« ElőzőTovább »
to pardon Sin, but neceffaty, běcause it became him to forgive it in that manner, and that only. Nor is chat way of remitting Sins any manner of Support of Unrighteoushefs, or the least Privilege to Iniquity becaufe Obedience to the moral Law of Righteousness, is not superseded, bur advanced, nor is thesë any Pardon by Chrift co any wilfur Sinner as long as he continues fuch. Every Chriftian's 'perfonal Righteousness is as necessary id join Christ's Righteoufness in doing what
he can, as the Righteousness of Christ is to
join his for Tupplying what he cannot, in order 'tdila Fulfilment of the Law,- for our Fuftification before God: "That Righteousness of his is therefore by way of Transfer to the diligent Seekers of God, and Followers of the Holy Fefus, called our Righteousness, and to all Chat' join or use their own beft Endeavours, the is a complete Redeemer ; but to those who re fuse then, wheresoever difperfed, whether they know Chrift, of whether they never heard of him, he is no Saviour at all.
"TOT 10 2017 21:10 y''It' is fúrprizing char'this accute Author should áxually "fulfer his own Scheme to lie'under the real'Imputacion of being a Strong Hold for Sin tind Satan, whilft'he-fallly lays it at the Door of Cominon Christianity * He maintains, that “this keti general Pardon, Act of Grace, or Indemnity se for all palt Sins, was never incended to be ex* terided farther fconfined to the Sins commit* ted under either the Jewish or the Pagan “ State +) so as to take in all, or any wilful d presumptuous Sins committed under the Gofpel Dispensation ipfelf, after Men had sworn
+ Page 172
“ themselves to Christ, by Baptisın or publick “6 Profession, and thereby engaged chemselves
$ in the Christian Covenant," and this he would endeavour to support from Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6, X. 26. both which Places are understood by all the best Interpreters of Apostacy from the Faith, as well as. Practice of Christianity. But this dismal, disconfolate, unnatural. System of his in allowing, with some Hereticks of old, no Repentance af ier Baptism, necessarily drives Men to Despair, and that to be sure is not only a Şin, but the strong Hold of Sin and Satan: This is a dreadful Blast of his, not God's Displeafure against lapsed, compaflionable Human Nature. I have heard from him of Jewis Christianity, and Deistical Christianity, but this is the most horrible Christia, nity of all, it is so cruel and inhuman, and yet it is his own new Christianity, fresh wrought
. of frail, unconftant Human Nature at this gate, fincerely beginning its, Repentance, and sincerely striving against its Sins, the perfect Mastery of which is a work of Time, and the good Effect of Habit in Virtue, which,; by Degrees only, inures to Constancy in Duty? Is there no return to Duty after a Relapse, fo in cident to fresh Beginners in a virtuous Course, nor any Recovery or Hope of Reconciliation after a Presumptuous Sin? I thought the Hazard of luch Sins was, not absolute Despair, but as the Psalmist describes, left they get ibe Dominion
GROTIUS, Hamond, Stilling fleet, may consequently be in the right, and their Syftem not compacted of Iron and Clay, as he fally al
5. ledges, ledges *, but seems to have its Parts regularly called, and intimately united together; since they equally consult (what must be be equally provided for in any true System of Religion) the Honour of God, and the Frailty of Man, and harmonies to both of them in the most furprizing Manner: Whilft his new invented one having little or no regard to either, muft appear to the present Generation, and Pofterity, (if it reaches so far,) the greatest Botch and Bungle, and Discord within itself, and Discouragement to all who serve God, that ever was offer'd to the World, because it tends in every Christian Country to overwhelm every Sinner with Despair, instead of recovering him from the Error of his Ways. Are you, Mr. Moral Philosopher, that perfect Man, as to need no Repentance ? - It does not appear that you are, because you so little observe the Decorum, and so very much neglect the Characteristick of fucb-a Person in bridling your publick Tongue, your Pen, no better than you do. But what is stranger, in your Philosopher's Prayer t, there is no ask. ing Pardon for Sin, nor confefsing himself an actual Sinner, but if I should err from the Way of Truth; and though you make him profess his Dependance upon God, you are ungrateful in shutting out all Thanksgiving from his Devotions for Mercies received, and it might better have become a moral Philosopher, so well acquainted with Revelation, and the Origin of Evil (not denied in other Places (,) to have ac. kn ledged the Depravity of Human Nature . more explicitly. So that in lieu of bringing a true Accufation against those great Men “ibat .
“bey don't think at all,” you have bestow'd wretched Self-accusing Pains upon yourself, in giving the World a Demonstration how void of Thought is the Compiler of your Book, and of Truth che Composition. And what a pitiful inconsistent Declaration do you draw up against the vanishing and almost vanilh'd rigid Calvinists, when at the same time you acknowledge they are better than their Principles, and are not influenc'd by them in Practice * ?
3. Another particular. Reafon why the Death of Christ, as a propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin, is not a meritorious Cause is, because it is a " moral effective Means of our Salvation and " Recovery” as above cited. A very short Anfwer inay fuffice to this, because it will better fall under the Consideration of Means afterwards, I am glad in the mean time that our Author admits che Death of Christ to be a moral and effectual Means of Salvation, in any Sense. All the Difference betwixt him and me is, which is most effectual, and consequently the most moral Means, his Notion of Example singly, or the common laudable Opinion, by way of grateful Remembrance, what he has suffered upon our Account in Propitiation to his and our Father (not in Satisfaction to Himself, as he grofly misrepresents t) join'd to his Divine Example. The moral Efficacy of this laft I acknowledge ; and must believe ic will be confess’d by others also to be as inferior to, and defective of Virtue and moral Efficacy in respect to the other, as a Part is to the Whole,
* Page 218.
+ Page 159
4. A fourth
4i A fourth Reason for our Author's fingular Opinion is, " That St. Paul always by “ Works, or the Works of the Law, means the
external Ritual, and carnal Institutions of the « Mosaick Law, whenever he excludes them " from any Share or Concern in the Business of “Salvation and Justification before God," which supposes, agreeably to his System, that the Works of the Moral Law might be, and are sufficient, of themselves, for Justification before God. But nothing can well be plainer from that Apostle's writings (which he pleasantly magnifies in order to nothing else seemingly, but alınost every where to contradict his great Patron in Christianity with the superior Authority of his own greater self ) than that the Gentile is concluded under Sin, as well as the Jew, that one was as much subject to Condemnation, and guilty of Sin with respect to the Law that he was under, as the other ; that neither of them could be counted Righteous before God by the Obfervance of the Law they were respectively subject to ; not the Gentile by the Moral Law ; nor yet the yerer by his Ritual Law added to chat ; and compren hensively as well of the Gentiles as of the Jews, and of the Law of those, as much as of these according to the Tenor of his Arguments, and the Design of his Writings upon that Subject, his Conclusion holds good, that by the Works of the Law no Flesh can be justified, or in the Words of the Psalm, in his Sight no Man living. That God is the Juftifier both of the Circumcision and Uncircumcision, and by one and