nexion, they have a reconciling vir tue." This kind of assertion is very usual among the advocates for the doctrine of Satisfaction. But it is totally unscriptural; and when connected, as in this passage, with a mangled quotation of half a sentence of scripture, torn from its connexion, and with its meaning thus disguised, it can hardly be considered as less than a perversion of scripture. If David, when he wrote Psalm li., had these ideas, how came he not to express them? But the fact is, that, when he had said in the 16th verse, "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering," he proceeds in the 17th, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Thus we see, that instead of saying, like M. Strauss, that his sacrifices would have a reconciling virtue, if presented with a reference to the Messiah; David places all his hope in the free mercy of God, who would not despise a contrite heart. This seems to me clearly to prove, that he had never heard or thought of such a doctrine as that of Satisfaction. Isa. i. proves the same with respect to that prophet, for, after very strongly expressing the vanity of sacrifices, vers. 10-15, instead of saying, as the believers in the doctrine of Satisfaction do, that sacrifices have a reconciling virtue, if presented with a reference to the Messiah, Isaiah says, vers. 16 -18, "Wash ye, make ye clean; cease to do evil; learn to do well. Come, now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Here the forgiveness of their sins is not made to depend upon the anticipated sacrifice of the Messiah, but on the free mercy of Jehovah, who would pardon them, if they ceased from doing evil and learned to do well. These passages of scripture seem to me to take away all foundation for the doctrine of Satisfaction. I am not quite convinced by Mr. Kenrick's reasoning, Vol. II. p. 369, "No ancient authority supports the Samaritan reading of Gerizim for Ebal, Deut. xxvii. 4, Josh. viii. 30. Had the Jews corrupted the reading out of hatred to the Samaritan worship, they would have made Gerizin the Mount of Cursing, Deut. xxvii. 12." A circumstance which appears to me to favour the Samaritan_reading is, that Mount Ebal was in Samaria, as well as Mount Gerizim; and, therefore, if the Jewish reading of Deut. xxvii. 4 had been the original, it would surely have led the Samaritans to build their temple upon Mount Ebal. Before the building of their temple, it was indifferent to them which mountain it was upon, except so far as they were guided by this passage; but after the Samaritans had built their temple, there was a temptation for the Jews to alter the passage, if it were originally, as it now stands in the Samaritan copy. SIR, T. C. HOLLAND. Bloxham, July 26, 1824. HAVE a few things to say to you on the following passage, Rom. viii. 9: "If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." This passage of scripture is supposed to assert that every real Christian possesses the virtuous and pious temper of Jesus Christ. But I shall endea vour to prove that it refers to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit of God. I. The Apostle had spoken of the Christian temper just before; see vers. 4-9, where he asserts that the Christians of Rome were not in the flesh, but in the spirit; not carnally minded but spiritually minded. And, then, II. He proceeds to proof that they were partakers of it. He, in effect, says that it was so, "If so be that the spirit of God dwell in you," ver. 9; that is, if they were possessed of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Now, it has been observed that," In the time of the gospel dispensation, those, in general, who embraced Christianity were invested with some miraculous gifts." When the penitent Jews, on the day of Pentecost, asked the apostles what they should do, Peter replied, "Repent, and be haptized, &c., for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off," (the Gentiles,) "as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts ii. 37-39. Accordingly, when some persons at Samaria were converted to the Christian faith, the apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter and John to them, who baptized them, and afterwards laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 10-17. So when Paul came to Ephesus, finding some disciples there, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And learning that they had not, he laid his hands on them, and the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues. Acts xix. 1-6. In like manner, while Peter was preaching the gospel for the first time at the house of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell upon them. Acts xi. 15. The book of Acts and Paul's Epistles abound with such accounts. So common were the miraculous gifts in that age. III. The miraculous gifts being, in general, imparted to none but sincere Christians, the possession of them proved their piety, and they would have a very powerful, sanctifying influence on their tempers and characters. They were given in part for this purpose. And they had this