way or method in which it has seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to grant to mankind remission of sins, that is, deliverance from the consequences of transgression, and restoration to the privileges of the Divine favour." With deference to your correspondent, this proposition, though intended to concentrate and define his views, contains nothing very explicit; nothing more, perhaps, than every Unitarian would unite with him in asserting. He should explain to us, what ideas he attaches to the term mediation, and in what sense he supposes that the death of Christ particularly, any more than his life, or his teaching, or his resurrection, was "the way or method in which it seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to grant to mankind remission of sins." He complains, that the manner in which Unitarians in general explain the phraseology of Scripture, is a "violent straining of language." But, Sir, it is at least one way of explaining it, and the interpretation alluded to by Mr. Cogan is another. He who publicly declares himself dissatisfied with both, is surely under obligation to affix some other definite meaning to the language in question, consistent with the acknowledged character of God, and with the general teaching of the Scriptures. But your correspondent rather appears to me willing to admit, that he can attach no meaning whatever to phraseology which he yet contends was meant to convey one of the most important doctrines of revelation. "In what way," he asks, "does the death of Christ lead to the remission of sins?" And immediately answers, "This is not a necessary inquiry, neither can we find any formal answer to it in the Scripture." Surely, Sir, either this is a very necessary inquiry, or your respectable correspondent has been wasting his labour and talents in endeavouring to prove that Unitarians in general view a very unimportant subject in a false light. Indeed, he had himself stated in the preceding page, before he was fully aware, perhaps, what an indefinite and indescribable doctrine he was about to advocate, that this inquiry was the only question that required any discussion. "The only question, therefore, is, in what way our Lord's death pro.

667

moted this end; in what way the forgiveness of sins depended on his death." I submit, then, that until T. F. B. more clearly explains in what sense the forgiveness of sins depends on the death of Christ, his doctrine is an unsubstantial phantom: whether it be true or false, I cannot easily determine; for he refuses to inform me what it is.

Your correspondent assures us, however, that "we find in the Scriptures, the immediate connexion between these two things, (the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins,) strongly, repeatedly and variously asserted, and brought forward as a great and prominent truth of the gospel." This is language so unguarded, and so wholly unwarranted by the Scriptures themselves, that I am surprised it should have escaped from so sensible and candid a writer. I shall not content myself, however, with returning a mere denial to this imposing assertion. In proof, then, that the immediate connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, cannot, in any sense whatsoever, be regarded as "a great and prominent truth of the gospel," I submit the following simple, and as it appears to me, decisive facts.

1. This connexion is never declared by our Lord himself, except in the solitary instance of Matt. xxvi. 28: "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Is this fact favourable to the supposition, that Jesus regarded the said immediate connexion as a great and prominent truth of his religion? How often does our Lord speak of his own death, but with no particular allusion to the forgiveness of sins? How often does he speak of the forgiveness of sins, but without the most distant allusion to his own death? Could this be, if these things were, as your correspondent supposes, immediately connected?

2. This connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, is never expressly asserted by any of the apostles, in their many discourses recorded in the Book of Acts. To my humble judgment, this strong negative evidence against the doctrine in question, is altogether irresistible. The silence of the great Teacher of

Christians, and of his inspired apostles, may well be regarded as its condemnation.

3. In no other part of the New Testament can I find that this connexion is insisted upon, either so variously, or so very repeatedly, as your correspondent seems to imagine. I am not aware of there being more than nine or ten passages of Scripture, in which the connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, can be said to be expressly asserted, or clearly alluded to. One of these passages (Coloss. i. 14) may be entirely dismissed; since, in the judgment of Griesbach, the words, "through his blood," are decidedly spurious. With respect to the remain ing passages, * after the most careful consideration, I must assent to the opinion of Mr. Kenrick, (see Sermon xiv. Vol. I.,) and indeed the opinion of Locke, Chandler, Taylor, Benson, Belsham, and of all the most rational commentators with whom I have any acquaintance; namely, that there is little or no allusion in these passages, to moral offences, or sins, properly so called, but exclusively to the restoration of the Gentile world from their condition of ceremonial impurity, to a state of religious privilege or covenant, such as had hitherto belonged to the Jews alone. ↑

I have not made these statements without caution; yet it is not impossible that I may have overlooked one or two passages, and if so, shall most gladly see myself corrected. Let me not be misunderstood, however, in that which I mean to state. In many other places, doubtless, Christ is said to have "suffered for us," to have "died for us," to have "given himself for us;" but with no especial reference to the forgiveness of sins, more than to the confirmation of his doctrine, to the finishing of his per

John i. 29; Rom. iii. 25, 26, v. 1, 10; Ephes. i. 7, ii. 13; Coloss. i. 20; 1 Pet. i. 2, 19; Rev. i. 5.

