as

513

agency in the creation, it pervades, in fact, the whole tenor of Scripture; it is conveyed in the tone and spirit on which all Scriptural statements and reasonings proceed. So the doctrine of the atonement is not only declared directly by those passages which speak of Christ as the propitiation for our sins,' whom we have received the atonement;' but is deduced, by 'delivered up for us all,' as one by indirect inference, from various passages implying its truth, and proceeding on the supposition of it. And these two doctrines are so connected, that they must stand or fall together. If our Saviour was really God, he must have died to atone for human sins. he must have been a being at least far superior to man. Let If he died to atone for human sins, it then be always remembered, that not only is the force of particular texts to be examined singly, but the general tone of Scripture is to be sifted, and various texts are to be considered collectively as they afford mutual explanation. The opponent of our faith is always disposed to take single, isolated passages, and of these to fritter away the meaning, by viewing them unconnected with others. Now, little as we have reason to shrink from any mode of interpreting Scripture, provided the received meaning of the words be preserved, and an adherence to the rules of fair criticism be maintained: still we do not consent that, by such a method, the question is placed on its just ground, and that the surest mode of obtaining right conclusions is adopted. It is by catching the spirit of the sacred writings, by viewing the texts in their several bearings, by discovering their general scope, that scriptural truth is to be placed on its true basis, is to be developed in its full and unclouded brightness."

D'Oyly's Discourse on Modern Unitarianism.

“In our contest with the Unitarian, we might venture to leave out (without giving up,) the disputed texts on which he principally dwells, and defend our opinions upon the declarations made in the other parts of the sacred writings, as scarcely admitting any strainings that can give the least

"Heb. i. 10; John i. 3. 10; Col i 16, &e."

Rom. viii. 32."

1

shadow of support to our adversaries; of this ground of defence we have, perhaps, not availed ourselves so much as we might. They attack, where they imagine there is at least some reason for dispute, to keep out of sight other matters which admit of no cavilling. It is a general rule, and can be no where applied with so much advantage as in the Scriptures, that we must explain the obscure parts by those which are more clear. That Christ came to make satisfaction for the sins of the world, is frequently stated, and under various forms; we are assured, that he was the propitiation for our sins; that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree; that we are bought with a price; that he came to give his life a ransom for many; that he redeemed us with his blood; that if Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins. Now, however the meaning of the terms used in some of these expressions, may have been controverted, yet the last text involves no terms which can admit of dispute; a similar text is also found in Rom. iv. 25. These texts contain a declaration in plain language, of the doctrine of atonement. Again, our Saviour says, This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friend.' This also is a declaration, unencumbered with any terms which can give occasion for controversy, that the death of Christ, hath, some how or other, operated to procure our salvation. In conformity with this, the Apostle says, ' for scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man, one would even dare to die: but God commendeth his love to us, in that whilst we were sinners, Christ died for us.' On this Macknight (Rom. v. 7, 8,) says, the dying rep for a just man and for a good man is here evidently dying in their room or stead. And therefore Christ dying, væερ ǹμwv, for

"On this ground we may satisfactorily establish the doctrine of faith and works. Throughout the gospels, good works are represented as absolutely necessary to procure salvation; there is scarcely a page in which this is not taught and strongly enforced on our practice; it is one of the most prominent doctrines of our Saviour; it is what he more particularly insists upon, as without which no man can see the Lord.' That faith also is necessary, is agreed upon. Without, then, entering into any disputes about faith and good works, arising from certain texts in the epistles, we may pronounce them both to be necessary. Either we must admit this, or that the gospels are at variance with the other parts of Scripture."

us, hath the same meaning.' And he further observes, that 'Raphelius, in his note on this verse, from Xenophon, hath shewn, that the phrase died, ie, for us, signifies died in our stead.' Jesus Christ is expressly stated to be the Saviour of mankind; but by imposing further duties upon us, had he taught the necessity of repentance only, doing nothing to render it efficacious, he would not have been the Saviour of the world; on the contrary, he would have increased the difficulty of working out our salvation, and our 'last state would have been worse than the first.' To whom much is given, of him much will be required. How1 the sufferings of Christ operated to procure man's redemption, we hazard no conjecture; we do undertake to shew the connection of cause and effect; but if Christ be not a divine person; if he did not die for our salvation; if he be not our advocate with the Father, we may venture to assert, that the greater part of the New Testament is not only unnecessary, but is all a delusion, and one of the greatest deceptions ever imposed on the world.

