denied; but, besides that he has built his entire translation of the passage upon the arbitrary assumption of an ellipsis, to which the texts quoted as parallel furnish no support whatever, it remains, as before, to be shewn, what intelligible connection subsists between our Lord's answer and the question put to him by the Jews. If he meant merely to say, that his mission, as the Messiah, had been ordained before the birth of Abraham, (which is in itself a tolerable strain upon the words even of this new translation,) it will require all Mr Wakefield's ingenuity to explain in what way this could have satisfied the Jews as to the possibility of Christ's having actually seen Abraham, which is the precise difficulty our Lord proposes to solve by his reply. Doctor Priestley, in his later view of this subject, has not added much in point of clearness or consistency to the Socinian exposition. He confesses, however, that the "literal meaning of our Lord's expressions" in the 56th verse, was, that "he had lived before Abraham," and that it was so considered by the Jews: but at the same time he contends, that our Lord did not intend his words to be so understood; and that, when he afterwards speaks of his priority to Abraham, his meaning is to be thus explained: "that, in a very proper sense of the words, he may be said to have been even before Abraham; the Messiah having been held forth as the great object of hope and joy for the human race, not only to Abraham, but even to his ancestors," (Notes, &c. vol. iii. pp. 329, 330. 333, 334.) Such is what Dr Priestley calls the proper sense of the words, "Before Abraham was, I am."

I have here given a very few instances, but such as furnish a fair specimen of the mode of reasoning by which those enlightened commentators, to whom Mr Belsham refers, have been enabled to explain away the direct and evident meaning of Scripture. I have adduced these instances from the arguments which they have used relating to the pre-existence of Christ, as going to the very essence of their scheme of Christianity, (if such it can be called,) and as being some of those on which they principally rely. I have not scrupled to dwell thus long upon a matter not necessarily connected with the subject of these discourses, as some benefit may be derived to the young student in divinity, (for whom this publication has been principally intended,) from exposing the hollowness of the ground on which these high-sounding gentlemen take their stand, whilst they trumpet forth their own extensive knowledge, and the ignorance of those who differ from them. These few instances may serve to give him some idea of the fairness of their pretensions, and the soundness of their criticism. He may be still better able to form a judgment of their powers in scriptural exposition, when he finds,

upon trial, that the formula of interpretation, which have been applied to explain away the notion of Christ's pre-existence from the passages that have been cited, may be employed, with the best success, in arguing away such a meaning from any form of expression that can be devised.

Thus, for example, had it been directly asserted that our Lord had existed for ages before his appearance in this world; it is replied, all this is true, in the decree of God, but it by no means relates to an actual existence. Had Christ, as a proof of his having existed prior to his incarnation, expressly declared, that all things had been created by him; the answer is obvious - he must have been ordained by the divine mind, long before he came into being, as by him it had been decreed, that the great moral creation, whereby a new people should be raised up to God, was to be wrought. Should he go yet farther, and affirm that he had resigned the God-like station which he filled, and degraded himself to the mean condition of man; a ready solution is had for this also he made no ostentatious display of his miraculous powers, but offered himself to the world like an ordinary man. If any stronger forms of expression should be used, (and stronger can scarcely be had, without recurring to the language of Scripture,) they may all be disposed of in like

manner.

But should even all the varieties of critical, logical, and metaphysical refinement be found in any case insufficient, yet still we are not to suppose the point completely given up. The modern Unitarian commentator is not discomfited. He retires with unshaken fortitude within the citadel of his philosophic conviction, and under its impenetrable cover bids defiance to the utmost force of his adversary's argument. Of this let Dr Priestley furnish an instance in his own words. Endeavouring to prove, in opposition to Dr Price, that the expressions in John, vi. 62, " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" furnish no argument in favour of Christ's preexistence, he uses the following remarkable language:-that "though not satisfied with any interpretation of this extraordinary passage, yet, rather than believe our Saviour to have existed in any other state before the creation of the world, or to have left some state of great dignity and happiness when he came hither, he would have recourse to the old and exploded Socinian idea of Christ's actual ascent into heaven, or of his imagining that he had been carried up thither in a vision; which, like that of St Paul, he had not been able to distinguish from a reality: nay, he would not build an article of faith of such magnitude, on the correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord's language: and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a pre

existent state appear, that, sooner than admit it, he would suppose the whole verse to be an interpolation, or that the old Apostle dictated one thing, and his amanuensis wrote another." (Letters to Dr Price, pp. 57, 58, &c.) - Thus is completed the triumph of Unitarian philosophy over revelation: and thus is the charge of incredulity against the pretended philosopher of the present day refuted! For what is there too monstrous for his belief, if you except only the truths of the Gospel?