effect, in a very sensible degree, even on the holy apostles themselves. Recollect, Sir, how timidly and unfaithfully they behaved to their Lord and Master, when he was seized and crucified by his enemies; but with what courage and zeal they maintained his cause after the Spirit descended upon them on the day of Pentecost. Before, they were as fearful as sheep, but after that event they were as bold as lions. To those who imprisoned them, and forbade them to speak any more in the name of Jesus, they said, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts iv. 18-20. Archbishop Newcome says, "The Christians at Rome are spoken of as a collective body, and are supposed to be spiritually minded, because they were strongly obliged so to be, having received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Newcome in loc. And on Titus iii. 8, he says, "By that renovation of mind which the Holy Ghost, usually communicated to converts in those ages, had the strongest tendency to produce." Yes, and most certainly did help to produce; it would have been strange if they had not. And thereby such are said to be sealed to the day of redemption. Ephes. iv. 30. IV. Now, if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his. That is to say, as all who are converted to Jesus Christ have the Spirit of God, if you have not the Spirit of God, i. e. the miraculous gifts of the Spirit of God, you do not belong to Christ; you are not Christians. You may, indeed, in your hearts believe in him, but you are not yet baptized into him; or, if you are baptized into him, there is more remains to be done to make you thoroughly initiated Christians-you must receive the miraculous gifts of the Spirit of God. You are not like the disciples at Ephesus, mentioned before, who were neither baptized nor endowed with the Spirit of God. See Acts xix. 1-7. This sense of this passage is supported by Grotius, the prince of commentators, who says, on the words, εκ εςιν αυτε, "Nondum plene Christi est. Nam credere et baptizatum esse non sufficit." Such a soldier of Jesus Christ is like a man who is merely enlisted into the army, but has neither received the bounty nor taken the oath of allegiance to his sovereign. He can scarcely be called a soldier yet; and so it was then with the believer in Christ who had not received the miraculous gifts. And that this is the true sense of these words, may be further argued, as follows: 1. The words that immediately precede them, and those that follow after, do probably both refer to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. In ver. 9, the apostle says, "If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" and in ver. 10, "If Christ be in you:" and in ver. 11, "But if the spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead, (that is the Spirit of God,) dwell in you." Is it then probable that the apostle would introduce the subject of the Christian temper between two clauses, which relate to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ? 2. If it be said that the language in the two passages is different; that in the first it is called the Spirit of God, but in this the Spirit of Christ, and, therefore, they must relate, not to the same, but to two different subjects, it may be answered, that the miraculous gifts, which were always called the Spirit, or the Spirit of God, under the Old-Testament dispensa tion, were sometimes named the Spirit of Christ, after his appearance, because it was imparted through him. See John xiv. 15-17 and 26. "Of his fulness have we received, and grace for grace." John i. 16. "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, which proceedetir from the Father." John xv. 26. So Grotius. Moreover, the language may be varied to improve the diction. 3. The phrase, "The Spirit of Christ," is never met with in any other place in the Scriptures to express the Christian temper, and, therefore, it most probably has not this signification here. There are, indeed, some modes of speech a little like it, as where it is said, "Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Rom. viii. 15. And again, Gal. iv. 6: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Here the Christian temper is probably referred to, but the language is different from that we are now considering the sense, of. On the other hand, 4. There is one passage, if not more, where the phrase, the Spirit of Christ, does most certainly not signify the temper of Christ, but the miraculous gifts. We find it in 1 Peter i. 10: "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and preached dili gently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: seeking what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." Here you see that the terms, the Spirit of Christ, do doubtless refer to the miraculous gifts, and, therefore, they may have the same signification in Rom. viii. 9. We also read of the Spirit in Acts xvi. 7, which Griesbach thinks should read the Spirit of Jesus, and which undoubtedly refers to the miraculous operations of the Spirit, for it is said, "After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bythinia: but the Spirit suffered them not." And in the preceding verse, "That they were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia." And Philipp. i. 19: "The Spirit of Jesus Christ." This also evidently refers not to the temper of Christ, but to the operations of the Spirit on Christians, whether they be common or miracu lous. So that the analogy of scripture makes very much against the commonly-received sense of these words. 