bles a sin-offering under the law"--when, I say, these passages are to be found, all referring, more or less directly, to the notion of atonement: when it is considered also, that this notion of atonement was rendered perfectly familiar by the law; and when to these reflections it is added, that the prophecy of Isaiah, to which reference is made in some, possibly in all of these, had, by describing Christ as a sin-offering, already pointed out the connexion between the atonements of the law, and the death of Christ: there seems little foundation for the assertion, that nothing whatever appears in the Gospels or Acts, to justify the notion of atonement.

But admitting, for the sake of argument, that no instance to justify such a notion did occur, what is thence to be inferred? Are the many and clear declarations on this head, in the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, to be pronounced surreptitious? Or, have these writers broached doctrines, for which they had no authority? Let Dr. Priestley take his choice. If he adopt neither part of the alternative, his argument goes for nothing.

But why, it may still be urged, are not the communications upon this subject, as frequent and forcible in the Gospels and Acts, as in the epistles? Why did not our Lord himself unfold to his hearers, in its fullest extent, this great and important object of his mission?-Why, I ask in return, did he not, at his first coming, openly declare that he was the Messiah? Why did he not also fully unfold that other great doctrine, which it was a principal (or as Dr. Priestley will have it, Hist. of Cor. vol. i. p. 175. the sole) " object of his mission to ascertain and exemplify, namely, that of a resurrection and a future state?" The ignorance of the Jews at large, and even of the apostles themselves, on this head, is notorious, and is well enlarged upon by Mr. Veysie, (Bampt. Lect. Serm. p. 188-198.) There seems, then, at least, as much reason for our Lord's rectifying their errors, and supplying them with specific instructions on this head, as there could be on the subject of atonement.

But besides, there appears a satisfactory reason, why the doctrine of atonement is not so fully explained, and so frequently insisted on, in the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, as in the epistles to the early converts. Until it was clearly established that Jesus was the Messiah; and un til, by his resurrection crowning all his miraculous acts, it was made manifest, that he who had been crucified by the Jews, was HE who was to save them and all mankind from their sins, it must have been premature and useless to explain, how this was to be effected. To gain assent to plain facts, was found a sirfficient trial for the incredulity and rooted pre

judices of the Jews, in the first instance. Even to his immediate followers, our Lord declares, I have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now: John xvi. 12. And accordingly, both he, and they afterwards following his example, proceeded by first establishing the fact of his divine mission, before they insisted upon its end and design, which involved matters more difficult of apprehension and acceptance. Besides, it should be observed, that the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, were generally addressed to persons, to whom the ideas of atonement were familiar, whereas the epistles were directed to those who were not acquainted with the principles of the Mosaic atonement; excepting only that addressed to the Hebrews, in which, the writer solely endeavours to prove the death of Christ, to fall in with those notions of atonement, which were already familiar to the persons whom he addressed.

But Dr. Priestley is not content to confine himself to those parts of scripture, where a full communication of the doctrine of atonement was least likely to be made. Having from long experience learned the value of a confident assertion, he does not scruple to lay down a position yet bolder than the former; namely, "that in no part either of the Old or New Testament, do we ever find asserted, or explained, the principle on which the doctrine of atonement is founded: but that, on the contrary, it is a sentiment every where abounding, that repentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to recommend us to the favour of God." (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 263.) How little truth there is in the latter part of the assertion, has been already considered in Numbers IX, and XVIII. That the former part is equally destitute of foundation, will require but little proof. The entire language of the epistles is a direct contradiction to it. The very prophecy which has been the principal subject of this Number, overturns it. It is in vain that Dr. Priestley endeavours to shelter this assertion under an extreme and exaggerated statement of what the principle of atonement is; namely, "that sin is of so heinous a nature, that God cannot pardon it without an adequate satisfaction being made to his justice."

