sacrifices of the law, which were expressly offered for sin, no lamb was sacrificed." Grotius, having written a treatise in defence of the doctrine of satisfaction, against Socinus, gave occasion to a most excellent answer by Crellius, in defence of the Socinian doctrine on this subject; and to this, Grotius did not think proper to make any reply. In England, this doctrine of atonement seems to have got as firm possession of the minds of men, as that of the divinity of Christ. It is the doctrine of the established churches of England and Scotland, and is retained, at least in some qualified sense, even by many who do not hold the divinity of Christ, at least, those who are styled Arians. For, that a Socinian should hold this doctrine, in any sense, is hardly possible. We are not, however, to expect a sudden and effectual reformation in this or in any other capital article of the corruption of Christianity. To establish this article was a work, as we have seen, of long time, and therefore we must be content if the overthrow of it be gradual also. Great buildings do not often fall at once, but some apartments will still be thought habitable, after the rest are seen to be i Toulmin's Socinus, p. 194. (P.) Cujus rei etiam argumentum esse potest, quod in expiatoriis illis legis sacrificiis, quæ nominatim pro peccato ofterebantur, nullus agnus immolabatur. Ex quo apparet, cum Baptista Christum agnum appellavit, alterius ctiam cujuspiam rei, pneter sacrificia ilia, rationem habuisse, et ad puritatem, innocentiam ac mansuetudinem illius respexisse, totumque Christum ea translatione quodammodo exprimere voluisse; præsertim cum, ut dictum est, Christus non ipsa sui immolatione tantum, Bed pluribus aliis modis peccata tollat." Prælect. Theol. Op. I. p. 591. Col. 2. 2 Among these Mr. Martin Tomkins, of whom see p. 50, Note, and Dr. John Taylor were distinguished. The former published, in 1732, "Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and Men; an Advocate for us with the Father; and a Propitiation for the Sins of the World." Dr. Priestley says in his Memoirt, that he "left the academy, with a qualified belief of the doctrine of Atonement, such as is found in that book." Dr. John Taylor published, in 1751, "The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement examined; first, in relation to Jewish Sacrifices; and then to the Sacrifice of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Of this piece there was a second enlarged edition. in ruins. It is the same with great systems of doctrine, the parts of which have long gone together. The force of evidence obliges us at first to abandon some one part of them only, and we do not immediately see that, in consequence of this, we ought to abandon others, and at length the whole. And, indeed, could this have been seen from the beginning, it would have been with much more difficulty that we should have been prevailed upon to abandon any part. The very proposal might have staggered us; and any doubt with respect to the whole, might have been followed by universal scepticism. It hath pleased Divine Providence, therefore, to open the minds of men by easy degrees, and the detection of one falsehood prepares us for the detection of another, till, before we are aware of it, we find no trace left of the immense and seemingly well-compacted system. Thus, by degrees, we can reconcile ourselves to abandon all the parts, when we could never have thought of giving up the whole. There are many who can by no means think that God has, in a proper sense, accepted of the death of Christ in lieu of that of all men, (having no idea of the possibility of transferring guilt,and consequently of transferring punishment,) who yet think that the death of Christ serves to show the divine displeasure at sin, in such a manner, as that it would not have been expedient to pardon any sin without it; and they think that the sacrifices under the law had a real reference to the death of Christ in the scheme of the gospel; while others think the death of Christ was necessary to the pardon of sin, and our restoration to eternal life, in some method of which we have no clear knowledge, being only obscurely intimated in the Scriptures, and therefore could not be intended to produce its effect by any operation on our minds. In time, however, I make no doubt, but that an attention to what seems now to be ascertained with respect to the moral character and government of God, viz. that he is a being purely good, that in him, justice is only a modification of benevolence, that he simply wishes the happiness of all his creatures, and that virtue is a necessary means of that happiness; that he is incapable of introducing any unnecessary evil, and that his displeasure at sin is sufficiently shewn by the methods which he takes to promote the reformation of sinners, and by the punishment of those who continue unreformed: these, I say, together with other considerations, suggested in the argumentative part of this division of my work, will in time eradicate whatever yet remains of the doctrine of atonement; a doctrine which has no foundation in reason, or in the Scriptures, and is indeed a modern thing. any difficulty in accommodating the one to the other, (and I think there is even less of this than might have been expected,) the former, and not the latter, should remain unaccounted for. Time may clear up obscurities in particular texts, by discovering various readings, by the clearer knowledge of ancient customs and opinions, &c. But arguments drawn from such considerations as those of the moral government of God, the nature of things, and the general plan of revelation, will not be put off to a future time. The whole compass and force of them is within our present reach, and if the mind be unbiassed, they must, I think, determine our assent. It is certainly a great satisfaction to entertain such an idea of the Author In fact, the only hold it has on the of the universe, and of his moral governminds of many Protestants, is by means ment, as is consonant to the dictates of such a literal interpretation of single of reason and the tenor of revelation texts of Scripture, as gives the doctrine in general, and also to leave as little of transubstantiation a like hold on the obscurity in the principles of it as posminds of Papists. Besides, it must, I am sible; that the articles of our creed on persuaded, lead many persons to think this great