pleased to appoint. But this name implies further that it is a method becoming that God who is just; a part of the significancy of the name which the apostle places fully in our view, when he comes to explain the method. But before he gives the explication, he distinguishes the method which he is going to explain from justification εξ έργων oι δια νόμου, by this addition, δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστού; and he says it extends to all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, because in this respect there was no distinction between them, that all stood in need of the revelation of such a method, since by having sinned they had come short of that approbation which proceeds from God, and their actions, however agreeable to the maxims and customs of the world, could not, when tried in his righteous judgment, entitle them to a sentence of acquittal.

The necessity of a method of justifying men, not formerly revealed being now fully proved, and the method being discriminated from every other by the names applied to it, the apostle proceeds to illustrate the propriety of these names, by explaining what it is. His explication is found in the 24th, 25th, and 26th verses. The apostle has introduced into this short description the great principles upon which the reasonableness of the Catholic opinion rests, and the chief of those Scripture expressions by which the truth of it is proved. He begins with ascribing this method of justifying men to the free grace of God. As far as they are concerned, justification is granted to them dear, as a free gift; because their works did not entitle them to acquittal, and had it not been for the good-will of the Lawgiver, they must have been condemned. But this free gift is dispensed in a particular manner. The Lawgiver does not simply justify, but he justifies through the redemption that is in or by Jesus Christ. Anoλutęwols suggests that the rodixo were delivered from the execution of the sentence of the law by the payment of a ransom; and necessarily implies the good will of the ransomer. This interpretation of the word is confirmed by our being told immediately after, that the irodıxo were delivered, not merely by the power, but by the blood of the ransomer; for the apostle adds, "whom God set forth, or exhibited to the world, ἱλαστήριον δια της πίστεως εν τῷ αυτου αίματι.” Whether ἱλαστηριον be translated a propitiation or a propitiatory, the amount is the same. Either way his blood is the mean of turning away wrath; and we found formerly that there is not only consistency, but the most intimate connexion between his blood propitiating the lawgiver, and being the ransom by which the vodixo are set free.

Εις ενδειξιν

This repetition is a

The purpose for which God chose this particular manner of displaying his grace in justifying sinners is next mentioned. της δικαιοσυνης αύτου; προς ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αύτου. proof that the two intervening clauses are to be considered as a parenthesis, thrown in to illustrate the propriety of this method of declaring the righteousness of God. The intervening clauses are thus rendered in our translation; "for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God:" but they might be more literally rendered, "upon account of the passing by of former sins in the forbearance of God." Προγεγονότων marks the sins committed before setting forth the propitiation, i. e. before the time of the Gospel. The rages of these sins is rendered in our translation, the remission of

them; yet it is remarkable that the apostle does not here use apɛbiçi the word used for remission, both by our Lord and by the apostle himself, at all other times, and formed from apinu, the verb used in the Septuagint for forgiving sin. It is probable that the apostle had a reason for this singularity; and many attempts have been made to find a reason in the different signification of the two words. The truth is, that the joining αφεσις and παρεσις to ἁμαρτημάτων is an application of both words, almost peculiar to the sacred writers; and that neither the etymology of ragu, nor the practice of classical authors entitles us to say that it marks a less complete degree of forgiveness than αφίημα. This passage, therefore, gives no countenance to a system which has been formed with regard to the extent of the Gospelremedy, that those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation, did not obtain entire deliverance from the punishment of sin till Christ came; and there is no other passage which warrants us to consider the forgiveness of sins committed before that period, as different in kind, with respect to its effects upon the sinner, from the forgiveness of sins committed after it. But when it is recollected that the sacrifices offered by the Jews did not purify the conscience, and that the heathen who had no direction from heaven often violated the laws of morality in the manner of offering their sacrifices, it is manifest that the forgiveness which was dispensed before the Gospel could not be in consideration of any satisfaction which was then made to the divine justice; and, therefore, that this time may be called avozy Otov, a time of forbearance, or as the word is often rendered in classical writers, induciae, a truce, during which the punishments due to the sins of men were suspended in so far, that the human race was allowed to exist, and to enjoy the bounties of Providence, although the whole world was guilty before God; and many, whose names are mentioned in Scripture with honour, obtained forgiveness, although we cannot avoid considering them also as concluded under sin, because there is not a just man upon earth that liveth and sinneth not.

The forgiveness granted during this truce may most fitly be called яages because, however complete in respect of the persons to whom it was granted, it "sent by their side," transmitted to another time, the punishment which their sins deserved. This interpretation of the word corresponds exactly with an expression of the same apostle in his discourse at Athens; Acts xvii. 30. Τους μεν ουν χρόνους της αγνοίας ὑπερίδων ὁ Θεός, τανυν παραγγελλει τους ανθρώποις πάσι πανταχου μετανοειν. And these two expressions, when thus considered as explaining one another, place in a striking light the significancy of the two clauses which I called a parenthesis. A truce, during which, there was a suspension of the punishment due to sin, and the supreme Lawgiver overlooked transgressions, rendered the inore necessary a demonstration of his justice; and therefore, in the time that now is, when the purposes for which the truce was continued so long are accomplished, and το πλήρωμα του χρόνου, the fulness of time foretold by ancient prophets is arrived, he hath set forth his Son as a propitiation, who, in shedding his blood, endured the wrath due to sins which had been committed, to the end that God, when he now justifies graciously those who could not be justified by their own works, might appear to be righteous. Now we see that the sins which God appeared to pass

by in former times, when he granted forgiveness, were not forgiven without the shedding of that blood which was of infinitely greater value than the blood of bulls and goats, being the propitiation ordained and accepted of God, and in the fulness of time set forth, through faith in which all that believe are justified..

