unfairly applicable. Dr. Lardner, in his Letter on the Logos (vol. xi. p. 112., Kippis's Edition of his Works), written expressly for the purpose of establishing the proper humanity of Christ, affirms, that " Grotius ex- plains texts better than the professed Socinians." Whether Lardner, then, viewed him as far removed from the pale of the Fratres Poloni, is surely not difficult to decide. * See Whitby and Rosenmiiller, in loc. and Col. i. 16. ; likewise Peirce and Hallet: also, Krebs. Obsen: on Col. i. 17. AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 7^ sions of Isai. ix. 6., has been styled, a-arijg TOU peK- KOVTOS al&vos- But, admitting the word here to imply a dispensation that was to come, does it follow that this one dispensation is to be expressed by the plural word auoi/as ? To force upon it this meaning, is again to do violence to grammar and usage. And yet this is done, because the plural interpretation, by whom he constituted the AGES or DISPENSATIONS, lets in the obnoxious idea of pre-existence, as completely as the sense of a material creation can do. It may be worth while to inquire, in what way Mr. Lindsey has treated this subject, in an Essay written by him, in the 2d vol. of the Theolo- gical Repository, entitled " Brief Remarks con- cerning the two Creations ;" the express object of which is to show, that none but a moral or spi- ritual creation was to be ascribed to Christ. He never once notices this 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, how- ever, it may not be difficult to discover, when it is considered, that, in the passages which he has examined, though manifestly repugnant to his conclusion, there was not to be found so brief and stubborn an expression, as TOV$ ai&vas ro/ij PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, If he meant merely to say, that his mission, as the Messiah, had been ordained before the birth of Abraham, (which is in itself a tolerable strain upon the words even of this new translation,) it will require all Mr. Wakefield's ingenuity to ex- plain in what way this could have satisfied the Jews as to the possibility of Christ's having ac- tually seen Abraham, which is the precise diffi- culty 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 confesses, 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 consi- dered by the Jews : but at the same time he con- tends that our Lord did not intend his words to be so understood ; and that, when he afterwards speaks of his priority 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 here given a very few instances, but such as furnish a fair specimen of the mode of reasoning by which those enlightened comment- AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 85 ators, to whom Mr. Belsham refers, have been en- abled to explain a way the direct and evident mean- ing of Scripture. I have adduced these instances from the arguments which they have used relating to the pre-existence 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 scru- pled to dwell thus long upon a matter not neces- sarily connected with the subject of these dis- courses, as some benefit may be derived to the young student in divinity, (for w^hom this publi- cation has been principally intended,) from ex- posing the hollowness of the ground on which these high-sounding gentlemen 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 preten- sions, 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 Jbrmulce of interpret- ation, 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 ap- G 3 86 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, pearance in this world ; it is replied, all this is true, in the decree of God, but it by no means relates to an actual existence. Had Christ, as a proof of his having existed prior to his incarna- tion, expressly declared, that all things had been created by him ; the answer is obvious he must have been ordained by the divine mind, long be- fore he came into being, as by him it had been decreed, that the great moral creation, whereby 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 con- dition of man ; a ready solution is had for this also he made no ostentatious 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 sup- pose the point completely given up. The mo- dern Unitarian Commentator is not discomfited. He retires with unshaken fortitude within the citadel of his philosophic conviction, 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. AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. SJ Endeavouring to prove, in opposition to Dr. Price, that the expressions in John, vi. 62., What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ? supply no argument in favour of Christ's pre-existence, he uses the following re- markable language : " though not satisfied with any interpretation of this extraordinary passage, yet, rather than believe our Saviour to have ex- isted 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 distinguish from a reality : nay, he would not build an article of faith of such magni- tude, on the correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord's language : and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a pre-existent state appear, that, sooner than admit if, he would suppose the whole verse to be an in- terpolation, or that THE OLD APOSTLE DICTATED ONE THING, AND HIS AMANUENSIS WROTE AN- OTHER." (Letters to Dr. Price, pp. 57, 58, &c.) Thus is completed the triumph of Unitarian philosophy over revelation : and thus is the charge of incredulity against the pretended phi- losopher of the present day refuted ! For what is there too monstrous for his belief if you ex- cept only the truths of the Gospel ? G 4 88 UNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THE NO. II. UNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THE RELI- GIOUS OBSERVANCE OF STATED DAYS. PAGE. 3. ( b ) That the day on which the Sa- viour of men laid down his life for their trans- gressions should have attached to it any feelings of reverence, or should be in any respect dis- tinguished from the number of ordinary days, has long been denied by different classes of dissenters from the established form ; forgetting that its celebration was designed to awaken livelier feelings of devotion, by associating cir- cumstances ; and not reflecting, that the argu- ment, 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 inconsistency, by directly assert- ing, 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 ex- pedient upon any one day of the week, is, under the Christian dispensation, equally lawful and OBSERVANCE OF STATED DAYS. 89 expedient on any other." (Belsliam's Review, &c. p. 20.) Lest we should, however, imagine that this writer means to impose upon Christians so se- vere 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 performing 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 inno- cent 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 entire of his life, in wor- shipping his God, by never once thinking of him, but merely pursuing 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 argument a substitute for Christianity ? Or could the teacher of divinity at Hackney have ex- pected, that, from such instructions, his pupils should not so far profit, as to reject not only Christianity, but, many of them, the public wor- ship, and, with it, the recollection, of a God ? It may be worth while to inquire, what has 90 IMPORTANCE OF THE been the fact, respecting the Students of the late Academy at Hackney ; and, indeed, what is the state of all the Dissenting Academies through- out Great Britain, into which the subverting principles of Unitarianism have made their way. Do any of this description now exist? And wherefore do they not ? But, on this subject, more in the Appendix. NO. III. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. PAGE 3. ( c ) 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 Theological Repository. Of what consequence, in the frame and essence of Christianity, it was deemed by the prin- cipal marshaller 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 DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 91 the 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 generally pre- vailing, corruptions of the Christian scheme ; " and in p. 124*. he calls it " a disgrace 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 should not prove sufficient to overturn this unchristian tenet, he renews his attack upon it with undi- minished 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 Di- vinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost (as a per- son 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 atonement." And, on this account, he declares his intention of show- ing, in a fuller manner, than with respect to any other of the corruptions of Christianity, that it is totally unfounded both in reason and Scrip- ture, and an entire departure 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 doctrine. Thus (Hist, of Cor. 92 PARDON NOT NECESSARILY 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, convince 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 ? N O. IV. PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. PAGE 6. ( d ) Balguy, in his Essay on Redemp- tion, (and after him Dr. Holmes*,) has argued * The late Dr. Holmes, for some years Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, and afterwards Dean of Winchester. I cannot mention this gentleman's name, without paying to it that tribute of respect 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 of the Septuagint Scriptures, as his distinguished predecessor had done for that of the Hebrew. After the most assiduous, and, to a person not CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. 93 this point with uncommon strength and clear- ness. The case of penitence, lie remarks, is clearly different from that of innocence : it im- plies a mixture of guilt pre-contracted, and punishment proportionally deserved. It is con- acquainted with the vigour of Dr. Holmes'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 University, 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 con- cludes with these words : " Hoc unum superest monen- dum, quod Collationes istae ex omni genere, quae ad hoc opus per hos quindecim annos jam fuerunt elaboratae, in Biblio- theca Bodleiana reponantur, atque vel a me, si vivam et valeam, vel, si aliter acciderit, ab alio quodam Editore, sub auspicio Colendissimorutn Typographei Clarendoniani Ox- oniensis Curatorum, in publicum emittentur." The lan- guage 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 des- patch, cannot but be the anxious wish of every person inter- ested in the pure and unadulterated exposition of Scriptural truth. 94 PARDON NOT NECESSARILY sequently inconsistent with rectitude, that both should be treated alike by God. The present conduct of the penitent will receive God's ap- probation : but the reformation of the sinner can- not 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 answer- able for his whole conduct. The conscience of the penitent furnishes a fair view of the case. His sentiments of himself can be only a mixture of approbation and disapprobation, satisfaction and displeasure. His past sins must still, how- ever 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, there is reason to con- clude that God beholds him in the same light. See Balguy's Essay, 1785, p. 3155. ; and Mr. Holmes' s Four Tracts, p. 138, 139. The author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, part i. sect. 6. and part iv. sect. 4. has likewise exa- mined this subject in a judicious manner. It ^ may be worth remarking also, as Dr. Shuckford ^ j has done, that Cicero goes no farther on this head than to assert, Quern pcemtetpecc&sse,pene \ est innocens. 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 CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. 95 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 connexion that must subsist between the creature and his Maker, that, whenever man forfeits the favour of God by a violation 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 judicious and satis- factory refutation which it has lately received, in a Prize Essay in one of the Sister Universities. See Mr. Pearson's Critical Essay on the Ninth Book of the Divine Legation, p. 2534. The reasons that induced Warburton to adopt so he- terodox 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 erroneous opinion combated in this Number. 96 PREVALENCE OF NO. V. THE SENSE ENTERTAINED BY MANKIND OF THE NATURAL INEFFICACY OF REPENTANCE, PROVED FROM THE HISTORY OF HUMAN SA- CRIFICES. PAGE 8. ( e ) If we look to the practices of the Heathen world, w r e shall find the result of the rea- soning which is advanced in the page referred to, confirmed from experience by abundantproof. We shall find that almost the entire of the religion of the Pagan nations consistedin rites of deprecation. Fear of the Divine displeasure seems to have been the leading feature in their religious impres- sions ; 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 0eiov irav (pQovepov rs xa} Tapapto3s (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- HUMAN SACRIFICES. 97 FICES, throughout the Gentile world, is a decisive proof of the light in which the human mind, un- aided by Revelation, is disposed to view the Di- vinity, and clearly evinces how little likelihood there is in the supposition, that unassisted reason could discover the sufficiency of repentance to regain the favour of an offended God. Of this savage custom, M. de Pauw (Reck. Phil, sur les Amdric. vol. i. p. 211.) asserts, that there is no nation mentioned 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 his- torians supply the fullest confirmation. He- liodorus (jfttkiopic. 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. Evang. lib. i. cap. 10.) asserts, that among the Phoenicians it was cus- tomary, in great and public calamities, for princes and magistrates to offer up, in sacrifice to the avenging demons, the dearest of their offspring, iig Xurpov TO? r//xo>poT^ Soifuxr^ This practice is also attributed to them by Por- phyry (Euseb. P. Ev. lib. iv.). Herodotus (lib. iv. cap. 62.) describes it as a custom with the Scy- thians to sacrifice every hundredth man of their VOL. i. H 98 PREVALENCE OF prisoners to their God Mars. And Keysler, who has carefully investigated the antiquities of that race, represents the spreading oaks, under which they were used to perform 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 against the Egyptians is supported by Plutarch, on the authority of Manetho (Isid. et Osir. p. 380.). At Heliopolis, also, three men were daily offered up to Lucina ; which practice, Porphyry informs us, was put a stop to by Ama- sis (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. Savary's Letters on Egypt (vol. i. p. 118.), that the Egyptians 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 HUMAN SACRIFICES. 