No. II.-Page 7. Col. 2.

UNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE OF STATED DAYS.

That the day on which the Saviour of men laid down his life for their transgressions, should have attached to it any feelings of reverence, or should be in any respect distinguished from the number of ordinary days, has long been denied by different classes of dissenters from the established form; forgetting that its celebration was designed to awaken livelier feelings of devotion, by associating circumstances; and not reflecting, that the argument which went to prove that no one day could possess a sanctity above another, should have carried them much farther, and have ended in the abolition of the Sabbath itself. The writer, however, already alluded to in the last number, has, in his answer to Mr Wilberforce's most excellent and truly pious work on the present state of religion, completely removed the charge of inconsistency, by directly asserting, that "Christianity expressly abolishes all distinction of days.” "To a true Christian," he observes, 66 every day is a sabbath, every place is a temple, and every action of life an act of devotion" "whatever is lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week, is, under the Christian dispensation, equally lawful and expedient on any other," (Belsham's Review, &c. p. 20.)

Lest we should, however, imagine that this writer means to impose upon Christians so severe a duty, as to require them to substitute, for occasional acts of devotion, that unceasing homage, which the unbroken continuity of the Christian's Sabbath, and the ubiquity of his temple, might seem to demand, he informs us (p. 133,) that "a virtuous man is performing his duty to the Supreme Being, as really, and as acceptably, when he is pursuing the proper business of life, or even when enjoying its innocent and decent amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him, in the closet, or in the temple." And thus we see the matter is rendered perfectly easy. A Christian may be employed, through the entire of his life, in worshipping his God, by never once thinking of him, but merely pur

suing his proper business, or his innocent amusements. This, it is true, is a natural consequence from his first position; and gives to the original argument a consistency, which before it wanted. But is consistency of argument a substitute for Christianity? Or could the teacher of divinity at Hackney have expected, that, from such instructions, his pupils should not so far profit, as to reject not only Christianity, but, many of them, the public worship, and with it the recollection, of a God? It may be worth while to inquire, what has been the fact, respecting the students of the late academy at Hackney; and, indeed, what is the state of all dissenting academies throughout Great Britain, into which the subverting principles of Unitarianism have made their way. Do any of this description now exist? And wherefore do they not? - But, on this subject, more in the Appendix.

No. III.-Page 7. Col. 2.

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION.

There is no one article of the Christian faith which, considered in itself, is more deserving of our closest attention, than that of our redemption by Jesus Christ. This is, in truth, the very corner-stone of the fabric. Against this, accordingly, every framer of a new hypothesis directs his entire force. This once shaken, the whole structure falls in ruins. We therefore find the collective powers of heterodox ingenuity summoned to combat this momentous doctrine, in a work published some years back, entitled the Theological Repository. Of what consequence, in the frame and essence of Christianity, it was deemed by the principal marshaller of this controversial host, may be inferred, not only from the great labour he has bestowed on this one subject, (having written five different essays in that work, in opposition to the received doctrine of atonement,) but also from his express declarations. In Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 429, he pronounces this doctrine to be 66 one of the radical, as well as the most generally prevailing, corruptions of the Christian scheme;" and in p. 124, he calls it "a disgrace to Christianity, and a load upon it, which it must either throw off, or sink under." And lest the combined exertions of the authors of this work might not prove sufficient to overturn this unchristian tenet, he renews his attack upon it with undiminished zeal in his History of the Corruptions of Christianity; among which he ranks this as one of the most important, stating, (vol. i. p. 152,) that "as the doctrine of the Divine Unity was infringed by the introduction of that of the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost (as a person

distinct from the Father;) so the doctrine of the natural placability of the Divine Being, and our ideas of the equity of his government, have been greatly debased by the gradual introduction of the modern doctrine of atonement." And, on this account, he declares his intention of shewing, in a fuller manner than with respect to any other of the corruptions of Christianity, that it is totally unfounded both in reason and Scripture, and an entire departure from the genuine doctrine of the Gospel. Indeed, the avowed defender of the Socinian heresy must have felt it indispensable to the support of his scheme, to set aside this doctrine. Thus (Hist. of Cor. vol. i. p. 272) he says, "it immediately follows from his" (Socinus's) "principles, that Christ being only à man, though ever so innocent, his death could not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men." Accordingly, both in his History of the Corruptions, and in the Theological Repository, he bends his principal force against this doctrine of our Church. Shall not then so determined a vehemence of attack upon this doctrine, in particular, convince us still more of its importance in the Christian scheme; and point out to the friends of Gospel truth, on what ground they are chiefly to stand in its defence?

