to the orthodox doctrine of the atonement:

God does not forgive sin without a plenary satisfaction to his justice.

This plenary satisfaction he receives from the death of Christ, as a substitute.

Christ fulfils the law for us, as well as suffers in our place.

All the sins of believers are actually imputed to Christ.

The perfect righteousness of Christ, active as well as passive, is actually imputed to believers.

God does not properly forgive sin, but receives a price equivalent to the damage of the trespass.

On this scheme, the several expressions, the merits of Christ, satisfaction to divine justice, imputed righteousness, imputed guilt, substitution, the wrath of God, with perhaps some others, are by no means to be understood in any figurative meaning, but properly and literally. Such is the truly orthodox doctrine of the atonement.

Some, unwilling to give up the doctrine altogether, have proposed notions of it different from the above; but those schemes (as they have been called) are neither truly orthodox, nor

the good times in which we live) he has partly, and BUT partly accomplished. The following comes the nearest to a definition or statement of any thing I could find: "The great atonement for the sins of mankind, was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death, which had been denounced against sin, and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to him, &c.” He likewise calls the death of Christ. at different times, expiatory, vicarious, propitiatory, &c. &c.

It being my only object in this communication to state the truly orthodox doctrine of the atonement, in the manner in which it has been really represented by its advocates, that in the discussion of it, its true notion may be kept clearly in view, I shall now conclude with sincerely wishing, that this subject may be dispassionately and fully considered in the future Numbers of the Repository.

tament.

It will perhaps be observed that in the above account of the atonement, no notice has been taken of Dr. Magee, the great modern champion of this doctrine. But the fact is, that I could not fix on any passage where he gives a plain statement or definition of the doctrine. Whoever will look into Dr. Magee's book for plain statements on this, or indeed any other subject of controversy, will look there in vain; but, to boot, he will discover, that Doctor William Magee, Senior Fellow of Trinity College, and Professor of Mathematics in the University of Dublin, and now Dean of Cork, had a very different object in view, which (let him devoutly thank

I am, Sir, Yours, &c. W. J.

SIR, Jan. 24, 1815. T was with great pleasure that I read the notice, given in your last Number, that the doctrine of Atonement was to be brought under consideration in the ensuing volume, hoping that a calm and fair discussion of it will be the means of ascertaining the truth in respect to a point which has been so long and so warmly debated. It must strike every attentive reader, that the word itself is used only once in the New Testament (namely, Rom. v. 11); and that, even in this passage, in the margin of some of the larger Bibles, the word "reconciliation" seems to be recommended as more proper. The original is precisely the same with that which is translated in this very manner in 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. And the verb, from which it is immediately derived, is translated "reconcile, reconciling, re. conciled," in Rom. v. 10, 1 Cor. vii. 11, 2 Cor. v. 18-20, as similar ones are in 1 Sam. xxix. 4. (Sept.) Matt. v. 24, Eph. ii 16, Col i. 20, 21. The verb itself is a compound one. And it is observed, by the author of A Treatise on Universal Salvation (generally supposed to be Dr. Chauncey) that it properly signifies "to re-change, or

bring back again to some former state" (p. 128). When the first change in the disposition of one person towards another has been manifested by the commission of some injurious or of fensive act; the re-changing of disposition in the injurious or offending party, or a return to a friendly temper and behaviour, is very properly expressed by being "reconciled to" the other. And it is the unvarying language of scripture, that the offending person, not the offended one, is, or ought to be, the person reconciled: see the above quotations. Now this "reconciliation" of the injurious or offending party to that which hath been injured or offended, is precisely what was formerly meant by the English word "At-one-ment ;" and will appear to be so if the second syllable of that word is pronounced as the numeral "one." For the proof of this assertion, we may refer to Acts vii. 26, where we read that Moses, seeing two of the Israelites contending, "would have set them at one again," would have at-one-d them, would have reconciled them (literally "drove them together unto peace." Gr. Test); an expression which may be illustrated by a saying very common, in the southern parts of the kingdom, particularly in the mouth of parents to their children," if you do so or so, you and I shall be two." And since it cannot be improper to appeal to any writer as to the sense in which an English word was used in his time, I will beg leave to refer your readers to The Universal Theological Magazine, Vol. iv. p. 247, where they will see a collection of passages from Shakespeare (who flourished about the time when our present translation of the Bible was made); in which the verb" atone" most evidently means -if an active verb, "to reconcile"if a neuter verb, "to be in a state of agreement," and the substantive "atonement" as evidently means "reconciliation." Supported by such authorities, will it be presumptuous to assert with confidence, that for the word" atonement," in the only passage of the New Testament in which it is to be found, we ought to substitute "reconciliation?" Whether this is precisely the sense in which that word is used in the Old Testament, is a question submitted to more compe

