to

religious world, there appears now to be a general leaning among the most able of our theologians, hold fast to the simple scriptural form of the doctrine in question, regarding the whole as a matter of pure revelation, and not to be judged of by the maxims of natural religion.

The author of the discourses, which are named at the head of this article, would be entitled to some apology for our long delay to review his work, on the interesting subject in question, if it were proper and expedient for us to make apologies of this nature. Circumstances beyond our controul, have been the only occasion of our delay.

Mr. Dwight is one of those investigators, whom we have just named with approbation. His great aim, through nearly the whole of that part of his treatise (if we may so call it) which is devoted to the investigation of the question, For what purpose did Christ die? is to give a scriptural view of the end and object of his death. The general plan, which he has pursued throughout his book, we will pre

sent in his own words.

"As this [viz. the object answered by the death of Christ] is a point of mere revelation, it can be determined only by a reference to the scriptures; and he, who examines them attentively for this purpose, will perceive that the sacred writers have adopted two different modes of presenting the subject to the mind. They have recorded a series of facts relative to the Death of Christ, which no believer in the scriptures can controvert. They have also, in various forms of phraseology, directly declared the great end for which he died. It will be admitted that these facts, and these forms of phraseology rightly interpreted, are perfectly consistent with each other; and that no explanation of this event, which is not consistent with both, can be true. In attempting to answer this question, it is my design therefore, to detail the facts connected with it at

some length; to recite also the forms of expression referred to, with the view of determining their true scriptural im port; and then to enquire how far the various Theories devised to account for the Death of Christ are consistent with these facts, and with the plain declarations of the scriptures. It was the rule of NEWTON, in his philosophi cal researches, to reject every expla nation of an event inconsistent with the phenomena that attended it; and, to adopt the same rule on the present occasion, will probably be regarded safe." p. 4. by every mind as at once fair and

The author next proceeds to state various interesting facts, which the scriptures disclose to our view, relative to his subject. We shall give a brief summary, with remarks as occasion may require.

the result of accident. The proofs 1. The death of Christ was not adduced are Acts ii. 23. iv. 27, 28.

2. It was the subject of prophecy. Various passages from the New Testament are cited under this

head, which are conclusive in regard to the point in question. We suaded, as Mr. Dwight appears to do not, however, feel so well perbe, that Gen. iii. 15, has particular reference to the death of Christ; although we believe with him, that the serpent which tempted Eve, was the "Old Serpent," the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. The original Hebrew of this verse is difficult and obscure; and if our translation gives a correct view of its meaning, it still is in our apprehension, far from being certain that the death of Christ is specifically intended by it. We should be more inclined to believe, that the general contest between the Prince of Light and the prince of darkness is the object of the sentiformer over the latter is predicted, ment; and that the victory of the while intimation is at the same time given, that the latter will not be inactive, nor destitute of the power of inflicting some wounds.

3. The death of Christ was absolutely necessary. In a general respect, we accede to the proposition. There are different kinds of necessity, if we may so speak. God is necessarily holy, just, and good, because a self-existent and all-perfect being cannot be otherwise. In such a sense, we conceive the death of Christ cannot well be affirmed to be necessary. Indeed, we can well conceive of no other necessity, in the case before us, than that of fitness, propriety; that is, all things considered, more important ends were accomplished by the death of Christ, than would have been accomplished without it. So infinite wisdom has judged; and we are bound to presume, that it has so judged for good reasons. The death of Christ is a matter too serious in its nature, to have taken place without sufficient reason.

Indeed, Mr. Dwight himself has led the way to such a view of the subject, in the second paragraph under the present head, where he states, that the necessity did not originate either from the fact that the death of Christ was predicted, nor from any arbitrary appointment of God. We come then, after all, singly to the ground, that the ends to be accomplished by the death of Christ were the grounds of its necessity; ends which infinite wisdom decided could be best accomplished in this way. To this we entirely accede. But to say that the death of Christ was absolutely necessary, and to construe da as meaning it was necessary, is somewhat more indefinite than this writer is usually wont to be. In fact Je often means such a kind of necessity as results from circumstances, or such an obligation as duty imposes upon any one. For example, Matt. xviii. 33. xxiii. 23. xxv. 27. Mark xiii. 14. Luke xiii. 14. Heb. i. 1. We admit, that it is also employed in other cases, to designate that which is unavoidable,

in its highest sense. Our criticism has not respect to the thing_at which Mr. Dwight is aiming, but to show, that the terms absolutely necessary do not express, in the most definite manner, exactly what he meant, if we rightly understand him.

