fulness of memory when its directions and warnings are needed, or by what we think accidental circumstances, or by the frequently neglected services of the house of prayer,in these, and in many other ways which we see not, some probably which we cannot see, (but all alike a part of the allcomprehensive dealings of infinite wisdom,) our gracious Parent influences our hearts, often strongly and obviously, sometimes silently and gently, yet powerfully, breathes into us holy desires, fans the flame of pious affection, strengthens the fainting resolution, and carries on that work in the soul which will be completed in eternity.

If you ask whether any of these blessed influences, by which he brings back the wandering sinner, by which he succours the tempted, by which he strengthens the weak, by which be cherishes our pious affectious and holy principles, by which he comforts the feeble-minded, by which he gives fortitude and vigour for the greater duties, the greater sacrifices, the greater trials, by which he makes our way plain through difficulties and uncertainties, by which, in short, he trains up his children for holiness and happiness, if you ask whether any of these, or what of them, arise from his immediate agency on the human heart, I can merely answer, I am able to say no more, decidedly, than the Scriptures declare, that all proceeds from him; that the blessings are the same, and as much gifts of his grace, in whatever way he dispenses them. The rain which falls from the clouds to fertilize the soil, was raised from the earth by the influence of the sun; it was supported by the air; it was driven by the wind; it was collected by the powerful influence of other natural agents; but when it was poured down on the earth, it was not less by the hand of God, than if, without this intermediate agency, he had sent it down like the manna for the Israelites.

If, therefore, the man of compre hensive, cultivated intellect, can trace out some links in the chain of divine agency, which are unobserved by the less philosophic miud, it ought not to check his prayers or his praises. Here all are upon a level; and all are equally

bound to cherish faith in the constant providence of God, his constant presence, his constant agency and intla

ence.

[To be concluded in the next Number.]

I

SIR,

Bloxham,

August 2, 1819.

HAVE seen what Mr. Barham says [p. $56] on the doctrine of Atonement. If I understand him, (1.) He believes that our Lord's death was a real sacrifice for sin.

(2.) That it was designed to point out the evil of sin. But,

(3.) That it is not to be considered as making any change in the mind of God.

But really, Sir, whether this last view of the subject be philosophically true or not, is it not a much too refined way of reasoning for the common people, and indeed for all people Can any but very clear-headed and intelligent persons, (or even such, acquire apd steadily retain the two first views of the subject, without any tincture of the last? They may hastily assert they can and do, but if they will look narrowly into the secret operations of their minds, I suspect they will discover their error. We do not always know what is going on within us, because we reflect so little and so superficially. Many persons really believe what they think they do not believe. They have two species of faith; one may be called their controversial faith, and the other their practical faith. With the first they are well acquainted, but the latter is a kind of unknown guest to them.

As almost all the sacrificial terms that are used in the Old and New Testament concerning the blood and death of Christ, are borrowed from the Scripture accounts of the Jewish sin-offerings, we cannot adopt a surer method to come at the truth concerning the effects of the blood and death of Christ, than by considering what they say concerning the nature and effects of the Jewish sin-offerings. Now,

1. I hope it is most evident from what is said in your Repository, [X1. 717-721,] that the Jewish sin-offerings were designed to lead the offerer to consider the evil of his ways, &c.,

past sins, and set them apart, for the future, for his service in Christ Jesus, that he may thereby train them up to a meetuess for the holy world and holy employment of heaven.

We know but very little either of the real nature or operations of the infinite mind of God, and therefore should be very cautious what we assert concerning them, and closely adhere to the Scripture representation of things. Our heavenly Father, in great condescension to his feeble creatures, is pleased to stoop to converse with us in our own very humble dialect; for if he did not, we could not converse with him at all. We, therefore, should, and especially the learned should, think much of this when studying the Sacred Scriptures, and above all, when fixing the sense of such weighty subjects as the present. The wisest know but in part, and see through a glass darkly. Their most refined ideas, and polished mode of expression, are but as the feeble and indistinct expressions of little children, aiming at something they scarcely know what. The light of heaven will impart much information on these things. In the mean time, let us adhere to the pure language of Scripture, neither adding to, nor taking away from it. It is our duty to relate its truths as they are stated in that blessed book; God and his prophets will be answerable for the justness of the representations. You know, Sir, who hath said, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain (empty) deceit."