tent judges." This, however, may be affirmed without hesitation, that in Heb. ii. 17, we read “make reconciliation for the sins of the people," though, perhaps, in the Old Testament it would have been "make atonement." If these remarks should be thought worth inserting in some early Number of the Repository, they may perhaps serve as introductory to a more particular examination of the subject by some abler hand. With hearty wishes for the increasing spread and success of a publication so eminently interesting to the friends of religious inquiry and scripture truth, I am, Sir,

Feb. 6, 1815.

page 32, of your last Number, are some remarks by Mr. Frend on the Atonement, in the course of which, he states that he has found in the writings of several Unitarians, and the conversations of others, that he differs very materially from them in his views of our Saviour's character. As a friend to free discussion, the writer of this would be glad to have these differences precisely and accurately defined. This, he conceives, Mr. F. has not done, in a manner that is likely to prove satisfactory to inquirers after truth. He observes, "Whilst they (Unitarians in general) consider him merely a teacher sent from God, mighty in word and deed, I consider him as my Saviour,---as one through whom the Creator bestows the greatest of gifts to the human race." And do not Unitarians in general, regard Jesus, the Messenger of the Most High, as the instrument and medium of divine communications to mankind of the most inestimable value? Thus far, then, the difference between Mr. F. and us appears to be very far from either essential or "material." But further, he views him also "as the indispensible medium by which we enter into eternity." To this expression, understood in an unqualified sense, my views of the character of God, connected with the future destiny of the heathen world, (and all those, whose ignorance of that holy

66

name in which we bow" to God the Father, does not arise from wilful neglect of the means of knowledge,)

all? Where is it revealed? To whom is it revealed? What is the penalty of rejecting it?

As the sacrifices offered to God by the patriarchs and enjoined by the Mosaic dispensation have been represented as expiatory and typical, and some of them expressly intended to represent, not only the death of the Messiah, but also the end for which he died; namely, as is commonly taught to satisfy the wrath of God, we shall begin our inquiries, by endeavouring to understand their true nature: and we would hint to your readers, that some things will be submitted as plausible conjectures only; others, and those the most interesting, will be asserted as facts, on the ground of scriptural evidence; deductions, inferences, and explanations, will of course arise out of these facts, and they will be cheerfully offered (as they have been fairly made to the best of the writer's ability) to the plain understandings of sincere Christians of every denomination.

That sacrifices were offered to the Deity from the earliest ages all history testifies, but it is not clear that animals were slain in sacrifice in the first age of the world, nor can it be proved by scriptural authority, that any such were enjoined at that time. The first offerings were probably nothing more than what are called in the Levitical law thank-offerings; I think there is no proof to the contrary in either sacred or profane history. The poet Ovid, that collector of old traditions, as well as heathen fables, says, lacte mero veteres usi narrantur et herbis, sponte sua signa terra ferebat. And it is likely that while the inhabitants of the world were but few, their food was not the flesh of animals, but the fruits of the earth, this appears to have been the food of the first parents of men, it is therefore probable that in those days bloody sacrifices were not offered, and if so great a portion of the inhabitants of India have in all past ages abstained from animal food, occupying, as they are supposed to do, the original seat of mankind, we have then an instance of the continuance of this custom to this day, by millions of the human

race.

If we take the scriptural account of the first ages of the world literally,

we must believe that God did, by some visible and audible medium, make his presence obvious to mankind in those ages, and that it was so is very probable, because no man could acquire ideas of God, truth and duty, without adequate means of instruction, and though natural religion might teach the existence of Deity, some of the duties which we owe to him, to ourselves and to one another, yet I think the state of the heathen world, after they had lost by their crimes just ideas of God, and degenerated into idolatry, proves that there is much of God and of duty, and the means of happiness, which cannot be known, except by revelation: if this be a mistake, it would be difficult to prove the necessity of such a revelation, and if ever, it was always necessary, and never more so than in the infancy of knowledge, while language was barren, because ideas were few, and arts unknown. I am speaking of such a revelation only, as was adapted to the then existing circumstances of the world. The art of language is one of the most valuable discoveries made by man; it must have been perfected by degrees, as ideas increased, and if not taught as to its first principles, by the Author of our being, it is one of the highest proofs of the grandeur and excellence of human nature. I conceive then, that the parents of the world, very likely by divine instruction, had methods by which they acknowledged their dependence upon, and obligations to their Creator. Here seems to be the origin of worship and sacrifice; a sacrifice was an act, speaking the language of gratitude, adoration and praise. As Hosea expresses it, "We will render thee the calves of our lips;" and that this was the idea of St. Paul is, I think, evident from his exhortation, Rom. xii. 1, “render your bodies a living sacrifice to God holy, acceptable."