99 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 dreadful calamities with which it was at that time visited. This sacrifice, it is added, was pronounced by the Priests to be demanded by the will of Heaven :. and the aged monarch is represented as suppli- cating 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 con- tagion. Not only were their sacred rites, like those of other nations, stained with the blood of immolated victims, as may be seen in Hero- dotus (lib. i. cap. 132. and lib. vii. cap. 113.), X^nophon (Cyrop, lib. viii.), Arrian (De Exped. Alex. lib. vi. ad finem), Ovid (Fast. lib. i.), Strabo (lib. xv. p. 1065. ed. 1707), Suidas (in MtQpa) ; and, as is fully proved by Brisso- nius (De Reg. Pers. Princ. lib. ii. a cap. v. ad cap. xliii.) : but Herodotus (lib. vii. cap. 1 14.) expressly pronounces it to have been the Persian custom to offer human victims by inhumation ; Tlspvixov 8e TO fyoovras xaTopv(r 104 PREVALENCE OF affirms the same of the inhabitants of Pella. And Euripides has given to the bloody altars of the Tauric Diana a celebrity 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 antiquity considered their deities, and how far they were under the impression of the existence of a Su- preme Benevolence requiring nothing but re- pentance 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 con- cerns, but to punish" Non esse curse deis secu- ritatem nostram, esse ultionem. And in this he seems but to repeat the sentiments of Lucan, who, in his Pharsalia (iv. 107, &c.), thus ex- presses himself : " Felix Roma, quidem, civesque habitura beatos, Si libertatis Superis tarn cura placeret, Quam vindicta placet" On this subject the Romans appear to have in- herited the opinions of the Greeks. Meiners (Historia Doctrina? de vero Deo, p. 208.) as- serts, 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 HUMAN SACRIFICES. J 05 be offended at it, and bring on them some dread- ful calamity. In this the learned professor but affirms what, as we have seen in p. 97- is the for- mal declaration attributed to Solon by Herodotus: a declaration repeated and confirmed by the His- torian, in the instances of Poly crates and Xerxes : in the former of which, the prudent Amasis grounds his alarm for the safety of the too pros- perous prince of Samos on the notoriety of the envious nature of the divine being, TO ^sTov STH- (TTa.fji.evio w$ 6(rrt tyftovspov (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, o 8s ^so, yXuxw yeucrct^ TOV a/tova, QQovspog sv aura> eupio-xsrai swv (lib. vii. cap. 46.). That fear of the gods, was not an unusual attendant on the belief of their existence, may be inferred likewise from the saying of Plutarch (De Superst.}, reXo^ ro3 p.ri vofjii^siv Qsovg pr) (poGsta-Qoti : and Pliny, (lib. ii. cap. 70 speaking of the deification of death, diseases, and plagues, says, that " these are ranked among the gods, whilst with a trem- bling fear we desire to have them pacified," dum esse placatas, trepido metu cupimus. Cud- worth also (Intell. Syst. p. 664.), shews, in the instances of Democritus and Epicurus, that terror was attached to the notion of a divine ex- istence : and that it was with a view to get free from this terror, that Epicurus laboured to re* move the idea of a providential administration of 106 PREVALENCE OF human affairs. The testimony of Plato is like- wise 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 vin- dictive terrestrial demons, who are overseers of human affairs; to which demons the supreme God hath committed the government of this world." De Anima Mundi. Opera, p. 1096. ed. Franc. 1602. Thus the Gentile Religion, in early ages, evidently appears to have been a religion ofjear. Such has it been found likewise in later times ; and so it continues to this day. Of the length of time during which this practice of human sa- crifice continued among the Northern nations, Mr. Thorkelin, who was perfectly conversant with Northern literature, furnishes several in- stances, in his Essay on the Slave Trade. Dit- marus charges the Danes with having put to death, in their great sacrifices, no fewer than ninety-nine slaves at once. (Loccen. Antiq. Sue. Goth. lib. i. cap. 3.) In Sweden, on urgent oc- casions, and particularly in times of scarcity and famine, they sacrificed kings and princes. Loc- cenius (Histor. Rer. Suectc. lib. i. p. ,5.) gives the following account : Tanta fame Suecia afflicta est, ut ei vix gravior unquam incubuerit ; cives inter se dissidentes, cum poenam delictorum divinam agnoscerent, primo anno boves, altero ho- mines, tertio regem ipsum, velut tree ccelestis HUMAN SACRIFICES. 107 piaculum, ut sibi persuasum habebant, Odino immolabant : 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 reverenced, as gifted with a portion of the divinity, because stained with gore, and foul with human putrefaction." In all the other Northern nations, without exception, the practice is found to have prevailed : and to so late a 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 Carloman, 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 par- ticularly 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 adherence to this custom, in the island of Rugia, even so late as at the close of the twelfth century. 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 sa- 108 PREVALENCE OF crificing multitudes to the deity of his nation. Among the islanders ot the South Seas we like- wise learn from Captain Cook that human sa- crifices were very frequent : 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, de Soils, and Clavig. Hist, of Mex. lib. vi. sect. 18, 19, 20.) Mr. Maurice also informs us, that, at this day, among certain tribes of the Mahrattas, human victims, distinguished by their beauty and youthful bloom, are fattened like oxen for the altar ( Ind. Antiq. p. 84>3.) : 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 testi- monies of Dow, Holwel, and Grose. But, as the laborious research of Mr. Maurice has drawn together numerous and authentic documents in HUMAN SACRIFICES. 109 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 (fListoria 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 Megas- thenes. * Mr. Dow's incompetency, on the sub- * In addition to the authorities already referred to upon this head, I would suggest to the reader a perusal of Mr. Mickles 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 existence 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 observations upon religion, and the liberties, taken by Mr. Holwel 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. Holwel 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 reception of the angelic spirits" (Mickles Lusiad, vol. ii. p. 253.). Mr. Hol- wel, also, in his endeavours to prove the revelation ofJBirmak 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 110 PREVALENCE OF ject of the Indian theology, has also been proved by Mr. Halhed, who has shewn, in the preface to his translation of the Gentoo Code (p. 32. ed. 1776) that writer's total deficiency in the know- ledge 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. * it ; that even the most ancient record of its history, the New- Testament, is grossly corrupted ; that St. Paul by his reveries, and St. Peter by his sanction to kill and eat, began this woful declension and perversion of the doctrines of Christ " (Mickles Litsiad, vol. ii. p. 254.). After this, can we wonder, that Dr. Priestley considered this writer sufficiently enlight- ened, to be admitted as undoubted evidence in the establish- ment of whatever 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 philosophers, who are the devil's faithful deputies " (Mickles Lusiad, vol. ii. p. 250.). * To the curious reader, who may wish to see the latest and most interesting account of the sanguinary superstitions of the Hindoos, and of the general state of that people in HUMAN SACRIFICES. HI The subject of this Number may derive addi- tional light from the nature of the representations point of civilisation at the present day, I would strongly recommend Dr. BUCHANAN'S Memoir on the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British 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 Hindostan (see pp. 33, 34. 47 50. 91 104.), but also the most affecting exposition of the de- caying state of religion amongst their conquerors. In this latter point of view, it is a work that cannot be too generally known, nor too attentively perused. The contrast which it exhibits between the indifference of Protestantism and the zeal of Popery, in those distant regions, is strikingly illustrative of the prevailing character of each. An esta- blishment of eighteen military chaplains, of whom not more than twelve are at any one time in actual appointment, with three churches, one at Calcutta, one at Madras, and one at Bombay, constitutes the entire means of religious instruction for the vast extent of the British empire in the East ; whilst, at the various settlements and factories, at Bencoolen, Canton, and the numerous islands in that quarter in the possession of Britain, not a single clergyman of the English Church is to be found, to perform the rite of bap- tism, or any other Christian rite whatever. British armies, also, have been known to be not unfrequently in the field without a chaplain : and it is said, that Marquis Cornwallis was indebted to the services of a British officer, for the last solemn offices of interment. The consequence (as Dr. Bu- chanan states) has been, that " all respect for Christian institutions has worn away; and that the Christian sab- bath is now no otherwise distinguished, than by the display of the British flag ! " So that, " we seem at present," he says, " to be trying the question, WHETHER RELIGION BE NECESSARY FOR A STATE : whether a remote, commercial PREVALENCE OF of the Divinity, throughout the Heathen nations. Thus, in the images of the Deity among the empire, having no sign of the Deity, no type of any thing heavenly, may not yet maintain its Christian purity and its political strength, amidst Pagan superstitions, and a volup- tuous and unprincipled people." The effect also of this want of religious instruction Dr. Buchanan describes to be such as might naturally be expected, a general spread of profligacy amongst our own people, and a firm belief amongst the natives, that " THE ENGLISH HAVE NO RELIGION." Now, in what way does Dr. Buchanan describe the exer- tions of the ROMISH CHURCH to propagate its peculiar tenets ? An establishment of three archbishops and seven- teen bishops, with a proportional number of churches and inferior clergy, is indefatigably employed in sending through the East, and particularly through the dominions of Pro- testant Britain, that form of religious faith, which Protestants condemn as perniciously erroneous. In Bengal alone, he states, there are eight Romish churches, besides four Arme- nian, and two Greek : and it affords matter of melancholy reflection, that we are compelled to derive a consolation under the consequences of our own religious apathy, from the contemplation of those beneficial effects, which Dr. Bu- chanan ascribes to the influence of this Romish establish- ment, in its civilizing operation on the minds of the Asiatics. The sentiments, which an acquaintance with these facts must naturally excite, in the minds of such as retain any sense of the value of true religion, make it particularly desirable that this work should be known to all ; especially to those who have the power to promote the means of rec- tifying the dreadful evils which it authenticates. To a re- ligious mind, the perusal of the work must undoubtedly be distressing. But, from the gloom, which the darkness of Pagan superstition, joined to the profligacy of European irre- HUMAN SACRIFICES. 113 Indians, we find an awful and terrific power the ruling feature. Thousands of outstretched arms ligion, spreads over the recitals it contains, the pious heart will find a relief in that truly evangelical production of pas- toral love, presented in Archbishop Wake's primary charge to the Protestant missionaries in India; and yet more in that delightful picture which is given of the church at Malabar : a church, which, as it is reported to have been of Apostolic origin, carries with it to this day the marks of Apostolic simplicity ; and which presents the astonishing phenomenon of a numerous body of Hindoo Christians, equalling, both in their practice and their doctrines, the purity of any Christian church since the age of the Apostles. " Such are the heresies of this church," said their Portu- guese accusers, " that their clergy married wives ; that they owned but two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper ; that they denied transubstantiation ; that they neither in- voked saints nor believed in purgatory ; and that they had no other orders or names of dignity in the church than bishop or deacon." Such was found to be the state of the church of Malabar in the year 1599; and such, there is good reason to believe, had been its state, from its foundation in the earliest times of Christianity (See Dr. Buchanan's Memoir, pp. 1 8. 12. 18. 55 62. 75 79.). To the ques- tion which popery triumphantly proposes to the Protestant, " WHERE WAS YOUR RELIGION BEFORE LUTHER?" the an- swer, " IN THE BIBLE," derives now an auxiliary from this most important and interesting fact. I should deem it necessary to apologize to the reader for this digression respecting the contents of Dr. Buchanan's publication, were I not convinced, that, in drawing attention to its subject, I am doing a real service to Christianity. As a most valuable Appendix to this publication, I must beg leave also to recommend to the reader the xviith article of the 1st volume of the Quarterly Review. The impious policy, that would impede the introduction of the Christian VOL. I. I 114) PREVALENCE OF and hands, generally filled with swords and daggers, bows and arrows, and every instrument of destruction, express to the terrified worshipper the cruel nature of the god. The collars of human skulls, the forked tongues shooting from serpents' jaws, the appendages of mutilated corpses, and all the other circumstances of terrific cruelty which distinguish the Black God- religion into India, is there treated as it deserves. The fashionable sophistry, which had for a time prevailed upon this subject, is most happily exposed by the Reviewer. And, with no common talent and address, it is unanswerably proved to be no less the interest, than the duty, of the con- queror, to spread the light of the Gospel far and wide through the regions of Hindostan. Melancholy it truly is that such arguments should be wanted to convince a Chris- tian people. Great is the power of the British empire, most undoubtedly. Yet, surely, if its interests are found to be incompatible with the interests of Christ's kingdom, it cannot be difficult to pronounce which of the two must fall. That the reader may feel the full force of the observations contained in this note, he is requested to peruse the extra- ordinary details, authenticated by Dr. Buchanan, in his recent publication, entitled Christian Researches in Asia; particularly those relating to the worship of Juggernaut, and the present condition of Ceylon, which are to be found at pp. 129147., and pp. 182190. of that work.