sion to the offender, and his marked disapprobation of the of fence!

The objection against the necessity of mediation, in any form whatever, has been often and satisfactorily refuted, by referring to proofs of mediation, in the present government of the moral world. The profound and acute reasonings of Bishop Butler have set this question at rest for ever. But there are some professing Christians, who admit the expediency of mediation, and consider the obedience of the saviour in that light, and yet reject altogether the proper idea of atonement, or sacrificial mediation. In the whole course of our theological inquiries, we never met with a more complete exposure of the system of what is called pure intercession, than in the dissertations of Dr. Magee. The subject is so important, and managed with such transcendent ability, that we shall furnish our readers with a copious abstract of the intercessory scheme, as developed and confuted in the learned disquisitions before us; and we enter on this analysis the more willingly, because if that scheme which approaches nearest to the scriptural doctrine, and most readily adapts itself to the phraseology of scripture, be proved to be at variance with it, then all those schemes which require the greatest skill in contortion to give them the least degree of approximation, must be decidedly unscriptural, and demand our immediate and unqualified rejection.

What but a preconceived theory, to which scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ, there was no expiation for sin; that the word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament, merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the redemption, amounts but to this" that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that way which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that he, having taught the pure doctrines of the Gospel; having passed a life of exemplary virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only by his example, proposed to mankind, a pattern for imitation: but has by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repentance.? That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a mediator; the mediation conducted through interces sion; and that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious obedience of the Redeemer." Vol. I. Disc. I. pp. 21-22.

In one of the explanatory dissertations (No. xvi.) referred to, in the passage now quoted, Dr. Magee observes, that

The scheme of atonement, as it is here laid down, is that which has been maintained in the letters of Ben Mordecai, by the very learned and

Ingenious, though not unerring, 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 benevolence, 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 foun: p. 169,

dation."

The learned author then proceeds to a minute and critical examination of the scheme of Dr. Taylor, to which we shall advert in a future stage of our inquiries. We shall at presépt turn back to the arguments in opposition to the other scheme, as set forth in the discourse.

"Here indeed," says Dr. M. "we find the notion of Redemption admitted; but in setting up for this purpose the doctrine of pure intercession in opposition to that of atonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of redemption at large; and the Deist, against that of revelation itself.

་

For the present let us confine our attention to the objections, which the patrons of this new system, bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church, to which we more immediately belong, As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any which can be alledged against the latter, that may not be urged with equal force against the former: not a single difficulty, with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see, how little reason there was, for relinquishing the plain and, natural meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which, if persevered in, must render the word of God, ja nullity.

The first and most important of the objections, we have now to consider is that, which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on the divine implacability-But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system he upholds. If it was necessary for the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow that had not Christ thus suffered and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it

* This work is entitled-" The apology of Benjamin Ben Mordecai to his friend for embracing Christianity, in seven letters to Elisha Levi, merchant, of Amsterdam, &c. By Henry Taylor, A. M. Rector of Crawley, and Vicar of Portsmouth-2 vols. The second edition was printed in 1784. The soi disant converted Jew defends with great dexterity, what would be called according to the customary graduation of the scale of heresy, high Arianism. Ed.

were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now, what is - the answer? "That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means, by which God, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow pardon." Let then the word intercession, be changed for sacrifice, and see, whether the answer be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any, who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself? (John iii. 16. 1 John iv. 10. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, 20. Rev. xiii. 8.) Since then the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation, with that of pure intercession-merely as the means, whereby God has thought fit to grant his favour, and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merci. ful intention, which he had at all times, entertained towards his fallen creatures; and since by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being is as applicable to the one scheme, as to the other; we may estimate with what candour this has been made, by those who hold the one doctrine, the fundamental ground of their objectione against the other.

• But still it is demanded, "in what way can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the remission of sins, unless by the appeasing of a being, who otherwise would not have forgiven us?" To this the answer of the Christian is, "I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins; it is enough that this is declared by God to be the medium, through which my salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom, and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it, is not within my comprehension." But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one being, be conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another? Let us likewise enquire, how the meritorious obedience of one being can be conceived to have any connection with the pardon of the transgressions of another; or whether the prayers of a righteous being in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in obtaining forgiveness, than the same supplication, seconded by the of fering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the intercession, has, as far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever.* All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the

The sentiments of Dr. Magee, on this point, exactly coincide with what Bishop Butler has asserted in the second part of his Analogy. Chap. V. 'How, and in what particular way, the sacrifice of Christ had this efficacy, there are not wanting persons, who have endeavoured to explain: but I do not find that the scripture has explained it. We seem to be very much in the dark, concerning the manwer, in which the ancients understood atonement to be made, i. e. pardon to be

other, is, that it has been appointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure deism, and perhaps may not stop even there." Vol. I. pp. 21-27.

