Page images
PDF
EPUB

it is that renders us moral agents; but never, that I remember, gives us the least hint of grace, or the Spirit's opera tions, being necessary to that end. Whenever God speaks of men in a way of complaint, or censure, he urges their enjoyment of natural powers, outward advantages, means, and opportunities, as what rendered it fit and reasonable for better things to have been expected at their hands. Rehearsing what he had done for Israel, and complaining of their ungrateful returns, he says, What was there more to be done to my vineyard,* that I have not done in it ? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? Isa. v. 1-7. It is plain, here, that God reckoned himself to have done enough for them, to warrant an expectation, speaking after the manner of men, of better returns; and yet here is no mention of any thing but external privileges, means, and opportunities, which were bestowed upon them. It is true, God is said to have given his good Spirit, to instruct them; but the meaning of that is, he inspired his servants the prophets, and sent them with repeated messages of instruction; or, as it is explained in the same place, He testified against them by his Spirit in the prophets. Neh. ix. 20. 30. These messages and messengers were what Stephen accused them with having always resisted, Which of the prophets, said he, have not your fathers persecuted? and this he justly calls a resistance of the Holy Spirit. Acts vii. 51, 52, When Christ complained of Chorazin and Bethsaida, he made no mention of the internal operations of his grace, as the ground of his just expectations, but barely of the mighty works which he had wrought among them. Matt. xi. 20-24. So, when the apostle pronounces the heathen to be without excuse, and informs us wherefore they were so, he makes no mention of grace which they either had, or might have had, but of the evidence afforded to them by the visible creation, by which, he intimates, that the invisible power and Godhead of its Creator might have been known, had they been but of a right temper of mind. Rom. i. 19. 26.†

See Trueman's Discourse of Natural and מהלעשות עוד לכרמי

Moral Impotence, p. 179.

† See Bellamy's True Religion Delineated, pp. 121–127.

[ocr errors]

But Mr. T. thinks I have contradicted all this, by asserting, that “natural ability is not, of itself, sufficient for the performance of good." Cannot Mr. T. then, discern the difference between what is sufficient to render us accountable beings, and what is sufficient for the actual performance of good? If a man is possessed of reason and conscience, he has that, which, to all intents and purposes, renders him an accountable being; and any court upon earth would treat him as responsible for any trust which might be reposed in his hands; but, if he is not possessed of integrity, he has not that in him which is sufficient for the security of his master's property, or any service which is truly virtuous.

I am, &c.

LETTER VIII.

Dear Sir,

ANOTHER question in debate between myself and Mr. T.is, Whether faith in Christ be a requirement of the moral law? On this subject Mr. T. has written his Seventh and Eighth Letters. If I understand the force of this question in the present controversy, it is this; that it involves the doctrine of a provision of grace, in order to make it equitable. Mr. T. considers faith as an additional obligation to those required by the mora llaw, and, therefore, thinks it a hard and inequitable requirement, if grace is not provided to enable us to comply. (IX. 46.)

[ocr errors]

On this subject Mr. T. admits, that "the moral law-demands, that whatever is revealed in the gospel, or any other dispensation, be received by all rational creatures to whom that revelation is made." (XIII. 69.) This is all that I have pleaded for. I do not suppose the moral law expressly, but radically, or remotely, to require faith in Christ. I only contend, that that love which the moral law expressly requires, would lead a person possessed of it, to embrace the gospel. And herein, it seems, we are agreed.

But Mr. T. seems to think it very improper on this account, to say, that faith in Christ is a requirement of the moral law; as improper as to say, that circumcision, baptism, and the Lord's supper, are requirements of that law, on account of their being remotely required by it. (XIII. 70.) In short, he seems to consider faith in Christ as a part of positive law, and therefore not, strictly speaking, moral. To which it is replied,

Supposing faith in Christ to be a part of positive law, yet, if compliance with it is justly "demanded by the moral law," which Mr. T. says it is, then it would not follow, that it is such an additional obligation on men, as to require additional grace in order to render it equitable. But farther,

If I understand the nature of positive law, as distinguished from moral, it is that which arises, not from the nature of things, but from the mere will of the lawgiver. I am not acquainted with any one positive law, the opposite of which might not have been enjoined, in equal consistency with the moral character of God. But it is not so with respect to moral obligations: they are such as it would be contrary to the moral character of God not to require, or to require their opposites. Now, surely, the requirement of faith in Christ, where the gospel is proclaimed, has this property attending it. It would be inconsistent with the perfections of God to allow men to reject the gospel of his Son, or to feel indifferent towards it.