* It is due to the memory of the learned and pious author of this work to acknowledge, that the great improvements which have taken place in the provision for the religious instruction of the population of our Eastern dependencies, since the above note was written, are, in a great measure, to be attributed to the earnest remonstrance which it contains. ED. HUMAN SACRIFICES. 115 -dess-Seeva, Haree, and other of the idols of Hin- / dostan (Maurice's Ind. Antiq. pp. 182. 253. 327. 381, 382. 856, 857. 882.), sufficiently manifest the genius of that religion which presented these as objects of adoration. To the hideous idols of Mexico, one of which was of most gigantic size, seated upon huge snakes, and expressly denomi- nated TERROR (Clavig. lib. vi. sect. 6.), it was usual to present the heart, torn from the breast of the human victim, and to insert it, whilst yet warm and reeking, in the jaws of the blood- thirsty divinity. (Ibid. lib. vi. sect. 18.) The supreme god of the ancient Scythians was wor- shipped by them under the similitude of a naked SWORD (Herod, lib. iv. cap. 62.) : and in Val- halla, or the Hall of Slaughter, the Paradise of the terriblegodof the Northern European regions, the cruel revelries of Woden were celebrated by deep potations from the skulls of enemies slain in battle. Conformably with this character of their gods, we find the worship of many of the heathen nations to consist in suffering and mortification, in cutting their flesh with knives, and scorching their limbs with fire. Of these unnatural and inhuman exercises of devotion ancient history supplies numberless instances. In the worship of Baal, as related in the book of Kings, and in the consecration to Moloch, as practised by the Ammonites, and not infrequently by the Hebrews themselves, the Sacred Volume affords an incon- i 2 116 PREVALENCE OF testable record of this diabolical superstition. Similar practices are attested by almost every page of the profane historian. The cruel auste- rities of the Gymnosophist, both of Africa and India, the dreadful sufferings of the initiated vo- taries of Mithra and Eleusis (see Maurice's Ind. Antiq. pp. 9901000.), the Spartan 8/a/xao-TVa>- (71$ in honour of Diana, the frantic and savage rites of Bellona, and the horrid self-mutilations of the worshippers of Cybele, but too clearly evince the dreadful views entertained by the ancient heathens of the nature of their gods. Of the last named class of pagan devotees (to instance one, as a specimen of all,) we have the following ac- count from Augustine "Deaemagnae sacerdotes, qui Galli vocabantur, virilia sibi amputabant, et furore perciti caput rotabant, cultrisque faciem musculosque totius corporis dissecabant; morsi- bus quoque se ipsos impetebant. " (August, de Civ. Dei. pp. 140. 156. ed. 1661.) And Seneca, as quoted by the same writer, (lib. vi. cap. 10.) confirms this report in the following passage, taken from his work on Superstition, now no longer extant : " Ille viriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur ? Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsse furor, ut sic dii placentur quemadmodum ne homines quidem teterrimi. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, vul- neribus suis ac sanguine supplicant." And it de- eerves to be remarked, that these unnatural rites, HUMAN SACRIFICES. 117 together with that most unnatural of all hu- man sacrifice are pronounced by Plutarch (Opera, torn. ii. p. 4iy. . ed. Franc. 1620,) to have been instituted for the purpose of averting the wrath of malignant demons. Nor have these cruel modes of worship been confined to the heathens of antiquity. By the same unworthy conceptions of the Deity, the pa- gans of later times have been led to the same un- worthy expressions of their religious feelings. Thus, in the narrative of Cooke's voyages, we are informed, that it was usual with the inhabit- ants of the Friendly Islands, when afflicted with any dangerous disorder, to cut off their little finger as an offering to the Deity, which they deemed efficacious to procure their recovery: and in the Sandwich Islands, it was the custom to strike out the fore-teeth, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to avert the anger of the Eatooa, or Divinity. If we look again to the religion of the Mexicans, we meet the same sort of savage superstition, but carried to a more unnatural excess. Clavigero (lib. vi. sect. 22.) says, " It makes one shudder, to read the austerities, which they exercised upon themselves, either in atone- ment of their transgressions, or in preparation for their festivals :" and then proceeds, in this section and in those that follow, to give a dreadful de- scription, indeed, of the barbarous self-lacera- tions, practised both by the Mexicans and Tlascalans, in the discharge of their religious i 3 118 PREVALENCE OF duties : and yet, he afterwards asserts, (vol. ii. p. 446. 4to. ed. Lond.) that all these, horrid as they are, must be deemed inconsiderable, when compared with the inhumanities of the ancient priests of Bellona and Cybele, of whom we have already spoken; and still more so, when contrast- ed with those of the penitents of the East Indies and Japan. With good reason, indeed, has the author made this concluding remark: for, of the various austerities, which have been at different times practised as means of propitiating superior powers, there are none that can be ranked with those of the devotees of Hindostan at the present day. Dreadful as Mr. Maurice represents the rites of Mithra and Eleusis to have been, dread- ful as we find the other rites that have been noticed, yet their accumulated horrors fall infi- nitely short of the penitentiary tortures endured by the Indian Yogee, the Gymnosophist of modern times" to suspend themselves on high in cages, upon trees considered sacred, refusing all sustenance, but such as may keep the pulse of life just beating j to hang aloft upon tenter- hooks, and voluntarily bear inexpressible ago- nies ; to thrust themselves by hundreds, under the wheels of immense machines, that carry about their unconscious gods, where they are instantly crushed to atoms j at other times, to hurl themselves from precipices of stupendous height ; now to stand up to their necks in rivers, HUMAN SACRIFICES. 119 till rapacious alligators come to devour themj now to bury themselves in snow till frozen to death j to measure with their naked bodies, trained over burning sands, the ground lying between one pagoda and another, distant perhaps many leagues ; or to brave, with fixed eyes, the ardor of a meridian sun between the tropics : " these, with other penances not less tremendous, which Mr. Maurice has fully detailed in the last volume of his Indian Antiquities, are the means, whereby the infatuated worshippers of Brahma hope to conciliate the Deity, and to obtain the blessings of immortality : and by these, all hope to attain those blessings, except only the wretched race of the Chandalahs, whom, by the unalterable laws of Brahma, no repentance, no mortification, can rescue from the doom of eternal misery ; and against whom the gates of happiness are for ever closed. See Maur. Ind. Antiq. pp. 960, 961. Now, from this enumeration of facts, it seems not difficult to decide, whether the dictate of untutored reason be, the conviction of the DI- VINE BENEVOLENCE, and the persuasion that the Supreme Being is to be conciliated by good and virtuous conduct alone : and from this also we shall be enabled to judge what degree of credit is due to the assertions of those who pronounce, that " all men naturally apprehend the Deity to be propitious:" that "no nation 'whatever, either Jew or Heathen, ancient or modern, ap- pears to have had the least knowledge, or to i 4 120 PREVALENCE OF betray the least sense of their want of any ex- pedient of satisfaction for sin, besides repentance and a good life :" and, that "from a full review of the religions of all ancient and modern nations, they appear to be utterly destitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atonement" These assertions Doctor Priestley has not scrupled to make (Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 401. 411. 416. and 421.) j and boldly offers "the range of the whole Jewish and Heathen world" to sup- ply a single fact in contradiction. He professes also to survey this wide-extended range himself; and, for this purpose, begins with adducing a single passage from Virgil, whence, he says, it appears that " even the implacable hatred of Juno could be appeased j " and an instance from the Phcedon of Plato, from which he concludes that Socrates, although " the farthest possible from the notion of appeasing the anger of the gods by any external services, yet died without the least doubt of an happy immortality; " notwith- standing that in p. 31., when treating of another subject, he had found it convenient to represent this philosopher as utterly disbelieving a future state ; and even here, he adds, what renders his whole argument a nullity, provided there were any such state for man. Having by the former of these established his position, as to the re- ligion of the vulgar, among the Greeks and Romans ; and by the latter, as to the religion of the philosophers ; he yet farther endeavours HUMAN SACRIFICES. 121 to fortify his conclusion by the assertion, that no facts have been furnished either by Gale or Clarke, to justify the opinion, that the ancients were at a loss as to the terms of divine accept- ance ; notwithstanding that not only Clarke (Evidences, vol. ii. pp. 662670. fol. 1738,) but Leland (Christ. Rev. vol. i. pp. 259. 270. 473. 4 to. 1764,) and various other writers have col- lected numerous authorities on this head, and that the whole mass of heathen superstitions speaks no other language : insomuch that Boling- broke himself (vol. v. pp. 214, 215. 4to.) admits the point in its fullest extent. He next proceeds to examine the religion of the ancient Persians and modern Parsis. To prove this people to have been free from any idea of atonement or sacrifice, he quotes a prayer from Dr. Hyde, and a description of their notion of future punish- ments from Mr. Grose : and, though these can, at the utmost, apply only to the present state of the people, (and whoever will consult Dr. Hyde's history, pp. 570. 574., on the account given by Tavernier, of their notion of absolu- tion, and on that given by himself, of their ceremony of the Scape-Dog, will see good rea- son to deny the justness even of this application,) yet Dr. Priestley has not scrupled to extend the conclusion derived from them to the ancient Per- sians, in defiance of the numerous authorities referred to in this Number, and notwithstanding that, as Mr. Richardson asserts, (Dissert, pp. 25, 122 PREVALENCE OF 26. 8vo. 1788,) the Parsis acknowledge the original works of their ancient lawgiver to have been long lost ; and that, consequently, the cere- monials of the modern Guebres preserve little or no resemblance to the ancient worship of Persia. See also Hyde, Rel Vet. Pers. p. 574. ed. Oxon. 1760. Our author, last of all, cites the testimonies of Mr. Dow and Mr. Grose, to establish the same point concerning the religion of the Hindoos ; and particularly to shew, that it was ' a maxim with the Brahmans, never to de- file their sacrifices with blood." The value to be attached to these testimonies may be estimated from what has been already advanced concern- ing these writers ; from the terrific represent- ations of the gods of Hindostan ; the cruel aus- terities with which they were worshipped ; and the positive declarations of the most authentic and recent writers on the history of the Hin- doos. Thus, not a single authority of those adduced by Dr. Priestley is found to justify his position. But, admitting their fullest application, to what do they amount ? to an instance of relenting hatred in Juno, as described by Virgil ; an ex- ample of perfect freedom from all apprehension of divine displeasure, in the case of Socrates ; and a quotation or two from Mr. Dow and Mr. Grose, with a prayer from Dr. Hyde, to ascertain the religious notions of the Parsis and the Hindoos. These, with a few vague observa- HUMAN SACRIFICES. 123 tions on the tenets of certain Atheists of ancient and modern times, (the tendency of which is to shew, that men who did not believe in a moral Governor of the Universe, did not fear one,) complete his survey of the religious history of the Heathen world : and in the conclusion derived from this 'very copious induction he satisfactorily acquiesces, and boldly defies his opponents to produce a single contradictory instance. (N. B. His abstract of the Jewish testimonies I reserve for a distinct discussion in another place : see No. XXXIII.). When Dr. Priestley thus gravely asserts, that, by this extensive review of facts, he has com- pletely established the position, that natural religion impresses no fears of divine displeasure, and prescribes no satisfaction for offended jus- tice beyond repentance, it seems not difficult to determine how far he relies upon the ignorance of his readers, and upon the force of a bold as- sertion. As to the position itself, it is clear, that never was an O.VTO$ stya. more directly opposed to the voice of history, and to notoriety of fact. Parkhurst, in his Hebrew Lexicon, on the word DtPK sa ys, " It is known to every one, who is acquainted with the mythology of the Heathens, how strongly and generally they retained the tradition of an atonement or expiation for sin" What has been already offered in this Number, may, perhaps, appear sufficient to justify this affirmation. But, indeed, independent of all his- PREVALENCE OF torical research, a very slight glance at the Greek and Roman Classics, especially the Poets, the popular divines of the ancients, can leave little doubt upon this head. So clearly does their language announce the notion of a propitiatory atonement, that, if we would avoid an imputa- tion on Dr. Priestley's fairness, we are driven of necessity to question the extent of his acquaint- ance with those writers. Thus, in Homer, (//. i. 386.) we find the expression 0sov Ihda-xsa-Qou so used, as necessarily to imply the appeasing the anger of the God: and again (77. ii. 550.) the same expression is employed, to denote the propitiation of Minerva by sacrifice, 'EvflaSe ^v ravpouri XOLI apveioig iXaovraj. Hesiod, in like manner, ( v Epy. xcu 'H/u,. 