5. If it be said, But if no persons belong to Jesus Christ but such as have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, what a gloomy thought this must raise in the minds of all modern Christians; it may be said in reply, Certain things are true in one age, that are not so in another; and that so it is here. The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were, on many accounts, neces sary for the first Christians, which reasons do not exist in our day. We are in very different circumstances to what they were. Ours is a changeable world. Upon the whole, as there is no manner of necessity for believing that these words refer to the Christian temper, the passage admitting of a different good scriptural sense, and as the same phrase does not signify the Christian temper in any other place in the New Testament, and, above all, as these very words do in another place, in the New Testament, most certainly refer to the miraculous gifts; therefore, it is most reasonable to affix that sense to them here. Diffi cult and dubious passages of Scripture must be explained by those whose meaning is more plain and certain. To conclude, if the Christians of later ages had better known and considered how much oftener the miraculous gifts of the Spirit of God are spoken of in the New Testament, than the common moral operations are, they would have better understood this passage, and have been more sparing in the use of the terms, the Spirit of God, in their writings and religious services. It is, indeed, a very serious truth, that if any man have not the virtuous N the year 1795 I published my this nature the author's duty is not to detail his own sentiments, but to state, as fairly and impartially as he is able, the avowed sentiments and opinions of others; and so strictly have I adhered to my duty, in this respect at least, that different Reviewers appear to have come to conclusions quite opposite as to my private sen Isketch the Denominations of timents on some of the points that are the Christian World, which being well received, was soon followed by similar works. Of this circumstance I make no complaint; every individual has a right to print what he conceives might prove beneficial to his fellow-creatures. But the fact is, these authors stole from my little volume the information I had collected together, without acknowledgment, most honestly refraining to steal from my Reflections on Candour and Charity! At length appeared, in three volumes, The Religious World Displayed, by the Rev. Robert Adam, A. M.,- a Clergyman of the Church of England. His work was, on the whole, fair and impartial, drawing largely from my Sketch, which was duly acknowledged, though entire paragraphs from my Remarks were transcribed as his own composition. This I deemed trivial, and made no expostulation on the subject. The Rev. Robert Adam has recently abridged his larger work into a six-shilling volume, the same size and price with my Sketch, omitting the paragraphs he had clandestinely stolen, and retaining the information without acknowledgment. This I merely state as a matter of fact, having not the least apprehension that this Abridgment will prove injurious to my Sketch of the Denominations, the sale of near one hundred thousand copies having borne irrefragable testimony to its accuracy and impartiality; whilst the disposal of not much less than ten thousand copies of its Sequel; or, Golden Centenary, including the biographies of one hundred divines, has contributed to aid the divine cause of truth and charity. Thus far respecting my own works. I proceed to shew you how far this Abridgment is entitled to a favourable reception from the public. The Rev. Robert Adam, in his Preface, thus remarks:- -"In a work of most warmly controverted by modern While moderation is all my glory, "But so far is this circumstance from shewing, in my opinion, an objection to the work, it strongly recommends it, and I cannot help viewing it with satisfaction, as a compliment indirectly paid to the author's impartiality, or an implied acknowledginent of his possessing one essential requisite in every historian of religious opinions." These are high pretensions; for the justness of the writer's claim to them, in this present edition of his work, take the following specimens. His account of Arians is thus concluded: "Socinianism having swallowed up nearly the whole of this body, it will probably ere long receive the mutilated remains; and it will be well if they rest satisfied with rational Christianity, or with any thing short of renouncing the Christian name." Under