This analogical argument appears to us conclusive, and brings the question within those proper limits in which it can be scripturally discussed. Indeed all previous reasonings concerning moral government, and the immutability of the divine law, in its requirements and sanctions, would be unnecessary, if the plain and explicit statements of revelation were regarded. But when repentance, and the mercy of God, and pure intercession, are resorted to as accounting for the non-infliction of legal punishment, and, as separately or combined, warranting the guilty to indulge the hope of pardon, it becomes expedient to shew that these grounds are insufficient; and that none of them, when properly considered, presents any reasonable objection against the scriptural doctrines of atonement and sacrifice. We call them scriptural, because on any other supposition than the admission of their truth, the facts recorded in scripture, and the language in which they are stated, are utterly inexplicable. The direct proof, therefore, of the question before us, comes under consideration; and in arranging our views on this subject, we shall attend to the early intimations of scripture,-the scope of the Mosaic economy,-the leading features of prophetic testimony, the terms in which the doctrine of sacrifice is asserted in the New Testament, and the inadequacy of every method of construction which divests them of their plain and literal meaning. Having adduced the principal sentiments and explanations of Dr. Magee on these various topics, we shall briefly notice some collateral inquiries, included in his dissertations, and then close our account of these interesting volumes.

In considering the early intimations of scripture, our at tention is first arrested by the sacrifice which Abel offered, "by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." The sacred historian informs us, that Abel offered "of the firstlings of his flock," and Cain "of the fruit of the ground;" and that "the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering, but unto Cain, and to his offering,

'obtained by sacrifices. And if the scripture has, as surely it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious, left somewhat in it unrévealed, all conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any one reason to complain for want of further information, unless he can shew his claim to it. It is our wisdom thankfully to accept the benefit-without disputing how it was procured." p. 305, 306. (4th Edition.)

he had not respect."What was the reason of this preference? It could not have arisen from the greater intrinsic value of an animal above a vegetable offering, because, irrespective of a divine institution, the one would be as acceptable to the Deity as the other. Nor, as far as we can learn from the history itself, did it arise from the superiority of Abel's moral character for, till the offerings were presented, no recorded proof of that superiority appeared. It is said, indeed, by St. John, that. Abel's works were righteous, and his brother's evil;" but this is not assigned as the reason of the divine acceptance, but of the act of fratricide which Cain committed. Abel, by his sacrifice, obtained an attestation of the rectitude of his character, but the object of his attestation seems to have been quite distinct from the grounds of his acceptance. The apostle Paul asserts, that Abel's sacrifice was offered in faith. Now faith necessarily implies a divine revelation to which it is directed, and a divine institution to which its exercise and operations must be conformed. If the word of God be the only legitimate object of faith, the will of God is the only authoritative rule of worship. Is not the inference clear,→→ that if Abel's sacrifice was accepted, because the principle from which it was offered, and the manner in which it was conducted, accorded with what God had revealed and prescribed, then sacrifices must have been of divine appointment?

1

On the "difference in the reception of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel," we find the following dissertation.

To those who reject the divine institution of sacrifice, this has always proved a stumbling block; and to remove the difficulty various solutions have been elaborately but unsuccessfully devised. The difference in the treatment of the two brothers had been accounted for by ancient com. mentators, from the different mode of division of their several oblations, as if Cain's fault had consisted in not giving to God the best parts, or the proper parts of the sacrifice. This unintelligible notion, which an early enemy of revelation, Julian, failed not to urge against Christians, took its rise from the Septuagint translation of Gen. iv. 7. Ουκ εαν ορθώς προσενέγκης, •pows de un diens, mapres-If you should rightly offer, but yet not rightly divide, would you not sin?

• Others have held, that the difference arose from this, that whilst Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, Cain did not in like manner bring of the first, or best of his fruits. This idea, for which there appears no farther foundation in the original, than that it is simply stated that Cain brought of the fruits, originated with Philo, and has had the support of se

veral Christian commentators!

Again, the reason of the difference assigned by Josephus (Antiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 3.), is, "that God was more pleased with the spontaneous productions of nature, than with an offering extorted from the earth by the ingenuity and force of man.' This strange conceit has been confined to Josephus and the rabbins, from whom Havercamp affirms, and Cunæus