No. IV. Page 8. Col. 2.

PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE.

Balguy, in his Essay on Redemption, (and after him Dr Holmes,1) has argued this

1 The late Dr Holmes, for some years Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, and afterwards Dean of Winchester. I cannot mention this gentleman's name, without paying to it that tribute of respect which it so justly claims. To his indefatigable and learned research the public is indebted for one of the most valuable additions to biblical literature, which, at this day, it is capable of receiving. Treading in the steps of that great benefactor to the biblical student, Dr Kennicott, he devoted a life to the collection of materials for the emendation of the text of the Septuagint Scriptures, as his distinguished predecessor had done for that of the Hebrew. After the most assiduous, and, to a person not acquainted with the vigour of Dr Holmes's mind, almost incredible labour, in the collation of MSS. and versions, he was enabled to give to the public the valuable result of his inquiries, in one complete volume of the Pentateuch, and the Book of Daniel. That it was not allotted to him to finish the great work in which he had engaged, is most deeply to be regretted It is, however, to be hoped, that the learned University, on whose reputation his labours have reflected additional

point with uncommon strength and clearness. The case of penitence, he remarks, is clearly different from that of innocence: it implies a mixture of guilt pre-contracted, and punishment proportionally deserved. It is consequently inconsistent with rectitude, that both should be treated alike by God. The present conduct of the penitent will receive God's approbation: but the reformation of the sinner cannot have a retrospective effect. The agent may be changed, but his former sins cannot be thereby cancelled: the convert and the sinner are the same individual person: and the agent must be answerable for his whole conduct. The conscience of the penitent furnishes a fair view of the case. His sentiments of himself can be only a mixture of approbation and disapprobation, satisfaction and displeasure. His past sins must still, however sincerely he may have reformed, occasion self-dissatisfaction: and this will evez be the stronger, the more he improves in virtue. Now, as this is agreeable to truth, there is reason to conclude that God beholds him in the same light. See Balguy's Essay, 1785, p. 31-55; and Mr Holmes's Four Tracts, p. 138, 139. The author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, part i. sect. 6, and part iv. sect. 4, has likewise examined this subject in a judicious manner. — It may be worth remarking also, as Dr Shuckford has done, that Cicero goes no farther on this head than to assert, "Quem pœnitet peccâsse, penè est innocens."

--

Lamentable it is to confess, that the name of Warburton is to be coupled with the defence of the deistical objection, against which the above reasoning is directed. But no less true is it than strange, that in the account of natural religion, which that eminent writer has given, in the ninth book of the Divine Legation, he has expressed himself in terms the most unqualified upon the intrinsic and necessary efficacy of repentance; asserting that it is plainly obvious to human reason, from a view of the connection that must subsist between the creature and his Maker, that, whenever man forfeits the favour of God by a violation of the moral law, his sincere repentance entitles him to the pardon of his transgressions.

I have been led, with the less reluctance, to notice this pernicious paradox of the learned bishop, because it affords me the opportunity of directing the reader's attention to the judicious and satisfactory refutation which it has

to the Christian world to remain unaccomplished, especially as the materials for its prosecution, which the industry of Dr Holmes has so amply supplied, and which remain deposited in the Bodleian Library, must leave comparatively but little to be done for its final execution. The preface to the volume which has been published concludes with these words: -"Hoc unum superest monendum, quod Collationes istæ ex omni genere, quæ ad hoc opus per hos quindecim annos jam fuerunt elaboratæ, in Bibliothecâ Bodleianâ reponantur, atque vel a me, si vivam et valeam, vel, si aliter acciderit, ab alio quodam Editore,

sub auspicio Colendissimorum Typographei Clarendoniani Oxoniensis Curatorum, in publicum emittentur.”—The language also of the valuable and much to be lamented author, (with whom I was personally acquainted, and had for some years the satisfaction of corresponding,) was always such as to encourage the expectation here held out. That this expectation should be gratified, and with all practicable despatch, cannot but be the anxious wish of every person interested in the pure and unadulterated exposition of Scripture truth.

sister universities. See Mr Pearson's Critical Essay on the Ninth Book of the Divine Legation, p. 25-34. The reasons that induced Warburton to adopt so heterodox a position are assigned by himself in one of his private letters to his friend Dr Hurd, and are, to the full, as insufficient as the position is untenable. These, together with the alarm given to Dr Hurd by the new doctrine taken up by his friend, will be found noticed in the Letters from a late eminent Prelate, p. 421–423. Locke and Nye (as well as Warburton) have given but too much countenance to the erroneous opinion combated in this number.