+ It can scarcely be disputed by any, that this is the just interpretation of some of the passages alluded to. If this be admitted, the remark of Mr. Cogan well deserves the attention of T. F. B.; namely, that this then becomes an indisputably scriptural interpretation when applied to all the other passages.

fect example, or to the several other benefits which Unitarians in general ascribe to the death of our Lord. Indeed, in most of these instances, the allusion clearly is to our Lord's benevolent sacrifice of his life, viewed as an incitement to love and obey him; as in the following passage: " For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." I am aware also, that we are often said to have received remission of sins and forgiveness of sins through Christ; but with no particular allusion to his death, more than to his teaching, to his promises, or to his present exaltation. The apostles, in the course of their preaching, frequently declare, that which no Christian has ever disputed, that Jesus is the Mediator, through whom we have received the Divine promise of forgiveness, and are led into favour with God; yet without any mention of this supposed propitiation effected by his death. Now, Sir, I must insist that these passages are not to be regarded as merely indifferent in the present discussion: they are fatal to the hypothesis of your Penzance correspondent. Were the connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins so immediate and so important as he supposes, it could not be that the apostles should thus repeatedly speak of one, with no direct allusion to the other.

The writer whose observations I am

It will be observed that I have made no allusion in these remarks to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This circumstance I hope will not be attributed to my entertaining the slightest apprehension that this Epistle contains any peculiar doctrines, but solely to the following reasons:-1. The Epistle altogether is of extremely doubtful authority. 2. Its style is so peculiar and figurative, that it re-, quires to be considered separately; and this communication is already too long. 3, If the doctrine in question cannot be supported from other portions of the New Testament, few persons will contend, even should they suppose it taught in this particular Epistle, that it is therefore to be received as a Christian doctrine.

noticing, appears to me not less unfor, tunate in his endeavours to illustrate the advantages and moral tendency of his doctrine, than in his attempts to define or to prove it. He is of opinion that this supposed method of redemption by the blood of Christ, was intended, and is admirably suited, to secure the Divine authority;" but I am utterly at a loss to imagine what definite views he can entertain of its suitableness to this purpose. He is most anxious to guard against the suspicion, that he entertains the doc trine of vicarious punishment, or of satisfaction to Divine justice: In what way, then, has the death of Christ secured the Divine authority; or what security can this authority ever need? I fear your correspondent will be again compelled to reply, that "this is not a necessary inquiry, neither can we find any formal answer to it in the Scripture." Yet is it not clearly evident, that if any such thing were contemplated in the scheme of redemption, its whole efficacy must be lost, unless we can be made to understand how it tends to this purpose?

Your correspondent has further pre, sented us with the following illustra tion of his doctrine: "A father has many children, all of whom but one have joined in an act of disobedience; and, moreover, ill-treated the dutiful child for his singularity: they become sorry for their fault; but the father prescribes, as the condition of forgive ness, that the dutiful child shall solicit pardon for the others." Nothing, surely, could be conceived of less happy than this illustration. A wise and good father, when convinced that his offending children repented of their disobedience, and were become fit objects of his forgiveness, a father, whose heart rejoiced to behold the returning affection of his offspring, would scorn the trick of appearing (for it could be only appearance) to need the propitiating intercession of a more dutiful child, before he could be induced to manifest the natural dispositions of a parent's bosom. I am surprised it did not occur to the mind of your correspondent, when penning this exemplification of his doctrine, that a much less fallible judge of the influence of Christian truth, than either he or I

669

can presume to be, had already chosen this same method of illustrating the mercy of God, by a comparison borrowed from the natural relation of child and parent, Jesus, however, has entirely omitted in his description, that which your correspondent deems so essential to the finishing of the picture. I allude to our Lord's touching parable of the Prodigal Son, in which I cannot find that the elder son, though he had always "served" his father and never transgressed his commandment," was obliged to solicit pardon for the returning prodigal, before the father "had compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck, and kissed him." I must beg to be excused, Sir, in saying that I rather prefer the Saviour's parable in its origi nal form; for I cannot think that it has gained much, either of simplicity or of pathos, by your correspondent's ingenious addition.

:

It may at length be inquired,What then is the Scripture doctrine of redemption by the blood of Christ? In my humble opinion, it cannot be justly said that there is any such doctrine in the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Scriptures is this, that if men repent of their sins, and turn unto God in contrition of heart, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, he is always mercifully disposed to forgive their past transgressions, and to restore them to his favour and Jesus Christ is the "Mediator between God and men," by whom this joyful assurance has been proclaimed and confirmed to the world. With respect to the association of our Lord's death with this great doctrine of the gospel, it will certainly appear, upon examination, to be comparatively rare in the Scriptures, even should it be proved to occur at all; and that it does occur, is probably to be regarded merely as an accommodation of Jewish ideas and phraseology, to the circumstances of the Christian revelation; a practice very natural, indeed, in Christ and the apostles, and, doubtless, to the mind of a Jew very illustrative, but not intended to convey in itself any doctrine, other than that which is much more frequently expressed without any such allusion.

H. ACTON.