It is an artifice not confined to Dr. Priestley, to propound the doctrine in these rigorous and overcharged terms; and, at the same time to combat it in its more moderate and qualified acceptation: thus insensibly transferring to the latter, the sentiment of repugnance excited by the former. But, that God's displeasure against sin is such, that he has ordained that the sinner shall not be admitted to reconciliation and favour, but in virtue of that great sacrifice which has

been offered for the sins of men, exemplifying the desert of guilt, and manifesting God's righteous abhorrence of those sins, which required so severe a condition of their forgiveness: that this, I say, is every where the language of scripture, cannot possibly be denied. And it is to no purpose that Dr. Priestley endeavours by a strained interpretation, to remove the evidence of a single text, when almost every sentence that relates to the nature of our salvation conveys the same ideas. That text, however, which Dr. Priestley has laboured to prove in opposition to the author of Jesus Christ the Mediator, not to be auxiliary to the doctrine of atonement, I feel little hesitation in restating, as explanatory of its true nature and import. Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God: to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be sust, and (i. e. although) the JUSTIFIER of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. iii. 25, 26.*

* I had, in the former editions of this work, adopted Primate Newcome's explanation of the word diava; conceiving the idea of justification, or method of justification, to be better calculated than that of righteousness, (the term employed by the common version,) to convey an adequate sense of the original. On perusing the observations of Mr. Nares, in his Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 150-153. I am now induced to alter my opinion: being fully satisfied, that that learned and ingenious writer has caught the true spirit of the original passage; and that the object of the inspired reasoner is not so much to show how, in the method adopted for the remission of sins, mercy was to be displayed, as how, notwithstanding this display of mercy, justice was to be maintained. In either view the sense undoubtedly terminates in the same point, the reconciling with each other the two attributes of mercy and justice; but the emphasis of the argument takes opposite directions; and that, in the view which Mr. Nares has preferred, it takes the right direction, must be manifest on considering that, in the remission of sins, mercy is the quality that immediately presents itself, whilst justice might seem to be for the time superseded. On this principle of interpretation, the sentence will stand thus. Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the manifestation of his JUSTICE (his just and righteous dealing) concerning the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God: for the manifestation, at this time, of his JUSTICE, that he might be JUST, and (i. e. although) the JUSTI. FIER of him that believeth in Jesus. The justice of the Deity, or his regard to what his righteous and just, is thus declared not to have been departed from in the scheme of redemption: this scheme bearing a two-fold relation to sinners, in such a manner, that whilst it manifested the mercy of God, it should at the same time in no degree lay a ground for the impeachment of his justice. This view of the case will be found exactly to agree with what has been already advanced at p. 127. The reader who will turn to the Annotations of Diodati, p. 117, will be pleased with the observations which he will there find upon this subject.

Having been led by the discussion of this text to the mention of Mr. Nares's work, I cannot avoid expressing my regret, that the present edition has travelled thus far on its way to the public eye without those aids, which an earlier appearance of that valuable performance would have secured to

262

THE DEATH OF CHRIST, &c:

To argue here, as is done by Dr. Priestley and others, that the word dixios, cannot mean just with regard to pu nishment, will avail but little in evading the force of this passage. Admitting even that it signifies, as Dr. Priestley contends, righteous, the argument remains much the same; since, in this view, the reasoning of St. Paul goes to reconcile with the righteous dealings of God, which in respect of sin, must lead to punishment,-that forgiveness granted through Christ's propitiation, whereby the sinner was treat

it. Being, like that respectable writer, engaged in the endeavour to vindicate the purity of Scripture truth from Unitarian misrepresentation, 1 am naturally desirous to avail myself of the exertions of so distinguished a fellow-labourer. That this volume therefore, and the cause which it supports, may not be altogether deprived of the advantages of such co-operation on the subjects which have been already displayed in the foregoing sheets, I shall here subjoin a reference to those parts of Mr. Nares's work which bear upon the same subjects. and bestow upon them additional enforcement and illustration. I beg then to direct the reader's attention to pp. 60-124. 173, 174. 181, 182. 217. 220, on the doctrine of the pre-existence treated of in Number 1:-to pp. 126-130. 231–236. 154-164. on the ransom or price of redemption treated of in Number XXV. on the sense in which Christ is said to have been made a sacrifice for sin, and a sin-offering, as in Number XXVII. p. 234-242. and Number XXIX. and to have died for us, as in Number XXX:-to p. 144-154, on the meaning of propitiation, as treated of in Number XXVI, and of Atonement as in Number XXVIII: and lastly, to p. 131–149. on the meaning of the phrase bearing sins, which has been treated of in the present Number.

