Page images

mean or design. Hence the above text would have admitted the word design as well as will; but either make it express to my purpose, and full to the satisfaction of every reasonable unbiassed mind. To make out that this text is not full to the support of my statement it must be shown that God does not design what he wills; that all men do not mean the whole human family; and that being saved and coming to the knowledge of the truth do not mean raised from defectibility and true holiness. All or one of these must be pointed out or the text is full to my purpose.

For universal reconciliation, see the following; 2 Cor. v. 19; Col. i. 20. That the reconciled are saved, see Rom. V. 10. For universal justification. see Rom. v. 16, 18; Gal. iii. 8; Rom. iv. 5, where justification is applied to the ungodly. That the justified are saved from wrath; see Rom. v. 9. For a-universal gathering in Christ, see Ephe. i. 10 That this was purposed according to God's will, see the 9th verse. Universal life in Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 22. That all in Christ are new creatures, 2 Cor. v. 17; which proves the new birth for all, or that all will be born again.

I am glad you acknowledge the text in St. John, iii. 17, represents God as having a design in sending his Son into the world. Your words are these; "Nichodemus was ignorant, grossly so, of the 'design' of God in sending his Son into the world." I think you hold that God had a design in sending his Son into the world, or you could not have supposed Nichodemus ignorant of it; for if he had none, neither Nichodemus, nor any other person, could know it, or be ignorant of it. But you represent Christ as correcting Nichodernus in the words of our text. "You are mistaken, says he, in thinking that God will send his Son into the world to condemn all 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," &c. Now, sir, if the text represent God as having a design, which I gather from your words before quoted, all that divides between us is, what the design is. You say, "it is 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;" and the text says, it is, "to save the world.”

[ocr errors]


Of these two I will adopt the text rather than your expla nation; which in its own language proves my statement, notwithstanding you said it had no reference to the subject; with this proviso, that the world means the whole hu man family. But here I find I am attacked. It is ques tioned whether "the world mean numerically every individual of the human race.” You first quote John xii. 19. "Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold the world has gone after him.” Here it is concluded that the world could not mean every individual of the human race, because they did not all exist in that age; nor is it reasonable to suppose that every individual of that generation had ever heard of Christ. In reply, I would remark, these are not the words of Christ, nor of any of his disciples; but the murmurings of the Pharisees among themselves in a passion. They meant no doubt to represent a great multitude, or almost the whole nation. Your next is John vii. 7; "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth." In this passage you except Christ's disciples, and all those that looked for the consolation of Israel. Now, sir, if from this term world, you except no more, as it appears you cannot, I shall be content; for it proves that the world means all that hate Christ, though others are excepted; and if all these be raised from a state of hatred to a state of holiness, the other may be dispensed with; for the whole need not the physician as those that are sick. Thus you see from the passages you have chosen, there is no exception to the term world, only in those that Christ has taken out of the -world in a spiritual point of view. Your next says, "the world shall rejoice." Here you suppose without doubt the world includes the wicked; then the righteous are excepted. To this explanation I have no objection, and am willing to apply it to John iii. 17; which argues that it is God's design to save the wicked. You still quote another, which represents Christ as praying for his disciples, and not for the world; of course the disciples are an exception to the world. But I find his prayer is enlarged in the 20th verse, (17th chapter) and still more so in the 21st and 23d. One more you quote, "The world hath hated them because they are not of the world." Why were they not of he world? Because Christ chose them out. Then be

Tore he took them out, the world included the whole... From these passages I find the world means numerically every one in a defectible state, and indeed no others could be saved from it; of course they prove nothing against my ideas of the term world in John iii. 17.

After all it seems you have attempted to show what might be done without much reference to the subject of controversy. For you write, "But the universality of salvation was not the subject of discourse." You then say, "You will allow that our Saviour in the same discourse would be consistent with himself." Yes; but what hinders this universality? Answer. "He that believeth not is condemned already." Then it appears you understand condemnation to be a sentence to endless misery. If so, look at the number, expressed in Rom. v. 19; "By the of fence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Is not Christ now consistent with himself, in a design to save the whole, as well as a part?

You understand the texts in John iii. 17, and 1 John, ii. 2, to convey the idea that Christ made an infinite atonement for the sins of the whole world; not, however, with a design to save the world. This 1 learn from your first letNow the question is, whether the world mean numerically every individual of the human family. You have undertaken to prove that it does not. On this ground, the following is the conclusion: Christ has made


an infinite atonement for the whole world, which is not numerically the whole human family, and did not design to save the whole world; though the whole be but a part of the human family. This is reducing a part to a still smaller number.

Where you represent Christ as correcting Nichodemus, you write, "For God sent not his Son to condemь the world, but that salvation might be free to all the human family, whether Jew or Gentile," But where did you learn that salvation is free for all the human family? Did you gather it from the term world? This you have just been trying to limit to a part of the human family; and you had no other term or phrase in the text or context, from which you could draw such a conclusion. If you understand the term world, in John iii. 17, to mean all the human family,


why did you try to limit it to a part? It makes your work all confusion.

In the beginning of your letter, for an apology for past neglect, you write; "To attempt to reason with a man, who assumes the sole point about which we contend, appears to me perfectly idle." You tell me towards the close of your letter, you "will try," and when you come to introduce what has now been under consideration, you say; "I will endeavour to show you [by argument no doubt] that those texts of scripture do by no means lend you the support which you suppose." Now I find you engaged in attempting what in the beginning of the same letter you informed me appeared to you perfectly idle. And I submit it to the judgment of the candid, whether your success is not equal to what might be reasonably expected, even of a common man like yourself, when he undertakes to perform what appears to him perfectly idle.



REV. Sin,



Barnard, May 27, 1816,

You seem to express a doubt, whether you will be able to convince me that you make any attempts at reasouing, but say, "I will try." Sir, I hope I never shall be so ungrateful as to deny my opponent the just merit of his labours. To meet him on the ground of reason and scripture, was what I at first desired, and am now happy in being gratified. Should you now lose the object of your ar guments, I hope you would not say, it was for want of exertion on your part; or, should you gain it, that you attained it without labour. I acknowledge you have argued, but do not acknowledge your reasoning altogether conclusive, and in many instances I think you have mistaken in your premises.

The inference that you draw from my saying, that "I did not believe an infinite atonement necessary in order for God to be just in the pardon of sin," I think, wants.propriety. If it be my belief that the Son of God is not the eternal infinite God, still I think you have no right to declare it from any thing that I have written to you. You say, "that in order to support" my "favourite system," I "find it necessary." How so? If it require an infinite atonement made by an infinite Ged to save a part of the human family, is it necessary to have a finite atonement by a finite person to save the whole? Does it cost so much less to save all mankind than it does to save a part? If this be the case, and it be the will of God, who could complain if he adopted the cheapest and most salutary method?

What right had you to say, I "robbed the Son of God of his Divinity," from my not admitting an infinite atonement necessary in the pardon of sin? do a finite work if he please?

Cannot an infinite being

Cannot he make things

« PreviousContinue »