plished and gifted like those we have above named, we shall have its history revived, as that has been which was transacted in the familiar scenes of Judæa and Samaria. And thus will be completed a proof overwhelming in its power of demonstration on him who duly investigates it, that the sacred writers wrote what they knew, and testified what they had seen; and that no historical record in our possession is more authentic than that through which we have received the Revelation of the mind and will of God.

DR. SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; AND HIS
CONTRIBUTORS..

WE have received from the Rev. Samuel Clark the following letter, which, desiring to give him no ground of complaint, we print as we received it :—

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

Battersea, Nov. 20, 1860. SIR,-Your reviewer of Dr. Smith's Biblical Dictionary has thought it worth while to select my article on the Day of Atonement for stern rebuke, and has given three quotations from it on which he mainly grounds his charges. As I cannot help thinking that his treatment of the article is peculiar, I trust that you will give me space for a statement which shall be as short as I can make it.

The opinion of Origen, Spencer, Gesenius, Ewald, and Hengstenberg, noticed in the first passage-that the Hebrew word Azazel is the name of a personal being, to whom the scape-goat was sent away, is indeed stated at some length. But objections to that opinion, which I regard as valid, are also stated. In the next section, the interpretation of the word is given which appears to me to be most probable, and which is approved by Drs. Thomson and Tholuck. According to it, the inscription on the lot of the scape-goat signified, "for complete sending away."

Philo's view of the Day of Atonement, referred to in the second quotation, is called "nobler:" not as being a complete or true one, but as compared with the notions of the Talmudists mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

For the third quotation I have neither apology nor explanation to offer. It expresses the only meaning of the white garments and bodily purification of the high priest with which I am acquainted. I would, however, ask that it should be read, together with the reviewer's remarks, in connection with the concluding passage of the article. After giving the arguments in favour of taking the two goats as figures of one and the same substance, and stating that Cyril and others have applied this view so as to make one goat represent the death of Christ, and the other His resurrection, the paragraph proceeds :-" But we "shall take a simpler, and perhaps a truer view, if we look upon the

"slain goat as setting forth the act of sacrifice, in giving up its own life "for others to Jehovah,' in accordance with the requirements of the "divine law; and the goat which carried off its load of sin for com"plete removal,' as signifying the cleansing influence of faith in that "sacrifice. Thus, in his degree, the devout Israelite might have felt "the truth of the psalmist's words, As far as the east is from the "west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.' But for

་

us the whole spiritual truth has been revealed in historical fact, in "the life, death, and resurrection of Him who was made sin for us, "who died for us, and who rose again for our justification. This "Mediator it was necessary should, in some unspeakable manner, "unite life and death.'"*

Then follows a list of nine books, of which I made principal use in the composition of the article. Of these two only are modern German works and from neither of them am I conscious of having derived any "follies of German interpretation," with which the article is said to be largely intermixed. I believe that I have not adopted a single opinion which is peculiar to either of them.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant, SAMUEL CLARK.

We feel no inclination for a war of words with Mr. Clark, and shall therefore leave his explanations to have their full weight with our readers. We feared, on our first perusal of the paper in question, that Mr. Clark was a follower of Mr. F. D. Maurice. We drew this conclusion, not merely from his reference to that author, but from that mistiness and indistinctness-that apparent but not real recognition of fundamental truths-which pervades all the writings of Mr. Maurice, and from which Mr. Clark's article on the Day of Atonement is not altogether free. Let our readers examine carefully the passage to which Mr. Clark appeals in his own justification, as given above, and they will see how nearly we may approach the truth, without actually touching it.

However, we have the assurance or those on whom we can rely, that Mr. Clark is a sound and pious divine; and we rejoice to hear it. Other excellent men, some of whom occasionally write in the Christian Observer, have also contributed papers to Dr. Smith's dictionary. As it was intended only "to comprise antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history," we are by no means surprised they should have done so. Some of them have written to us to say that they wish to be held responsible only for their own contributions. But we must suggest to them that something more is due, both to their own characters and to the cause of truth, than explanations addressed to the editor of the Christian Observer. They must send their indignant remonstrance, not to us, but to the editor of Dr. Smith's dictionary. They must publish this remonstrance to the world. And they must do it in such out-spoken terms as to make the

*These eight words are taken from Maurice on Sacrifice, p. 85.

public understand that their indignation bears some proportion to the mischief they have innocently been promoting. We should have thought Mr. Clark's explanation more satisfactory, if he had wound up with a sentence or two to this effect.

But the subject is too solemn, and the interests at stake are too important, for us to permit it to degenerate into a personal affair. We must seize the occasion to re-open, to a certain extent, the questions at issue between ourselves and the friends. and followers of Mr. Maurice.

Let it be remembered, that Mr. Maurice himself asserts and maintains a doctrine of the Atonement,-speaks of Christ's sacrifice, acknowledges that Christ died for us, was made sin for us, and offered Himself to the Father for us; and yet, with all this, Mr. Maurice utterly rejects that doctrine of the Atonement which the Bible teaches, and which the church constantly maintains. And what Mr. Clark's letter, as given above, is chiefly deficient in, is, a clear and distinct avowal, whether he holds with Mr. Maurice, or with the Bible and the church.

