Page images

except the Jews; for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that salvation might be free to all the human family, whether Jew or Gentile; that whosoever believeth, or will believe in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This I believe is plain. If you can bring any scripture which says all men shall be born again, you may with some propriety make the statement, that all men will be raised to felicity, but not till then. Till justice was satisfied, or till the law was magnified and made honourable by the great atoning sacrifice, God could not consistent with his justice pardon the sinner. But this great obstruction to the salvation of men, has been removed by Christ, by his being made a curse for us. He is the propitiation for our sins; that is, he has made an atonement; he has satisfiedthe demands of the law; and he is not the propitiation of a few, but his sacrificing himself, is a sacrifice, or propitiation, sufficient for the whole world. I believe the scriptures represent this atonement of infinite value; you do not believe this. One thing you believe, I presume, that Christ's atonement was such as to answer all the demands of the law, and was equally valuable as the law, whether you suppose that law worth ten thousand talents, or not so much. Every difficulty as it respects the law was entirely removed. There remains yet but one obstruction to the salvation of sinners, and that is their corrupt temper of mind. Were their temper right; did they all believe in Jesus Christ, they would, without doubt, alt be saved and enjoy endless felicity. But the great question is, do they, or will they all ever possess this faith? Prove this, and you have established your statement. Prove that all men will absolutely exercise true faith in the Redeemer, either in this world or in that which is to come, and I will embrace the doctrine of universal salvation; but till you have done that I cannot subscribe to it; and till you hav another Bible, you will never do that. And now, sir, I must take my leave for the present, after a few miscellaneous remarks.

As to your exposition of part of the 25th chapter of Matthew, I will just observe, that a greater disregard of plain scripture truth, and even a more studied contempt of common decency, I never saw manifested by any man. Í

speak soberly when I say, had I seen that comment and had not known from wliom it came, I should have supposed, either that the writer was not serious, and intended his piece as a burlesque on the language of the Saviour; or, that he had not been gifted by his benevolent Creator with a common share of intellect. I shall not spend my time in attempting to prove your sentiments false; for to do so, would in my opinion be as ridiculous as to write a volume to prove the Koran was not the gospel of Jesús Christ. I will further observe, if you see proper to give me an answer to this, I shall expect sober reasoning, without any quibbling, or misrepresentation of my sentiments, or essays at wit. And I would be glad to see a plain an swer to the difficulties, or rather the unscriptural sentiments which I have pointed out in this stricture on your answers. Also how great a punishment you suppose might justly be inflicted on the sinner; or, the violater of the divine law; and in fact, how you can reconcile your sentiments that all men will be delivered from their deserved punishment, with the positive declarations of scripture; what you will do with the blasphemer against the Holy Ghost; and how you will reconcile your idea of disciplinary punishment with the language of the Bible, &c.

I am, sir, your well wisher,


[merged small][ocr errors]




Barnard, May 25, 1816.

In answering your last, I purpose to write three letters; noticing, in the first, your remarks upon my first statement; in the second, what you have offered on the curse of the divine law; and in the third, what you have said of the design and subjects of punishment. I think your frankness in acknowledging you have not attempted to reason till now, is worthy of notice; especially, when I call to mind, that you expected it from me; and were disappointed, as you write, because you did not find it. It appears then, your disappointment rose, because I had not labored hard with logical arguments; when on your part, you frankly own you have done nothing about them. But lo, a reason! "I saw nothing to argue against." Was there not a statement, containing a branch of my faith in opposition to yours? Were there not scriptures brought to substantiate the statement? But I am told, the statement in the "very oùfset;” was "assumed." Yes, you say, "To attempt to reason with a man, who in the very outset, assumes, by way of what he calls a statement, the sole point about which we contend, and supposes he has established that point by the introduction of only two texts of scripture, which had no reference to the subject of controversy, appeared to me perfectly idle." You "saw nothing to argue against." How is this to be understood?...that my arguments were so conclusive, that there was no room for debate? You did not mean to be taken in this manner; but probably many will think it is so, and think you took this method to extricate yourself. But supposing I had assum ed the statement; ought you to give it up on that account, and tamely yield with a few complaints? How in this way would a minister adorn a good profession, as a soldier of sus Christ? But assumption is far from being the case.