4. It has excited a very deep interest in the heavenly world.

Here Mr. D. quotes 1 Pet. 1, 10-12, in order to show that the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" had been early revealed in heaven, and had occupied the deeply interested attention of its exalted inhabitants." The fact may indeed have been so; we have no authority to contradict it. But neither are we persuaded, that from this passage we have any to affirm it Peter wrote his epistle more than a score of years after the sufferings and death of Christ. speaks of the angels then, (at the time when he wrote,) as eagerly searching into the mysteries of a Saviour's death; sig étiðuμovớiv ayyeλo magaxias, into which things the angels ARE DESIROUS to look. This cannot prove that they had been thus engaged before the coming of the Saviour, or before his sufferings and death.

He

The facts that an angel came from heaven, to comfort the suffering Saviour in the garden of Gethsemane, and that angels descended to roll away the stone from the mouth of his sepulchre, may prove that he who ruleth in heaven was interested in the person of Jesus, and sent ministering servants to perform offices of kindness to him. This cannot show to us, what was the state of the angel's minds, who were sent on these errands, in respect to the death of Christ. Especially the fact, that an angel rolled away the stone from the mouth of Jesus' sepulchre, and that two angels, in that sepulchre, announced to the disciples the resurrection of Jesus, would rather

prove their interst in his resurrection than in his death; if indeed it could prove either. In all these cases, however, as they were the simple ministers of God, sent to perform these offices, the subjective views which they may have had respecting the death of Christ, can only be a matter of indirect deduction from circumstances of such nature.

In the quotations, which our author further makes, from Rev. v., the first part at least, applies only to those who had been "redeemed by a Saviour's blood;" which surely could not include the angels, and therefore does not apply to all the inhabitants of heaven. And if the sequel is of more extensive import, and embraces them all, (which however is very doubtful, as most probably all the redeemed are meant) yet the adoration of heaven goes rather to show the views which the heavenly world entertained of the person or dignity of the Lamb, than to prove the subjective feelings which they had respecting his sufferings and death.

Indeed Mr. D. himself tells us, in the next paragraph, that "hitherto the songs of heaven had been occupied in praising God for the display of his perfections in creation and providence; but that now, the upper world had learned a new song-an ascription of praise and blessing to the Lamb that was slain," p. 8. But if the death of Christ, had been early revealed in heaven, and had for ages been the theme of earnest contemplation there, how can it be, that it had never before called forth a song of praise from its blessed and benevolent inhabitants?

5. A similar degree of importance is attached to this event, by the sacred writers. The quotations to prove this are appropriate; and they might be indefinitely extended so as to comprise no small part of the NewTestament. But it was unnecessa

ry; and brevity demanded of our author to abstain.

6.

Various titles are given to Christ, in reference to his death, which are given to no other person. The examples produced are, Lamb of God, Redeemer, Saviour, Deliverer, Ransom. Saviour, Deliverer, and Redeemer too, he might have been called, had he been commissioned to accomplish only by some peculiar instructions, moral suasion and example, the liberation of men from the power and penalty of sin. God, who brought Israel out of Egypt, is often called their RedeemBut the Lamb of God seems necessarily to imply his death; and ransom, under circumstances in which it is employed, may perhaps be classed with it.

er.

7. Many persons of real piety, who went to heaven, lived and died before the death of Christ. This head, we presume is intended by the author as preparatory merely for the one which follows, and might have been united with it. As it now stands, it does not in any way, of itself, carry forward the design which the author has in view.

There is one idea, however, thrown out upon this head, which we shall briefly notice. It is this, viz. that the view of the saints in ancient times, respecting the death of Christ, were exceedingly imperfect, because "no prophecy of Scripture is of its own interpretation;" for so Mr. D. renders idias

λúσews. He adds, by way of ex planation, that "it is not adequately understood, until it is fulfilled." If by adequately, our author means, that when events have come to pass which were anciently predicted, those who are witnesses of the actual events, will have a better and more complete view of them than those who lived before this happened, we accede without any hesitation. But if, as many have maintained, Mr. D. supposes that the ancient predictions were not

intelligible either to the prophets themselves who uttered them, or to the people to whom they were addressed; then we ask, What purpose did they subserve? Prophecy is either to instruct or to console men, to whom it is addressed. But prophecy unintelligible can surely do neither. And if the prophets who were inspired, did not understand their own words, how are succeeding generations, not inspired, to understand them? If you say, "By the fulfilment of them;" we ask, the fulfilment of what? By your own statement, it is the fulfilment of something unintelligible, by any of the rules of language. Where then do you come at a rule, to make out a meaning with which you compare any particular event that has happened? After all then, it seems you do put a gloss on the words, by some rule or other of interpretation; and then you say, there is fulfilment. Surely, now if you have made out a meaning for the prophet's words, in order to compare a certain event with it, the prophet might at least have been equally able to make out one for himself, since he was inspired, and uttered ideas which were in his own mind.

