ment of the salvation of Christians are obviously borrowed from the Old Testament phraseology; and as in the case of election, so also of redemption we are warranted to infer, that the modes of the Divine dealings, both in reference to the Jewish and the Christian dispensation, were corresponding and similar.As to the practical influence of Calvinism, Dr. W. justly remarks, that it is not detrimental, precisely because it is not operative. Calvinism is an affair of creeds merely-of profession-not of practice. Even in preaching, all that is valuable in precept and exhortation is given when Calvinism is laid aside and for a moment forgotten. But while the excellent writer admits that in some cases the system, being embraced with the heart, realized to the mind, and carried to its legitimate consequences, may be so held as to prove a dangerous downfall," he yet does not, it seems to us, appreciate adequately the practical influence which Calvinism has had, and yet on uninformed minds possesses, to the serious injury of the intellect and heart. Cases we ourselves know in which it has caused upright and pious Christians to go through years of bitter sorrow and anxiety. Such must be its effect when really and fully adopted. It will of necessity, more or less, according as more or less firmly believed, impair the peace, sour the mind, and darken life. No one can in any way judge of its dreadful effects but such as have felt or seen them; and for ourselves we are fully assured that if Unitarians in general only beheld with their own eyes the baneful operation of this and some other prevailing doctrines, they would not only cast away their present indifference, but arouse all their energies to liberate the minds and hearts of their fellow-christians from the heavy and cruel thraldom under which they suffer.

In this Essay Dr. Whately makes another remark to which also he would do well to attend. No risk of giving offence to men, he tells us, should be incurred in the case of doctrines which (whether true or not) are not plainly declared in scripture." Will Dr. W. say that the Trinity is plainly declared (the italics are his own) in the Scriptures? He cannot, we are certain. Well, then, how can he approve of making that doctrine the fundamental tenet of Christianity, and of denying the Christian name to all who reject it? And, according to his own principles, is he not bound to labour for the removal of this rock of offence? No risk of giving offence should be run to maintain the doctrine, as it is not, by confession, "plainly declared" in the Scriptures. Let it, then, be removed from the creed and articles of the Catholic Church; let it no longer block up the access to Universities; let it no more be identified with Christianity itself.

The question relating to the abolition of the Jewish law is one on which the greatest time and labour have been spent, and the most dissimilar opinions held. Dr. Priestley held that the Mosaic law had not been repealed by Christ; and the Israelites of Lancashire, maintaining the same idea, conform, in respect of circumcision and the wearing of the beard, to its requirements. Some have endeavoured to shew that the ceremonial law alone was removed, while the moral law was left untouched. To this an objection has been made, that no such distinction as the moral and the ceremonial law is to be found in the Scriptures. We do not think the objection of much force: a difference between the two might exist, though no distinction were expressed. The Bible does not divide the matters it expounds, secundum artem; it avoids all technicalities; and it is therefore quite possible that the law of Moses may have been regarded, even though it be not expressly exhibited, under two aspects. Dr. Whately contends that the whole law was abolished. Paul frequently and strongly speaks of the termination of the

Mosaic law, and of the exemption of Christians from its obligations, and that without ever limiting or qualifying the assertion-without even hinting at a distinction between one part which is abrogated, and another which remains in force. Nor did the apostle, he contends, refer to the ceremonial law alone, for the allusions which he makes to sin shew that he had the moral law in his mind. "The law was added because of transgressions." "By the law was the knowledge of sin." "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" "Shall we sin because we are not under the law?" But the natural distinctions of right and wrong, not having been introduced by the Mosaic law, cannot be overthrown by its removal, any more than the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem implied the destruction of Mount Sion, whereon it was built. What, therefore, was right or wrong before the law existed, was right or wrong after it was abolished. Christians in consequence are not at liberty to disregard moral duties, because the Jewish law is not binding on them. These they are to observe, not because they formed originally a part of the Mosaic law, but because of their own intrinsic obligation. The Essay on the abrogation of the Mosaic law is written with a view to shew that Paul gives no countenance to the errors of Antinomianism, and that the gospel by no means exempts men from moral obligation. Believing that the institutions of Moses have entirely come to an end, Dr. W. disapproves of the conduct of those who, "from views of expediency, for fear of unsettling the minds of the people," or from whatever cause, "think it right to inculcate or connive at the belief," that the sanctity of the Christian sabbath depends on the fourth commandment.