SIR,

It

JOSEPH JEVANS.

Bristol,

without hesitation: "We have no higher degree; the knowledge of Him appears to us a sea of perfections, and his love, which in the mystery of his atonement has the most beautiful aspect, is our eternal theme." I was taught this doctrine from the pulpit, not from the New Testament: I have since found from reading that book, that it is not the doctrine taught by Christ or his apostles. The discourses and parables of Christ, and those taught in the Acts of the Apostles, are all at variance with the doctrine of the atonement: this, if the doctrine be true, is a very extraordinary_cir `cumstance indeed. Now your Correspondent expresses his "conviction both of the truth and importance of the doctrine of the atonement;" and if it be so now, it must have been so at the time when the Gospels were written; and how such an important article should have been omitted is to me unaccountable. The punishment of the sinner seems to be the uniform language of the Scriptures; and how the doctrine of faith in the atonement has a tendency “to manifest the evil of sin and make men hate it—or inspire the sinner with a bitter hatred to sin," I must confess is beyond my comprehension. So far from it, that in my view of the subject, the apostle's advice to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," would lose its force, under the influence of "an atouement or expiation for sin."

If we understand the word atone. ment as signifying to reconcile, to unite, to harmonize, all is plain and easily understood, and perfectly consistent with the Old and New Testa ment: but how your Correspondent can consistently "premise that the doctrine of atonement must by no means be confounded with that of satisfaction," and at the same time consider it an "expiation for sin," is to me a matter of astonishment. I could quote many instances where the satisfactionist uses the latter word as nearly synonymous with the former. I cannot help considering the doctrine in question as one of the appendages of the Trinity, and with that it must stand or fall. Mr. Wright has well delineated its advocates in his "Free Grace of God Defended," p. 151. "Mistaking the premises, and proceeding on false

principles, the arguments of the advocates for the atonement are falla cious, and their inferences unfounded. They argue as if the seuse they impose on the words of Scripture was the unquestionable meaning of the pas sages they quote, and what they take for granted indisputable; though they, cannot well be ignorant of the contrary. Until they can prove that the seuse of Scripture is on their side, and that the premises they assume are really scriptural, their arguments and conclusions must be regarded as un. founded. A mere play upon words, detached from their connexion, and arbitrarily applied, and a misconstruction of Scripture facts, will support no argument against the scrutiny of reason and impartial examination, otherwise the proofs of transubstantiation would have been irresistible In whatever imposing tone the arguments in support of reputed orthodoxy may be urged, they can only bear down the timid, and those who are not in the habit of close thought or examination: those who resort to the first principles of divine truth, and are not to be carried away by mere sound, will detect their fallacy, It is to be hoped the age of inquiry is too far advanced for arguments and conclusions to maintain their authority, when the premises on which they are founded will not bear scrutiny." I cannot think with your Correspondent that the "extravagance of Calvinists" has driven Unitariaus into the "opposite extreme:" their extravagance may have driven them to their Bibles, and they cannot support any doctrine, nor plead for any practice, which they do not see clearly revealed there; and this it is that has at all times made "the great breach between them and the rest of Christians."

To conclude: if an unlimited confidence in the " One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all," for complete salvation both here and hereafter to all eternity, independent of any object whatever to render him placable: if the utmost reliance on his free, unmerited, boundless mercy, and "rejecting" the atonement, (which but for one mistranslation would have been totally unknown to the Christian Scriptures,) if "it is this which makes the hearts

of other Christians shrink from our communion as a dead and unholy thing:" if "it is this that makes us esteemed impious, presumptuous and God-denying:"if" so thinks the Christian world" of the Unitarians, let us calmly endure; "it is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Fear them not therefore."

But viewing the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin, in connexion with the satisfaction scheme, in however low a sense we take it, and I imagine it will be difficult to divest the minds of the generality of those to whom the doctrine of the atonement is so indispensably requisite in their scheme of salvation of every idea connected with satisfaction-instead of its proving a monument of the evil of sin, and a solemn warning to flee from it," I think it has a very contrary influence, by soothing the conscience and prompting the sinner to conclude himself entitled to pardon as a purchased inheritance; impressed with an idea, at the same time, of his utter inability to do any thing towards "working out his own salvation." Such are the views of most Christians whom I have conversed with, who plead for the doctrine of the atonemeut, and who in some cases have told me they could not die happy without it.