subject may be few, clear rationally on this subject, and especially and simple. Now it is certainly the to abandon all middle opinions with doctrine of reason, as well as of the respect to it, to observe, as they must Old Testament, that God is merciful do if they give due attention to the to the penitent, and that nothing is language of Scripture, that those par- requisite to make men, in all situations, ticular texts on which they are dis- the objects of his favour, but such posed to lay so much stress, give no moral conduct as he has made them countenance to any middle doctrine. capable of. This is a simple and a For they must either be interpreted pleasing view of God and his moral literally, according to the plain and government, and the consideration of obvious sense of the words, which will it cannot but have the best effect on enforce the belief of proper vicarious the temper of our minds and conduct punishments, or they must be inter- in life. The general tenor of the New preted figuratively; and then they will Testament is likewise plainly agreeable not oblige us to believe the doctrine of to this view of things, and none of the atonement in any sense, or that Christ facts recorded in it require to be illusdied a sacrifice in any other manner, trated by any other principles. In than as any person might be said to this, then, let us acquiesce, not doubtbe a sacrifice to the cause in which he ing but that, though perhaps not at dies. present, we shall in time be able, without any effort or straining, to explain all particular expressions iu the apostolical epistles, &c. in a manner perfectly consistent with the general strain of their own writings, and the rest of the Scriptures. It is now, certainly, time to lay stress on the interpretation of particular texts, and to allow more weight to general considerations, derived from the whole tenor of Scripture and the dictates of reason; and if there should be found PART III. THE HISTORY OF OPINIONS CONCERNING GRACE, ORIGINAL SIN AND PREDESTINATION. THE INTRODUCTION. to the practice of their duty, by the most solemn assurances, that God is Next to the opinions concerning the not willing that any should perish, and person of Christ, none have agitated by repeated warnings, that their dethe minds of men more, or produced struction will lie at their own door; more serious consequences, than those the general tenor of the preaching of relating to the doctrines of grace, ori- the old prophets being, Turn ye, turn ginal sin and predestination, which ye, from your evil way. Why will ye have so many connections, that I think die, 0 house of Israel? Also, everyit proper to treat of them all together. thing that is of a moral nature in the That it must be naturally in the New Testament is uniformly delivered power of man to do the will of God, in the same strain. must be taken for granted, if we sup- Notwithstanding this, it hath been pose the moral government of God to imagined that all these representations be at all an equitable one. He that are to be accommodated to a system, made man, certainly knew what he according to which, the whole race of was capable of, and would never com- mankind received so great an injury mand him to do what he had not en- by the fall of Adam, that from that abled him to perform; so as to propose time none of his posterity have been to him a reward which he knew he capable even of forming a good thought, could never attain, and a punishment and much less of doing all that God which he knew he had no power of requires of them; and, moreover, that avoiding. If it be worth our while to inquire at all into the government under which we live, we must begin with assuming these first principles. For, otherwise, we have nothing to do but to await whatever he who made us hath pleased to determine concerning us, nothing that we can do in the case being able to alter it. they are all so far involved in the consequences of his fall, and his sin is considered as so much their own, (he being their representative, standing in their place, and acting for them,) that they are even properly punishable for it, and liable on that account to everlasting torment, though they had never sinned themselves. It is believed, Supposing, therefore, that God did however, that God hath been pleased not mean to tantalize his creatures, in to save certain individuals of mankind the most cruel and insulting manner, from this general ruin, but that it was every moral precept in the Scriptures not from any respect to the better chais a proof that man has naturally a racter or conduct of such individuals, power of obeying it, and of insuring but of his mere free and arbitrary the reward annexed to the observance grace. It is also part of the same of it. Now moral precepts, with ex- system, that every good thought and press sanctions of rewards and punish- purpose, in the hearts even of those ments, abound in the Scriptures; and who are thus elected, is immediately men are even expostulated with, in the inspired by God, and that without thi» most earnest manner, and persuaded continual assistance, to which they give the name of grace, no man has any choice but of evil, from the moment of his birth to his death. can better bear to consider the rest of mankind as abandoned by the same Being to a severer fate. Also, in general, all men are sufficiently inclined to look off from the dark and most objectionable side of any scheme of principles which they adopt. language on this subject will appear to be as just as it is pious, when it is rightly interpreted. Many persons, no It is not easy to imagine, a priori, doubt, will be more easily reconciled what could have led men into such a to the doctrine of election by previously train of thinking, so evidently contrary imagining that they themselves are in to the plain dictates of reason, and the the number of the elect; and while most natural interpretation of Scrip- they can thus fancy themselves to be ture. There is, indeed, an appearance the peculiar favourites of heaven, they of humility in ascribing everything that is good to God; but to ascribe to him, as all men must do, those powers by which we are enabled to perform good works, comes, in fact, to the same thing. What have we, as the apostle says, that we have not received? How, then, are we the less indebted to God, whether he works all our works in us and for us, by his own immediate agency, or, he does it