quently misleads those who object to the doctrines of our Church, is imputed by them to us. Not being themselves in the habit of bowing with humble reverence to the sacred word, they consider not that we speak merely its suggestions:* and that if we do at any time philosophize, it is but to follow, not to lead the meaning of scripture. To enter into the councils of the Almighty, and to decide what infinite wisdom must have determined, under a constitution of things different from. the present, were a speculation not less absurd than it is impious. Of this, even the few writers, whose language has, by a rigorous interpretation, been forced into a ground for the above charge against the doctrine of atonement, are perfectly innocent: for it never occurred to them to sup

The language of Witsius upon this subject is worth attending 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 adversum habeat, ut secundum eas quas ibi invenio notiones verba revelationis exponam, id unice operam dans, ut sensum tandem aliquem quantâ maximâ possum commoditate iis dem; qui istis meis prænotionibus optime conveniat. Sed attendendum est ad ipsa verba, quid in omnibus suis circumstantiis significare aptanata sint, quidque secundum scripturæ stilum significare soleant: atque hac viâ reperto sensu quem verba sine torsione per se fundunt, secure in eo acquiescendum est, omniaque rationis scita subjicienda sunt isti sensui quem iis me verbis docet Deus." To these observation 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 investigation the passage in John i. 14, o aogos Tags VITO." Socinus ita procedit: nihil invenit in toto rationis suæ penu, quod ipsi repræsentet, Deum ita humanæ unitum naturæ, ut ea unam cum ipso constituat personam; ideoque talem conceptum absurdum Deoque injuriosum esse sciscit. Id supponit ad horum verborum explicationem se accingens: idcirco omnes ingenii sui nervos intendit, ut sensum aliquem iis applicet, qui ab isthâc assertione, remotissimus sit. Sollicitat verba singula, sollicitat nexum eorum, flectit, torquet, omnia agit, ne id dicere videantur quod dicunt. Nos longe aliter procedendum existimamus. Accedimus ad hanc pericopam simplici atque humili mente audituri atque accepturi quidquid Deo nos placeat docere. Consideramus verba in nativo suo significatu, et prout passim in sacris literis usurpantur; expendimus quid ayos notet secundum phrasin Johannis, quid verda, quid rage: consideramus quomodo alibi de hâc re sacræ literæ loquantur. Ex his omnibus formamus sensum, quem recipimus humili fidei obsequio firmiterque apud animum nostrum statuimus, Filium Dei humanam naturam tam arcte sibi junxisse, ut idem et Deus et homo sit: et quamvis nostra ratio nihil unquam huic rei simili invenerit, tamen eam verissimam esse, quia verba Dei hoc docent. Qui ita, ut Socinus, instituunt, eos ex suo penu multa in verbum Dei inferre necesse est: quâ re ei insignis fit injuria. Qui uti nos, illi cogitationes suas ex verbo Dei hauriunt, quibus rationis suæ penum locupletent, quod Deo gloriosum est.”—Misc. Sacr. tom ii. pp. 591, 592.-If the spirit which governed Socinus, in his critical investigation of the sacred text, has been fairly described by Witsius, in the passage which has just been cited, it must be unnecessary to add, that his followers of the present day have, in no respect, departed from the example of their master.

pose a constitution of things different from that which divine wisdom has appointed.

When, therefore, Grotius, Stillingfleet, and Clarke, are charged (as they are in H. Taylor's B. Mord. Let. 5.) with contending for "the necessity of a vindication of God's honour, either by the suffering of the offenders, or by that of Christ in their room," they are by no means to be considered as contending, that it was impossible for God to have established such a dispensation as might enable him to forgive the sinner without some satisfaction to his justice, which is the sense forcibly put upon their words: but that, according to the method and dispensation which God's wisdom has chosen, there results a moral necessity of such vindication, founded in the wisdom and prudence of a Being, who has announced himself to mankind, as an upright Governor, resolved to maintain the observance of his laws.

