it was made manifest that he who had been erucified 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 sufficient trial for the incredulity and rooted prejudices 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 that the death of Christ falls 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 learnt 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 sentiments 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 re-stating, as explanatory of its true nature and import. "Whom God hath 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 just, and (i. e. although) the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus," (Rom. iii. 25, 26.) 28

28 I had, in the former editions of this work, adopted Primate Newcome's explanation of the word dixerin; 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 Dr Nares, in his Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, pp. 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 shew, 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 Dr 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 hath 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 justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." The justice of the Deity, or his regard to what is righteous and just, is thus declared not to have been departed from in the scheme of redemption: this scheme bearing a twofold 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. 59. 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 Dr Nares's work, I cannot avoid expressing my regret, that the present edition has travelled thus far on its way to the

This

To argue here, as is done by Dr Priestley and others, that the word dixaos, cannot mean just with regard to punishment, 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 Saint 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 treated as if he had not offended, or was justified. sense of the word just, namely, acting agreeably to what is right and equitable, cannot public eye, without those aids which an earlier appearance of that valuable performance would have secured to it. Being, like that respectable writer, engaged in the endeavour to vindicate the purity of Scripture truth from Unitarian misrepresentation, I am naturally desirous to avail myself of the exertions of so distinguished a fellow-labourer. That, therefore, the cause which is here supported, may not be altogether deprived of the advantages of such co-operation on the subjects which have been already discussed in the foregoing sheets, I shall here subjoin a reference to those parts of Dr 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 No. I.to pp. 126-130, 231-236, 154-164, on the ransom or price of redemption treated of in No. XXV, on the sense in which Christ is said to have been made a sacrifice for sin, and a sin-offering, as in No. XXVII, pp. 64, 65, and No. XXIX. and to have died for us, as in No. XXX. - to pp. 144-154, on the meaning of propitiation, as treated of in No. XXVI. and of atonement, as in No. XXVIII.—and, lastly, to pp. 131140, 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 Dr 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 pre-ent work, (see p. 49.) 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 gravissimiis merito consentur. (Select. de Relig. Cont. 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.

be objected to by Dr Priestley, it being that which he himself adopts, in his violent application of the word, as relating to the Jews, compared with the Gentiles.

Dr Doddridge deserves particularly_to_be consulted on this passage. See also Raphelius. The interpretation of dixos in the sense of merciful, adopted by Hammond, Taylor, Rosenmüller, 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 Matt. 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 29 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 zal, is given to it both by the New Testament and profane writers, has been abundantly shewn by Raphel. tom. ii. p. 519; Palairet. pp. 41, 96, 221, 236; Elsner, tom. i. p. 293; and Krebsius, p. 147. See also Schleusner Lex. in Nov. Test. No. XI. and the observations at p. 59, of this volume.

ON

No. XLIII. - Page 16. Col. 1.

THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REASONING WHEREBY THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS MAINTAINED TO HAVE BEEN BUT FIGURATIVELY A SACRIFICE.

It has been well remarked, that there is great inconsistency in the arguments of some writers upon this subject. They represent

29 Campbell, although, from his not discerning the adversa tive relation of the members of the verse, Matt. 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 dixxios, 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 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. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Apoc. xix. 2.

the death of Christ, not as a proper, but merely as a figurative, sacrifice; and establish this by proving, that it cannot be either. For, whilst they argue that it is not a proper sacrifice, upon principes which tend to shew that no such sacrifice can exist, they prove at the same time that it is not a sacrifice figuratirely, since every figure presupposes reality. The writers of the New Testament, who perpetually apply the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, must surely have been under a strange mistake, since neither in a proper, nor in a figurative sense, did those terms admit of such application.

Upon the whole, the opposers of the proper sacrifice of Christ, on the ground of necessary inefficacy, are reduced to this alternative, that no proper sacrifice for sin ever existed, and that, consequently, in no sense whatever, not even in figure, is the death of Christ to be considered as a sacrifice; or, that the efficacy, which they deny to the sacrifice of Christ, belonged to the offering of a brute

animal.

Besides, if they allow the sacrifices under the law to have been proper sacrifices, whilst that of Christ was only figurative, then, since the apostle has declared the former to have been but types and shadows of the latter, it follows, that the proper and real sacrifices were but types and shadows of the improper and figurative.

On the pretence of figurative allusion, in the sacrificial terms of the New Testament, which has been already so much enlarged upon in several parts of this work, Dr Laurence, in his discourse on The Metaphorical Character of the Apostolical Style, has thrown out some valuable ideas, which well deserve to be considered.

No. XLIV. - Page 16. Col. 1.

ON THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN.

No. XLV. - Page 16. Col. 2.

ON THE EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT IN PRODUCING SENTIMENTS FAVOURABLE ΤΟ VIRTUE AND RELIGION.

"senti

Dr Priestley (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 419,) offers, upon this head, some very extraordinary remarks. He admits, that "the apprehensions of the divine justice, and of the evil and demerit of sin," excited by the scheme of redemption here maintained, are ments of powerful effect in promoting repentance and reformation." But he adds, that, "in proportion as any opinion raises our idea of the justice of God, it must sink our idea of the divine mercy; and since a sense of the mercy of God is, at least, as powerful an inducement to repentance, and as efficacious a motive to a holy life, especially with ingenuous minds, as the apprehension of his justice, what the doctrine of atonement gains on the one hand, it loses on the other."

