under laws written like Draco's, in blood; and, instead of thanking the Sovereign for providing an infinite substitute, I should shudder at the attributes, which render this expedient necessary. It is commonly said, that an infinite atonement is needed to make due and deep impressions of the evil of sin. But he, who framed all souls and gave them their susceptibilities, ought not to be thought so wanting in goodness and wisdom, as to have constituted a universe, which demands so dreadful and degrading a method of enforcing obedience, as the penal sufferings of a God. This doctrine of an infinite Substitute, suffering the penalty of sin, to manifest God's wrath against sin, and thus to support his government, is, I fear, so familiar to us all, that its monstrous character is overlooked. Let me then set it before you, in new terms, and by a new illustration; and if, in so doing, I may wound the feelings of some who hear me, I beg them to believe, that I do it with pain, and from no impulse but a desire to serve the cause of truth. Suppose, then, that a teacher should come among you, and should tell you, that the Creator, in order to pardon his own children, had erected a gallows in the centre of the universe, and had publicly executed upon it, in room of the offenders, an Infinite Being, the partaker of his own Supreme Divinity; suppose him to declare, that this execution was appointed, as a most conspicuous and terrible manifestation of God's justice and wrath, and of the infinite woe denounced by his law; and suppose him to add, that all beings in heaven and earth are required to fix their eyes on this fearful sight, as the most powerful enforcement of obedience and virtue. Would you not tell him, that he calumniated his Maker? Would you not say to him, that this central gallows threw gloom over the universe-that the spirit of a government, whose very acts of pardon were written in such blood, was terror, not paternal love-and that the obedience, which needed to be upheld by this horrid spectacle, was nothing worth? Would you not say to him, that even you, in this infancy and imperfection of your being, were capable of being wrought upon by nobler motives, and of hating sin through more generous views; and that much more the angels, those pure flames of love, need not the gallows and an executed God, to confirm their loyalty? You would all so feel at such teaching as I have supposed; and yet how does this differ from the popular doctrine

B

of atonement? According to this doctrine, we have an Infinite Being sentenced to suffer as a substitute the death of the cross, a punishment more ignominious and agonizing than the gallows, a punishment reserved for slaves and the vilest malefactors; and he suffers this punishment, that he may show forth the terrors of God's law, and strike a dread of sin through the universe! I am indeed aware that multitudes, who profess this doctrine, are not accustomed to bring it to their minds distinctly in this light; that they do not ordinarily regard the death of Christ, as a criminal execution, as an infinitely dreadful infliction of justice, as intended to show, that, without an infinite satisfaction, they must hope nothing from God. Their minds turn by a generous instinct from these appalling views, to the love, the disinterestedness, the moral grandeur and beauty of the sufferer; and through such thoughts they make the cross a source of peace, gratitude, love, and hope; thus affording a delightful exemplification of the power of the human mind to attach itself to what is good and purifying in the most irrational system. But let none on this account say, that we misrepresent the doctrine of atonement, the primary and essential idea of which is, the public execution of a God, for the purpose of satisfying justice and awakening a shuddering dread of sin.

I have a second objection to this doctrine of infinite atonement. When examined minutely, and freed from ambiguous language, it vanishes into air. It is wholly delusion. The Trinitarian tells me, that, according to his system, we have an infinite Substitute; that the Infinite God was pleased to bear our punishment, and, consequently, that pardon is made sure! But I ask him, Do I understand you? Do you mean that the Great God, who never changes, whose happiness is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever-that this Eternal Being, really bore the penalty of my sins-really suffered and died? Every pious man, when pressed by this question, answers, No. What then does the doctrine of infinite atonement mean? Why, this; that God took into union with himself our nature, that is, a human body and soul; and these bore the suffering for our sins; and, through his union with these, God may be said to have borne it himself! Thus this vaunted system goes out-in words. The infinite victim proves to be a frail man, and God's share in the sacrifice is a mere fiction. I ask with solemnity, Can

this doctrine give one moment's ease to the conscience of an unbiassed, thinking man? Does it not unsettle all hope, by making the whole religion suspicious and unsure? I am compelled to say, that I see in it no impression of majesty, or wisdom, or love, nothing worthy of a God; and when I compare it with that nobler faith, which directs our eyes and hearts to God's essential mercy, as our only hope, I am amazed that any should ascribe to it superior efficacy, as a religion for sinners, as a means of filling the soul with pious trust and love. I know, indeed, that some will say, that, in giving up an infinite atonement, I deprive myself of all hope of divine favour. To such, I would say, You do infinite wrong to God's mercy. On that mercy I cast myself without a fear. I indeed desire Christ to intercede for me. I regard his relation to me as God's kindest appointment. Through him, 66 grace and truth come" to me from Heaven, and I look forward to his friendship, as among the highest blessings of my whole future being. But I cannot, and dare not ask him, to offer an infinite satisfaction for my sins; to appease the wrath of God; to reconcile the Universal Father to his own offspring; to open to me those arms of Divine Mercy, which have encircled and borne me from the first moment of my being. The essential and unbounded mercy of my Creator is the foundation of my hope, and a broader and surer the universe cannot give me. (To be Continued.)

