Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

to signify that the victim, by this process of salting, shall be “kept from putrefaction, destruction, decomposition, and annihilation, under the operation of the fire." Horrible misanthropy! In page 65 of your pamphlet, when treating on the passage "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," you say, "Is it possible that it should be necessary for me to prove that the rules of grammar, as well as the whole tenor of scripture, clearly evinces that not the persons, but the fire is here said to be prepared for the devil and his angels ?" I would likewise say to you-Is it necessary that I'should tell you that the words of your text prove not the endless punishment of the persons, but the duration of the agents. It is the worm that is said never to die, and . the fire that is said never to be quenched. And with regard to your assertion of such figures, in scripture, falling "short of the reality," I am surprised to hear one so conversant with the Bible, as you are, talking in this manner. Look at Jer. vii. 20, and xvii, 27.-Isaiah, chap. xxxiv.: also chap. lxvi., 24. (from which last your text is borrowed), and tell me if the events, in reality, (such as the ruin of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, and the expulsion of the Jews, the desolating judgements which converted the denounced countries into a barren wilderness, &c.) tell me, I say, if any of these events, when accomplished, bore any proportion to the figures used in the threatenings? And be it remembered, that these threatenings were uttered in the very words of your text, and by "burning fire," "fire unquenchable," "burning pitch," and "brimstone," fire "not to be quenched night nor day, the smoke whereof was to go up for ever and ever," than which there are not to be found, in the Bible, terms, nor figures, more strong, in describing the punishment of the wicked, either in point of severity or duration. Yet all these calamities were temporary in point of duration; and though both sore and grievous, were as nothing, in reality, compared to the threatenings, as we learn from the history of the events.

tr

[ocr errors]

And as to the horrible use you make of the salt:-I would turn your attention to the "covenant of salt" mentioned in Num. xviii. 19. and 2 Chron. xiii. 5. See also salt as a figure and symbol of healing, when used by Elisha, at the command of God, (2 Kings, ii. 21.), after which it is recorded, "Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters." Indeed, besides that of healing, &c. I find salt used as a symbol, in various respects, in scripture, having al

[ocr errors]

ways relation to some good towards mankind, but never with a view to perpetuate their torments, as you have the awful presumption to assert, and call on us to believe. You once told me that you were, at one time, almost a convert to the doctrine of universal redemption, and that you would not, even yet, speak against it with much firmness. Latterly, however, the torments of hell, and the eternity of them, has become much your theme. I have referred particularly to last night. The Sabbath before that, you told us (which I noted down at the moment), "He therefore delights in the punishment of the unbelievers," in direct opposition to Ezek. xxxiii. 11.and the whole tenor of the gospel scriptures. And, one day, after telling us, in the words of scripture, that He willeth not the death of the wicked, you added, in your own anti-scriptural language," but should they fail in obtaining salvation, He wills that they should perish eternally." Thus you make God to have two wills or double-minded, contrary to that passage,— "He is of one mind." It is certainly a mistake, to think, that this mode of preaching is the way to bring sinners to God. And you cannot show me, either from the Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles, that this was the mode of preaching in those days. From detached passages of scripture you may deduce such doctrine as you have lately dwelt so much upon, but from the scriptures, as a whole, you cannot. And I aver that such is neither the genuine spirit of the gospel, nor is it at all in the nature of christian philanthropy.

You told me, one day, that you objected to the doctrine of univer: redemption, on the following ground. You cannot, you say, find out, from the scriptures, what discipline they are to undergo, who die in unbelief, in order to effect a reconciliation, or by what process they are to be restored. In reply, I beg leave to premise— that in all I have said, you have never seen me attempt to be wise above that which is written: I, therefore, honestly confess that I am no more able than you are, to describe the discipline, nor define the process by which sinners are to be restored. It is enough for you, and for me, to believe that it shall be so, if the Lord has said it. Permit me, here, to adopt your own language, (page 51), and say, "How unreasonable for one to presume to ask questions, to reason about consequences, to lay down premises, and draw conclusions, with a view to invalidate the most obvious part of the testimony of Jehovah, merely, because from his limited knowledge of divine things, he finds himself unable to reconcile it with other

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and less obvious parts of that testimony. It is our province to believe what God has testified, and not to reason about it." If, then, he has really said that he will repair the ruins of the fall,-nay, if he has said he will do more than heal the breach,-that "where sin abounded grace did (or shall) much more abound,”—if he has said that "he gave his life a ransom for all," that "he tasted death for every man," that "he will gather together in one, or re-head, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth." And that he will, "through the blood of his cross, reconcile all things unto himself ;”—if he has said, in short, that he will "restore all things,"-If, I say, he has declared all this in plain language, and given us many other unequivocal declarations, in scripture, to the same purport, it is not for us, if we profess to believe the divine testimony, to withhold our assent, merely because we are not acquainted with all the means, or the process by which he is to accomplish his end and design. Are we to reject the most clear and obvious parts of his testimony, because that other and less obvious parts do not correspond with our notions? "Such conduct," to use your own words, (page 51), “would be infinitely less rational, than would be that of an illiterate idiot, were he to attempt a refutation of the Newtonian theory." Because there are millions of things which are seen every day, in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, of which we can neither describe the causes, uses, nor process of their formation, &c. &c; we are not, on that account, warranted to deny the facts. Neither are we warranted to deny, or misbelieve "the restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began," and declared by his apostles, in the plainest language, merely because we are not acquainted with all the means by which the blessed end is to be accomplished. It is not for us, who are but the creatures of a day,-beings who cannot comprehend, fully, the nature of a single object around us, to drag the Almighty to our bar-to arraign his government, and pretend to decide concerning "possibilities," his "decrees," his "secret will," his " revealed will," &c. Our province is to believe his word, to be humble, and to adore. Again :

