262 Letter to a Friend on the Atonement. for he scorned to save them by halves. Agreeable to this offer, he is aptly described by the Elect as a physician, who cures his patients by prescribing regimen and physic, not to them, but to himself,--and as a judge who procures himself to be executed, in order to save the lives of felons condemned by his own sentence. His offer was accepted, and the bargain was accordingly concluded between these two infinite Persons of the one substance. It certainly appears a very dear bargain; particularly when we consider that it did not prevent the success of Satan over both Persons, with respect to mankind, in the enormous proportion of at least two thousand to one; and that it gave Satan the triumph of exacting an infinite sacrifice, distress and humiliation, in the reserved case of the Elect, wherein he was foiled. In vain do curious persons inquire from the Elect the reasons, why the Devil should be allowed to triumph in this manner,--why this bargain between two Co-equals, either such as the other, should be so partial in itself, and bear so hard on the second Person,-why one part of the substance of God should have infinite wrath to be appeased, and not another,-why the second Person should not require the First to atone to himself by exquisite sufferings for the Elect, or for an equal portion of men among the Reprobates, not give way to positive wrath against any part of mankind. While he was resolved to leave most men as he found them, he was inclined to reprieve a few, not indeed from the foresight of their faith or amiable qualities, but rather the contrary. His Elect would be greatly alarmed, if even any part of his infinite atonement should be turned aside from themselves; his inflexible justice in refusing all aid to Reprobates, who are just as good as themselves, is a principal source of their triumph; and they are delighted with his goodness, principally on account of its partiality. However, his favour did not extend to a greater number than to one person in two thousand, and with only this trifling exception, he had no commiseration for the lost state of mankind. Or, perhaps, benevolence toward them would not have been consistent with a prudent regard for himself; for as the office which he did undertake to execute for this small number proved to him a most grievous task; so, if he had enlarged their number to one half of mankind he would have drawn down on himself a thousand times more wrath. At the commencement of his very limited undertaking, what must have been his distress of mind, when no dignified or rational way occurred to him, or was communicated to him to avert from the Elect the Father's infinite wrath, excited and impelled as why the partial sufferings of God it was by his infinite justice. He had should be an advantage to men alone, no choice but to adopt or decline the and to a very small proportion of them, expedient pointed out to him. It was why they should not, at the same promulgated in heaven, that the Fa- time, purchase vegetable life for inert ther's wrath and justice, with respect matter, sensation for vegetables, rato mankind, might be expended, not tionality for brutes, and higher powers on them, but on some innocent per- for all mankind, since they are as son, who would voluntarily undertake much calculated to produce these ef to appease him by assuming their guilt fects, as to expunge unconditionally and punishment. From this circum- the sin of any inan? But if there be stance we cannot suppose that justice any congruity between these sufferings, in heaven can bear any analogy to and the unconditional removal of sin, justice on earth. An awful silence then-being of infinite value, why ensued. No angelic being offered to should they not remove unconditionbear the brunt of this wrath and jus-ally the sins of all men? To none of tice. On this ominous pause, the Son these questions do the Elect choose to himself, part of the very substance of reply either from scripture or reason. God, came forward, and offered himself to be reputed a sinner for the Elect exclusively, and not only to atone by exquisite sufferings for all their sins, both original and actual, but also to impute all his own righteousness to them, without requiring from them any condition in return; One of the wonders of this bargain consisted in the contrivance by which the substance of God might be made to suffer. It was stipulated, that, in process of time, the scrond part of this Substance should become an infant and a man upon this earth, should submit to all the infirmities of a man, Letter to a Friend on the Atonement. and die upon a cross. Afterwards this partial substance of God should remain to the end of time a man-God or God-man. With all this stipulated degradation and suffering of part of his own substance, the first Person was so well pleased, that he not only consented to forego his infinite wrath and justice toward the Elect, but to shower down favours on them without measure. For these favours he was paid more than an adequate price, by which mean he was saved the trouble of exercising the slightest degree of mercy; and indeed, with respect to him, there is no room for this attribute in the gospel scheme. When this bargain should take effect, that is, when Christianity should receive the gloss of Calvin, it would then