REVIEW.

"The pure Humanity of Christ shown to be a Scriptural doctrine; its gradual corruption traced during the times of the Apostles, and until the completion of the present generally received doctrines of the Trinity, in the year 863; A Discourse, by Russell Scott, Minister of the High-Street Chapel, Portsmouth."

THE cause of Unitarian Christianity is greatly indebted to the author of the tract, whose title we have put at the head of this notice. He has devoted a long life to the promotion of its interests. His exertions have been crowned with success. He has ever been among the first to adopt every plan which promised to advance pure Christianity, and vital religion; his pen has again and

again been employed-his purse has ever been openand from himself, and through his medium, large sums have flowed-his tongue has discoursed, and does still discourse, most eloquently, to further the cause of Scriptural truth, and Evangelical practice. He now rejoices in the fruits of his exertions-surrounded by a society, nearly all of whom are his children in the Lord-numerous-respectable-attached to their Pastor by feelings of affection and reverence; not only so, his works are preaching, whilst he is enjoying necessary repose; and wherever they come in their extensive travel, they illuminate and console, by their perspicuity, their cogent argumentation, their exhibition of invaluable, and consolatory, and elevating sentiments.

The work before us, is one of the most useful of Mr. Scott's productions. Priestley had well, before him, traced the gradual corruption of the Christian doctrine; but his work, from its price, was accessible to comparatively few. Besides, it omitted much that might, and ought, to have been inserted. Mr. Scott presents us in a cheap form, a condensation of Dr. Priestley's argument, combined with whatever else was necessary, drawn from his own extensive reading, and from other good authorities. We heartily wish the work a wide circulation, because it is calculated to do much service to the good cause. When the

doctrine of the Supremacy of the Father is brought before a Trinitarian, and he perceives the cogency of the evidence adduced in its favour, one of the first inquiries that he makes, is, "How then came the Trinity?" Because, it has existed for ages, many imagine that it existed from the first; and a portion of that veneration, which too generally attaches itself to whatever is ancient, surrounds the doctrine. Mr. Scott's work gives a most clear and satisfactory reply to the question, "How came the Trinity?". proves to demonstration, that it did not exist from the first, and scatters the elements of absurd veneration, by exhibiting the origin of it to be heathenism-its march to be gradual-now slow-now rapid-now advancingnow retrograding-accompanied by persecution and bloodshed the deprivation of the rights of man, and the aggrandisement of the priest.

The corrupters of the Scriptural doctrine respecting the person of Christ, were first, he argues, the Gnostic philosophers. We are not sure that we can quite agree with Mr. Scott in all his remarks under this head, because

we do not think it can be proved, that Gnosticism existed as a system so early as Mr. Scott represents. The first elements of it may, indeed, be found in the first century of the Christian era; but we much doubt, notwithstanding the authority of Priestley and Hammond, if Gnosticism reduced into a system, and having "philosophers," was not the work of a later period. Whatever doubt may attach, however, to the influence of the Gnostic philosophers in the time of the Apostles, it is certain, that afterward they did impair the purity of the Christian doctrine. Equally certain is it, as Mr. Scott goes on to state, that the next corrupters of the Apostolic doctrine were the Platonic philosophers. The chief of them is Justin Martyr (A. D. 140); he was entirely engrossed by the Platonic philosophy before he became a Christian; and he applied the principles of that philosophy, to enhance the personal dignity of the Messiah, by promulgating as a doctrine, first revealed to himself, and first taught by him, the pre-existence of "Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph," (John i. 45). As a Platonic philosopher, he believed in the preexistence of all souls; can we be surprised that he did not exclude that of Jesus? Clement of Alexandria (A.D.195), avowedly mixed the Platonic and Stoic tenets with the Christian doctrine; the same may be said of Tertullian (A. D. 200). And Origen also (A. D. 230) avowed his determination to improve Christianity, by incorporating with it the principles of heathen philosophy. Novatus (250) composed the first treatise on the subject of the Trinity. His Trinity, however, was very dissimilar to ours; for in it, the Son was greatly inferior to the Father, and the Holy Ghost to the Son.

The Councils now begin to exert their deteriorating influence on Christianity; and first, that of Antioch (270). In this Council, it was proposed to decree, that Jesus was to be held of the same essence with the Father: the proposition, however, was rejected by a very large majority. But the Council of Nice (325) reversed the judgment; and by the aid of the civil power, and after much cabal, and overreaching, and strife, determined the doctrine to be true!

In its turn, the judgment of the Council of Nice was modified by that of Sardis (347); and at Sirmium (351), the Nicene doctrine of Christ being of the same essence with the Father was set aside, and the Father was declared to be greater than the Son. Hitherto, the Holy Ghost had been regarded, not as a person distinct from the Father