The apostle, after stating that boasting is effectually excluded by the method of justification which does not arise out of works, and that every charge of partiality in the Supreme Being is removed by the riches of that grace which extends without distinction to all that believe, subjoins, νομον ουν καταργούμεν δια της πίστεως, μη γενοιτο αλλά νόμον iorauer. The objection is a natural one. If the method of justifying ἱστωμεν. men, which God has now set forth, is zogs vouov, apart from law, we seem to render the law idle, useless; and we encourage men to transgress it. Far from it, answers the apostle. By the punishment, in this propitiation, of past sins that had seemed to be overlooked, and by justification through faith in the blood of Christ, we establish the law; for God thus demonstrates to the world that transgressors have no hope of escaping with impunity; whereas, if no such propitiation had been set forth, the impunity of the old world, and the justification of those who could not be justified by their own works, might have encouraged men to continue in sin.

Other interpretations of this passage have been given. But if it appears that by understanding every word in its natural and usual acceptation, we bring out a sense of the whole passage consistent with the context, and agreeable to other parts of the Apostle's writings, there is the strongest internal evidence that we have interpreted the apostle rightly; and, in that case, there is here an apostle of Jesus giving, in a full and formal discourse, the most explicit confirmation of the Catholic opinion. He presents to us the Supreme Being under the character of a lawgiver, and he states the death of Christ as an event intended to establish the law by exhibiting the punitive justice of the lawgiver. At the same time, far from considering this method of vindicating the divine authority as inconsistent with the love of God to man, he ascribes the justification which is thus dispensed, to the free grace of God. He does not, as the Socinians do, place the love of God in this, that he forgave sins without reference to any other being, but he says, Rom. v. 8, that "God commendeth his love to us, in that, while we were sinners, Christ died for us ;" and he does not, like those who hold the middle opinion, rest our deliverance from the evils of sin merely upon the power acquired by our Redeemer, but, having presented, as we have seen, the death of Christ under the character of a punishment by which the justice of the lawgiver is demonstrated, he unfolds the same idea when he says, Rom. v. 9, 11, "Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him; and not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

Grotius de Satisfactione Christi.

Stillingfleet on the Sufferings of Christ.

Clarke.

Tomkins' Jesus Christ the Mediator.

Elliot's Vicarious Sacrifice.

Law's Theory of Religion.

Warburton.

Macknight's Comm. on the Hebrews, and Essay on the Mediation of Christ.

CHAPTER IV.

ETERNAL LIFE.

In order to complete the view contained in the Catholic opinion of the nature of the Gospel remedy, we have yet to consider in what manner it connects the hope of life eternal with the interposition of Jesus Christ.

According to the Socinian opinion, Jesus Christ is simply the messenger who brought from God, together with the assurance of pardon, the promise of life eternal to all who repent; and according to the middle opinion, he received from his Father, in recompense for his sufferings, the power of giving eternal life, so that all those who receive this inestimable gift receive it upon his account as the partakers of his reward. There is another opinion upon this subject found amongst the many hypotheses with which the works of the ingenious and eccentric Bishop Warburton abound. It is mentioned occasionally in former parts of his works, and from him it descended to Bishop Hurd, and some of his other admirers amongst the English clergy; but he reserved the full elucidation of it to the ninth book of the Divine Legation of Moses, which was published by Bishop Hurd after his death, as a supplement to his works. This ninth book, which professes to be an attempt to explain the nature and genius of the Christian religion, and "to furnish the key or clue which is to open to us, and to lead us through all the recesses and intricacies of the last dispensation of God," unfolds with much pomp, but with a very slender degree of evidence, the following system, the amount of which may be given in a few words. Warburton considers pardon on repentance as a doctrine of natural religion, which is published indeed in the Gospel, but which did not in any measure depend upon the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, because the law of nature teaches us that repentance is the means of recovering the favour of God, when it has been forfeited by a breach of that law. So far he coincides with the Socinians. But he differs from them in asserting, and in proving most ably, that the death of Christ was truly a vicarious sacrifice; and the peculiarity of his system lies in his finding room for the necessity of such a sacrifice, although he contends that from the principles of natural religion it may be collected that God will, on the sincere repentance of offenders, receive them again into favour. The place which he finds for it is this. Immortal life, he says, is a thing extraneous to our nature; not necessarily inferred from the relation between the Creator and the creature; and no part of the natural reward of good conduct. It was not conferred upon man when he was first created, but was the sanction of that particular covenant which God made with our first