« السابقةمتابعة »
IN the Universalist's Miscellany for October 1800, a question was proposed by a gentleman who styled himself INQUIRO, respecting the truth or falsehood of the notion of Christ's having made satisfaction for the sins of men. To this question I took the liberty of replying in the next Number of the said Miscellany; and added a Letter on the doctrine of atonement, in the Number for January, 1801. By this time some persons began to be alarmed, an essential doctrine of the gospel was supposed to be attacked. In the same Number in which my remarks on atonement were inserted appeared a Letter from a Mr. J. Weaver in opposition to what I had said against the notion of satisfaction for sins: in reply to which I barely stated, in the next Number, that what Mr. Weaver had advanced not affecting my positions, arguments, or conclusions, I should make no rejoinder. In the Number for June following another opponent showed himself; and, without attempting to reason on the subject, produced several passages of scripture, which he supposed to decide the point. His Letter was signed T. On the passages quoted by T. I offered my thoughts in the Number for August. I heard no more from T. but in the Number for October appeared a correspondent, who signed his Letter N. N. He stated some difficulties, and referred to several passages of scripture which he wished to have examined. To N. N. I replied in several Letters, which appeared in subsequent Numbers of the. U. M. in one of thom I assigned my reasons for rejecting the notion of Christ's making satisfaction for sin. This aroused Mr. Jerram, a Clergyman in the Establishment. This gentleman wrote a long Letter in reply to my reasons, which was inserted in the U. M. for March and April, 1802. (Now called the Universal Theological Magazine.) This Letter he followed with several others in defence of the modern notion of Bioncment. His Letters were signed Hilasteriophilus. I replied to Mr. Jerram, in a series of Letters, which were inserted in the same work. To my answer Mr. Jerram did not think proper to offer any reply; though the Magazine was still open to him. However he, in consequence of my reply, made some material alterations in his Letters, suppressed some passages, dropped some reasonings and substituted others, &c. In this improved state he republished his Letters; but, though he availed himself of my reply in correcting and altering them, he carefully avoided dropping the slightest hint that any reply had been published. Hence I thought duty called upon me to republish my answer, that it might have a more general circulation, and that I might meet my-opponent's arguments in their present form: but, judging it best to treat the subject more at large, I have penned the following work, which is now submitted to the examination of the public. Criticisms and references to the original I have as much as possible avoided, it being my wish to adapt my reasoning to the common Raler: I have had recourse to these only when justice to the cause of truth scemed imperiously to demand it.
MR. John Alexander, Haymar- || Mr. Burgess, Cranbrook
T. C. Allibone, Chatham
R. Anderson, Long Sutton
J. Baker, Islington
Rev. Rochemont Barbauld, Stoke
Mr. Beavor, Boston Bedford, Lincoln/ Rev. T. Belsham, Hackney
C. Cammack, Long Sutton, E. Cammack, Holbeach T. Cammack, Spalding Mrs. Cappe, York Miss Cappe, ditto Miss A. Cappe, ditto Mr. John Chatfield, London Z. Y. Wisbech George Coates, London Coleman, Brede Colefox, Bridport J. Crane, Wisbech J. Crow, George Town America James Cubit, Norwich Rev. J. David, Taunton
6 Copies John Davies, Columpton John Deacon,
3 Copies Leicester
2 Copies John Disney, D. D. Sloane Street 3 Copies B. Dobell, Cranbrook Louis Desormeaux, Jun. Esq.
Preliminary observations on acceptance with God.
BEFORE we enter upon the principal subject. discussed in this work, it may be useful to take a general view of the way of acceptance with God, as taught by Moses and the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles.
The writings of Moses clearly teach the mercifulness of God: Exo. xxxiv. 6,7. they represent him as, symbolically, dwelling on the mercy-seat, and as showing mercy unto thousands of generations, chap. xx. vi. They teach that he can rescind his threatenings, without any violation of the rectitude of his character, or infraction of the established rules of his government, or departure from the principles of his holy law; for they state that he did it in several instances in his dealings with his people. Deut. xxxii. 26. Moses taught the Israelites that God accepted them to be his people on the mere ground of his free favor. chap. vii. 7, 8. He also assured them that God would continue to accept, preserve