After reading your pamphlet on the universality of the atonement, and then hearing you disclaim the doctrine of universal redemption, you appear to me to be extremely inconsistent. In page 11th, you observe that when the Lord says, "As I live I have no

[ocr errors]

pleasure in the death of the wicked; he clearly evinces the falsehood of the assertion, that a certain number of the human race are reprobated, or destined to eternal misery." How does this comport with your former expressions-" He delights in the punishment of the unbelievers."-"He wills that they should perish eternally?" Again,-in page 22, you say, "Are the blessings of the atonement compared to a feast? It is a feast prepared for all people, (Isa. xxv. 6.) Is the account of it denominated glad tidings? it is so to all people, (Luke ii. 10.). Was the brazen serpent a figure of Christ, as the Lord that healeth? The cure, in this case, was as universal' as the malady, (John iii. 14.). Is Jesus. the bread of life? He gave his flesh for the life of the world, (John vi. 51.). Is he a propitiation for sins? It is "for the sins of the whole world." And, in page 23, you say, “If there be, in the creation of God, one human being, not redeemed by the blood of Christ, then I aver, that, for that being, there is no Gospel, no Saviour, no Pardon, no Heaven--and the Salvation of that creature is morally and physically impossible." You reason justly (page 31) when you say that "upon any other principles than that of universal atonement"-why not say universal redemption— "the language of the apostles is absolutely unintelligible, and that it would be dishonourable to God, the supposition, that he is capable of creating, perhaps, the greater part of the human race, for no other purpose than that of glorifying himself in their eternal misery." Now, to reason thus, so justly and scripturally, in favour of universal redemption, and with the next breath, to admit, that the greater *portion of the human race shall never obtain mercy, is a manifest contradiction in terms. It is absurd to tell us, that though all shall not be saved, Christ nevertheless died for all. This is say-. ing, in plain language, that "he died for millions whom he never meant should receive any benefit from his death." It is either giving the lie to that passage "Thou hast created all things, and.. for thy pleasure they are and were created;" or it is asserting that his pleasure was their eternal damnation, or that he was disappointed in his end respecting them, either of which would be blasphemy. In short, to talk of universal atonement, as you do, and not to admit universal redemption, is just saying that the atonement is incomplete.

[ocr errors]

On the subject of the love of God, you have some beautiful, and christian-like remarks. And these, I maintain (whether you will

admit it or not), can only be consistent in one who is a believer in universal redemption. You remark, page 53," He is love, as essentially as he is light; and St. John says, God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. It hence follows, that God is love, and in him is no hatred at all." "God was no less love when he consigned the rebel angels to bottomless perdition, there to dwell in adamantine chains and penal fire, than when, in the form of a servant, he bore our sins in his own body on the tree; and he will be no less love when he damns the despisers of his grace, than when he shall welcome his saints, to the Kingdom, prepared for them before the foundation of the world. Shall we dare to aver that God is, in some instances, the opposite of love, because our purblind reason cannot trace his philanthropy, distinctly, in every act of his administration? He is eternally, and uniformly, LOVE. And he dwells not in love who exercises that principle, in some instances, and to some individuals merely. No; he only dwells in love, who habitually breathes that heavenly principle, and whose philanthropy is universal." Now, these are exactly my sentiments; for I believe that his every act of chastisement, damnation, or punishment, is," though not joyous, but grievous," nevertheless, in love to the subjects of it. From his very nature and essence it must be so. But, I would ask,-how, in the name of reason, or common sense, can you, consistently hold these sentiments, expressed by the above quotations, and not be a believer in the doctrine of universal redemption? How can the love of God be manifested, in consigning the rebel angels to bottomless perdition, or in damning the despisers of his grace, unless these awful dispensations are of a mediatory nature, and are ultimately to give place to endless life? If all his chastisements are in love, and mercy, they must issue in salvation, or he is not omnipotent to save them.-There is no avoiding this conclusion.

[ocr errors]

By comparing different expressions in your book with one another, and with various sentences in your discourses, you are, evidently very inconsistent with yourself, and no less inconsistent with the most obvious parts of the divine testimony. Forego, therefore, that which is both dark and doubtful, and which, if admitted, would evidently involve the character of Jehovah, and the consequence will be a perfect consistency, on the glorious scheme of universal reconciliation. Is it possible the phrase Universalist can offend one of your good sense and liberality? I should think not. Yet, true it is,

+

« AnteriorContinuar »