338.) applies the term in such a sense as cannot be misunderstood. Having declared the certainty, that the wicked would be visited by the divine vengeance, he proceeds to recommend sacrifice, as amongst the means of rendering the deity propitious "Ax- Xore STJ a-TTOv&fja-j ^ueWtri re iXa IvsSaXXov r 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, litare, placamen, piaculum, and such like, occur so frequently, and with such clearness of application, that their force cannot be easily misapprehended, or evaded. Thus Horace, (lib. ii. sat. 3.) " Prudens placavi sanguine Divos : " and (lib. i. Ode 28.) " Teque piacula nulla resolvent : " and in his se- cond Ode, 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 reddafur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari arbi- trantur." Cicero, (jpro Fonteio. x.) speaking of 126 PREVALENCE OF the same people, says, " Si quando aliquo metis, adducti, deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funestant." The same writer (De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 6.) says, " Tu autem etiam Deciorum devotionibus pla- catos Deos esse censes." From Silius Italicus and Justin, we have the most explicit declar- ations, 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, quos condidit advena Dido Poscere ccede deos veniam, ac flagrantibus aris (Infandum dictu) parvos imponere natos" And in like manner the latter (lib. xviii. cap. 6.) expresses himself; " Homines ut victimas immola- bant : et impuberes aris admovebant ; pacem san- guine eorum exposcentes, 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 immit is placatur sanguine diro Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Hesus, Et Tharamis Scythiae non mitior ara Dianae." Virgil likewise, (JEn. ii. lin. 116.) " Sanguine placastis ventos, et virgine cassa, Sanguine quaerendi reditus, anlmdque litandum Argolica." HUMAN SACRIFICES. 127 Suetonius relates of Otho, (cap. 7.) Per omnia piaculorum genera, manes Galbse propitiare ten- tasse. And Livy (lib. vii. cap. 2.) says, Cum vis morbi nee humanis consiliis, nee ope divina leva- retur, ludi quoque scenici, inter alia ccelestis tree placamina institui dicuntur : and the same writer, in another place, directly explains the object of animal sacrifice j Per dies aliquot, hostiae majores sine litatione caesae, diuque non impetrata pax Deum. The word litare is applied in the same manner by Pliny, (De Viris Illust. Tull. Host.'} Dum Numam sacrificiis imitatur, Jovi Elicio litare non potuit ; fulmine ictus cum regia con- flagravit. This sense of the word might be con- firmed by numerous instances. Servius {Mn. iv. lin. 50.) and Macrobius (lib. iii. cap. 5.) inform us, that it implies " facto sacrificio placare numen : " and Stephanus says from Nonius, that it differs from sacrificare in this, that the signifi- cation of the latter is, veniam petere, but that of the former, veniam impetrare. 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 oc- casions, pronounces ex cathedra ; and on whose dicta, advanced with an authoritative and impos- ing confidence, and received by his followers with implicit reliance, has been erected a system em- 128 OPERATION OF THE DIVINE ACTS. bracing the most daring impieties that have ever disgraced the name of Christianity. If the ob- servations in this Number have the effect of proving to any of his admirers the incompetency 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. N0 . VJ . ON THE MULTIPLIED OPERATION OF THE DIVINE ACTS. PAGE 10. ( f ) This thought we find happily conveyed by Mr. Pope, in his Essay on Man : " In human works, though laboured 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 Ser- mons of the Bishop of London, On the Christian Doctrine of Redemption ; and also to the sixth Letter of H. Taylor's Ben Mordecai's 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 pecu- DEISTICAL REASONING, ETC. 129 liar opinions, executed with acuteness, learning, and research. NO. VII, DEISTICAL REASONING INSTANCED IN CHUBB. PAGE 10. ( s ) The objection stated in the page here referred to, is urged by Chubb, in his reason- ing on Redemption. The species of argument which he has em- ployed 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 fu- ture safety j for, adds he, IF they 'were virtuous and good men, they were secure without such con- version ; and IF they were bad vicious men, they 'were not secured by it! (Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. S3.) Thus, with the simple apparatus of an IF and a DILEMMA, was this acute reasoner able, on all occasions, to subvert any part of the system of revelation against which he chose to direct his attacks. The AOS HOT STG was never wanting to this moral Archimedes ; 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 VOL. I. K 130 DEISTICAL REASONING 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 plentifully scattered ; and at the same time all ostentatious display of the source, from which they are derived, most carefully avoided: cir- cumstances, from which their serious reverence of the author, and the solid value they attach to his works, may reasonably be inferred. Now, as this 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 metaphy- sics which he has left behind him, to have a short summary of this writer's notions concerning Christianity laid before him. Having altogether rejected the Jewish revela- tion, and pronounced the New Testament to be a " fountain of confusion and contradiction," 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 absur- dities 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 INSTANCED IN CHUBB. 131 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, conse- quently, any dependance on Providence, any trust in God, or resignation to his will, can be no part of religion ; and, that the idea of appli- cation 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 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 effect the public weal. Such are the results of reasoning triumphing 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 con- veys to the world the monstrous productions of insanity and impiety above cited (and these are but a small portion of the entire of that descrip- tion), he had completed 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 K 2 132 DEISTICAL REASONING guide, which led this maniac to revile the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and to condemn the Apostles and first publishers of Christianity as blunderers and imposters, prompted him at the same time to speak with commendation of the religion of MAHOMET. * " Whether the Maho- * 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 Christianity. Van MilderCs 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 enter- tained respecting the Christian faith. Indeed, the decided part which the Unitarians have here- tofore 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 Theolog. Works, vol. i. p. 207., will not be a little entertained to see conveyed, in a solemn address from the English Unitarians to the Mahometan embassador of Morocco, 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. Mahomet they represent to be " a preacher of the Gospel of Christ ; " and they describe themselves to be " his fellow champions 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 INSTANCED IN CHUBB. 133 metan revelation be of a divine original or not, there seems," says he, " to be a plausible pretence, ages exercised, to defend with our pens the faith of one su- preme God ; as he hath raised your Mahomet to do the same with the sword, as a scourge on those idolizing Christians" (p. 209.). Leslie, upon a full and deliberate view of the case, concedes the justice of the claim set up by the Unita- rians to be admitted to rank with the followers of Ma- homet; 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 Socinians, to form a confederacy with the Mahometans, the authenticity of the address, and the plan of the projected condition, 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 Whitahers Origin of Arianism, p. 399. Mr. Leslie also shows, that this Unitarian scheme, of extolling Mahometanism as the only true Christianity, continued, for a length of time, to be acted on with activity and perseverance. He establishes this at large, by extracts from certain of their publications, in which it is endeavoured to prove, " that Mahomet had no other design but 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 the 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 prevailed so greatly, not by force and tJie sword, but by that one truth in the Koran, the Unity of God" And, as a just consequence from all this, it is strongly contended, that " the Tartars had acted more rationally in embracing the sect of Mahomet, than the Christian faith of the Trinity, Incarnation," &c. Leslie, vol. i. pp.216, 217. K 3 134 PRAYER CONSISTENT WITH arising from the circumstances of things, for stamping a divine character upon if!" How- ever, 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 Mahometanism to Christianity, or from Christianity 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 pitiable, ex- travagances, if I had not thought that the spe- cimen they afford of the wild wanderings of reason, when emancipated from Revelation, may prepare his mind for a juster view of what is called RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY. NO. VIII. ON THE CONSISTENCY OF PRAYER WITH THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. PAGE 10. ( h ) See Price's Dissertations 2d edit. pp. 209, 210. There are some observ- ations of this excellent and serious writer THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. 13.5 upon the nature of prayer, which are not only valuable in themselves, but, with some extension, admit so direct a bearing upon the subject before us, that I cannot resist the desire I feel of laying them before the reader. In answer to the ob- jection derived from the unchangeableness of God, and the conclusion thence deduced that prayer cannot make any alteration in the Deity, or cause him to bestow any blessing which he would not have bestowed without it ; this reply is made : If it be in itself proper, that we should humbly apply to God for the mercies we need from him, it must also be proper, that a regard 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 changeableness 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 alteration in the case of the sup- plicant, as being the discharge of an indispens- able duty ; what would in truth infer change- ableness in God, would be, not his regarding and answering it, but his not doing this. Hence it is K 4 136 PRAYER CONSISTENT WITH 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 back- ward 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 be- nefits. Accordingly, to the species of objection alluded to in page 10., (namely, that our own worthiness or unworthiness, and the determined will of God, must determine how we are to be treated, absolutely, and so as to render prayer altogether 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 cha- racters, that contributes to render us the pro- per objects of divine regard, and the neglect of it being that which disqualifies us for receiving blessings. Mr. Wollaston, in his Religion of Nature, (pp. 115, 116.) expresses the same ideas with his usual exact, and (I may here particularly THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. 137 say) mathematical, precision. " The respect, or relation, which lies between God, considered as an unchangeable being, and one that is humble, and supplicates, and endeavours to qualify him- self for mercy, cannot be the same with that, which lies between the same unchangeable God, and one that is obstinate, and will not suppli- cate *, or endeavour to qualify himself: that is, the same thing, or being, cannot respect opposite and contradictory characters in the same manner.t It is not, in short, that by our supplication we can pretend to produce any alteration in the Deity, but by 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 myself to leave unnoticed. Having observed upon that high toned philosophy, which would pronounce prayer to be the weak effort of an infirm mind to alter the order of nature and the decrees of Provi- dence, in which it rather becomes the wise man to acquiesce with a manly resignation ; this ele- * Tlui; ay 8o/ij -ru Tcpci$ Ta$ og[Aa$ avT%ov when a third (Engedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New Testament, as written with " concise and abrupt obscurity, in- consistent with itself and made up of allegories; " and Gagneius glories in having given " a little light to St. Paul's darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected ;" when we find Mr. Evanson, one of those able Commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Review, &c. p. S06. assert, (Dissonance, &c. p. i.) that " the Evangelical histories contain gross and irrecon- cileable contradictions," and consequently dis- card three out of the four, retaining the Gospel of St. Luke only j at the same time drawing his 172 DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE pen over as much of this, as, either from its in- felicity 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 accu- mulate instances where so many challenge atten- tion, we find the Gospel openly described by Mr. Bel sham, (Review, &c. p. 217.) as contain- ing nothing more than the Deism of the French Theo- Philanthrope, save only the fact of the re- surrection of a human being (see Appendix); and when, for the purpose of establishing this, he engages, that the Unitarian writers shall prune down the Scriptures to this moral system and this single fact, by showing that whatever sup- ports any thing else is either " interpolation, omission, false reading, mistranslation, or erro- neous interpretation" (Review, pp. 206. 217. 272.) ; when, I say, all these things are consi- dered, and when we find the Bible thus con- temned and rejected by the gentlemen of this new light, and a new and more convenient Gos- pel carved out for themselves, can the occasional profession of reverence* for Scripture, as the The fathers of the Socinian School are as widely distin- guished from their followers of the present day, by their BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. 173 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 modesty and moderation, as by their learning and their talents. Yet, that it may be the more plainly discerned how remote the spirit of Socinianism has been, at all times, from the reverence due to the authority of Scripture, I here sub- join, in the words of two of their early writers, specimens of the treatment which the sacred volume commonly receives at their hand. Faustus Socinus, after pronouncing with sufficient decision against the received doctrine of the Atone- ment, proceeds to say, " Ego quidem, etiamsi non semel, sed scBpe id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret ; non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem." Sodn. Opera, torn. ii. p. 204. And with like determination : Smalcius affirms of the Incarnation ; " Credimus, etiamsi non semel atque iterum, sed satis crebro et dissertissime scriptum extaret Deum esse hominem factum, multo satius esse, quia haec res sit absurda, et sanae rationi plane contraria, et in Deum blas- phema, modum aliquem dicendi comminisci, quo ista de Deo dici possint, quam ista simpliciter ita ut verba sonant intetti- gere." (Homil. viii. ad cap. 1. Joh.) 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, an- nouncing the doctrines which the philosophy of that school condemns, would, to its disciples, be words of no meaning ; and the Scripture, which adopted such language, but an idle fable. Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, is the true motto of the Unitarian. And the reader, I trust, will not think that I have drawn too strong conclusions upon this subject in the three concluding pages of the first Number, when he finds the proof of what is there advanced growing stronger as we proceed. 174 DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE, ETC. modifications of the Unitarian Commentators. The world would then see, after all the due am- putations and amendments, to what their respect for the sacred text amounts. Indeed it is some- what 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 knowledge ? That the latter is the true cause, may, perhaps, be inferred, as well from the known magnanimity of those writers, which can- not be supposed to have stooped to the former consideration, as from Dr. Priestley's own de- clarations. In his Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever (part ii. pp. 33 35.) he informs us, that he was once " a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect." Afterwards, he adds, he " be- came 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 peccable 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 HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT, ETC. 175 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 corresponding change of canon, it is not wonderful 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 * of the Sa- cred Word. NO XV. ON THE HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT ENTERTAINED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. PAGE 18. ( p ) A writer, whom I cannot name but with respect, to the beauties of whose composition 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 preceding Number), uses this extraordinary language : * Since the date of the above observation, first introduced in the second edition of this work, a Testament has been published by the Unitarians, under the title of An Improved Version of the New Testament. Of this Improved Version some notice has been already taken in the preceding pages, and more will be said hereafter. 176 HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT " 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. Wakefieltfs Enquiry, p. 7^0 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 Socinians, 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 les- sons, not from the followers of the humble Jesus, but from the disciples of the arrogant, and mag- niloquent, 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 becom- ing all good men, as being in nothing exceeded by Jupiter" (Pint. De Stoic. Repugn. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1038. ed. Xyl.) : when Seneca pro- nounces, that " a good man differs only in time from God" (De Provid. cap. 1.); that " there is one thing, in which the wise man excels God, that God is wise by the benefit of nature, not by his own choice" (Epist. 33.) j and that " it ENTERTAINED BY UNITARIANS. 177 is shameful to importune the Gods in prayer, since a man's happiness is entirely in his own power" (JEpist. 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 becoming piety remarks, it is such an address, " as cannot, without shocking arrogance, be uttered by any one born to die ;" when, I say, we hear such language from the ancient Stoic, what do we hear, but the sen- timents of the philosophising Christian of the present day ? and, on casting an eye into the works of Priestley, Lindsey, Evanson, Wake- field, Belsham, and the other Unitarian writers, do we not instantly recognise that proud, and independent, and, I had almost said, heaven-de- fying self-reliance, which had once distinguished the haughty disciple of the Stoa ? NO. XVI. ON DR. JOHN TAYLOR* S SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. PAGE 20. ( q ) The scheme of Atonement, as it is here laid down, is that which has been maintained 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 theologians, VOL. i. N m 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 retributive 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 princi- ples : 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 Apos- tolic Writings, and his Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, it is obvious to remark, that it is nothing more than an artificial accommodation of Scripture phrases to notions utterly repugnant to Scripture doctrine. A short view of his scheme will satisfy us on this head. By a Sacri- fice, he says, (Script. Doctr. ch. ii. No. 24, 25.) is meant a symbolical address to God, intended to express before him the devotions, affections, &c. by significant, emblematical actions :" and, consequently, he adds, " whatever is expressive of a pious and virtuous disposition, may be rightly included in the notion of a Sacrifice j as prayers, thanksgivings, labours" &c. &c. Having thus widened up the notion of Sacri- Jice, it becomes necessary that sacrificial atone- ment should be made of equally extensive sig- SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 179 nification ; and, accordingly, because the word 1DJ> which we commonly translate as making atonement, is, as he says, found to be applied in the Old Testament, in its general sense, to all means used for procuring any benefit, spiritual or temporal, at God's hands, whether for our- selves or others, such as obedience, a just life, sacrifices, prayers, intercessions, self-denials, &c. &c. he therefore thinks himself justified in ex- tending 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 belongs to sacrifice, or sacrificial atonement. And so, he triumphantly concludes, (Script. Doctr. &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 wis- dom 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 N 2 180 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 dispens- ation of grace, exceeding any which had gone be- fore, 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 ex- plained 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 SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 181 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, showing us the most perfect obedience to God, and the most generous goodness and love to men, recommended to our imitation, by all possi- ble endearments and engaging considerations?" And again he says, (Script. Doctr. No. 170.) " By the blood of Christ God discharges us from the guilty 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 sanctifica- tion." What then means the blood of Christ ? " Not a mere corporeal substance ; in which case," as he says, " 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 pleas- ing 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. Doctr. No. 185.) that " our Lord's sacrifice and death is so plainly represented, as a powerful mean of im- proving our virtue, that we have no sufficient ground to consider its virtue and efficacy in any other light." N 3 182 DOCTOR JOHN TAYLOR*S To what, then, according to this writer, does the entire scheme of the Atonement amount? God, being desirous to rescue man from the con- sequences and dominion of his Sins, and yet de- sirous to effect this in such a way, as might best conduce to the advancement of virtue, thought fit to make forgiveness of all sins that were past, a reward of the meritorious obedience of Christ; and, by exhibiting that obedience as a model for universal imitation, to engage mankind to follow his example, that, being thereby im- proved 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, so far as I have been able to collect it, is a laithful transcript of the author's doctrine. 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 the time of Christ), or in what material respect it differs from the Soci- nian notion, which represents Christ merely as our mstructer 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 over- sight, and possibly from his artful accommoda- tion 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 SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 183 opinions on this subject are of an opposite de- scription. Nay, the erroneous tenets of this au- thor have been conveyed in a collection 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 ex- amination of the doctrine, in the Scripture Ac- count of Sacrifices, by Mr. Portal, and in the Criticisms on modern Notions of Atonement, by Dr. Richie: in the latter of which, particularly, the fallacy of the author's principles, 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 j inasmuch as he represents Christ's concern for mankind, and his earnest in- tercession recommended by his meritorious obe- dience, to be the appointed means of his obtaining from God that kingdom, which empowers him to dispense forgiveness, &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 improve- ment in virtue ; and, so far from attributing any N 4 184 efficacy to Christ's obedience, as operating through intercession, (to which, we find from Scripture, God has frequently bestowed his bless- ings, see Number IX. pp. 139, 140.) he considers the intercessions and prayers of good men for others, in no other light, than as acts of obe- dience, 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 inconsist- ent 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. propitiation, 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 Review, &c. pp. 18. 104. 145.) it is not difficult to assign the cause of this commendation. 185 NO. XVII. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT FALSE- LY CHARGED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF PRO- NOUNCING ON THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH. PAGE 21. ( r ) That men could not have been forgiven, unless Christ had suffered to purchase their forgiveness, is no part of the doctrine of Atonement, as held by the Church of England. What God could or could not have done, it pre- sumes 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 occasion, as on many others, that d priori reasoning, which so frequently misleads those who object to the doc- trines 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 sugges- tions * ; and that, if we do at any time philo- * The language of Witsius upon this subject is worth at- tending to. " Supposito extare Revelationem de mysteriis, at inquiri in sensum verborum quibus ista Revelatio mihi exponitur : non est in ista inquisitione ita procedendum, ut primo rationem meam consulam, quid ea, in idearum ac notionum suarum scriniis, rei de qua agitur simile aut ad- versum habeat, ut secundum eas quas ibi invenio notiones verba revelationis exponam, id unice operam dans, ut sen- sum tandem aliquem quanta maxima possum commoditate iis dem ; qui istis meis pra?notionibus optime conveniat. Sed attendendum est ad ipsa verba, quid in omnibus suis 186 PRESUMPTION FALSELY IMPUTED sophize, it is but to follow, not to lead, the meaning of Scripture. To enter into the coun- circumstantiis significare apta nata sint, quidque secundum Scripturse stilum significare soleant : atque hac via reperto sensu quern verba sine torsione per se fundunt, secure in eo acquiescendum est, omniaque rationis scita subjicienda sunt isti sensui quern iis me verbis docet Deus." To these ob- servations he subjoins an example of the opposite modes of investigating the sense of Scripture by the philosophizing and the humble inquirer, applying the former epithet to Socinus, and taking for the particular subject of investiga- tion the passage in Joh. i. 14. o Xoyo<; a-apl; e'yeWro. " So- cinus ita procedit : nihil invenit in toto rationis suae penu, quod ipsi repraesentet, Deum ita humanse unitum naturae, ut ea unam cum ipso constituat personam ; ideoque talem con- ceptum absurdum Deoque injuriosum esse sciscit. Id sup- ponit ad horum verborum explicationem se accingens : idcirco omnes ingenii sui nervos intendit, ut sensum aliquem iis applicet, qui ab isthac assertione remotissimus sit. Solli- citat verba singula, sollicitat nexum eorum, Jlectit^ torquet^ omnia agit, ne id dicere videantur quod dicunt. Nos longe aliter procedendum existimamus. Accedimus ad hanc pe- ricopam simplici atque humili mente audituri atque accep- turi quidquid Deo nos placeat docere. Consideramus verba in nativo suo significatu, et prout passim in sacris literis usurpantur ; expendimus quid Xoyo? notet secundum phrasin Johannis, quid ytvea-Oai, quid aSgAT/a<, continues as follows, x* S< TOV a?jtx jnr PINT wsn CD^K own DK. Now these words, as they stand, manifestly admit of a two-fold translation, according as the word CD^Jl is considered to be of the * See Bishop Lowtlts Preliminary Dissert, to his Trans- lation of Isaiah and Walton s Polyglot Prolegom. 15. also Kennicott' s State of the Hebr. Text, vol. ii. pp. 453, 454. AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 223 second person masculine, or the third person feminine ', viz. wfora r#ocr ^a/l make his soul an offering for sin, or, 'when HIS SOUL shall make an offering for sin : and though, with Ludovicus de Dieu, our present translation of the Bible has followed the former in the text, yet has it, with Cocceius, Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Castellio, and almost every other learned exposi- tor of the Bible, retained the latter, inserting it in the margin, as may be seen in any of our common Bibles. It deserves also to be remarked, that, in the old editions of our English Bible, (see Matthewe's, Cranmer's or the Great Bible, and Taverner's, see also the Bibles in the time of Elizabeth, viz. the Geneva and Bishops 9 Bibles, and the Doway, see all, in short, that preceded James's translation,) this latter reading is the only one that is given : and it should be ob- served, (see Newcome's Historic. View, p. 105.) that one of the rules prescribed to the translators employed in the last named version, which is the one now in use, was, " that where a Hebrew or Greek word admitted of two proper senses, one should be expressed in the context, and the other in the margin." Thus it appears, that Dr. Priestley must have glanced his eye most cursorily, indeed, upon our English translation, when he charges it so peremptorily with the abrupt change of person. Again, this very translation, which, beside the older expositors above referred to, has the sup- CHRIST'S DEATH DESCRIBED port of Vitringa and Bishop Lowth, and is per- fectly consistent with" the most accurate and grammatical rendering of the passage in question, agrees sufficiently with the ancient versions. In sense there is no difference, and whatever varia- tion there is in the expression may be satisfac- torily accounted for from a farther examination of the original. Thus, in the Vulgate it is ren- dered, When lie shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see, &c. and in the Syriac, the penalty of sin is laid upon his soul, (i. e. in other words, his soul is made an offering for sin,) that he might see, &c. Now the first is a literal translation of the Hebrew, if, only, instead of tD*tPn be read Qty *, which we may readily suppose some copies of the Hebrew to have done, without introducing the smallest uncertainty into the text. The second will also be found a literal version, if for Qt#n be read CD^n> which may be taken passively, shall be made. Now it ap- pears from Kennicott's various readings, that one MS. supports this reading. But there is a re- mark on this head made by Houbigant, (which has been overlooked both by Bishop Lowth, and the commentator on Isaiah who has succeeded himt,) that seems to deserve considerable notice. * Doederlein translates as if the word were Q't>S ubi vitam suam, ut piaculum, interposuerit ; and adds, that the book SoJiar (Parascha ^tJ^l) particularly warns us that it is so to be read, not CD^fl- f Mr. Dodson was here intended, as being the only per- son, who (at the date of the first publication of this work) AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. " The word,'* he says, " should be D&^n, in the passive voice : for that, as Morinus observes, the Jews, before the vowel points were introduced, were used to mark the passive by the letter in- terposed ; and that here, this Chaldaism had been allowed to remain by the transcriber." See Houbigant in loc. Again, with respect to the LXX version of this passage, (for as to the Arabic, it need not be taken into account, for the reasons before stated,) the difference between it and the last mentioned translation is not so great, as on the first view might appear. It is true, the reading of the LXX, as given in our Polyglot, is sav $V apoLprdvovra 7ro/rj and again, 1178., where aTro^vr^xsiv u-n-lp is manifestly used for dying in steady or place of another. That the Greeks were accustomed by this expression to imply a vicarious death, Raphelius on Rom.v. 8. directly asserts j and he produces several in- disputable instances from Xenophon, in which vTrs and avrl have the force of substitution.