I. Mr. Maurice tells us, in his Theological Essays, "I must give up archbishop Magee; for I am determined to keep that which makes the Atonement precious to my heart and conscience."

Now, whether Mr. Maurice chooses to keep to archbishop Magee, or to give him up, may be of small importance. But the archbishop's name here stands for a certain DOCTRINE which Mr. Maurice says he "must give up."

II. What, then, is this doctrine which Mr. Maurice thus rejects? We will give it in the archbishop's own words;

"As the Atonement under the Law, or expiation of the legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain, and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred;-so, the great Atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, undergoing, for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death which had been denounced against sin; and which He suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to Him, as those of the congregation had been symbolically transferred to the sin-offering of the people." (Abp. Magee on the Atonement, Vol. i., p. 62.)

III. Such is the doctrine which Mr. Maurice "gives up, or rejects. Now, let us quote, in his own words, some of his reasons for so giving it up. In his Theological Essays he

says:

"If we speak of Christ as taking upon Himself the sins of men by some artificial substitution, we deny that He is their actual representative."

"Those who say that the law must execute itself,-must have its penalty, should remember their own words. How does it execute itself if a person, against whom it is not directed, interposes to bear its punishment?"

"How can we tolerate that notion of God which would represent Him as satisfied by the punishment of sin; not by the purity and graciousness of the Son ?"

We see, then, and Mr. Clark may see, wherein lies the difference between the two systems. There is an important fact, -a vital principle, asserted by archbishop Magee, and denied by Mr. Maurice; and that fact is, that the death of Christ was an EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. Now, we might remark, that the archbishop started no new doctrine; founded no sect or party in the church, (as Mr. Maurice has done); but merely stated anew the doctrine which had been preached by Luther, Cranmer, Jewell, Hooker, and all the great divines of our church, down to his own time. But we prefer to confine ourselves to one question.

IV. What says the church, of which Mr. Maurice is a minister? Is the doctrine of the Expiatory Sacrifice of Christ held by her, as it was by archbishop Magee; or rejected, as it is by Mr. Maurice? A very few passages from the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies, will answer this question.

1. The Articles tell us, that

"The Son of God truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." (Art. ii.)

"The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." (Art. xxxi.)

2. The Prayer Book tells us, that—

We receive the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, "in remembrance of His meritorious cross and passion, whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins," &c.

And that, "Christ suffered on the cross for our redemption; and made there, by His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."

3. The Homilies tell us, that

"God sent His only Son our Saviour Christ into this world, to fulfil the law for us, and, by shedding of His most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to His Father for our sins, to assuage His wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same." "He for them (that believe) paid their ransom by His death: He for them fulfilled the law in His life." (On Salvation.)

"To appease the wrath of God, and to satisfy His justice, it was expedient that our Mediator should be such an one as might take upon Him the sins of mankind, and sustain the due punishment thereof." (On the Nativity.)

"Christ did put Himself between God's deserved wrath and our sin, and rent that obligation wherein we were in danger to God, and paid our debt."..." Without payment, God the Father could never be at one with us."..." The dearly-beloved Son of God was thus punished and stricken for the sin which He had not done." (For Good Friday.)

"Herein doth it appear how filthy a thing sin is, since it can by no other means be washed away, but by the blood of the only-begotten Son of God." (On Repentance.)

Such is the teaching of the Church, in her Articles, her Liturgy, and her Homilies. Now turn back to Mr. Maurice's language,How does the law execute itself, if a person against whom it is not directed, interposes to bear its punishment?" "How can

we tolerate that notion of God, which would represent Him as satisfied by the punishment of sin?" Is it not as clear as words can make it, that while he talks of "giving up archbishop Magee," it is the doctrine of the Church of England which he gives up, or rejects? And that this doctrine is wholly drawn from Holy Scripture itself, is a fact which, at this time of day, we need hardly take the trouble to prove.

Such, then, is the alternative which we put before Mr. Clark. In connexion with some others whose orthodoxy is after all, we trust, unimpaired, he has brought himself into question, by quoting Mr. Maurice, and by adopting his style and modes of thought. We have now shown them what is involved in all this. If they place themselves on Mr. Maurice's side, they thereby place themselves in opposition to the fundamental doctrines of the church of England. If they come again before the public, let them state with explicitness whether they side with Mr. Maurice or reject him.

We are thus plain and emphatic, because we have recently seen several lamentable proofs, that this departure from the great central truth, of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, is largely yielding its natural fruit, of positive Infidelity. Various instances of this have come before us in the course of the last two or three months, the latest of which we will briefly describe.

A young man had allowed doubts and sceptical thoughts to creep into his mind, as they creep into the minds of many, from the study of Tennyson's and some other poems,—from Kingsley's writings, and similar works. He resolved to hear Mr. Maurice for himself, and became a regular attendant upon his preaching. He soon avowed himself a willing disciple; and could talk of "the monstrous notion that God could be satisfied or pleased by the punishment of sinners; or that the death of