The most important Essay, perhaps, in the whole book is that in which the writer impeaches the prevalent doctrine of "imputed sin" and "imputed righteousness." This doctrine is set forth by the majority of Christian teachers as the essence of the atonement, and the very key-stone of the Christian system. Dr. W.'s own communion, the church, labours assiduously to propagate it. A tract, published by the Religious Tract Society, thus teaches: Sickness and death will make no change in you for the better; they have no power at all to do this; nothing but the blood and righteousness and spirit of Christ can prepare us for or entitle us to a place in his kingdom." And another, "This law or the first covenant has been broken by us all in our first father, Adam." "Christ having taken our nature, not only fulfilled for us the law or first covenant in every point, but he also suffered in our stead the punishment which we have justly deserved for our disobedience. Thus, it may be said that every true believer, in Christ and by Christ, has fulfilled, and will be accounted to have fulfilled, the law.” "The righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ is imputed and applied to the believer as if it were his own righteousness." So the eleventh article, "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings." But on this point at least Dr. W. is a Dissenter. That the doctrine" is paradoxical, remote from all we should naturally have expected, and startling to our untutored feelings, cannot be questioned." It may, nevertheless, he says, be true; but then we should expect full and precise revelation on such a point. Any doctrine," he adds, "which, like that now in question, is wholly at variance with every notion we should naturally be led to form, we may be sure will be revealed, if revealed at all, in the fullest and most decisive language." This passage might have been penned by a Unitarian. It recognizes the goodness of our natural feelings, so shamefully cried down in the present day. It establishes the propriety of the

66

appeal we have made to the human heart against the terrific doctrines of the Genevese Reformer. But will it not carry Dr. W. farther than he is exactly prepared to go? Is not the idea of myriads of human beings perishing, even though only through permission, to all eternity-and that of three persons in one God-and two natures in one person-of three being oneand the finite and the infinite existing in the same being, apart and unblended, "at variance with every notion we should naturally be led to form," and "we may be sure," therefore, "will be revealed, if revealed at all, in the fullest and most decisive language"? But, ex concesso, these notions are not so revealed, and in consequence, on Dr. W.'s own principles, they are unfounded and false. In reference to the doctrines we have mentioned, as well as to imputed sin and imputed righteousness, the following language of Dr. W. may be used:

"It is not once or twice, therefore, it is not obscurely or obliquely that we might expect to find St Paul speaking to his converts of this imputed sin and imputed obedience. As the foundation of salutary dread and of consolatory hope, as connected most intimately with every question relative to the punishments and rewards of the next world, we might expect him to make the most explicit declarations respecting a point of such moment, to dwell on it copiously and earnestly, to recur to it in almost every page. Now, when we proceed to actual examination of Scripture, do we find these most reasonable expectations confirmed? Far otherwise.""

Dr. W.'s reasonings from Scripture are good, but not new; and on a subject with which our readers are so familiar, it is not necessary to enter into an exposition of them. He terminates his examination in these words: "I cannot but conclude that that system of imputed sin and righteousness which I have been considering is altogether fanciful and groundless."

Dr. Whately, therefore, denies either that Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. And, in a spirit not altogether becoming one who has evidently drawn not a little on Unitarian writers, he tells his readers that the doctrine of imputation which he impeaches "is a favourite point of attack to the Infidel, and especially the Socinian; who pretend and probably believe themselves" (surely belief is hardly compatible with pretence) "to have exposed to contempt the great doctrines of the Atonement and the Divinity of Christ, by exposing the chimerical pretensions of doctrines. which are taught in conjunction with these, and represented as parts of the same system." If Unitarians have so acted, their justification is to be found in Dr. W.'s own words. Imputed sin and imputed righteousness, he tells us, are taught in conjunction with the Atonement, and represented as parts of the system. "Not only so," he says, in another part, "if true, it must be the very key to eternal happiness," and in consequence so is it taught in his own shewing by those who think it true. And, in point of fact, it cannot be denied that this doctrine still constitutes the essence of the Atonement as taught from the pulpit, and as may be seen from the quotations we have made, as enforced by societies for the evangelization of the people. We proclaim Dr. W., therefore, heretic in this point, and tell him that whether or not his system of Atonement is obnoxious to exposure from Unitarian arguments, the common notions on this subject most unquestionably are; for in all essential points they are identical with the doctrine of imputation which, after many Unitarians, Dr. W. has exploded. Take away from "the Atonement" the doctrine of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, and we know not that there remains much that is objectionable, though we confess that we should wish to see a change of doctrine followed

by a change of name, both because the word Atonement is unscriptural, (as used of Christianity,) and because, if retained, it may prove deceptive to the unthinking, and a bone of contention even to the well-informed. What Dr. W.'s views of the doctrine he calls the Atonement may be, it is not easy to learn from the work before us. He speaks of our Lord as the "meritorious cause" of our salvation; and yet of the whole of Christianity as proceeding from the spontaneous benignity of God-phraseology which to us wears at least the appearance of being somewhat inconsistent. It would have been well for society at large, if the truth contained in the following sentence of this Essay had been and still were recognized and acted upon by Dr. W.'s church: "Whenever we teach for gospel truths any thing which the gospel does not warrant, we are answerable for the effects produced, not only on those who adopt our opinions, but also on those who dissent from them." And for the instruction of his church, Dr. W. might also have learnt from the assertion which he makes, "if three or four perhaps of those who are accounted sound divines should be consulted as to the doctrine of Justification, it is not unlikely they would give as many different accounts of it,"-that articles of faith are useless to the end for which they were designed, and by a reference to which it is frequently attempted to justify them, namely, to secure and preserve unity of faith.