I will cite you my own words from the first letter: "Thess statements with the remarks are now submitted for discussion, as expressive of my real sentiments:" Thus, so far from being assumed, you see they were only submitted for discussion; and to be admitted true, when proved. In the sentence that introduced the statements, I did not positively state that they were true, nor that I could prove them; but said I shall endeavour to maintain them. If this looks like assumption, what do you think of some of your own expressions? Look at the following quotation: "Now, Sir, I think I might fairly dismiss this subject, and rest till you have cleared up the difficulties already mentioned, and should I rest till then, I apprehend my quiet would not very soon be disturbed.” “Prove that all men will absolutely exercise true faith in the Redeemer, either in this world or in that which is to come, and 1 will embrace the dogtrine of universal salvation! but till you have done that, I cannot subscribe to it; and till you have another Bible,y ow will never do that." If you, in the rank of human intelligences, stand as high as “a common man,” which opinion I learn you have of yourself, and which I never undertook to dispute, I think you must be able to see from the above quotations that I am clear from your charge of assumption! and have the extreme mortification to find that your ac cusation against me is your own condemnation. Were a man to search the Gazettes of our country, printed in a time of war, when the public spirit was inflamed in the dire contagion of party politics, could he find expressions more dogmatical, or more positive assumptions than you have: used.

I have used two texts of scripture to prove my first statement, and endeavored to show my reasonable arguments how they supported it. Now in opposition to this, I have the authority of Mr. Laberee only, that the texts have no reference to the subject. This authority I beg leave to dispute. I do not see why you ought to have the prerogative of saying, they have no reference to the subject, any more than I should of affirming to the contrary. But let us look at the statement, in view of the first text. Je sus says, "God sent his Son into the world;”—and then does be not tell us for what purpose! “TO SAVE THE WORLIK”

It was thought "the world" included "the whole human family;" and "to save the world," was "to raise the whole human family from defectibility to felicity and true holiBess;" and that if God sent his Son to do this, he designed to have it done. Now you will not so much as attempt to reason on the subject, because you say it has no reference to it.

Does not your assertion resemble D's in the following similitude? A employs B to clear a lot of land of trees. B gives information of his appointment to his friends and relatives, among whom are C and D; and writes, saying, 'A sends B; not to condemn the land, but to clear the land.' C states to D that it is the design of A to clear all that lot of land. D disputes it. C then produces the written document; but D still persists that it is not A's design to clear that land, and affirms that the sentence C brought, has no reference to the subject of controversy. All that he will allow is, that B should cut out the brush or under stuff, so as to make it possibls to clear the land.

As you appear to be so positive that my statement is not supportable, neither by positive texts of scripture, nor the general tenour of God's word, I will take this opportunity to add more scriptural evidence to its support. To bring a positive declaration of scripture," you say, I will not attempt." This will depend upon what you understand to be a positive declaration of scripture. If by a positive scripture to the point, you must have the very word design, it is acknowledged such a declaration cannot be produced; for I do not recollect as the word design is used in the whole Bible. But if a word or sentence can be found that plainly expresses its meaning without argument or inference, ought it not to be considered a positive declaration to the point in question? Then what would be the difference in saying, "God designed to raise the whole human family from defectibility to holiness," and saying, "He will (thelei) have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?" I. Tim. ii. 4. If the above text had said, "he designed to have all men saved," &c. would you pretend to deny that it is a positive declaration to the point? If you would be at the trouble to examine, you will find the Greek word thelo means, to be willing, to wish, to desire, to

« PreviousContinue »