Now, does Dr Priestley seriously think, that the abstract love of excellence, or the hope of distant reward, can produce upon the minds of men impressions as powerful as the habitual fear of offending? That the desire of happiness acts upon us but through the medium of present inquietude; that we seek after it, only in the degree in which we feel uneasy from the want of it; and that fear is in itself, however remote its object, an instant and perpetually acting stimulus, Dr Priestley is too well acquainted with the nature of the human mind not to admit. And, Lapprehend, he would consider that civil government but badly secured, which rested upon no other support than that of gratitude and the hope of reward, rejecting altogether the succour of judicial infliction. But, besides, in comparing the effects, upon the human mind, of gratitude for the divine mercies, and fear of the divine justice, it is to be remembered, that one great advantage, which we

atonement, endeavour to establish a principle entirely different from that contended for in these discourses, yet are the observations of both upon the subject of atonement particularly worthy of attention.

1 Bishop Watson, in speaking of that arrogant and dogmatical theology, that decrees the rejection of the doctrine of the atonement as inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercy, uses the following just observations: -“We know assuredly, that God

no malignity, no infirmity of any passion in his nature; but we do not know whether the requisition of an atonement for transgression may not be an emanation of his infinite mercy, rather than a demand of his infinite justice. We do not know, whether it may not be the very best means of preserving the innocence and happiness not only of us, but of all other free and intelligent beings. We do not know, whether the suffering of an innocent person may not be productive of a degree of good, infinitely surpassing the evil of such sufferance; nor whether such a quantum of good could, by any other means, have been produced.". Two Apologies, &c. pp. 466, 467.

ascribe to the latter, is this, that those humble feelings, which the apprehension of the great demerit of sin, and of the punishment due to our offences, must naturally excite, dispose us the more readily to place our whole reliance on God, and, not presuming on our own exertions, to seek in all cases his sustaining aid. Farther, admitting that the bulk of mankind, (who, after all, and not merely ingenuous minds, are, as Dr Priestley confesses, "the persons to be wrought upon,") were as strongly influenced by love of the goodness of God as by fear of his justice, it by no means follows, that "the doctrine of atonement must lose in one way what it gains in another;" because it is not true, that "the fear of the divine justice must sink our ideas of the divine mercy." On the contrary, the greater the misery from which men have been released, the greater must be their gratitude to their deliverer. And thus, whilst the divine rectitude rendered it unavoidable that the offender should be treated in a different manner from the obedient, the mercy which devised a method whereby that rectitude should remain uninfringed, and yet the offender forgiven, cannot but awaken the strongest feelings of gratitude and love.

Dr Priestley, however, contends, that even the advantage ascribed to the doctrine of atonement, namely, that of exciting apprehensions of the divine justice and of the evil and demerit of sin, does not strictly belong to it; "for, that severity should work upon men, the offenders themselves should feel it. Now, this I cannot understand. It seems much the same as to say, that, in order to feel the horror of falling down a precipice, on the edge of which he hangs, a man must be actually dashed down the steep. Will not the danger produce sensations of terror? And will not the person who snatches me from that danger be viewed with gratitude, as having rescued me from destruction? Or is it necessary that I should not be saved, in order to know from what I have been saved? Can any thing impress us with a stronger sense of God's hatred to sin, of the severe punishment due to it, and of the danger to

2 The "ne non timere quidem sine aliquo timore" of Tully, seems an idea quite inconceivable to Dr Priestley. On this subject I beg to direct the reader's attention to the words of the late Bishop Porteous, and particularly to the striking and beautiful expression in the concluding clause, taken from Scott's Christian

Life:-"By accepting the death of Christ instead of ours, by laying on him the iniquity of us all, God certainly gave us the most astonishing proof of his mercy; and yet, by accepting no less a sacrifice than that of his own Son, he has, by this most expressive and tremendous act, signified to the whole world such extreme indignation at sin, as may well alarm, even while he saves us, and make us tremble at his severity, even while we are within the arms of his mercy." Porteous's Sermons, ii. p. 56.

which we are consequently exposed if we comply not with his terms of forgiveness, than his appointing the sacrifice of his only begotten Son, as the condition on which alone he has thought it right to grant us forgiveness? Do we not in this see every thing to excite our fear? do we not see every thing to awaken our gratitude?

No. XLVI.- Page 17. Col. 2.

ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT SACRIFICE ORIGINATED

IN PRIESTCRAFT.

Some of those objectors, who call themselves enlightened, but whose opinions would scarcely deserve notice, were it not to mark their absurdity, have sagaciously conjectured, that sacrifice was the invention of priestcraft. Morgan (Moral Phil. p. 236) and Tindal (Christ. as old as the Creat. p. 79) exult in this discovery. But, in the elevation of their triumph, they have totally forgotten to inform us who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel; or, if we consent to set aside the history of that first sacrifice, in compliance with the dislike which such gentlemen entertain for the book in which it is contained, we have still to learn of them, in what manner the fathers and heads of families (by whom, even Morgan himself confesses, sacrifices were first offered) contrived to convert the oblation of their own flocks and fruits into a gainful traffic. And, indeed, after all, the priests, or, as he calls them, "holy butchers," whom Tindal wittily represents, "as sharing with their gods, and reserving the best bits for themselves," seem to have possessed a very extraordinary taste. The skin of the burnt-offering among the Jews, (Levit. vii. 8,) and the skin and feet among the heathens, (Pott. Antiq. vol. i. book ii. ch. 3,, being the best bits, which the priests cun ningly reserved for their own use.1

Such impotent cavils, contemptible as they are, may yet be considered of value in this light. They imply an admission, that the invention of sacrifice on principles of natural reason is utterly inconceivable; since, if any such principles could be pointed out, these writers, whose main object is to undermine the fabric of Revelation, would gladly have resorted to them, in preference to suppositions so frivolous and absurd.

1 See Delany's Revel. Exam. vol. i. pp. 86, 87, and Kenni cott's Two Dissert. pp. 204, 205,