That by the necessity spoken of, is meant but a moral necessity, or in other words, a fitness and propriety, Dr. Clarke himself informs us: for he tells us, (Sermon 137. vol. ii. p. 142. fol. ed.) that "when the honour of God's laws had been diminished by sin, it was reasonable and necessary, in respect of God's wisdom in governing the world, that there should be a vindication," &c. And again, (Sermon 138. vol. ii. p. 150.) in answer to the question, "could not God, if he had pleased, absolutely, and of his supreme authority, without any sufferings at all, have pardoned the sins of those whose repentance he thought fit to accept?" he says, "it becomes not us us to presume to say he had not power so to do:" but that there seems to be a fitness, in his testifying his indignation against sin: and that "the death of Christ was necessary to make the pardon of sin reconcileable, not perhaps absolutely with strict justice, (for we cannot presume to say that God might not, consistently with mere justice, have remitted as much of his own right as he pleased) -but it was necessary, at least in this respect, to make the pardon of sin consistent with the wisdom of God, in his good government of the world; and to be a proper attestation of his irreconcileable hatred against all unrighteousness."

That the word necessary is imprudently used by Dr. Clarke and others, I readily admit; as it is liable to be misunderstood, and furnishes matter of cavil to those who would misrepresent the whole of the doctrine. But it is evident from the passages I have cited, that so far from considering the sacrifice of Christ as a debt paid to, because rigorously exacted by, the divine justice, it is represented by Dr. Clarke, and generally understood, merely as a fit expedient, demanded by the wisdom of God, whereby mercy might be

Now it is curious to resafely administered to sinful man. mark, that H. Taylor, who so warmly objects to this notion of a necessity of vindicating God's honour, as maintained by Clarke, &c, when he comes to reply to the deist, in defence of the scheme of Christ's mediation, uses a mode of reasoning that seems exactly similar. "God, he says, (B. Mord. Let. 5.) was not made placable by intercession; but was ready and willing to forgive, before, as well as after; and only waited to do it in such a manner as might best show his regard to righteousness."Is not this in other words saying, there was a fitness, and consequently a moral necessity that God should have forgiven sins through the intercession and meritorious obedience of Christ, for the purpose of vindicating his glory as a righteous Governor?

The profound Bishop Butler makes the following observations upon the subjec: of this Number.-Certain questions (he says) have been brought into the subject of redemption, and determined with rashness, and perhaps with equal rashness contrary ways. For instance, whether God could have saved the world by other means than the death of Christ, consistently with the general laws of his government. And, had not Christ come into the world, what would have been the future condition of the better sort of men: those just persons over the face of the earth, for whom, Manasses in his prayer asserts, repentance was not appointed. The meaning of the first of these questions is greatly ambiguous: and neither of them can properly be answered, without going upon that infinitely absurd supposition, that we know the whole of the case. And perhaps the very inquiry, what would have followed, if God had not done as he has, may have in it some very great impropriety, and ought not to be carried on any farther than is necessary to help our partial and inadequate conceptions of things. (Butler's Analogy, p. 240.)-Such were the reflections of that great Divine, and genuine philosopher, who at the same time maintained the doctrine of atonement in its legitimate strictness. Will it then still be said, that divines of the Church of England uphold, as a part of that doctrine, the position, that men could not have been saved, had not Christ died to purchase their forgiveness?

No. XVIII. ON THE MODE OF REASONING WHEREBY THE SUFFICIENCY OF GOOD WORKS WITHOUT MEDIATION IS ATTEMPTED TO BE DEFENDED FROM SCRIPTURE.

PAGE 29. (8)-Dr. Priestley enumerates a great variety of texts to this purpose in his 3d paper of the signature of Clemens. (Theol, Repos, vol. i.) Dr. Sykes, in the 2d

ch. of his Scripture Doctrine of Redemption, and H. Taylor, in his 5th and 6th Letters, (B. Mord.) have done the same. Dr. Priestley adds to these texts, the instances of Job, David, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, to show that on good works alone dependence was to be placed for acceptance: and that the pardon of sin is every where in scripture represented, as dispensed solely on account of man's personal virtue, without the least regard to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever.

