These, indeed, were also important ends of the death of Christ, but not that great end which is spoken of in those parts of Scripture to which we are now alluding.

Such, then, is the doctrine for which I contend: the obedience unto death of our Saviour Jesus Christ was appointed by God as the most proper mode of granting to mankind those privileges and immunities which constitute the forgiveness of sins: or, in other words, it was an event which God ordained as being proper to precede and introduce that dispensation. I do not flatter myself that your correspondent will deem this explanation so satisfactory as wholly to withdraw his charge of vagueness and obscurity; I can only say, that it appears to me as definite as the nature of the subject admits, and, at any rate, is the best I have to offer.

In the view here taken, the death of Christ appears in immediate connexion with the remission of sins; it was judged by God a proper mode of introducing that dispensation on account of its own inherent character and tendencies, and not in subserviency to any other intermediate event. In this it differs from our Lord's preaching and resurrection. We know of no connexion of these latter with the forgiveness of sins, but such as may be traced through their natural effects; a connexion, therefore, not immediate, but indirect and circuitous. is indeed said to have been raised for our justification: but this is not forgiveness, but something subsequent to it. Using the terms in the sense just explained, I thought myself warranted in asserting "that the immediate connexion between the death of Christ and the remission of sins was strongly, repeatedly and variously asserted in the Scripture, and brought forward as a great and prominent truth of the gospel."

Christ

Of this position your correspondent entirely disapproves, and pronounces iny language wholly unguarded and unwarranted by Scripture. He seems, indeed, to be very sensible that this is the hinge of the controversy; he, therefore, joins issue upon it, and sets himself to give my assertion a direct refutation. He must, however, forgive me when I say, that, after maturely reconsidering the subject, I

can see nothing in this passage which I wish to recal. I think his attempt to shew that the testimony of Scripture to this point is scanty and inconsiderable, is quite unsuccessful; but as I am not disposed any more than himself to rest on mere assertion, I shall now follow him in his examination of the evidence to be found in the divine oracles.

I have first to remark, that your correspondent appears to me to take very undue advantage of negative evidence on this subject. This species of evidence, in relation to the doctrines of Scripture, ought, I think, always to be received with great reserve, for it is a serious and arduous thing to set aside the plain sense of the testimony given, because we fancy that that testimony should have been oftener repeated. It is common to see persons, who are hardy in the use of this kind of evidence, dispute the most established truths. I say thus much, not because it is necessary to my present argument, but with a view to counteract what appears to me a prevailing form of sophistry. On the point now in dispute, I think the New Testament affords quite as much evidence as can reasonably be expected. We may maintain that a doctrine is both true and important, without being obliged to produce authorities for it from every page of holy writ. The present doctrine is of the nature of a comment on the facts recorded in the New Testament; it goes to explain some great points in the economy of redemption, but they are rather in God's part of it than ours, and therefore perhaps less necessary to be enforced on our attention than many other matters. I am not disposed to take advantage of an unguarded expression, but I must say, that Mr. A. surprises me when he concludes a survey of no more, as far as I can see, than the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts, by saying, "The silence of the great Teacher of Christians, and of his inspired apostles, as to this doctrine, may well be regarded as its condemnation." Jesus and his apostles are silent with respect to any connexion between his death and the forgiveness of sins! Are, then, the epistles of these apostles, the most unquestionably authentic of all the books of the New Testament, so much

less valuable as evidence of their sentiments, than an historical memoir, drawn up by the hand of another? In general, a man's authentic letters are thought the very best evidence we can have, in any question concerning his sentiments; they are the materials on which his biographer seizes as a treasure. At present, however, my appeal is to the historical books, from which I think there are more testimonies to be produced than your correspondent has noticed. We cannot expect to find our Lord very frequently explaining the ends of his death, when that event itself was still concealed in futurity, or only dimly apprehended by his disciples from some predictions which he occasionlly uttered, but which they were at a loss to understand. Your correspondent asserts that our Lord never declared the connexion between his death and the remission of sins but once, that is, when at the last supper he said, holding the спр, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This declaration alone, so uttered, and at such a time, is very far from silence on the subject, but several other places may be quoted of similar import. Our Lord declares that "The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many." He says, that "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life." And again, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." I am aware that some of these passages may be explained in more ways than one, but I think they all, in their most obvious sense, indicate a connexion between the death of Jesus and that forgiveness of sins which he was about to dispense. The same appears to me to have been plainly pointed out by his forerunner, when he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world!" If he is not here called a lamb, in reference to his laying down his life, I can see no meaning in this singular appellation. But when the hour of his trial was past, and the cross of Christ was become at once the reproach and glory of the Christian name, we find, as we might expect,