the article denominated, Socinian Unitarians, occurs this passage:-"The members of this sect have never been known as the planters of the gospel; they have never strived to preach it where Christ was not named. The fact is, they have no gospel to preach; their scheme possesses no glad tidings to communicate; no Saviour to offer; no relief to propose to the guilty, labouring under the pressure of their sins; their system being little more than Paganism, in some degree polished, refined and modernized! The Monthly Magazine is a great organ of Unitarianist, but The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, which Dr. Magee calls the general storehouse of Unitarian Deism,' has long been the general and accredited vehicle of Unitarian sentiments. In addition to these, recourse has lately been had to a New Translation of the New Testament, in which a meaning has been attached to many passages which, according to former translations, did not belong to them, and notes are added, in which Unitarian views of our Lord's person are illustrated and defended. Such are the means which have been adopted with a view to support this dangerous system, which, as Bishop Heber has well observed, leans to the utmost verge of Christianity;' and which has been in so many instances a stepping-stone to simple Deism." His account of the General Baptists is thus concluded:-" To so low a condition is this class (Anti-trinitarian) now brought, that four of their congregations in London were lately united into one, and it is not likely to exist for any length of time. In the mean time, their General Assembly, consisting of from fifteen to twenty ministers, is still held annually at Worship Street, on the Tuesday in the Whitsun-week, when one of the memhers preaches, and the affairs of their Society are taken into consideration; and we are told that they have thus met for upwards of a century. Among their eminent men may be ranked the names of Gale, Foot, Noble, Bulkley and Wiche, all of them, as far as I know, sound Trinitarians; and Foster, Burroughs and Robinson, whose orthodoxy does not appear in their works." Now, Mr. Editor, where is the claim of the Rev. Robert Adam to candour and impartiality? Here are palpable falsehoods and the grossest misrepresentations! The Arians may be diminishing, but it is a vile insinu. ation that they are degenerating into infidelity. The Socinian Unitarians (as he is pleased to term them) have a gospel to preach, and good-tidings to proclaim in announcing forgiveness of sin upon repentance, and the resurrection of the dead, when those who persevere in well-doing, shall be graciously rewarded by the possession of eternal life! It is most unfair to refer to Horsley and Magee, two sworn enemies of rational Christianity, for the virulent abuse of which the former was raised to an English Bishopric, and the latter elevated to an Irish Archbishopric. Verily, they have VOL. XIX. 4 F their reward!" With respect to the Anti-trinitarian General Baptists, their crime is, being few in number, forgetting that Christ had only at first twelve apostles, and their followers met in an upper room, though they were afterwards destined to multiply and enlarge their borders over all the earth! Neither Gale, nor Foot, nor Noble, nor Bulkley, nor Wiche, were Trinitarians; indeed, the latter, who was the friend of Lardner, was a zealous advocate for the simple humanity of Christ. Foster, Burroughs and Robinson, likewise were not Trinitarians; in vain, then, do you look for orthodoxy in their works. But what is infinitely better, they were enlightened, conscientious men, asserting, through good report and through evil report," the doctrines of the New Testament, and exemplifying the spirit of their great Master, whose declaration was, "My kingdom is not of this world." Indeed, Jesus Christ when on earth had a little flock, but it was to this little flock he gave the kingdom-not to the blind and erring multitude. Catholics are more numerous than Protestants, and Christians are exceeded by Mahometans and Pagans, throughout the three quarters of the habitable globe. Neither numbers nor success can be pronounced legitimate tests of truth. We read in the Revelation that two witnesses only, and they were clad in sackcloth, prophesied in a very degenerate state of the church against the enormous errors and the iniquitous practices of an apostate world. As to the Improved Version of the Testament, whatever be its imperfections, it has been ably defended by the Rev. Thomas Belsham; and were there no new renderings deemed necessary, it would have been a work of supererogation. With respect to the charge of Deism, brought by Dr. Magee against The Monthly Repository, it carries on the face of it falsehood; but its Editor is fully competent to repel the imputation, should he not think proper to treat it with silent contempt. The Rev. R. Adam exults in the extinction of Warrington, Exeter and Hackney Academies, bearing "for a time imposing names, but all annihilated, and the only one which they now have is that which was removed |