A great display is constantly made of texts of this nature by all who oppose the received doctrine of atonement. But it is to be remarked, that as they all amount merely to this, that repentance and a good life are acceptable to God; the inference derived from them can only have weight against that doctrine, when its supporters shall disclaim repentance and a good life as necessary concomitants of that faith in Christ's merits, whereby they hope to be saved: or when it shall be made to appear from scripture, that these are of themselves sufficient. But do those writers who dwell so much on good works, in opposition to the doctrine of atonement, se riously mean to insinuate, that the advocates of this doctrine endeavour to stretch the beneficial influence of Christ's death to the impenitent and disobedient?-Or can it be ne cessary to remind them, that obedience and submission to the divine will are the main ingredients of that very spirit which we hold to be indispensable to the producing and perfecting of a Christian faith? And again, do they wish to infer, that because these qualities are acceptable to God, they are so in themselves, and independent of all other considerations? Is it forgotten, that whilst some parts of scripture speak of these as well pleasing to God; others, and not less numerous, might be adduced to show, that beside these something more is required? Dr. Priestley indeed fairly asserts, that nothing more is required, and that the language of scripture every where represents repentance and good works as sufficient of themselves to recommend us to the divine favour. (Hist. of Cor. vol. i. p. 155.) How then does he get over those declarations of scripture?-He shall speak for himself.

"It certainly must be admitted," he says, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 252.) "that some texts do seem to represent the pardon of sin, as dispensed in consideration of something else than our repentance, or personal virtue;-and according to their literal sense, the pardon of sin is in some way or other procured by Christ." But he adds, that "since the pardon of sin is sometimes represented as dispensed in consideration of the sufferings, sometimes of the merit, sometimes of the re

surrection, and even of the life and obedience of Christ: when it is sometimes Christ, and sometimes the Spirit that intercedes for us: when the dispensing of pardon is sometimes said to be the proper act of God the Father; and again, when it is Christ that forgives us : we can hardly hesitate in concluding that these must be severally partial representations, in the nature of figures and allusions, which at proper distances are allowed to be inconsistent :—and from so vague a representation of a matter of fact, founded on texts which carry with them so much the air of figure, allusion and accommodation, reason and common sense, he says, compel us to appeal to the plain general tenor of scripture," which he pronounces to be in favour of the sufficiency of good works.

And thus a great part of scripture is swept away at one stroke, under the name of figure, allusion, &c. &c. And because Christ is pointed out to us as the means of our salvation, in every light in which he is viewed, (for as to the Father and the Holy Spirit being spoken of, as also concerned in the work of our redemption, this creates no difficulty) reason and common sense compel us to pronounce him, as not connected with our salvation in any.

This furnishes an additional specimen of the way in which scripture is treated by our modern rational commentators. A number of texts, enforcing a spirit of humble submission to God's will, which is by no means inconsistent with, but on the contrary includes in its nature a spirit of Christian faith, are taken literally, as not implying this faith, because it is not expressly named. And then another set of passages, in which this faith is expressly named, and literally required, are set aside as figurative. And it is pronounced upon the whole, that common sense is to decide the matter. And thus by rejecting one set of passages entirely as figurative; and then by explaining another set literally and independently, with which the former were connected, and would have perfectly coalesced, so as to afford a satisfactory and consistent meaning; the point is clearly made out. Relying upon this method, which Dr. Priestley has discovered, of retaining whatever establishes his opinion, and rejecting whatever makes against it, Mr. Belsham may indeed safely challenge the whole body of the orthodox, to produce a single text that shall stand in opposition to his and Dr. Priestley's dogmas.

But moreover, it has been well remarked, that all such declarations in scripture as promise pardon to repentance, and are thence inferred to pronounce repentance of itself sufficient, as they were subsequent to the promise of a Redeemer, must be altogether inconclusive, even viewed in a distinct