more frequent mention of this subject. In saying this I refer to the apostolic epistles, for I must allow, that in the book of the Acts this point of doctrine is not very explicitly insisted on. In those short discourses of the apostles, which are recorded in this book, only the great outlines of Christianity are sketched, while many important particulars are left to be more fully explained elsewhere. Accordingly, we find distinct notice of the appointment of our Lord's mediation, or ministry in general, for the forgiveness of sins, but not of his death in particular. Thus Peter says to Cornelius, "Every one who believeth on him shall receive remission of sins through his name." And again, Paul, in his address to the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia, "Be it known unto you, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." Here we find the person and name of Jesus connected with our redemption in a very close and peculiar manner. His death, it is true, is not particularly mentioned, but surely we cannot do better than to let the apostles be their own interpreters, and use their epistles as comments on their history. I shall, therefore, proceed to select from these more amplified expositions of our faith, such passages as appear to me the most pertinent and decisive. They are the following. Rom. iii. 25: "Whom God foreordained as a propitiation (or mercyseat) by his blood, for the remission of past sins." Rom. v. 9, 10: “Much more being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." Rom. iv. 25: "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." 1 Cor. xv. 3:" Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." 2 Cor. v. 11: "For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Gal. iii. 13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Ephes. i. 7: In whom we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Ephes. ii. 13: "But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who some

time were afar off are made nigh, by the blood of Christ." Ephes. ii. 16: "And that he might reconcile both anto God, in one body, by the cross." Col. i. 20" And through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross." 1 Tim. ii. 6: "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Pet. i. 2 “Elect unto sprinkling of the blood of Jesus." 1 Pet. ii. 24: "Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. iii. 18: "For Christ also once suffered for us, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God." 1 John i. 7: "If we walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin."

This is the evidence which I adduce, drawn entirely from the undisputed books of the New Testament; and if any one doubts whether it proves a peculiar end contemplated in the death of Jesus, let him inquire, whether ever any similar expressions are used with reference to any other character, however illustrious either as a prophet or martyr. Apostles and prophets have obtained a good report, because they did not count even their lives dear unto them, while they testified those truths that lead men to salvation. The praises of such characters abound in Scripture, and are often delivered in language very elevated and figurative; but expressions such as we have seen applied to Christ, are never used concerning thein. How can this be explained but by supposing that Jesus bore a character distinct in kind from theirs, and acted a very different and peculiar part in relation to the forgiveness of our sins? And what idea can we form of this his peculiar office, if we do not regard his death as immediately subservient to that great end?

Your correspondent's paper requires some further remarks, but these I must defer till another opportunity. T. F. B.

Recantation of Daniel Scargill. Dow of Corpus Christi College, ANIEL SCARGILL, B. A., FelCambridge, was a disciple of Hobbes, and publicly maintained some of the most dangerous and obnoxious opinions contained in the Leviathan. M.

Tabaraud says that he defended them, and with warmth, in a public thesis." A late biographer of the philosopher of Malmesbury, states in general terms, and with a decided partiality to the system of Hobbes, that "the young men at the Universities began to study his philosophy, and defended some of his opinions in their public disputations in the schools," and that among these inquirers after truth, Scargill was so rash as to avow the sentiments he entertained, and to undertake the defence of some positions extracted from the Leviathan." + Whatever was the manner in which the disputant asserted his Hobbism, the consequences to himself were very serious. The Heads of Colleges proceeded to deprive him of his degree and his fellowship, and to banish him from the University. With a view probably to the restoration of his honours and emoluments, he made a public and humiliating Recantation. This was delivered in St. Mary's Church, July 25, 1669, and published immediately after at Cambridge, in a 4to. pamphlet, from which we are about to extract it, as a great literary and theological curiosity. The biographer just quoted says that Scargill was imprisoned by authority of the Senate, and that the Recantation was the condition of his liberation. For this, however, he produces no evidence, and we have no documents within our reach which will enable us to clear up the point; nor do we know what became of the unhappy man. From the papers of Archbishop Sheldon in the Lambeth Library, it appears that that dignitary wrote "Letters to Dr. Spencer about restoring Mr. Scargill to his Fellowship," though probably without_effect.