* * Raphelius's observations upon this subject are so valu- able, that I apprehend his entire note will be acceptable to the critical reader. " Rom. v. 8. "ftcep ypSSv aire'flave id est, dvr~i, loco, vice nostrd mortuus est, ut nos mortis pcena liberaremur. Vicariam enim mortem hoc loquendi genere Graeci declarant. Neque Socinianis, qui secus interpretan- tur, quenquam ex Graecis credo assensorem esse. Nostrae sentential Xenophon adstipulatur. Nam cum Seuthes puerum fermosum bello captum occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, puerorum amator, se pro illius morte deprecatorem praeberet, R 3 IN WHAT SENSE In like manner, (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) when David saith concerning Absalom, rig &mj rov SdvctTov jttou dvr} jo- 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 effiacy 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 an- swer to all that has been said upon the 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. Priestley (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 figurative language even stronger than this may be used by persons who 250 UNFOUNDED OBJECTION, ETC. do not consider the death of Christ as having any immediate relation to the forgiveness of si?is, but believe, only, that it was a necessary circum- stance in the scheme of the Gospel, and that this scheme was necessary to reform the world. That, however, there are parts of Scripture which have proved too powerful even for the figurative solutions of the Historian of the Cor- ruptions 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, with- out any effort or straining t to explain all parti- cular expressions in the apostolical epistles," &c. (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 279.) Here is a plain confession on the part of Dr. Priestley, that those enlightened theories, in which he and his fol- lowers exult so highly, are wrought out of Scrip- ture 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 ex- erted in vain. The reader is requested to compare what has been here said, with what has been already no- ticed in Numbers I. and XIV., on the treatment given to the authority of Scripture by Dr. Priest- ley and his Unitarian fellow-labourers. 251 NO. XXXII. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THE SACRI- FICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FIGURATIVE, URGED BY H. TAYLOR AND DR. PRIESTLEY. Page 30. ( h ) The several arguments enu- merated 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. 121136. NO. XXXIII. ON THE SENSE ENTERTAINED GENE- RALLY BY ALL, AND MORE ESPECIALLY IN- STANCED AMONGST THE JEWS, OF THE NECES- SITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION. PAGE 31. (') The last of the three arguments here referred to is urged by H. Taylor (Ben. Morel, pp. 784, 785. 797-) as applied particularly to the notion of vicarious sacrifice : but it is clear from the whole course of his reasoning, that he means it to apply to all sacrifice, of a nature properly expiatory ; that is, to all 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 punish- 252 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION ment due to his offence remitted, whether the suffering of the victim was supposed to be strictly of a vicarious nature or not. The application of such a notion of sacrifice 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 cere- monies of the heathen philosophers who had been converted to Christianity. Whether this notion be well founded, may 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 curious 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. Priest- ley, on the contrary, asserts, that the Heathens had no idea whatever of such sacrifice. He employs almost one entire essay in the Theolo- gical Repository (vol. i. p. 400, &c.) in attempts to prove, 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 unquestionable result of an historical examination 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 j equally desti- HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. tute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atone- ment" To pass over, at present, this gross contradiction to all the records of antiquity, how shall we reconcile this gentleman to the other ? or, which is of greater importance, how shall we reconcile him to himself? For, whilst in this place he maintains, that neither ancient nor modern Jews ever conceived an idea of expiatory sacrifice, he contends in another, (ibid, p. 4I26.) that this notion has arisen from the circumstance, of the simple religion of Christ having been " entrusted to such vessels, as were the 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 re- mains 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 deli- berately, 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 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION 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. An'd it must be allowed, that he has crowded into this one Essay as many asser- tions 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 atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness save repentance and re- formation, 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 posi- tion, as it affects the Jews, with some farther particulars concerning the practices of the Hea- then, 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 the second, no inquiry is in this place necessary: it will suffice at present to examine the writings HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 255 of the Jews of later times ; and we shall find that these give the most direct contradiction to his assertions. He has quoted Maimonides, Nachmanides, 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 neces- sary to reconcile the claims of justice with those of mercy ;" or, as he elsewhere expresses it, of " any satisfaction beside repentance being ne- cessary to the forgiveness of sin." (Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 409 41 1.) Now, in direct opposition to this, it is notorious, that the stated confession made by the Jews, in offering up the victim in sacrifice, concludes with these words, Let this (the victim) be my expiation.* 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 I take on me his transgression, 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 * See the form of confession in Maim, de Cult. Divin. de Veil. pp. 152, 153. 256 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION 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 sa- crifices 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 (miDD), and an atonement (l)3), 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 Leviticus, 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 (miDD) for the offerer. And Isaac Abarbanel affirms, in his preface to Levit, that " the offerer deserved that his blood should be poured out, and his body burnt for his sins j but that God, in his clemency, accepted from him the victim as his vicarious substitute (rmDn)> and expiation (103), 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 HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 257 more maybe found in Outram de Sacrificiis, pp.251 259. These, however, will probably satisfy most readers, as to the fairness of the represent- ation which Dr. Priestley has given of the notion entertained by modern Jews concerning the doc- trine of atonement, and of their total ignorance of any satisfaction for sin, save only repentance and amendment. One thing there is in this re- view, that cannot but strike the reader, as it did me, witli surprise : which is this, that of the three writers of eminence among the Jewish Rabbis, whom Dr. Priestley has named, Maimo- nides, Abarbanel, and Nachmanides, 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 examination 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 reason- ing from ancient authors in support of his fa- vourite theories. It will not then be time mis- employed, to follow him somewhat more minutely through his examination of them. He begins with stating, that Maimonides con- sidered sacrifice to be merely a Heathen cere- mony, adopted by the Divine Being into his own worship, for the gradual abolition of idolatry. This opinion, he says, was opposed by R. Nach- VOL. i. s PROPITIATORY EXPIATION manides, and defended by Abarbanel, who ex- plains 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 inTheol. 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 vic- tim being put in their place, by whose blood and life, the blood and life of the offerers were re- deemed." (Exordium Comment, in Levit. de Veil. pp. 291, 292.) Now it deserves to be noted, that Sykes, whose assistance Dr. Priestley has found of no small use in his attempts upon the received 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 Jewish Rabbis at large is uniformly in favour of atonement by strict vicarious substi- tution, he feels himself compelled to admit, by the overbearing force of their own declarations, although his argument would have derived much HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 259 strength from an opposite conclusion. (Ibid, pp. 149, 150. 157, 158.) The same admission 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 sacrificing 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 ani- mal could make proper satisfaction for sin," &c. What then is Dr. Priestley's argument ? r 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 tlie offerer by the victim being put in his place ; and by this he did not mean, that the ani- mal made expiation for the sin of the sacrifice!*, because he could never think that an animal could make satisfaction for sin ! Now might not this demonstration have been abridged to much ad- vantage, and without endangering in any degree the force of the proof, by putting it in this man- ner ? Abarbanel did hold, that by the sacrifice of an animal no expiation could be made for sin, for it is impossible that he could have thought otherwise. Complete as this proof is in itself, Dr. Priestley however does not refuse us still farther confirm-. 260 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION ation of his interpretation of this writer's tes- timony. He tells us, that " he repeats the observation already quoted from him, in a more particular account of sacrifices for sins committed through ignorance, such as casual uncleanness, &c. in which no proper guilt could be con- tracted :" and that he also " considers sin-offer- ings 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 Priesf, 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 excuse, therefore it 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 offer ig he should place his hands on the animal, to remind him that the victim was received as his (mt/Dn) vicarious substitute." (De Veil. Exord. pp.313 317.) " For the same reasons," he says, (p. 317.) " the same method was to be observed HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 261 in the sin-offering of the Sanhedrim " and he adds also, (p. 325.) that, " in the case of an error committed by a private person, whereby he had fallen into any idolatrous practice, the sin-offer- ing 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 pro- claimed to all the people, at Sinai, no one was excusable in his ignorance of this fundamental truth." * 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 con- tracted : and consequently his argument, which, from the application of the same form of sacri- fice to these cases as to those in which guilt did exist, would infer, that in none was it the inten- tion 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 * Maimonides gives the same account of this matter. See Maim, de Sacrif. De Veil. p. 116.; also, Moreh Nevo- chim, pp. 4*64, 465. 8 3 PE PIT I A TOR Y EXPIA TION 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 Leviticus, says, that " with- out 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 pia- cular sacrifice." And again, on the case of the Leper in the 14th chapter of Leviticus, the same writer remarks, that the sin-offering was en- joined, " because that the whole of the Mosaic religion being founded on this principle, that whatever befalls any human creature is the result of providential appointment, the leper must con- sider his malady as a judicial infliction for some transgression." And this principle is so far extended by Maimonides, (Moreh Nevochim, 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 Pcenitentia, pp> 141, 142. Other Jewish writers carry this HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 263 matter farther. Thus R. Bechai, on Levit. xii. 7., says, that " 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 Rabbis 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 writ- ings ; when we find him thus arguing from the actual impossibility that they could hold an opinion, which they themselves expressly assert they did hold ; and when we find him maintain- ing the rectitude of his theory by their testi- mony, whilst he explains their testimony by the unquestionable rectitude of his theory. This is a species of Logic, and a mode of supply- ing authorities from ancient 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 d 4 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION have seen, p. 260., that " Abarbanel considers sin-offerings as fines or mulcts, by way of ad- monition not to offend again." Now, whoever will take the trouble of consulting that writer himself, will find, that this subordinate end of sacrifice is mentioned by him, only in con* nexion with offences of the slightest kind, and amounting, at the most, to the want of a suffi- cient caution in guarding against the possibility 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 the 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. Ezord. pp. 313. 