nected with his resurrection from the dead, is the means of our obtaining remission of sins, because thereby his Messiahship, and the truth of his gospel, which proclaims forgiveness of sins, were fully established. Thus then we have fully proved that the doctrine of the atonement, which this writer considers as a doctrine of infinite importance, has no foundation either in the Jewish or Christian scriptures, but is an invention of human folly and superstition, which ought to be reprobated by every sincere christian.. There is, however, another of remark this writer on 'which we shall offer an observation or two. He says, "I do not mention the Levitical sacrifices, particularly the Paschal Lamb, because Mr. S. would probably deny the whole scheme of types and anti-types." That there are allusions in the New Testament to the Levitical sacrifices is admitted, but that they were types, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the anti-type, no where appears, nor are they alluded to as vicarious sacrifices, nor is his sacrifice represented as such. We have a particular allusion to the Paschal Lamb in those words of the apostle," Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," and the allusion supposes that Lamb to be a sacrifice; but we observe that that sacrifice was not a sin-offering; no sin is charged upon the people of Israel as the occasion of it; it was not a vicarious sacrifice, either for the children of Israel or for the Egyptians; it was not designed to make an atonement; the observance of it was not a fast with humiliation and confession of sin, but a feast in commemoration of a deliverance, and so the apostle considered it, for immediately after his allusion to it, he adds, "Let us therefore keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." So far then is this allusion from proving the doctrine of vicarious punishment and atonement, that it proves most clearly that no such idea ought to be connected with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Thus, Sir, I have considered, pretty much at large, the remarks on Mr. Stone's Visitation Sermon, and I trust have fully justified him in renouncing those doctrines which the remarks are designed to establish; and have only to beg your pardon and that of your correspondents for obtruding so much upon your patience. Yours, &c. VOL. II. 3 H J. M. THE CLERGYMAN'S ANSWER TO J. M.-LETTER I. SIR, As you have inserted in the publication which you conduct some strictures of a writer who signs himself J. M. on the remarks which I wrote on the cover of Stone's Sermon, I suppose you will have no objection likewise to insert an answer to them. When J. M. asks such questions as the following, "Can the divine Being be the subject of prophecy? Can it be foretold of the immutable God, that he would change his mode of existence, cease to be what he is, and become an infant born of one of his creatures?" I am at a loss to discover how they apply to the question about which we are at issue. The point is not what the divine Being can be according to our pre-conceived notions of possibilities or probabilities, but what he is said to be and to do in scripture. If the volume of inspiration, unmutilated by contrivances like those of Mr. Stone, be considered as of decisive authority, then the questions of J. M. are wholly irrelevant. His preconceptions have nothing to do with the matter. We must be guided not by what he may fancy either possible or impossible, but simply by what the Bible says. Now, upon perusing the Bible, we Trinitarians find it declared, that there is only one God. We further find, that three different persons have each the names and attributes of the Godhead ascribed to them. And we lastly find, that one of these persons is sometimes said to be God and equal with God, and sometimes to be man and inferior to God. But all these declarations rest on the same authority. Hence we feel ourselves obliged to receive them all. This, according to our views of scripture, necessarily produces the doctrine of the unity in trinity and the humano-divine nature of Christ. The Socinians however think, that none of these declarations can be found in scripture, except those of the simple unity of God and the mere humanity of Christ. Here then, I had always understood that Trinitarians and Socinians were at issue; but the paper of J. M. leads me to suspect that I have been mistaken. He flies off to abstract questions about possibilities; questions, which would be strictly proper in the mouth of a deistical infidel, but which seem to me to proceed with a very singular grace from that of a Socinian, who (I had always supposed) professes to borrow his opinions from scripture without any previous consideration either of possibilities or impossibilities, Had J. M. paid a little more attention to the study of logic, he would have seen that he ought to have informed his readers, whether he denied the divinity of Christ on the score of its impossibility or on the score of its not being revealed in scripture. If the first, the labour which he has bestowed on explaining away various troublesome texts is plainly superfluous; for, if the doctrine be rejected on the ground of impossibility, it cannot be received by J. M. even if it be really contained in scripture: if the second, then his questions are palpably absurd; because in that case the matter is to be decided by scripture, not by the abstract consideration of its possibility or impossibility. I was at first in some doubt whether I should answer J. M. till I knew whether he argued on the principles of admitting or rejecting the authority of scripture: but, since his various explanations lead me to conjecture that he admits it, I shall proceed to consider them, leaving to him the task of shewing the consistency of those explanations with his knotty questions about possibilities. "The The first text is Micah, v. 2. concerning which I am said to make a strange assertion. Here I find, that he who is to be ruler in Israel is said to come forth from Bethlehem, and yet his goings forth are said to have been from of old, from everlasting. The obvious meaning of the passage seems to me to be that which is given by Mr. Lowth, words do naturally import an original, distinct from the birth of Christ mentioned