Hobbes was much reflected on

Histoire Critique du Philosophisme Anglois. Paris, 1806. I. 175.

Philip Mallett's Account of the Life and Writings of Hobbes, prefixed to a new edition, (12mo. 1812,) of "The Treatise on Human Nature, and that on

mainly printed, is exceedingly scarce, Liberty and Necessity, with a Supplement," p. 57. This little work, though the impression consisting only of 100 copies.

See Bliss's edition (4to.) of Wood's Athen, Oxon. IV. 858.

φρονειν εις το σωφρονειν to be wise unto sobriety, as the holy apostle with great wisdom requires. And now I humbly hope and trust in the infinite mercy of that God against whom I had auda ciously opened my unhallowed mouth, that He who hath promised that all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, (excepting only that resolved malicious blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,) will he graciously pleased to glorify his mercy in the forgiveness of my most detestable errors and abominable sins. And I thank God that he hath awakened me in good measure to a just detestation of the accursed positions asserted by me, and of all other like wicked principles.

66

Wherefore, I do here in the presence of God, angels and men, cast myself down in a deep dread of the just judgments and vengeance of God upon the accursed Atheism of this age, acknowledging myself to be highly guilty of the growth and spreading thereof, having contributed what my profane wit could devise, or my foul mouth express, to instil it into others, or confirm them therein. And I do profess, I believe, (and judge it most reasonable so to believe,) that the openly professed Atheism of some, and the secret Atheism of others, is the accursed root of all that abounding wickedness, perjury, sacrilege, debauchery and uncleanness in this present age that in a deep sense of that wretched part I have acted in the propagating thereof, I do now abhor my self in dust and ashes, and that, from the bottom of my heart, I do disclaim, renounce, detest and abhor those execrable positions asserted by me or any other particularly

"1. That all right of dominion is founded only in power.

"2. That all moral righteousness is founded only in the law of the civil magistrate.

3. That the Holy Scriptures are made law only by civil authority.

"4. That whatsoever the civil magistrate commands is to be obeyed, notwithstanding contrary to Divine moral laws.

"5. That there is a desirable glory in being, and being reputed an Atheist; which I implied when I expressly affirmed that I gloried to be an Hobbist and an Atheist.

"For these unhallowed assertions and expressions, I now find such inward contrition and remorse, that I pray God his mercy may withhold me from relapse, or his judgments prevent it. But do I think that a bare recantation can satisfy for my prodigious offences? No, let me do penance all my days, submitting myself to God's will, and the charity of pious minds: and whatsoever my portion may be in this world, let me live and die in the fear of God and the faith of Christ. Amen.

"Now, lest any one should mistake or suspect this confession and unfeigned renunciation of my sinful and accursed errors, for an act of civil obedience or submission in me, performed according to my former primciples, at the command of my superiors, in outward expression of words, though contrary to my judgment and inward thoughts of my heart; or that I have not now expressed the most sincere and secret sense of my soul; I call the Searcher of all hearts to witness, that I loath and abhor such practices as the basest and most dainnable hypocrisy: that from my heart and soul I detest such principles in all persons, as worse than the basest villainies and reservations, which the Jesuits are said to practise or allow. And I openly avow, that I do acknowledge, that all persons so principled ought to be held by all mankind as the most dangerous and declared enemies of the common faith amongst men. That they are not to be trusted upon any obligation of their faith, or pretensions to piety, loyalty or common honesty, in any corporation, college, university, city, commonwealth or kingdom: but that, by those principles, destructive to all society and commerce amongst men, they may and do delude and defeat all oaths and protestations, all faith given to God or man: they may and will comply, if their own interest or advantage prompt them to it, with any invader or usurper with any faction or growing sect, however destructive to all order and the very being of human society in the world. I believe also, and openly avouch, that no power upon earth, no persuasion or imagination about natural right, no opinion in pretended philosophy concerning selfpreservation, can free me from the