"In our interpretation of particular texts, or when we venture to maintain any opinions, we must remember that we are answerable for all the consequences which may thence be deduced. Let us, then, before we promulgate our doctrines, seriously consider, what inferences can be drawn from them, and whether they may not be turned against ourselves. But our adversaries seem to look no further than the point which upon the occasion they want to establish, unmindful how far their principles may agree with other parts of Scripture, or even with their own opinions elsewhere delivered. Dr. Priestley admits the redemption by Jesus Christ, but says, it was brought about by the Gospel, as promoting repentance and reformation". Granting the plan of redemption here

"Though we cannot say how they operate, it implies no contradiction to suppose they may so operate; and this, without solving the difficulty, is sufficient to do away its effect as an objection. In human judicature, a man is punished for the sake of deterring others from offending; and this is allowed to be a wise and necessary provision. This is strictly a vicarious punishment, and indeed similar to that of Christ suffering for the sins of the world, for Christ died to take away sin; man dies to prevent its commission. In both cases, however, one person suffers for the benefit of another. And it may be observed, that it implies no contradiction, that in the union of the divine and human natures, the latter may suffer without the former." m" Dr. P. in his Notes on the Scriptures, says, 'Nor did his (Christ's) sacrifice consist

contended for, John the Baptist was also our redeemer; for he was sent by God to preach repentance and the remission of sins, and urged his hearers to bring forth fruits meet for repentance. The Apostles also may lay claim to the same title, as it was left for them to give such further instructions, as circumstances might require. Here Dr. P.'s scheme proves too much. Further, on this ground of redemption, how could the coming of Christ operate to the benefit of those who lived before he came, or who never heard his name? How could Christ be said to have died for all?' Here it proves too little. And, we may ask, where, in this case, is the mystery of our redemption? Such are the consequences of interpreting Scripture, without considering what may be the whole bearing of the exposition. The doctor says, (Notes on the Scriptures,)' Jesus did not teach any thing properly new;' Jesus himself says the contrary; 'A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another;' he taught universal benevolence and charity; what new doctrine is this?

"Dr. Priestley also asserts, that 'the declarations of Divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, throughout all the books of Scripture, without the most distant hint of any regard being had to the sufferings or merit of any being whatsoever. We hardly know in what decent terms to speak of this very extraordinary assertion; to say that there is not the most distant hint is certainly false; the plain language of Scripture is in direct opposition to it; he may dispute the interpretation, but that very dispute makes against him. We may, however, here set the doctor in opposition to himself; for he says, this prophecy seems to represent the death of Christ in the light of a sacrifice for sin.' Dr. P. further says, that Christ being a man who

of such animals as were slaughtered for this purpose in the earthly sanctuary, but of himself. And having offered his own blood, by which a real and not an emblematical atonement was made, he entered into the holy of holies, which is heaven.'' As it is sufficient for men in general to die once, before the general Judgment, so Jesus died only once to atone for the sins of his followers, who expect his second coming, not for the purpose of offering himself any more, but in a state of glory, which he will share with his disciples.' How is this consistent with the above-mentioned scheme of redemption, or with Christ's having made no atonement? It looks as if the doctor, near the close of his life, had changed his opinion respecting the office of Christ."

suffered and died in the best of causes, there is nothing so very different in the occasion and manner of his death from that of others who suffered and died after him in the same cause of Christianity, but that their sufferings and death may be considered in the same light as his.' (Theol. Res. vol. i. p. 39.) We might have asked the doctor if there was nothing attending his death very different from whatever attended the death of any other person; for it is here not fair to leave out any circumstances, although it may be convenient. There was darkness over all the land for three hours; the earth quaked, the rocks were rent, the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Did such extraordinary circumstances ever attend the death of any other person? Further, our Saviour's own words directly contradict Dr. P. ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to have entered into his glory?' 'Thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day.' These words imply, that there were great and indispensable reasons for his death and resurrection; something very different in the occasion from the death of every other person. Mr. Belsham admits, that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, but says, as we are ignorant where he resides, and how he is engaged, there can be no proper foundation for religious addresses" to him, nor of gratitude for favours received, nor of confidence in his future interposition in our behalf. Does then the knowledge of where a person resides entitle us to his favours? On this ground we may deny the providence of God. Mr. B. de

"As in Mr. B.'s scheme of Christianity there appears to be no ground for our religious addresses to Christ, so, in conformity with this, he proposes an abolition of the Sabbath, representing it as destructive of religion and morality. He affirms, that the Christian religion has not appointed a day for the purpose of divine worship; nay, that it has expressly abolished such a distinction of days. If our Saviour abolished the observance of the fourth commandment, we may ask Mr. B. what part of the New Testament contains this express abolition. Christ says he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them. In confirming the moral laws of Moses, the decalogue was necessarily included; and to confirm that which is already appointed, has all the effect of an original appointment. If the laws which Christ came to fulfil, did not include the decalogue, we are then equally set free from the restraints of all the commandments."