might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."* Our Author, and others,

The Author of the "Illustration" tells us, that the word here rendered propitiation, ought to have been translated mercy-seat; but he does not extend his criticism on the translation to the whole of the passage. Though I think the translation of this text sufficiently accurate to show, that the scope of the Apostle's arguing is inconsistent with a denial of the doctrine of atonement; yet, in my opinion, the original sets this in a much stronger light than the English translation, which does not clearly express the sense of that very material sentence in the passage, δια την παρεσιν των προγεγονότων αμαρτημάτων, which, I should imagine, might with more propriety be rendered, "because," or, "on account of the passing by of sins committed aforetime." The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses ought, I think, to be translated in some such way as this; " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory, (or, mercy-seat,) through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness, because of the passing by of sins committed aforetime, through the forbearance of God: for a demonstration, I say, of his righteousness at this period, that he might be just," &c. The sense of the Apostle will then appear to be, That God, in setting forth Christ as our propitiatory or mercy-seat, by whom we have access to God through faith in his blood, hath given at length the most clear demonstration of his righteousness or justice, which might appear to have been obscured by his having hitherto, in his great long-suffering, passed by the sins of men, without affording a sufficient display of his hatred to sin, or such a display as is now made by the manifestation of our Redeemer. See a further illustration of this passage, in a book, entitled, "Jesus Christ the Mediator," &c. page 85.

L

who by the righteousness or justice of God mentioned here, would have us understand his goodness or mercy, must give some good reason for such an interpretation, before it can be admitted; as the inspired writer himself, in this very Epistle, makes a distinction between the terms righteous and good. "Scarcely for a righteous (or just) man will one die; yet, peradventure, for a good man some would even dare to die;" chapter v. 7. When the Apostle, in the context to the passage above quoted, declares, that we are justified by faith, and not by the works of the law; I cannot suppose, as our Author does,* that he only "intended to oppose the doctrine of the Jews, who maintained that the observance of the law of Moses was absolutely necessary to salvation;" because it is added, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Which words can only be spoken of the moral law; for the Apostle did not establish the law of Moses by preaching faith in Christ: on the contrary, he made it void, or declared it to be abrogated. Whereas, the moral law is established by this doctrine; its justice being most clearly shown by the pro

Illustration," page 54.

pitiation made for our transgressions of it, and obedience most effectually secured by a true faith in Christ Jesus.

2. "Can we wish for a more distinct and perfect representation of the manner in which God forgives the sins of his offspring of mankind, than our Saviour has exhibited to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son?” “ Appeal," page 19.

The design of this parable, as the context shows, was to reprove the Jews for their unreasonable conduct, in objecting to our Lord's most gracious attention to notorious sinners, and his kind reception of such upon their repentance; and to teach us with what kindness we ought to behave to all repenting sinners, when they return to the path of duty, however profligate their former conduct may have been. But whether the doctrine of atonement be true or false, cannot be determined from this parable, as the apparent design of it has nothing to do with this question. The parable proves that God is merciful; and I should suppose, that the appointment of a way, whereby sinners may obtain forgiveness from his hands, does not infer that he is unmerciful. Expositors of Scripture should be very cautious of deducing any doctrine from

a parabolic representation, but what appears to be designedly enforced by that representation: without this caution the most absurd opinions may be, and, indeed, too often have been, urged from these parts of holy writ.

3. To say that God the Father provided an atonement for his own offended justice is, in fact, to give up the doctrine. If a person owe me a sum of money, and I choose to have the debt discharged, is it not the same thing, whether I remit the debt at once, or supply him with money wherewith to pay me?" "Triumph of Truth," page 21.

This argument is founded upon these suppositions, that our sins bear no other relation to God than that of debts to a creditor, and that to make atonement for sin is the same kind of transaction as to pay a debt; but till these suppositions are either allowed or proved, no argument can be grounded upon them. As obedience is something that we owe to God, our failures herein are sometimes, with great propriety, called "debts" in the Scriptures. But it is very evident, that the sacred writings do not only represent God as our creditor, but likewise as our moral Governor and it must be acknowledged by every reasonable person, that as he alone is

acquainted with all the ends aimed at in the punishment of sinners, he is is the sole Judge of the propriety of it in any case, and of the considerations or conditions proper to be required in order to the remission of our sins.

4. “It can never be reconciled to equity, or answer any good purpose whatever, to make the innocent suffer the punishment of the guilty." Ib.

Nothing can be plainer, both from Scripture and experience, than that many suffer for the sins of others; and this is undoubtedly by the appointment of God, if he is the Governor and Judge of all the earth: whether the appointment be equitable or not, I leave our Author to judge for himself; the fact he does not deny. "It is allowed," says he, "that we suffer by the sin of Adam, as any child may suffer in consequence of the wickedness of his ancestor." And if these sufferings are inflicted by God, acting the part of a Judge, they are consequently penal. These considerations afford a sufficient answer to any charge of injustice respecting the sufferings of Christ: but, in truth, there is not the

Appeal," page 9.