3150 Whether, then, the sin- offering was intended to be considered by this writer merely as a fine, the reader will judge. Indeed Dr. Priestley himself has already proved that it was not; inasmuch as he has asserted that he has represented sacrifices for sin as em- blematical actions. Now if they were solely emblematical 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, con- sidered 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 HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 265 propitiatory. The introduction, therefore, of this remark by Dr. Priestley, is either superfluous or sophistical. The observations applied to Abarbanel extend with equal force to the opinions of Maimonides : for the former expressly asserts more than once, (Exord. Comment, in Levit. pp. 231. 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 ex- piates all transgressions," invalidate in any de- gree what has been here urged j 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 Pcenif. Clavering, p. 45.) And it seems to be with a view to prove its sufficiency, (now that sacrifice was no longer possible, and to prevent the Jews, who had been used to attri- bute to the sacrifice the principal efficacy in their reconciliation with God, from thinking lightly of that only species of homage and obe- dience which now remained,) that both here, PROPITI4TDHY EXTIATIOW and in his Moreh Nevochim, (p. 435.) he endea- vours to represent prayer and confession of sins, as at all times constituting a main part of the sacrificial service. But this by no means proves, that the sacrifice was not in his opinion expi- atory ; on the contrary 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 aside : for if repentance and prayer were in themselves perfectly sufficient, then the reason assigned for the cessation of sacrifice, and the efficacy 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. 494.) that " it was be- lieved to pollute those that touched it, on ac- count of the multitude of sins which it carried : " and of this goat he says again, (JDePcenit. 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 trans- gressions of the Law, against which excision is not denounced. So that, according to this writer, there were cases, and those not a few, in HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. which repentance 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 repent- ance as to its expiatory virtue), " have their expi- atory 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 chas- tisement inflicted, can effect the expiation, nor can the expiation be completed but by the death of the offender." (De Pcenit. pp. 46, 47.) The reader may now be able to form a judg- ment, whether the doctrines of the Jewish Rab- bis really support Dr. Priestley's position, that amongst the modern Jews no notion of any scheme of sacrificial atonement, or of any requi- site for forgiveness save repentance and reform- ation, 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 ta draw from them a testimony apparently 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 strict- est sense of the word, are passed over without 268 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION mention, save only Nachmanides, who is but transiently named, whilst his declarations on this subject, 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 foremost rank of the Rabbinical teachers, as learned and liberal expositors of the Jewish law, could not but feel the futility of the sacrificial system, unexplained by that great Sacrifice, which, as Jews, they must necessarily have rejected. Hence arises their theory of the human origin of sacrifice j and hence their occasional seeming departure from the principles 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 contra- diction, 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 ; he endeavours also to extract from those of later date a testimony to the same purpose, in direct opposition to their HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 269 own explicit assertions. Thus, in Buxtorf's ac- count of the ceremony observed by the modern Jews, of killing a cock, on the preparation for the day of expiation, 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 oppose a more satisfactory authority than that of Buxtorf himself j I shall quote the passage as given in that writer ; and that no pretence of misreprentation may remain, I give it untinged by the medium of a translation. " Quilibet postea paterfamilias, cum gallo prse 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 mi- serebitur ejus, et dicet, REDIME BUM, NE DE- SCENDAT IN FOSSAM : INVENI ENIM EXPIATIONEM (gallum nempe gallinaceum, qui peccata mea ex- piabit). Deinde expiationem aggreditur, et capiti suo gallum ter allidit, singulosque ictus his voci- bus prosequitur, HT mM Pit 'Finn Ht Tlfl^n i1T ^nb I 1 ?** >:NI nrvo 1 ? *f7 Vunnn Hie Gallus sit PERMUTATIO PRO ME, hlC IN LOCUM MEUM SUCCEDAT, htC Sit EXPIATIO PRO ME, huic gallo mors qfferetur, mihi vero et toti Israeli vita Jbrtunata. Amen. Hoc ille ter ex ordine facit, pro se, sc. pro filiis suis, et pro peregrinis qui apud ilium sunt, uti Summus 270 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION Sacerdos in vet. test, expiationem quoque fecit. Gallo deinde imponens manus, ut in sacrifices olim, eum statim mactat, cutemque ad collum ei primum contrahit et constringit, et secum repu- tat, se, qui prcefocetur aut stranguletur, dignum esse : hunc autem gallum IN SUUM LOCUM SUB- STITUERE et offerre; cultello postea jugulum resolvit, iterum animo secum perpendens, semet- ipsum, qui gladio plectatur, dignum esse ; et confestim ilium vi e manibus in terram projicit, ut denotet, se dignum esse, qui lapidibus obrnatur : postremo ilium assat, ut hoc facto designet, se dignum esse, qui igne vitam finiat : et ita quatuor base mortis genera, pro Judaeis gallus sustinere debet. Intestina vulgo supra domus tectum jaciunt. Alii dicunt id fieri, quia quum peccata internum quid potius quam externum sint, ideo galli intestinis peccata hcerere : corvos itaque adi venire, et cum Judaeorum peccatis in desertum avolare debere, ut hircus in vet. test, cum populi peccatis in desertum aufugiebat. Alii aliam reddtint causam. Causa autem, cur gallo potius quam alio animante utantur, base est, quia vir ebraice ^J Gebher appellatur. Jam si Gebher peccaverit, Gebher etiam peccati POSNAM SUS- TINERE debet. Quia vero gravior esset poena, quam ut illam subire possent Judaei, gallum galli- naceum qui Talmudica seu Babylonia dialecto "DJI Gebher appellatur, in locum suum substitu- unt, et ita justitiae Dei satisfit ; quia quum I^J Gebher peccaverit, *Q;i Gebher etiam, i. e. Gal- HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 271 lus gallinaceus plectitur." Synagoga Judaica, ed. 4. pp.509 512. I leave this extract, without comment, to con- front 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 purpose 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, saying 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 equi- valent 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 atonement made at the day of expiation extended only to the sins of PROPITIATORY EXPIATION the past year ; and that those which were com- mitted after that day, must remain unexpiated until the day of expiation in the succeeding year. The dying person had consequently to account for all the sins committed since the last pre- ceding 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 instances, 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 purpose, been thus copious on his represent- ations of the opinions of the modern Jews; and, without dwelling longer on this point, or advert- ing to Isaac Netto, who happened in a " very good Sermon " to speak with confidence of the mercy of God, without hinting any thing of me- diation as necessary to satisfy his justice, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 411.) I turn back to what we are HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 273 told three pages before concerning Philo and Josephus. These writers, who were nearly contemporary with our Saviour, Dr. Priestley informs us, fur- nish no intimation whatever, in any part of their works, of "any ideas that have the least connexion with those that are suggested by the modern doc- trine of atonement : " (pp. 408,409.) and, accord- ing 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. Priestley asserts, that he suggests no idea in any degree similar to the received notion of atonement, 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 animal 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 conse- quence 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 as- sertion, having, in all places in which he has oc- casion to speak of the sin-offering, described the victim as sacrificed in deprecation of God's wrath, VOL. i. T 274- PROPITIATORY EXPIATION and in supplication of pardon for transgression, HapaiTTTja-is apxprTjjaareov is the expression he con- stantly employs on this subject* : and, in treating of the scape goat, he calls it a7roTf07ria30"/ uTrep a^a^r^jaaTcov. (See p. 9^. as re- ferred to in the note below.) And, as to the distinction made by this writer between the sacri- fices of Cain and Abel, on the strength of which Dr. Priestley ranks him as an auxiliary on the subject of this sacrificial import, it deserves to be remarked, that this, so far as it can be under- stood, seems not to be in any degree inconsistent with the commonly received notions of sacrifice, inasmuch as it relates rather to the sentiments of the offerers, than to the intrinsic nature of the things offered.! But, besides, we find, in the very section in which this distinction is pointed out, an observ- ation respecting a sacrifice offered by Cain, which, had Dr. Priestley permitted his eyes to wander but a few lines from the passage he has quoted, might have convinced him that Josephus ad- mitted, equally with the supporters of the present doctrine of atonement, the propitiatory virtue of sacrifice : for, having related the murder of Abel * X/jM,|)ov T titl napaiT-qa-et a/*pT*j/*aT&)v Again, epifov viffp dpLafTci^uv and, xara Trapa.tT'qcriv dpctprtSv epityov. See Jo- sephi Opera. Ant. Jud. lib. iii. pp. 90. 92. edit. Genev. 1633. f See the translation by L'Estrange, p. 5., who appears to have hit on the true meaning of the original ; and compare the preceding sentences, in which the characters of the two brothers are described. HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 275 by his brother, and God's consequent resentment against Cain, he adds, that, upon Cain's " offering up a sacrifice, and by virtue thereof, (SJ aur%) supplicating him not to be extreme in his wrath, God was led to remit the punishment of the mur- der." Thus the wrath of God was averted by sacrifice ; and that life, which, according to strict justice, was to be paid for the life which had been taken away, was preserved through virtue of the offering made. With what reason, then, upon the whole, Dr. Priestley has claimed the support of Josephus's testimony, it is not difficult to judge. Whether he has had better grounds for appealing to that of Philo, remains to be considered. This distinguished and philosophic Jew, whose resemblance to Plato, both in richness of diction and sublimity of sentiment, gave birth to the Greek proverb, y flAareov j//s/, ^ 4>/Acov ?rXa- TJV/S/, has, indeed, exercised upon the Jewish doctrines an extraordinary degree of mystical re- finement : he is also pronounced, by some of the highest authorities, to have been entirely ignorant both of the language and customs of the Jews; and consequently to have fallen into gross errors in his representation of the doctrines of their re- ligion.* And yet from two detached passages in this author's writings, one of which is so com- pletely irrelevant, that it were idle even to notice * See Photius Biblioth. cv. ed. 1635. Thes. Temp. Jos. Scalig. Animad. p. 7. ed. 1658. and Grotius, in Matt. xxvi. 18. PROPITIATORY EXPIATION it, Dr. Priestley does not hesitate to decide upon the notion entertained by the Jews of his day re- specting 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 igno- rance 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 redeemer, and ran- som for sin, together with the appointment of the divine AOFOS, 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 St. Peter, is attested by Hieronymus, (Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles.} Pho- tius, (Biblioth. cv.) and Suidas, (Historic.') by whom, as well as by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. lib. ii.) it is affirmed, that the beautiful etilogium contained in this writer's treatise, TJsp} Biou 0eo>p. was pronounced on the Apostolic Christians set- tled at Alexandria, who were the followers of St. 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 HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 277 of Philo's intercourse with the first Christians, for which he contends in opposition to the above au- thorities, yet seem sufficient to warrant us in pro- nouncing, that, however similar his notions and expressions may be to those of the early Chris- tians, they yet were not derived from Christian sources ; and that, consequently, they exhibit the doctrines of the Jewish church j 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 al- luded to. He informs us, (Tlspl Ouroypy. p. 217- ed. 16 iO.) that " man was made in the image of God" that he was placed in a state of perfect happiness (ibid. pp. 219, 220. & No/4. 'Isp. 