Several of the sacrifices offered to God after the patriarchal times, seem to have been refinements on the simple original idea, and in after ages that idea was almost lost, together with the knowledge of the true God, by the far greater part of mankind: certainly the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, considered many of their victims in the light of vicarious sacrifices, but that the enlightened among

the ancient Jews did so, will admit of serious doubt; indeed I hope to bring proof from the scriptures that they did not. Significant actions were employed in the early ages to express what language in its infant state could not; hence the language of signs, figures and metaphor, the Egyptian hieroglyphic, and much of the Jewish ceremonial. Certainly the more remote the era the more figurative the language; this is evident from the most ancient Jewish and Indian sacred books, it is therefore very likely that all the various kinds of sacrifices, as well heathen as Jewish, originally spake a language which soon became obsolete, and which was expressive of the heart and mind of the worshipper; and it is equally likely that this language referred to past circumstances, not to events still future. I would at once appeal to common sense, to know what analogy there is between the sacrifice of an animal, and the future deliverance of the world from death, sin and misery, by the Messiah? There is nothing in Gen. iii. 15, about the sacrifice of Christ, nor is there the least hint of this sort in any part of the Bible before the prophet Isaiah; nor can that figurative chapter, Is. liii., be interpreted to mean any such thing as that God's justice was satisfied, or his law honoured, by a most foul and unnatural murder; or as some explain it, a wilful and deliberate suicide, as Christ's death must have been, if he had power to avoid it, without the sacrifice of a good conscience.

Fire and water were elements considered by the heathen as the creative and destroying principles of the universe; they were worshipped as deities. Fire was adopted by the Jews (for they did not invent the idea) as the symbol of God, and this notion of the divine nature seems to be one of the earliest of which we have any record. That animal sacrifices were consumed to ashes as an appropriate way of offering them to the Deity, is an undisputed fact; and that in some instances in the early Jewish history, God (by the agency probably of lightning) kindled the flame upon the altar, as expressive of his acceptance of the offering and the worshippers, no one will deny; but that this fire, either produced by common or uncommon means, expressed God's wrath, either

against the offender or the sacrifice, is more than common sense can admit. However, it was a very ancient belief that a creature struck by lightning, was a favourite of the gods. Elijah was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire.

Let us now proceed to consider the accounts we have of sacrifices in the Jewish scriptures. And here I fear not to assert, that all the offerings there recorded, from the beginning to the end of Genesis, certainly refer to past events, they had nothing to do with futurity, nor had they any meaning but what we have already advanced. But let us turn over the sacred pages. The first sacrifices which are recorded are those of Cain and Abel: here let me remark what a fine lesson this portion of ancient history afforded the world, and especially the children of Abraham, a ferocious people in a barbarous age, fond of a splendid ritual, and expensive sacri fice, but very deficient in morals and humanity. The book of Genesis seems to have existed long before the rest of the Pentateuch; it probably was an extract, or an abridgment modernised, of the original journal of the world, preserved by Noah and his family, either in the form of oral tradition or writing. And if the murder of Abel originated in a religious controversy, as some of the Jewish writers say, then this lesson was calculated to convey the most important truth, to a people who were too ready to substitute their ceremonial for the duties of moral obedience, and to consider themselves the favourites of heaven, on account of the number and order of their sacrifices. We read, Gen. iv., that these brothers offered the first fruits of their labours to God, Cain, as an husbandman, his cornAbel, as a shepherd, the fatlings, that is, the best of his flock. cepted Abel's, and rejected Cain's; Cain was highly incensed; God condescends to expostulate, and thus he addresses him, ver. 6th. "Why art thou wrath, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Here is nothing about the destruction of the offering, either by fire, or in any other way; nor is any reason assigned, why one offering was not in itself as acceptable to God as the

God ac