in the foregoing sentence, which is here declared to be from all eternity. For so the words Mikkedem (translated here from of old, but rendered from everlasting, Habak. i. 12.) and Mime Olam, from the days of eternity,' do plainly signify. See Psalm lv. 19. xc. 2. Prov. viii. 23." In short the passage, when untortured by Socinian criticism, sets forth what divines, hath termed the eternal generation of the Son. J. M. says, that "this person was to come forth to Jehovah, and therefore was not Jehovah." Here is a curious instance of his begging the question. The very point, concerning which we are disputing, he assumes; and then uses it syllogistically as an argument. Let him prove that Christ is not Jehovah, and then his syllogism will be valid: till then it just leaves the matter where it found it. J. M. dogmatically asserts, that the scriptures know no such compound being as the God-man Jesus Christ. Let him prove his assertion. I did not require to be told by J. M. that scripture teaches that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." Socinians weary themselves in proving, what we never thought of denying, the humanity of Christ: let them prove that he is a mere man, and the dispute will be at an end. The very same scriptures that speak of "the man Jesus Christ," speak likewise of "the Word being with God and being God," of "all things being made by him," and of "his being nevertheless made flesh." And, that by this Word is meant Christ, J. M. himself does not deny: for he allows that the apocalyptic title "King of kings and Lord of lords," is given to the Word (Rev. xix. 13.); therefore by the concession of J. M. the Word is Christ. When the scripture teaches me that Christ is man, and likewise that Christ is God, it may use what J. M. indecently calls "senseless jargon:" but he must not be offended at plain Christians, if they choose rather to believe the declarations of the Bible, than to yield to Socinian decisions, positive as they may be, and, whatever is the cogency of J. M.'s arguments, he is certainly master of a style most energetically positive and dogmatical. I know as well as J. M. can tell me, that the word Olam does not necessarily convey the idea of eternity, any more than the English expression for ever: but, when Micah heaps words upon words by way (as it were) of strengthening his language and rendering it unambigu ous, I cannot but think the explanation proposed by J. M. perfectly unnatural and far-fetched.. Had Micah meant to say no more than what J. M. puts into his mouth, he would surely have said, "whose goings forth have been Meolam, from ancient time," (as in Joshua xxiv. 2.) not "whose goings forth have been from everlasting, even from the days of eternity." The next text is that in Psalm xlv. as cited by St. Paul in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews. Upon this J. M. remarks, that I ought to have known that the proper rendering of the passage is "God is thy throne," not " thy throne O God." Whatever I ought to have known, I lament to say that I know no such thing. The metaphor "God is thy throne," is so harsh, that it seems to me to be scarcely good sense. I can easily conceive how God may be styled a "sun" and a "shield" to his people, because he grants them illumination and protection; but how he can be styled a throne, strikes me as perfectly incomprehensible. God is sometimes said to establish a person's throne, as in 2 Sam. vii. 13. Psalm lxxxix. 4. ; but he is no where in the whole Bible ever said to be a throne himself, except he be in this passage, the Socinian interpretation of which, I think, with Doddridge, is very unnatural. It is plainly parallel with that in Lament. v. 19. "Thou, O Jehovah, remainest for ever; thy throne is from generation to generation," and I doubt not ought to be similarly interpreted. Indeed St. Paul himself in a manner teaches us how we ought to understand it. In the 1st chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews he draws a comparison between the dignity of angels and the dignity of Christ, for the purpose of shewing the infinite. superiority of the latter over the former. Accordingly he cites two passages from the Psalms, which he teaches us are addressed to the Son. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c.-and, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, &c." This latter passage is quoted from Psalm cii. and, if J. M. will take the trouble of turning to it, he will find that that psalm is addressed to Jehovah, for it begins with "Hear my prayer, O Jehovah," and afterwards celebrates Jehovah as the creator of heaven and earth. St. Paul however teaches us, that this very psalm is addressed to the Son, and consequently that it celebrates him as the universal creator. Hence it necessarily follows, that in the judgment of St. Paul the Son is Jehovah: and hence, even admitting the Socinian translation of the other passage, it will stand J. M. in very little stead. But I contend, that the very circumstance of St. Paul's applying to Christ a psalm addressed in the original to Jehovah, naturally leads us to conclude (what indeed the parallel passage in Lament. v. 19. requires) that the other passage ought to be translated "Thy throne, O God." As for the fellows or associates above whom Christ is anointed, I think, with Doddridge, that the angels are meant, It seems to be an allusion to Christ, the great angel of the covenant or Jehovah the messenger, taking the peculiar charge of Judea, while the angels took charge of other countries. See Doddridge in loc. and Dan. x. Here I may observe, that what is usually translated" the angel of the Lord" ought to be translated" Jehovah the messenger." Wherever this divine personage appears, he is uniformly represented as being God; a remarkable instance of which occurs in Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. where" angel" or 66 messenger" is used as synonymous with "the God of Abraham and Isaac." J. M. would do well attentively to read Dr. Allix's judgment of the Jewish Church; or, if he be unable to procure that book, Dr. Jamieson's Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture, vol. 1. p. 1-117. He would then see the opinions which the ancient Jews entertained of the divine messenger, and would be able to |