Look at the subject in another light. Words are the signs of ideas. The prophet's words are the signs of his ideas. They are signs then of ideas entertained by men, and communicated for men, and addressed to them. If you say, "No; they are the signs of the ideas of the Spirit, and not of the prophets;" we reply, in the language of Paul, 'the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets." Inspiration destroys neither their free-agency, nor their rationality, nor does it change the native colouring of their style. In using words, then, while inspired, the prophets used them, as at other times; that is, they used them as signs of ideas which they had, not

as signs of ideas which they had not. In fact, the statement of prophecy is a revelation of future events, and yet that this revelation is intelligible, neither to him who makes it, nor to those to whom it is made, is not far from the regions of palpable contradiction. We entirely dissent from such a view of this subject.

We do not however, tax Mr. D. with such a view. But we cannot accede to his version of ¡días έwiλúσεως. The sequel shows, that the meaning is, no prophecy is of, that is, springs from, a man's own power of explaining, that is of pointing out, disclosing things future, for the writer goes on immediately to show that this power was communicated by the Holy Ghost, and not possessed by man as he was in himself considered.

8. Pious persons before the death of Christ, felt a deep interest in that event. The quotations under this head, seem to clash with the doctrine laid down in the preceding one. Here Mr. D. labours, (and with success,) to show that pious persons in ancient times had such views of the sufferings and death of Christ as to feel a deep interest in them. They did interpret phrophecy, then, and it comforted and edified them, long before the events took place to which it refers.

9. Christ knew that he was to suffer death. This is briefly but sufficiently proved, by citations from the Scriptures.

10. His death was not deserved. In proving this, Mr. Dwight has shown that he had neither transgressed any of the precepts of the Levitical law, nor any of the rules of the Roman government. At the hand of God, he did not deserve death; for he was sinless, and perfect in his obedience. The whole is forcibly and appropriately illus trated and confirmed.

To be continued.

The Rev. Joseph Torrey, of Royalton, has been elected to the Professorship of Languages and Belles Letters, in the University of Vermont. A system of reform in the instruction and discipline of the University has been made out, and is before the Trustees for consideration.

Richard Randall, M. D. has been appointed Professor of Chemistry, in the Medical Department of Columbian College, in place of Edward Cutbush, M. D. resigned.

Mr. Thomas Campbell, the poet, has been unanimously appointed Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow.

The Rhode Island Historical Society have put to press the following rare works, by Roger Williams, the foun

der of Religious Freedom-" A Key into the Language of America, or an Help to the Language of the natives in that part of America called New. England. Together with brief observations of the Customs, Manners and Worship, &c of the aforesaid Natives in Peace and War, in Life and Death. On all which are added Spiritual Observations."

Boston Ath-The North American Review states that the number of volumes now at this institution, with those daily expected, is about 23,000; and the number of ancient and modern medals and coins 13,437, many of which are very rare and valuable. The present property of the Atheneum in books, buildings, &c. exceeds 100,000 dollars. The building cost over $13,000.

RELIGIOUS.

The Gospel the Wisdom of God. A Sermon preached at Salem, Feb. 14, 1827, at the ordination of the Rev.

John P. Cleaveland. By William B. Sprague.

The influence of Truth: A Sermon delivered in Newburyport, March 20, 1827; at the Dedication of the New

Brick Church, in Titiomb street. By L. F. Dimmic. Newburyport: C. Whipple.

Inspiration of the Scriptures: A Sermon, delivered at the ordination of the Rev. Messrs. Scales and Crosby. By Rev. Justin Edwards, of Andover. Boston.

Means of Regeneration; A Discourse, by the Rev. Gardiner Spring,

D. D. of New-York. John P. Haven.

National Preacher, Vol. I. No. II. Sermon XV. By Leonard Woods, D. D.; on the Duties of the Rich.

MISCELLANEOUS.

The object of the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews, explained, and Objections An

America; or a General Survey of the Political situation of the several powers of the Western Continent; with Conjectures on their Future Pospects. By A. H. Everett, Esq. pp. 364, 8vo. Cary & Lea, Philadelqhia.

A Treatise on Diet: with a view to

Establish on Practical Grounds, a system of Rules for the Prevention and

Cure of the Diseases incident to a Disordered state of the Digestive Functions. By J. A. Paris, M. D. F. R.S. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, &c. &c. Philadelphia. Robert H. Small. 1826. 8vo. pp. 210. Poems by Mrs. Felicia Hemans. Boston. Hilliard. 1827. 2vols. 8vo. The Book of Nature. By John Mason Good, M. D. F. R. S. &c. of Philadelphia. In two vols. 8vo. Boɛton. Wells & Lilly. 1826.