I have referred the reader to the discussion of these several subjects in Mr. Nares's work, not only because the view, which has been taken of them in the preceding Numbers, will be found thereby to receive ample confirmation; but, more especially, because the arguments employed by the learned author are shaped in such a manner, as to meet the Unitarian objections in that form, in which they have made their latest appearance, and which has been given to them by the joint labours and collective erudition of the party. In the year 1801, a challenge had been thrown out to the Unitarians, in the first edition of the present work, (see p. 108. of this edition) calling upon them for an avowed translation of the scriptures on their peculiar principles. Whether it has been in compliance with this demand or not, that they have given to the world their Improved Version of the New Testament, is of little consequence. But it is of great consequence, that they have been brought to reduce their vague and fluctuating notions of what the New Testament contains, to some one determined form; and that they have afforded to the able author of the Remarks upon their version, an opportunity of exposing the futility of the criticisms, the fallaciousness of the reasonings, the unsoundness of the doctrines, and the shallowness of the information, which have combined to produce this elaborate specimen of Unitarian exposition. Spanheim has said, Controversiæ quæ cum hodiernis Socinianis, vel Anti-Trinitariis etiam extra familiam Socini, intercedunt, sive numero suo, sive controversorum capitum momento, sive adversariorum fuco et larvâ quadam pietatis, sive argutiarum nonnunquam subtilitate, sive Socinianæ luis contagio, in gravissimis merito censentur. (Select. De Relig. Controv. p. 132) If this observation of Spanheim is admitted to be a just one, the friends of Christianity cannot surely be too thankful to the compilers of the Improved Version, for bringing together into one view, the entire congeries of their cavils on the New Testament; nor to the Remarker upon those cavils, for their complete and triumphant refutation.

THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REASONING, &c. 263

ed as if he had not offended, or was justified. This sense of the word just, namely, acting agreeably to what was right and equitable, cannot be objected to by Dr. Priestley, it be ing that which he himself adopts, in his violent application of the word, as relating to the Jews, compared with the Gentiles.

Doctor Doddridge deserves particularly to be consulted on this passage. See also Raphelius. The interpretation of Fixaos in the sense of merciful, adopted by Hammond, Taylor, Rosenmuller, and others, seems entirely arbitrary.Whitby says, that the word occurs above eighty times in the New Testament, and not once in that sense.

The single instance adduced in support of this interpretation, is itself destitute of support. It is that of Mat. i. 19. -Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to make Mary a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Now this means clearly, not, that Joseph being a *merciful man, and therefore not willing, &c. but, that being a just man, that is, actuated by a sense of right and duty, he determined to put her away according to the law, in Deut. xxiv. 1. and yet, at the same time, not willing to make her a public example, he determined to do it privately. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Pearce, on this passage.

That the force of tamen, yet or nevertheless, which has been here ascribed to the word xa, is given to it both by the New Testament and profane writers, has been abundantly shown by Raphel. tom. ii. p. 519. Palairet, pp. 41, 96, 221, 236. Elsner, tom. i. p. 293. and Krebsius, p. 147.-8 -see also Schleusner Lex. in Nov. Test. Numb. 11. and the observations at p. 127. of this volume.

No. XLIII.-ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REASONING WHEREBY THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS MAINTAINED то HAVE BEEN BUT FIGURATIVELY A SACRIFICE.

PAGE 36. (v)-It has been well remarked, that there is great inconsistency in the arguments of some writers upon

Campbell, although from his not discerning the adversative relation of the members of the verse, Mat. i. 19. he has not ascribed to the word the signification of just in this place, is yet obliged to confess, that he has "not seen sufficient evidence for rendering it humane, or merciful:" Four Gospels, &c. vol. iv. pp. 6, 7-The force of the Syriac word which is here used for fixaos, seems not to have been sufficiently attended to in the decision of this question: if the learned reader will take the trouble of examining the several passages in the Syriac New Testament, where the word

, or its emphatic H, occurs, he will be satisfied that in every case where it does not signify just in the most rigorous sense, it at least implies that which is founded in right. For its use in the former acceptation, see John v. 30. vii. 24. Rom. ii. 5. iii. 26. 2 Thess. i. 5. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Apoc. xix. 2.