SIR,

F. B.

September 2, 1819. [T would probably tend very little to edification, should I attempt to discuss the opinion of J. P. S. [p. 488,] as to the "unction of spirituality" which he finds in the Institutes of Calvin," or the "character of jejuneness" which he has discovered in "those of Dr. Priestley." J. P. S. seems aware that his judgment will not be approved universally, and he is probably satisfied with the deference with which it is likely to be received by that large number of Christians, of whom few have leisure to study a body of divinity like "the Institutes of Calvin," and fewer still impartiality enough to look into “those of Dr. Priestley." I shall now take some notice of the admissions and

letter.

The learned author of "The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah" admits what, for an obvious reason, Sabbatarian Calvinists have never been forward to acknowledge, that "on one great branch of obedience," (the holiness of Sunday,) "the French Reformer entertained a sentiment lower than that which most Christians in our country approve;" while "he considered the religious observance of the first day of the week, as a duty, upon the grounds of expedience and utility principally." Your Correspondent, indeed, regards Calvin's "views of the sanctification of the Lord's day" as "defective and introductory to very melancholy consequences."

These admissions are however qualified. Calvin is supposed, in his "Dissertation on the Fourth Commandment," to describe" the religious observance of the first day of the week" as an arrangement-enjoined upon us by the will of God." Had the passage (II. 8, S2) been translated entire, it would, I think, have appeared that what Calvin considered as divinely enjoined upon Christians, was their assembling for public worship and instruction, and not the appropriation of any particular day or portion of time, like the Jewish Sabbath, for such a purpose. For the religious observance of Sunday Calvin argues, I apprehend, not principally, as your Correspondent admits, but wholly " upon the grounds of expedience and utility." This appears from the following words, being part of the passage omitted in the translation of Sect. 32, in your 488th page, (col. 2, line 25,) Conventus Ecclesiastici nobis Dei verbo præcipiuntur: et eorum necessitas, ipsa vitæ experientia nota satis est. Nisi stati sint, et suos habeant constitutos dies, quomodo haberi possunt. (Religious assemblings are enjoined upon us in the word of God; and their necessity is sufficiently discovered in the experience of life. Now unless these are stated, and special days are appointed for them, how can they be observed?)

From the beginning of Sect. 33, it appears that even such a highly expedient arrangement was disapproved

fellow-reformers I should suppose. He contents himself with calling them nonnulli inquieti spiritus (certain restless spirits). For Papists he had other epithets in store; and Unitarians would probably have been consigned to the same kennel with Hispanicum canem (that Spanish dog) Servetus. Whoever these restless spirits were, Calvin thus replies to them-longo intervallo differimus, in hâc parte, à Judeis. (We very widely differ, on this subject, with the Jews.} He then shews in what the difference consisted: Non enim, ut ceremoniam, arctissimâ religione, celebramus, qua quá putemus mysterium spirituale figurarı: sed suscipimus ut remedium retinendo in ecclesiâ ordini necessarium. This passage is thus correctly rendered in Norton's Translation, 1684: "For we keep it, not with straite religion, as a ceremonie, wherein we think a spiritual mysterie to be figured, but we retaine it, as a necessarie remedy to the keeping of order, in the church."

In the next and concluding Section, after expressing his approbation of the conduct of the ancient fathers in substituting the Lord's-day for the Sabbath, Calvin thus guards against being misunderstood, as if he supposed that Christians, like Jews, were under any divine law which had consecrated a seventh portion of their time for exclusively religious uses. On the contrary, the French Reformer might have conscientiously adopted the evanescent Decades of his countrymen. Calvin says, Neque sic tamen septenarium numerum moror, ut ejus servituti ecclesiam astringam, neque enim ecclesias damnavero, quæ alios conventibus suis solennes dies habeant, modò à superstitione absint. (Neither do I so regard the number seven as to bind the church to the observance of it; nor will I condemn churches who may appoint other days for their so

* Thus Calvin calls Servetus in his Commentary on Acts xx. 28. On which Franciscus Lismaninus wrote in the mar gin of his copy, the following distich,

Cur tibi sum Calvine canis? Tuus efficit ardor

Ne canis heu dicar, sed miseranda ciris, See Sandius, p. 35.