possesses taste or feeling, 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: "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. Wakefield's Inquiry, p. 72.) 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 lessons not from the followers of the humble Jesus, but from the arrogant and magniloquent 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 becoming all good men, as being in nothing exceeded by Jupiter:" (Plut. de Stoic, Repugn. Oper. tom. ii. p. 1038. ed. Xyl.) when Seneca pronounces, that "a good man differs only in time from God," (De Provid. cap. i.) 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. 53.) and that "it is shameful to importune the gods in prayer, since a man's happiness is entirely in his own power," (Epist. 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 sentiments of the philosophizing Christian of the present day? and on casting an eye into the works of Priestley, Lindsey, Evanson, Wakefield, Belsham, and the other Unitarian writers, do we not instantly recognize that proud, and independent, and I had almost said heaven-defying self-reliance, which had once distinguished the haughty disciple of the Stoa? No. XVI.-ON ATONEMENT. PAGE 27. (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, who admitting a mediatorial scheme in the proper sense of the word, have thought right to found it upon the notion of a pure benevo lence, 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 principles: 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 Apostolic 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 Sacrifice, he says, (Script. Doctr. ch. 2. 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; as prayers, thanksgivings, labours," &c. &c. Having thus widened up the notion of Sacrifice, it becomes necessary that sacrificial atonement should be made of equally extensive signification: and accordingly, because the word 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 ourselves or others, such as obedience, a just life, sacrifices, prayers, intercessions, self-denials, &c. &c. He therefore thinks himself justified in extending to all these, that particular species of atonement which is effected by sacrifice and thereby 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 sa crifice 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 wisdom 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 ef ficacy of Christ's sacrifice, and how has it made atonement for sin?-He informs us himself, (Key, &c. No. 148.) Obedience, or 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 dispensation of grace, exceeding any which had gone before, 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 explained 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, (he says,) 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 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 possible endearments, and engaging considerations?"--And again, he says, (Script. Doctr. No. 170.) "By the blood of Christ, God discharges us from the guilt, because the blood of Christ is the mostpowerful mean of freeing us from the pollution and power of sin," and he adds, "it is the ground of redemption, as it a mean of sanctification?-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 pleasing 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 improving our virtue, that we have no sufficient ground to consider its virtue and efficacy in any other light." To what then, according to this writer, does the entire scheme of the Atonement amount ?-God being desirous to rescue man from the consequences and dominion of his sins, and yet desirous 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 improved 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, as far as I have been able to collect it, is a faithful 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 Socinian notion, which represents Christ merely as our instructor 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 oversight, and possibly from his artful accommodation of scripture 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 opinions on this subject are of an opposite description. Nay, the erroneous tenets of this author 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 examination of the doctrine in the Scripture Account 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: inasmuch as he represents Christ's concern for mankind, and his earnest intercession recommended by his meritorious obedience, 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 improvement in virtue: and so far from attributing any efficacy to Christ's obedience, as operating through intercession, (to which, we find from scripture, God has frequently bestowed his blessings, see Number IX. pp. 89, 90.) he considers the intercessions and prayers of good men for others, in no other light than as acts of obedience, 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 inconsistent 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. No. XVII. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT FALSELY CHARGED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF PRONOUNCING ON THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH. PAGE 28. (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 presumes 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, as on many other occasions, that a priori reasoning, which so fre |