appear, that the difference between the Elect and Reprobate lies in this, that to the former alone it is given to believe in this account of the atonement, to renounce all works, and humbly to ac. cept the merits of the man-God, as their own exclusive, undoubted right, as well as righteousness. Consequently they challenge the justice of God and are entitled to their salvation. Reprobates, on the other hand, believe, with much simplicity, that God can forgive them without the sacrifice of any finite or infinite person. All their hopes are placed in the mercy of God, and in endeavouring to imitate the example of Jesus Christ: but as no portion of God has any favour or mercy for them, they must endure to eternity all the torments which can be inflicted by infinite wrath. In this and every statement of the atonenent, it may be noticed that two parts out of three of God, of his very substance, require no atonement, and the third Person is an unconcerned spectator. Arminians, who, fortunately, are not consistent in many parts of their faith, will not agree to some minor parts of the above statement; and a distinct case would be requisite for them, whenever they can be prevailed on to define accurately and fully their ideas of the atonement: or rather, such a definition from them would render any other confutation unnecessary. So far as justification is concerned, I think they can hardly avoid to describe as a nullity, either the infinite sacrifice of Almighty God, or the free-will of man. To the question 263 whether faith in the atonement be essential to salvation, they answer so cautiously as to betray the doubt in their own minds. We can grapple with Calvinists, because they are more decided and consistent; and I believe these people will admit, that in stating their doctrine of the atonement, I have kept close to the sense of their language, and to their ideas. Sandeman, at least, will bear me out in the strongest parts of the statement; and he will furnish me with sufficient arguments, ad hominem, against the mincing, moderate Calvinist. Some of these may be inclined to modify one or two passages; but every Calvinist entertains such notions of the atonement, as constitute a most frightful theology, calculated to expel all charity from the breasts of those who can receive it, and to appal the hearts of all others, without holding out to them the smallest benefit. However, it can produce no effect on the mind of an enlightened Christian, but pity for those who preach it; for to him it will appear to be more offensive to the Deity than the idolatry of Hea thens. The gospel of Christ inculcated a very different lesson, and is as opposite to it in its principles as light, is to darkness. In that we learn, that the Lord our God is the FATHER of all men, and not the capricious tyrant, flattered by suitable favourites. Every single precept of Christ and his apostles is sufficient to confute the childish notion of atonement; though it has been divulged with infinite perseverance and ingenuity by highly-gifted men, yet surely by men under strong prejudices. No plain passage of scrip ture gives it the slightest countenance; and it is supported only by figurative language, which is perverted so as to make scripture contradict itself, and to promote in the world, not religion and humanity, but a gloomy enthusi asm, or a most unhappy scepticism. All these figurative expressions can be explained without the slightest diffi culty. One instance here may suffice. St. John, in the Revelation, says of Christ, that he hath washed us from our sins in his own blood. Now, which is it more natural to suppose, that this language is figurative, intended to shew that the death and resurrection of Christ had furnished Christians with a powerful, and, in most cases, an effectual motive to forsake their sins; or 264 Vindication of Count Zinzendorf. to suppose that it relates literally to an atonement-that is, to actual blood, in which the sins of the Elect are steeped and rubbed, and then come out virtues? All the texts particularly relied on by Calvinists have been abundantly proved to be consistent with the remainder of scripture, and thus their fancied privileges, deducible from their notions of the atonement, are shewn to be illusory. This has been done even by John Wesley, who gave up the groundless fancy of the imputed righteousness of Christ. But an objection lies to this doctrine of atonement, which supersedes all necessity for arguing against it on the ground of its great absurdity. It supposes that the grand and peculiar doctrine of the gospel is, that the One God is a compounded Being, made up of various persons, with opposite dispositions, and heterogeneous natures; whereas, the uniform testimony of the whole Bible is, that the Lord our God is one Lord; and this One God and Father of All, who is above all, is most particularly stated in the New Testament to be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope now, Dear Sir, that you will draw one very just conclusion from this long letter, which is, that I would not be at the trouble of writing it, if I did not entertain for you much respect, to which you are entitled from your character and professional labours. I remain, therefore, &c. &c. B-S. SIR, a few days since, I was not a little surprised and concerned, at perceiving an aspersion of no