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 until, 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 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: Joh. 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 YOL. I.

48

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 Doctor 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 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 JUST, and (i. e. altho') 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 Sixx; 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 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 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.

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

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. 163 of this volume. 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' 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 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 these volumes, therefore, and the cause which they support, 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. Nare'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 I: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 sinoffering, as in Number XXVII. p. 251-242, 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. 131-140, 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' 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,