'Axx^y, pp. 56, 57.) but that, " having disgraced and deformed his likeness, by his fall from virtue, he likewise fell from happiness j and from an immor- tal state, was deservedly doomed to misery and death," (Hep Euysv. p. 906.) that being now " naturally prone to vice," (0e*. Jlpay. Kxijp. p. 522.) and so degenerate, " that even his virtues are of no value, but through the goodness and favour of God," (lisp* TOU TO Xs^>. p. 166.) man- kind are, consequently, obliged " to trust to this alone for the purification 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 na- ture." (Hepl rCov 'Ovsjp. pp. 1111, 1112.) And T 3 278 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION so great does he represent this corruption of the human mind, as to exclaim, " no man of sound judgment, observing the actions of men, can re- frain from calling aloud on the only Saviour God, to remove this burden of iniquity, and, by appointing some ransom, and redemption Jbr the soul, (Xurpot xoii a-ii>uya8. p. 465.) and for this purpose, he says, " an advocate and intercessor for men" ('Ixsrvjs ToD^t/TjToo) has been appointed, viz. "the Divine Logos, that Archangel, thejirst born son of God, ordained by him to stand as a mediator (MsBopio^ between the creature and the Creator, acting as a surety to each party, (aptyorepois bpypsvcuv) and proclaiming peace to all the world, that through his intercession men might have a firm faith in God : " (@si. Ilpay. KXTjp. p. 509.) that same Aoyog, who is also called by him " an High Priest, free from all sin ; " (lisp} 4>uya8. p. 466. and Hep} rCov 'Ovsip. p. 597-) of whose mediation he acknowledges the intercession of Aaron to have been but a type ; (Hep} 4>uyaS. p. 446. and 0si. TIpay. Kx>jp. p. 508. ) and whom he describes to be that " substitute and representation " of the Deily, (uTrap^o^ 0so5) through whom he is related in the Old Testament to have conversed with man. (Hep) rCov 'Ovsip. p. 600.) And, HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 279 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 (Uspl 4>t>yaS. pp. 465, 466.) that by this the Le- vitical 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 inca- pable 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 typi- fied 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 custom. 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 ; and this he infers from the account given by him, of the preference of Abel's sacrifice to that of Cain : viz. that, " in- stead of inanimate things, he offered animate; T 4 80 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION instead of young animals, those that were grown to their full size ; instead 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 indi- vidual, and thence represented by Cain, which signifies possession; the other referring all to God, and thence denominated Abel" (lisp} iov 'lepovpy. 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, from the deriving all from his own individual exer- tions, is called a tiller of the ground." (Ibid, pp. 136, 137.) The sacrifice of Abel conse- quently 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. 13?. 145. 154.) whilst that of Cain, on the other hand, represents 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 HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 281 the offerer j and the fruits, simply, and not the jirst-fruits, shew that the first honour was held back from the Creator, and given to the crea- ture." (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 animate ; instead of young and inferior animals, the matured and choicest :" in other words, that the most animated and vigorous sentiments 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 pre- sent question, may easily be estimated. But, had Dr. Priestley looked to that part of this author's works, in which he treats expressly of the animals offered in sacrifice, he would have seen, that he describes the sacrifice for sin as being the appointed means of " obtaining par- don, and escaping'the evil consequences of sin," ^ xaxtov (>try) a^vsa-riav Hep' Za>av. pp. 838.'843.); and that in the case of an injury committed, he represents the reparation made to the person injured, joined to contrition for the offence and supplication of pardon from the Deity, as not suf- ficient to obtain 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 sym- 282 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION bolical and mystical representation, he had given a fair account of the matter. For, when he in- forms 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 pur- pose of Dr. Priestley's argument : because this high strain of mysticism would have clearly disqualified him, 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*, that, viewing the Jewish system without that light which alone could give it shape and meaning, he found it impossible to the above observation may supply an answer to many, who have objected against the alleged existence of a doc- trine of vicarious atonement amongst the early Jews the silence of Philo upon that head, even when treating ex- pressly upon the choice of victims for sacrifice See par- ticularly Scripture Account of Sacrifices, App. p. 1 7. HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 283 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 satisfactory literal solution. And this he must have found still more neces- sary, if what is related concerning his intercourse with the early Christians be well founded. For, in his controversies 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 acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew rites, it will follow, that his testimony cannot 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 po- sition, they are found to make directly against it. Their silence on the subject of the vicarious import of animal sacrifice cannot, for the reasons alleged, be urged by Dr. Priestley as an argu- ment in support of that part of his system, which denies the existence of that notion amongst the Jews : whilst the explicit declarations of Jo- sephus, on the expiatory virtue of sacrifice ; and those of Philo, on the necessity of mediation and 284 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION 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 atonement, 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 re- specting Jews of later date, being now sufficiently ascertained, I shall conclude this long discussion with a few remarks on the ideas entertained by the ancient heathens, with regard to the nature, and efficacy, of their sacrifices. To adduce ar- guments for the purpose of shewing that they deemed their animal sacrifices, not only of ex- piatory, but of a strictly vicarious nature, will, to those who are conversant with the history and writings of the ancients, appear a waste of time. But, as Dr. Priestley, in the rage of refutation, has contended even against this position, it may not be useless to cite a few authorities, which may throw additional light, if not upon a fact which is too glaring to receive it, at least upon the pretensions to historical and classical inform- ation, of the writer who controverts that fact. What has been already urged in Number V. might perhaps be thought abundant upon this HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 285 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 vic- tim to suffer death in place of the transgressor, it may not be amiss to add the testimonies of He- rodotus, (lib. ii. cap. 39.) and of Plutarch, (Isid. et Osir. p. 363. torn. ii. ed. 1620.) respecting the Egyptian practice of imprecating on the head of the victim those evils which the offerers wished to avert from themselves : as also of Servius, (JEn. 3. 57.) and Suidas, (in voc. 7rgp/\|/7j/xa,) as- cribing the same sacrificial sentiment j the first to the Massilienses, and the second to the Gre- cian states. Hesychius, likewise, in substituting for the word Trep/^/xa (an expiatory or redeeming sacrifice'} the word avTtyu%ov, (as has been no- ticed, p. 125.) marks, with sufficient clearness, that the expiation was made by offering life for life. And, not to dwell upon the well known passage in Plautus*, (Epid. p. 412. ed. 15770 which clearly defines the expiation as effected by a vicarious suffering ; or, upon that in Porphyry t, (De Abstin. lib. iv. p. 396. ed. 1620.) in which it is asserted to have been the general tradition, that animal sacrifices were resorted to in such cases as required life for life, -fyu%r)v OLVT\ \|/u^% ; it may be sufficient to state one authority from * Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam, Ut meum tergum stultitiiv ETT' avTW, ov (M] IpYipuOyj o TSTCOI; ainof ]8e *VaxoJT>jT Tdv KypvyfjuzTos ai/rov, e&ea'Qs eV/^a^/x.a TOI<; tOystri. Just. Mart. Thirlb. pp. 292, 293.) Justin says that this passage was among the ifayfasis uv Ifayfaa. Eo-S^a? efc w vo'/xov Ty ittfi TOV irao-^a : and hence Mr. Whitaker concludes ( Origin of Arianism, p. 305.) that it originally stood in Ezra, vi. 19 22. and probably between the 20th and 21st verses. It must however be confessed, that the reasons assigned by the learned Commentator on the passage here quoted by Justin, leave some reason to doubt its having existed in any genuine copy of the Old Testament. Grabe gives it as his opinion, that the sentence which Justin thus testifies to have stood in the ancient copies of Ezra, is rather to be considered as having crept in from a marginal addition 300 THE PASS07ER SHEWN 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 shall be a derision to all nations." (Cudw. Inf. Syst. Disc. p. 16.) L'Enfant thinks the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. ?. are a direct allusion to the first sentence of the passage here cited see Doddridge on 1 Cor. v. ?. Allix in his Judgment of the Jew. Ch. p. 333. says, that when John the Baptist speaks of the Lamb, 'which takes away the sins of the world, the type of the Paschal lamb is alluded to : and that this appears the more clearly from two things taught amongst the Jews : 1. That the Shechinah delivered Israel out of Egypt : 2. That the Shechinah was typified by the Paschal lamb. But, in proof that the Paschal lamb was a type of Christ, it is not necessary to resort to Jewish traditions. Scripture supplies the most decisive testimonies on the point. St. John, and St. Paul, both directly assert it, (Joh. xix. 36. 1 Cor. v. 70 and our Lord himself seems to affirm it in his institution of the Eucharist at the last supper. (Matt. xxvi. 26.) But whoever wishes to see this point fully examined, may by some early Christian, than as having been expunged from the later copies by Jewish fraud. See also Wolf. Bill. Hebr. vol. ii. p. 85. TO BE A SACRIFICE. 301 consult Wits. (Econ. Feed, de Paschate ; or the selection from that work in Jennings' s Jew. Ant. vol. ii. pp. 201 208. ; or a yet more briefj and perhaps not less satisfactory review of the subject, in Beausob. $ L' Enfant* s Introd. p. 133138. Dr. Priestley's mode of evading the force of the passage in 1 Cor. v. 7- as a proof that the death of Christ was a sacrifice, has been stated in the beginning of this Number. I shall con- clude it by noticing a different mode, adopted by a celebrated fellow-labourer of his in the work of refining away the fair and natural mean- ing of Scripture language, Dr. Sykes. In the words, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, a plain unbiassed understanding would find it dif- ficult not to discover that the Passover is affirmed to be a sacrifice ; and that, in some correspond- ing sense, Christ is said to be sacrificed for us. Dr. Priestley, as we have seen, avoids the latter position, by a direct denial of the former. Dr. Sykes, on the other hand, admits the former, and yet peremptorily rejects the latter. Now though Dr. Priestley's assertion, that the Passover is not here pronounced to be a sacrifice, may appear sufficiently bold ; yet the position, that it is called a sacrifice, and that Christ is not in the same sentence said to be sacrificed, seems a flight of criticism still more worthy of our admiration. On what ground an exposition so extraordinary is founded, it is natural to inquire. Christ, we 302 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD are told, is called our Passover, inasmuch as by his means our sins are passed over, just as by means of the Paschal lamb the children of Israel were passed over in Egypt. So far is well. But how is he said to be sacrificed for us ? why, by not being sacrificed at all ; but, by being com- pared to the Paschal lamb, 'which was a sacrifice ! Here is true logic, and rational criticism. If the reader should doubt this to be a fair repre- sentation of Dr. Sykes's argument, I refer him to the learned Doctor himself^ Scripture Doc- trine of Redemption, No. 640. p. 220. In justification of what has been advanced in the preceding Number (p. 304.) on the signifi- cation of the word HDD, I subjoin the following observations. This Hebrew word, which we translate Pass- over, was rendered by almost all the early inter- preters, in the sense which the English word implies ; namely passing over. Josephus, who calls it 7rd(r%a, and sometimes fyda-xa, expressly affirms, that the Hebrew word signifies V7rsp6a. the word ]fD never being used in the TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 311 sense of permitting, without the ^ marking the dative case of that to which the permission was granted : but the word rvHtPD not only wants the sign of the dative here, but has actually that of the accusative (ntf) 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 commentators, 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 HDD, fall to the ground ; whilst the admissions of those writ- ers, 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 de- scribed Jehovah as protecting Jerusalem, in like manner as mother birds protect by hovering over their young j and this being impossible to be conveyed by a term which merely implied passing over, and which, so far from indicating an over- shadowing 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 indispen- sable to extend the meaning of the word x 4 312 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD (here employed) beyond the latter sense, and to give to it such a signification as would admit the former ; and perceiving a strong similarity be- tween the application of the term here, and to the deliverance in Egypt, they endeavoured to explain it in such a sense as would embrace both trans- actions ; and were, accordingly, led to that inter- pretation of the term, which required the twofold agency of which we have spoken. But, why re- cur upon every occasion to the primary sense of a word ? Are there not in every language nu- merous 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 pIDfl 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 provi- dential 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 deliver- ance of Israel was effected ? Might not, then, the TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 313 Prophet have properly and beautifully employed the word HDD, in the passage referred to, in the sense of God's acting again as a protector and de- liverer of his people, in like manner as he had done at the time of the (IPS ? 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 em- bellishes the original idea. The passage would then stand thus : As 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 dis- figured the beauty of this passage ; neither dis- playing taste in the expression, nor judgment in the criticism : -Birds protecting the winged race, being neither elegant nor quite intelligible : and HOPPING round and over, which is rather an odd signification of the word HIDD, being a still odder reason for translating the word by FLYING round. Some have charged the Greeks with corrupting the original word HD) Pesach, by writing it 7ra