inconsiderable magnitude, cast on the moral character of the late Count Zinzendorf; being convinced that there is no foundation for such a charge, I feel it a duty incumbent on me to defend an injured character, that I much and deservedly esteem. I beg to add, that in this undertaking, I have purely followed the impulse of my own mind. I would here be considered as merely advocating the Count's moral character, and by no means espousing all his religious - opinions, any more than defending his theological language. If he conscientiously held such opinions, he was unquestionably right in maintaining them, and if he considered the phraseology he employed as best calculated to convey and illustrate them, who has a right to deny him this liberty? Having received a considerable part of my education amongst the United Brethren, or Moravians, as they are often though improperly called, and having attentively studied their history, especially that of their late ordinary, and made myself pretty familiar with his religious ideas and the language in which they are couched, I conceive myself rather better qualified than your correspondent, to form a just estimate of the moral worth of that respectable individual. Had the writer in your Repository, instead of adopting the malignant and deceptive representations of a Rimius, (who, forsooth, styles his work a Candid Narrative,-how far it deserves such an appeliation will presently appear,) attentively perused Crantz's History of the Brethren, or the ample and ingenuous Life of Zinzendorf by the learned and venerable Mr. Spangenberg, or had he duly examined several of the numerous writings of the Count himself, I have little doubt but he would have formed a very different opinion. Your correspondent appears to have dipped into one or two of their works, but I trust that is all; I myself have had access to all their performances, and have made considerable use of them. I have, besides, been favoured with various com munications from esteemed individuals of undoubted veracity, who were about the Count's person, and intimately acquainted with his public and private character. But I have not formed my of from the testimony of friends, or from his own writings, but have attentively examined the works of his opponents; and though I have been at considerable pains to investigate their charges, yet have I never been able to substantiate any one that affected his morals. If it be true that the moral worth of a man results from his intentions and the motives that actuate him, and that his intentions and motives are alone discoverable from his dispositions and conduct, I then feel no hesitation in affirming, that the late Count Zinzendorf is, in no inconsiderable degree, entitled to our esteem and respect. Every honest and unprejudiced person, who will be at the pains of entering into the detail of the Count's life, must, Southey's Poem "The Great Victory."-Questions to Anti-baptists. 265' I think, perceive, that the main spring of his religious career (and to this cause he devoted his life), was, "Love to him who first loved us, and gave himself for us;" that this love prompted him to cheerful compliance with what he believed the Bible taught of his Lord's will; constraining him to diffuse, as widely as possible, what he regarded as the good tidings of salvation; and in the prosecution of this, to him all-important object, he shunned neither privations nor dangers, nor reproach nor poverty; though his rank, connexions and fortune would have enabled him to move in what the world regards an exalted sphere. As the apologist of the moral character of the Count, I am now compelled to take some notice of a work long since consigned to merited oblivion. I termed that work malignant and deceptive; for, under the mask of candour, the author evidently endeavours to represent the Count and his coadjutors as inimical to the cause of virtue and even decorum; without attempting to allege any thing by way of extenuation, which charity would naturally have suggested, and for which abundant scope unquestionably remained: but his aim has invariably been to exhibit them in the blackest colouring; thus to render them objects or varversal detestation. Lat this writer is by no means to be implicitly relied on, for his statements not unfrequently rest on the authority of persons who seceded from the Brethren's congregation from worldly or selfish motives, and whose disaffection would render their representations at least suspicious: again, his translations are often inaccurate, by no means pra senting the genuine meaning of the original, frequently eliciting meanings and hints which the text does not warrant, or at least does not require. Nor is this all; language is frequently charged to the Count with which he had no concern and which he was foremost to counteract. This candid author, moreover, discovers a wonderful propensity to attribute impurity of thought and conduct to impropriety of language. But Zinzendorf, we know, is not the only mysticizer of scripture. Have not our venerable Gill and others done the same? Yet, who would dare to tax the learned and estimable commentator on the Song of Solomon with impurity of mind and conduct, because his phraseology would Your obliged friend, 1 SIR, Hackney, April 3, 1816. though I may have frequently ET justice be done to every