Surely Mr. T. is much mistaken, in supposing, that whatever is strictly moral is universally and alike binding in all times, places, and circumstances. (XIII. 71.) Obedience to parents, and love to children, with many other duties of the moral law, are binding on persons who have parents to obey, and children to love; but not on those who have none.

Mr. T. in the beginning of his Seventh Letter, takes pains to reconcile his admitting the law to be "an infallible test of right and wrong," and, at the same time, affirming, that "final misery is not brought upon sinners by their transgression of the law, but by their rejection of the overtures of mercy.” (XIII. 65-68.) In the first of these sentiments we are both agreed. As to the last, I admit that the rejection of mercy aggravates men's destruction, and, therefore, is a cause of it;

which the scriptures he has cited undoubtedly prove: but that sinners perish merely for rejecting the gospel, and not for transgressing the law, wants proof. Perhaps it might be much easier proved, that men will not be punished for rejecting the gospel, any farther than as such rejection involves in it a transgression of the law. Mr. T. complains (XIII. 77.) of my supposing, that he makes the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral law, and is persuaded I had no authority for such a supposition. And yet, without this supposition, I do not see the force of what he labours to illustrate and establish, as above. If Mr. T. here means any thing different from what I admit, it must be to maintain, that the death of Christ has, in such sort, atoned for the sins of the whole world, as that no man shall be finally condemned for his breaking the moral law, but merely for the sin of unbelief. If this is not his meaning, I ask his pardon for misunderstanding him. If it is, this is, to all intents and purposes, making the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral law.

It may, in a sense, be said of a rebel, who refuses to lay down his arms and submit to mercy, (which is a case more in point than that of a condemned criminal in the hands of justice,) that, when he comes to be punished, he will die because he refused the king's pardon; but it is easy to see, that the word because is, in this connexion, used improperly. It does not mean, that the refusal of mercy is the crime, and the only crime, for which he suffers; no, this is not the direct or procuring, so much as the occasional, cause of his punishment. REBELLION is that for which he suffers; and his refusal of mercy is no farther a procuring cause of it, than as it is a perseverance in rebellion, and, as it were, the completion of it. I am, &c.

[ocr errors]

LETTER IX.

Dear Sir,

THE last article in debate between myself and Mr. Taylor, concerns the extent of Christ's death. On this subject I stated my own views by way of explanation; offered evidence that Christ, in his vicarious sufferings and death, had an absolute determination to save some of the human race; noticed Mr. T.'s arguments; endeavoured to show the consistency of a limitation of design in the death of Christ with the indefinite call of the gospel, &c. and concluded with some general reflections upon the whole. On these subjects Mr. T. has followed me; and I shall attempt to follow him, with a few additional remarks.

In stating my sense of the limited extent of Christ's death, I admitted that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, had the race of mankind, or the multitude of their offences, been a thousand times more numerous than they are, if it had pleased God to render them effectual to that end. I do not consider the necessity of an atonement as arising from the number of sins, but from the nature of them. As the same sun which is necessary to enlighten the present inhabitants of the earth, is sufficient to enlighten many millions more; and as the same perfect obedience of Christ, which was necessary for the justification of one sinner, is sufficient to justify the millions that are saved; so, I apprehend, the same infinite atonement would have been necessary for the salvation of one soul, consistently with justice, as for the salvation of a world.

I admit that "the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can forgive any sinner whatever, who returns to him by Jesus Christ ;" and that, in perfect consistency with the honour of the supreme Lawgiver, and the general good of his extensive empire. "If we were to suppose, for argument's sake, that all the inhabitants of the globe should thus return," I do not conceive that "one soul need be sent away for want of a sufficiency in the death of Christ to render their pardon

« PreviousContinue »