On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
of a ' tlrue revelation are to completely accommodated to this mystery , asto his own atonement . His presumptive proofs would justify the grossest superstitions of Christians , provided they can be received with implicit
faith , and can produce ^ a due portion of fanaticism ; and his tests would prove that the victims under the wheels of Jaggernaut possessed a purer religion than any Christians , because it
was more " influential . " . Let us now revert to his allegory . " Ancient history tells jus of a Qfertam king who made a law against adultery , in which it was enacted , that the offender should be punished by the loSs
of both iiis eyes . The very first offender was his own son . The ' king was an affectionate father , as well aa a just magistrate . After much deliberation and inward struggle , he finally
commanded one of his own eyes to be pulled out , and one of his son ' s . " Much stress is laid on this allegory , which is put forward in place of argument ; but it illustrates merely that notion of atonement which is held
by the . Swedenborgians , who believe that Christ and his Father are only one person . Allegories may , in some points , be unmanageable , particularly if they are taken from some known
history , whether authentic or fabulous ; but , in his reflections on thia history , Mr . Erskine has not remarked any points of discrepancy between it and his own scheme of doctrine . On
the contrary , his remarks are in unison with the allegory , and they convey the same doctrine which was held in ancient times by men who were called Patripa 88 ians , because they believed that God was only one person—that he became man—that the manhood
was called Christ , and suffered on the cross . No other meaning can be put upon the following observations . Suffering for the guilty person * justified the king in the exercise or
clemency ; " and with respect to the guilty person , " it identified the object of his esteem with the object of his gratitude . " " There is a singular resemblance between this moral
exhibition , and the communication which God has been pleased to make of-himself in the gospel . " " Shall we refuse ouir love apd - admiration to the King and Father of the human race ; who , with a kindness and condfcscetisioji
Untitled Article
unutterable , has presented to us a like aspect V " In the gospel , God is represented in the combined character of a gracious Parent and a just Jtidge . The Judge himself bore the punishment of transgression . " AH this is the language of a Patripassian , and it
is entirely discordant from the notion of atonement held by Calvinists . To object here Wthe doctrine of both one and the other , as opposed to reason and a rational interpretation of Scripture , would be to appeal to rules and tests which no advocate for any atonement will submit to ; and , on
this ground , no Calvinist can ever convict a Swedenborgian of error , nor can a Swedenborgian ever confute a Calvinist . On the same principle , disputes can never be decided between them and Romanists , or amongst any of the orthodox , who pride themselves on their faith in spite of reason . But whoever listens to reason or common
sense , will soon perceive how grossly they all pervert the Scriptures . How violently must the sense of Scripture be wrested , before it can be made to teach that the one God and Father of all has suffered unjustly for the sins of men I But , is it not a worse perversion of it to suppose , on the Calvinistic scheme of atonement , that
He has infinite wrath , and is capricious , cruel and unjust ? To illustrate this latter view of the subject , and place \\ in contrast with Mr . Erskine ' s opinions , let us now mould the allegory into such a form as may suit the Calvinistic scheme .
The king should on no account submit to any punishment on himself ; but he should have the satisfaction of pulling but the two eyes of his beloved wife , or of his favourite son , who must be his heir apparent ^ before he
would allow the remotest possibility of sparing the eyes of the son who transgressed . The wife or favourite son , on knowing the demands of the king and his immense ' wrath , should attempt to appease him , by offering voluntarily to undergo all the
punishment due to the ^ transgressor ; and one of them should accordingly submit to it ; and the Icing shoiuld be so delighted with ; the imjiist suffering of his beloved wife , or favourite son , Uiat he should consent to give thte transgressor * one '* chance in one thousand , to hftve it 6 t ' W ' L but both his eyes
Untitled Article
152 Remarks on the * ' Bteseriett fon ? ' of Thomas Ermine , £ sq .,
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1823, page 152, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1782/page/24/
-