No. V.-Page 9. Col. 1.

THE SENSE ENTERTAINED BY MANKIND OF THE NATURAL INEFFICACY OF REPENTANCE, PROVED FROM THE HISTORY OF HUMAN SACRIFICES.

If we look to the practices of the Heathen world, we shall find the result of the reasoning, which is advanced in the page referred to, confirmed from experience by abundant proof. We shall find that almost the entire of the religion of the Pagan nations consisted in rites of deprecation. Fear of the Divine displeasure seems to have been the leading feature in their religious impressions; and in the diversity, the costliness, and the cruelty, of their sacrifices, they sought to appease Gods, to whose wrath they felt themselves exposed, from a consciousness of sin, unrelieved by any information as to the means of escaping its effects. So strikingly predominant was this feature of terror in the Gentile superstitions, that we find it expressly laid down by the Father of Grecian history, To Olov way lovegóv Tε xal Tagaxades (Herod, lib. i. cap. 32:) and Porphyry directly asserts, "that there was wanting some universal method of delivering men's souls, which no sect of philosophy had ever yet found out:" (August. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 32)—that is, that something besides their own repentance was wanting to appease the anger of their Gods.

The universal prevalence of human sacrifices, throughout the Gentile world, is a decisive proof of the light in which the human mind, unaided by Revelation, is disposed to view the Divinity, and clearly evinces how little likelihood there is in the supposition, that unassisted reason could discover the sufficiency of repentance to regain the favour of an offended God. Of this savage custom, M. de Pauw (Rech. Phil. sur les Améric. vol. i. p. 211) asserts, that there is no nation mentioned in history whom we cannot reproach with having, more than once, made the blood of its citizens stream forth, in holy and pious ceremonies, to appease the Divinity when he appeared angry, or to move him when he appeared indolent.

Of this position, both ancient and modern historians supply the fullest confirmation. Heliodorus (Ethiopic. lib. x. p. 465, ed. 1630) informs us, that the Ethiopians were required by their laws to sacrifice boys to the sun, and girls to the moon. Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Philo, (Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. i. cap. 10,) asserts, that among the Phoenicians it was customary, in great and public calamities, for princes and magistrates to offer up, in sacrifice to the avenging demons, the dearest of their offspring, eis Urgov Tois TIμwgołę daíμooi. This practice is also attributed to them by Porphyry (Euseb. P. Ev. lib. iv.) Herodotus (lib. iv. cap. 62) describes it as a custom with the Seythians to sacrifice every hundredth man of their prisoners to their God Mars. And Keysler, who has carefully investigated the antiquities of that race, represents the spreading oaks, under which they were used to perform their sanguinary rites, as being always profusely sprinkled with the blood of the expiring victims, (Antiq. Septentr. Dissert. iii.) Of the Egyptians, Diodorus relates it (lib. i. p. 99, ed. Wessel.) to have been an established practice, to sacrifice red-haired men at the tomb of Osiris; from which, he says, misunderstood by the Greeks, arose the fable of the bloody rites of Busiris. This charge brought by Diodorus against the Egyptians is supported by Plutarch, on the authority of Manetho, (Isid. et Osir. p. 380.) At Heliopolis, also, three men were daily offered up to Lucina; which practice, Porphyry informs us, was put a stop to by Amasis, (see Wessel, Diod. p. 99, n. 86.) And we are told by an Arabian writer, Murtadi, that it had been customary with the Egyptians to sacrifice, to the river Nile, a young and beautiful virgin, by flinging her, decked in the richest attire, into the stream: and, as Mr Maurice remarks, a vestige of this barbarous custom remains to this day; for we learn from Mr Savary's Letters on Egypt, (vol. i. p. 118,) that the Egyptians annually make a clay statue in the form of a woman, and throw it into the river, previous to the opening of the dam Maurice's Indian Antiquities, p. 433.

see

That this cruel practice existed also among the Chinese, appears from their histories, which record the oblation of their monarch Chingtang, in pacification of their offended deity, and to avert from the nation the dreadful calamities with which it was at that time visited. This sacrifice, it is added, was pronounced by the priests to be demanded by the will of Heaven: and the aged monarch is represented as supplicating at the altar, that his life may be accepted, as an atonement for the sins of the people, (Martin. Hist. Sin. lib. iii. p. 75, ed. 1659.)- Even the Persians, whose mild and beneficent religion appears at this day so repugnant to this horrid usage, were not exempt from its contagion. Not only