Towards the close of the volume, Dr. Whately has an Essay on apparent contradictions in Scripture, that is, on expressions which, if taken literally, would be at variance with each other, and which consequently must be mutually explained and modified by each other in order that they may be reconciled. Both in doctrinal and practical points, it is requisite to compare and balance as it were against each other different parts of Scripture, if we would gain a correct view of what it is intended to convey. And where a literal compliance or interpretation of precepts involves inconsistency, where that literal compliance would be "wrong" or "absurd," it is manifest it could not be intended. "Conscience" and "common sense" must judge of the nature of the precept and of its compatibility with others. One thing must be set against another, and from the two the truth will be inferred. The doctrine thus laid down is good and just, and not the less good and just because now at length recognized by one who, we suppose, deems himself not an Unitarian.` But, nevertheless, the principle set forth is one which Unitarians constantly observe in their scriptural investigations, and the only difference between them and Dr. W. on this head is, that they use it always, he sometimes. If he was as consistent in the use of it as they, we doubt not he would speedily be led to renounce the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the doctrine of the two natures. Let us try the efficacy of the rule. Jesus is called a Lion and a Lamb. Is this to be interpreted Ïiterally? Obviously not, says Dr. W.; the terms imply contradictory qualitics. He is called a man and a vine. Is he both? No; the qualities of the two are incompatible. He is called a God (granting this for the sake of argument) - he is called a God and a man. Is he both? Yes, says Dr. W., though the qualities implied are, of all others, most incompatible. To the personality of the Holy Ghost, in favour of which the writer argues, this mode of interpreting the Scriptures suggested by Dr. W. himself, is decidedly hostile. We hope that he will make the application of his principle which we have now suggested, or shew cogent reasons why it is not to be used on these as well as on other points. Unitarians have been accused of explaining away the difficulties adduced against their tenets, but they have never, we venture to say, gone farther in reference to doctrines than Dr. W.

has in reference to precepts, in the application of the principle of rejecting notions that were 66 absurd," or "inconsistent," or contrary to 66 common sense"-notions not, as they think, found in the Scriptures, but in human creeds. And even though such notions were, as they are not, found in the Bible, still it would be our duty to reject them; for, with the intelligent, nothing that is absurd can by any possibility gain authority. The Bible itself could not establish an absurdity; but absurdities might and would destroy the authority of the Bible. To our present purpose is the following quotation from Dr. Whitby, in which he mentions a circumstance which led him to relinquish the doctrines of Calvinism :

"After some years' study I met with one who seemed to be a Deist, and telling him that there were arguments sufficient to prove the truth of Christian faith and of the Holy Scriptures, he scornfully replied, Yes; and you will prove your doctrine of the imputation of original sin from the same Scripture; intimating that he thought that doctrine, if contained in it, sufficient to invalidate the truth and the authority of the Scripture. And by a little reflection, I found the strength of his argument ran thus; that the truth of Holy Scripture could no otherwise be proved to any man that doubted of it, but by reducing it to some absurdity or the denial of some avowed principle of reason. Now this imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity so as to render them obnoxious to God's wrath and to eternal damnation, seemed to him as contradictory to the common reason of mankind as any thing could be, and so contained as strong an argument against the truth of Scripture, if that doctrine was contained in it, as any that could be offered for it."

From the difficulty so well stated by Dr. Whitby, the advocates of popular error are wont to take shelter in the temple of mystery. But Dr. Whately cuts off their retreat the passage contains nothing new in fact, though it may something in illustration. However, it is of value as coming from one of influence in the church and of unimpeached, we do not say unimpeachable, orthodoxy.

"The sense of the term mystery as employed by the sacred writers is very commonly mistaken: and the mistake has been a source of much error. The ancient heathen had certain sacred rites in which were disclosed to those 'initiated' certain secrets which were carefully to be kept concealed from the uninitiated, (quinto,) the great mass of the professors of the religion. St. Paul naturally makes allusion to these by the use of the word 'mystery,' to denote those designs of God's providence and those doctrinal truths which had been kept concealed from mankind till the fulness of time' was come, but now were made manifest to believers. And he frequently adverts to one important circumstance in the Christian mysteries which distinguishes them from those of Paganism, viz. that while these last were revealed only to a chosen few, the gospel mysteries on the contrary were made known to all who would listen to and obey the truth, whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, barbarian or Greek. All Christians were initiated, (ova, as one of the ancient fathers calls them,) and those only remained in darkness who wilfully shut their eyes: if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, whom the prince of this world hath blinded.''

Now our ordinary use of the word mystery conveys the notion of something that we cannot understand at all, and which it is fruitless to inquire into. Both we and the sacred writers, indeed, understand by the word something hidden from one party and known to another, (for we suppose all mysteries to be known to God,) but there is this difference; that we use the word in reference to them from whom the knowledge is withheld: St. Paul