man. lamented the apostacy of our Poet Lau reat from some of the best sentiments of his earlier, unpensioned years, the mistake of your correspondent Pacifi cus, (p. 106,) ought to be rectified. The beautiful and instructive little piece "The Great Victory," is not omitted in the late edition of Southey's Poems, but inserted Vol. III. p. 167. What naturally led your correspondent to make the mistake alluded to is the blunder of the printer or reviser of the late edition, who, in the table of contents, has omitted to notice the poem of "The Great Victory," and of another "The Old Woman," &c. p. 193. B. F. SIR, Harlow, April 17, 1816. Aber of your constant readers are Anti-baptists, will you permit me to submit to them a few questions concerning the ordinances, and principles SI suppose a considerable num of that religion, which we in common believe; and the duties of which I doubt not to the best of our knowledge we endeavour to practise. I am sure we shall agree that the commandment of Christ is supreme authority, both with respect to faith and practice. I presume that all those persons, who do not attend to any kind of baptism, may be classed under the two following descriptions; first, such as consider that ordinance as superseded by the baptism of the Spirit, which I believe is the sentiment of the respectable society of Christian Friends, called Quakers; and who also decline the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, on the principle of a religion wholly spiritual, to which they suppose these institutes are not now necessary. The second, such as do not consider baptism as extending beyond the pale of converts from Judaism to Christianity. To the first of these I shall only propose one question, when that is answered we shall be better able to judge of the scriptural propriety of their Anti-bap 4 tism. The question is this; is the religion of Friends more spiritual than the religion of the Primitive Churches, Martyrs, Confessors, Apostles, and of Jesus Christ himself? Of the second class of Anti-baptists more questions will be asked; for the present the following. As I suppose it will be granted that baptism in, or with water, was enjoined by Jesus Christ: And as we are ready to admit that baptism, in some form, was practised by the Jews before the time of Christ; is it a fact that he adopted this ceremony, and, as our example, submitted to it himself? Was his baptism to be extended beyond the limits of converts to Christianity? Was this ordinance to be extended to all the proselytes to the Christian faith? Did Christ give authority to the Apostles, or to any of them, to preach the Gospel to every creature, to disciple all nations baptizing them? Did the Apostles preach the gospel to idolaters, did they convert such, and when the door of faith was opened to the Gentiles, were they Jewish converts previously, or idolatrous heathen? Were the common and unclean Gentiles, Acts x. 11, to whom Peter communicated the Gospel, previously to their conversion and baptism circumcised Jewish converts? If they were not then what constituted a Jewish convert? Were not some of the Corinthian professors, idolaters, before their reception of the Christian faith? Did Paul understand his commission? Does he regret having baptized Cris pus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus; was not the character of Paul traduced by the professing Christians at Corinth, and were not many of them a disgrace to their profession? Did not the Corinthians either weakly or malignantly represent Paul and his fellow-labourers as founders of different religious sects? Was not this sufficient reason to induce the apostle to congratulate himself, that he had baptized no more of them? Does he not ask these very people in whose name they had been baptized, whether in the name of the Jewish Christian Apollos, or Jesus Christ? Did these Jews who thus baptized idolatrous Gentiles, exceed their commission? What does Paul mean when he says to these people; Cor. i. 6, 7, "Know ye not that idolaters, &c. shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and such were some of you, but ye are washed in the name of the Lord Jesus?" Was not baptism always practised in the Christian church from the first age, and was it not considered as a privilege? Have we any account of the admission of Gentile converts without it? When did the distinction between catechumens, and Christian professors first begin? Though Gentile converts rejected circumcision, were they ever refused baptism? Is it not said that as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ? Have not those who have put on Christ, thus publicly acknowledged HIM to be Lord, to the glory of God the Father, and therefore bound themselves to obey his Gospel? What is the scriptural way of publicly professing to be a Christian? Ought not such a profession to be made in a way that cannot be misunderstood? Was not baptism the Jewish and Christian mode of professing proselytism? Is the profession of Christianity a volun. tary and public act? Is a man a Christian before he is satisfied of the truth of Christianity? Or are they convinced of its truth who have never examined its evidences? Was not the ordinance of the Lord's Supper origi nally administered to the Apostles exclusively? Did either the seventy elders, or any of the five hundred bre |