« PreviousContinue »
DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION.
new hypothesis directs his entire force. This
declarations. In Theol. Rep. v. 1. p. 429, he pronounces this doctrine to be “ one of the radical, as well as the most generally prevailing corruptions of the Christian scheme:” and in p. 124, he calls it“ a disgrace to Christianity, and a load upon it, which it must either throw off, or sink under.” And lest the combined exertions of the authors of this work might not prove sufficient to overturn this unchristian tenet, he renews his attack upon it with undiminished zeal in his History of the Corruptions of Christianity; among which he ranks this as one of the most important, stating (v. 1. p. 152) that “ as the doctrine of the Divine Unity was infringed by the introduction of that of the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost (as a person distinct from the Father); so the doctrine of the
natural placability of the Divine Being, and our ideas of the equity of his government, have been greatly debased by the gradual introduction of the modern doctrine of atonement.” And on this account he declares his intention, of shewing in a fuller manner, than with respect to any other of the corruptions of Christianity, that it is totally unfounded both in reason and Scripture, and an entire departure from the genuine doctrine of the Gospel. Indeed the avowed defender of the Socinian heresy, must have felt it indispensable to the support of his scheme, to set aside this doctrine. Thus (Hist. of Cor; v. 1. p. 272) he says, “ it immediately follows from his“ (Socinus's) principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death could not in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men.” Accordingly, both in his History of the Corruptions, and in the Theological Repository, he bends his principal force against this doctrine of our church. Shall not then so determined a vehemence of attack
upon this doctrine in particular, convince us still more of its importance in the Christian 'scheme; and point out to the friends of Gospel truth, on what ground they are chiefly to stand in its defence ?
NO. IV.-PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT
Page 6. (d) Balguy in his Essay on Redemption (and, after him, Dr. Holmes*) has argued
The late Dr. Holmes, for some years Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, and afterwards Dean of Winchester. I cannot mention this gentleman's name, without paying to it that tributo of respect which it so justly claims. To his indefatigable and learned research, the public is in. debted for one of the most valuable additions to biblical literature, which at this day it is capable of receiving. Tread. ing in the steps of that great benefactor to the biblical stu. dent, Dr. Kennicot, he devoted a life to the collection of materials, for the emendation of the text of the Septuagint Scriptures, as his distinguished predecessor had done for that of the Hebrew. After the most assiduous, and, to a person not acquainted with the vigour of Dr. Holmes's mind, al- . most incredible labour, in the collation of MSS. and ver. sions, he was enabled to give to the public the valuable re. sult of his enquiries, in one complete volume of the Pentateuch, and the Book of Daniel. That it was not allotted to him to finish the great work in which he had engaged, is most deeply to be regretted. It is, however, to be hoped, that the learned University, on whose reputation his labours have reflected additional lustre, will not permit an undertaking of such incalculable utility to the Christian world, to remain unaccomplished, especially as the materials for its prosecution, which the industry of Dr. Holmes has so amply supplied, and which remain deposited in the Bodleian Li. brary, must leave comparatively but little to be done for its final execution. The preface to the volume which has been published, concludes with these words : “ Hoc unum super
this point, with uncommon strength and clear
The case of penitence, he remarks, is clearly different from that of innocence : it implies a mixture of guilt pre-contracted, and punishment proportionably deserved. It is consequently inconsistent with rectitude, that both should be treated alike by God. The present conduct of the Penitent will receive God's
approbation: but the reformation of the Sinner cannot have a retrospective effect. The agent may be changed, but his former sins cannot be thereby cancelled: the convert and the sinner are the same individual person: and the agent must be answerable for his whole conduct. The conscience of the Penitent furnishes a fair view of the case. His sentiments of himself, can be only a mixture of approbation and disapprobation, satisfaction and displeasure. His past sins must still, however sincerely he may have reformed, occasion
est monendum, quod Collationes istæ ex omni genere, quæ ad hoc opus per hos quindecim annos, jam fuerunt elaboratæ, in Bibliothecâ Bodleianâ reponantur, atque vel a me, si vivam et valeam, vel si aliter acciderit, ab alio quodam Editore, sub auspicio Colendissimorum Typographei Clarendoniani Oxoniensis Curatorum, in publicum emittentur.”—The language also of the valuable and much to be lamented au. thor, (with whom I was personally acquainted, and had for some years the satisfaction of corresponding,) was always such as to encourage the expectation here held out. That this expectation should be gratified, and with all practicable dispatch, cannot, but be the anxious wish of every person interested in the pure and unadulterated exposition of Scripture truth.
self-dissatisfaction: and this will even be the stronger, the more he improves in virtue. Now as this is agreeable to truth, there is reason to conclude, that God beholds him in the same lightsee Balguy's Essay, 1785. p. 31–55, and Mr. Holmes's Four Tracts, p. 138, 139.—The author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, Part 1. Sect. 6. and Part 4. Sect. 4. has likewise examined this subject in a judicious manner.-It may be worth remarking also, as Dr. Shuckford has done, that Cicero goes no farther on this head than to assert, Quem pænitet peccasse, penè est innocens.
Lamentable it is to confess, that the name of Warburton is to be coupled with the defence of the deistical objection, against which the above reasoning is directed. But no less true is it than strange, that in the account of natural religion, which that eminent writer has given, in the ixth. book of the Divine Legation, he has pronounced, in terms the most unqualified, upon the intrinsic and necessary efficacy of repentance; asserting, that it is plainly obvious to human reason, from a view of the connexion that must subsist between the creature and his Maker, that whenever man forfeits the favour of God by a violation of the moral law, his sincere repentance entitles him to the pardon of his transgressions.--I have been led, with the less reluctance, to notice this pernicious paradox of the learned Bishop, because it