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 dixaloom; 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 To argue here, as is done by Dr. Priestley and others, that the word malos, cannot mean just with regard to punishment, will avail but 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 re conciling 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 pre ferred, it takes the right direction, must be manifest on con sidering, 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remission of sins, mercy is the quality that immediately presents itself, whilst justice might seem to be for the time superseded.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 interpreta tion, the sentence will stand thus. Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the ma nifestation of his JUSTICE (his just and righteous dealing) concerning the remission of past sins, through the forbear. ance 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. 215. 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. little in evading the force of this passage. Admitting even that it signifies, as Dr. Priestley contends, righteous, the argument remains much Having been led by the discussion of this text to the mention of Mr. Nares's work, I cannot avoid expressing my re gret, 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 á 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 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 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. 131-140, 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's work, not only because the view, which has been taken of them in the preceding Numbers, will 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 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 pp. 177, 178 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 falla, ciousness 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 Soci nianis, vel Anti-Trinitariis etiam extra familiam Socini, inter cedunt, 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 lead to punishment, that forgiveness granted through Christ's propitiation, whereby the sinner was treated 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 being 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 dinos 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 their cavils on the New Testament; nor to the Remarker upon those cavils, for their complete and triumphant refutation. * 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 VOL. I. II |