mediately, that is, by means of those powers which he has given us for that purpose? With respect to the character of the Divine Being, it certainly loses more by the idea of the predestination of the greatest part of mankind to inevitable destruction, than it can gain by the belief of an arbitrary interference in favour of a few. The whole scheme, therefore, certainly tends to make the divine character and government appear less respectable, indeed execrable. In fact, it is probable that such a scheme as this would never have entered into the mind of any man, who had been left tc his own speculations on the subject, or to his study of the Scriptures. Accordingly, we find that the principal parts of this system were first suggested in the heat of controversy; and when the mind was once prepossessed in favour of some of the maxims of it, the rest were gradually introduced to complete the scheme; and the Scriptures, as in all other cases, were afterwards easily imagined to favour the preconceived hypothesis. Indeed, the more amiable part of the system, or that which ascribes every thing that is good immediately to God, without respect to second causes, has considerable countenance from the piety of the sacred writers; but their With respect to the fall of Adam, all that we can learn from the Scriptures, interpreted literally, is, that the laborious cultivation of the earth, and the mortality of his race, were the consequence of it. This is all that is said by Moses, and likewise all that is alluded to by the apostle Paul, who says, that by one man sin entered into the world. For what he adds, all have sinned, can only mean that all are involved in that death which was the consequence of his sin. If, indeed, this be interpreted literally, it will imply that all are involved in his guilt as well as in his sufferings. Bnt this is so unnatural an interpretation, and so evidently contrary to sense and reason, (sin being in its own nature a personal thing, and not transferable,) that the text was never understood in this sense till the system, tho history of which I am writing, was so far advanced as to require it, and to have prepared the minds of men for it. In like manner, the words of our Saviour, this is my body, was always understood to mean a memorial of his body, till the minds of men were gradually prepared to bear a literal interpretation of them; and then that interpretation was made use of to support the doctrine which suggested it. In like manner, there is a predestination spoken of by the apostle Paul; but, in general, it means the good-will and pleasure of God, in giving certain people peculiar privileges, and especially the knowledge of the gospel, for the improvement of which they were answerable. If he does speak of future glory, as the consequence of this predestination, it was upon the presumption that they improved those advantages, and by that means made themselves the proper subjects of future happiness. Or, possibly, in some cases, the apostle, considering God as the ultimate and proper author of everything that is good, and of all happiness, might overlook the immediate means and steps, and with this sense of piety and comprehension of mind, might speak of future glory itself as the gift of God, and therefore might make no difference in his mind, at that time, between predestination and foreknowledge. But the tenor of all his writings shows, that it was far from being his intention to represent future glory as given by an arbitrary decree of God, without any respect to the good works which alone can fit men for it; which good works are as much in a man's power as any other action of which he is capable. Having premised these general observations, I now proceed to show by what steps these principles of the utter inability of man to do the will of God, as derived from the fall of Adam, the imputation of his sin to all his posterity, and the arbitrary predestination of some to eternal life, and the consequent rejection, or reprobation, of the rest of mankind, by which they are devoted to certain and everlasting destruction, were first introduced, and at length got the firm establishment they now have in the creeds of almost all Christian churches. SECTION I. OF THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE, ETC. BEFORE THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. It is remarkable that we find hardly any trace of what are now called the doctrines of grace, original sin, or pre destination before the Pelagian controversy, which was near the end of the fourth century. I believe all the moderns are agreed, that it was clearly the opinion of all the ancient fathers, that God has left it entirely in the power of every man to act well or ill. Basnage, who was himself sufficiently orthodox in the modern sense of the word, acknowledges, that though the fathers in general thought that we are indebted to the grace of God for all our virtues, yet they say that the beginning of salvation is from man, and that it depends entirely upon himself.1 It is not denied, however, but that they might believe an internal influence upon the mind on extraordinary occasions; but, as Vossius observes, none before Austin supposed that there was an immediate concurrence of divine grace, necessary to every good thought or action. 2 "God," says Justin Martyr, "has not made man like trees and quadrupeds, (devSpea Kat Tfrparoba,) who can do nothing from choice and judgment; for he would not be worthy of reward or praise, if he did not of himself choose what was good, but was made good; nor, if he was wicked, could he be justly punished, as not having been such of himself, but only what he had been made." In support of this he quotes Isa. i. 16: Wash ye, make ye clean," &c. Basnage says,4 that the ancients maintained free-will with much warmth, granting men an entire power to be converted or not. Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, he says, were at the head of this party. It is remarkable that Austin himself, before he engaged in the controversy with Pelagius, held the same opinion concerning free-will with the rest of the fathers who had preceded him, and he was far from denying this. In particular, he acknowledges, that before this time he had been of opinion, that faith, or at least the beginning of faith, and a desire of conversion, was in the 1 Hist. des Eglises Reform. I. p. 169. (P.) 2 Historia Pelagianismi, p. 291. (P.) |