« 上一頁繼續 »
cording to your reasoning, my remarks on Rom. v. 19, are sound.
3. Paul in the 5th of Rom. shows, that grace will reign beyond sin, and abound more than sin. It reigns beyond, because it destroys sin, and makes all those righteous, whom sin had polluted. It abounds more, because it not only destroys sin, but makes all men endlessly happy. Thus he says, 'where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin had reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life,' that is, reign beyond death, and over all men. Now to talk about some becoming wicked, when 'death is conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally destroyed,' is absurd in the highest degree.
3. 1 John iv. 14. And we have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son, to be the Saviour of the world.' What have you offered to prove that this, does not teach Universalism? Not an argument! You have not attempted an argument! You have asserted, it is true, that it simply teaches that means are prepared for the salvation of all; but as this directly contradicts the text, it will only go for an assertion.
1. These words teach the purpose of God to save all men. Observe, 'the Father, sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.' Here the great purpose of God is clearly expressed. Now we have only to ask, whether God will accomplish this purpose? Hear his own answer. As I have purposed, so shall it stand; (Isai. xiv. 24) the Lord hath purposed it, who shall disannul it?
(27) I have purposed it, and I will also do it. (Isai. 46, 11.) Methodists, I know pretend, that God purposed the salvation of mankind on certain conditions, which at the time, he knew, all would not comply with. Now while I admit, that his purposes are so far conditional, that none can be saved, without repentance, I deny that God could purpose what he knew would not be done, because this ould be acting against knowledge. Man in all his folly, never attempts to do, what he knows he shall not. Neither does he attempt to do a thing in a way, he knows he cannot. And if God purposed to save only those who comply with certain conditions, and knew at the time, that all would not comply, he never purposed to save all. And therefore the text is false, if Methodism is true.
2. These words teach that Christ is the Saviour of the world. But how can he be its Saviour, unless he saves it? You will perhaps say he is a Saviour, because he offers to save. But is offering to save, saving? Suppose I see a man perishing with hunger, and offer to supply him with food, but do not, and the man dies, can I be called his Saviour? Assuredly not. But if we admit that offering to save is saving, even this does not entitle Christ to the appellation of a universal Saviour; for not one fourth part of the world has had the offers of salvation. This we know, therefore we know that Methodism is false. Because admitting the common explanation of this subject, Christ is not entitled to the appellation of the Saviour of the world.
The scriptures bear us out in this reasoning. They ascribe complete success to the Saviour.
They declare that Christ shall have the heathen for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession (Psal ii. 8.) that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand (Isai. liii. 10) and that having subdued all he will deliver up the kingdom to God. 1 Cor. xv. 24.
4. Eph. 1-9-10. Having made known into us the mystery of his will, &c. You seek to evade the force of my argument, drawn from this text, by saying, that the application I give it, proves too much, and therefore proves nothing at all. You then ask, if all things means all men, angels, devils, beasts, birds, fishes, insects, and reptiles in heaven and in earth.' Now sir, when we consider that Christ came to save men, that the gave his life a ransom for all men, that the Bible is a revelation to men, concerning the will, purpose and pleasure of God respecting them, and that nothing is said within its sacred pages, concerning the salvation of beasts, &c. or about Christ dying for any but human intelligencies, your question appears lame beyond expression. I admit, that the phrase 'all things' is sometimes used to express what God has created, and what he sees; and that then it includes all, and more than you have said; but when it is used in relation to salvation, it can only refer to those, who are its subjects, and for whom Christ died.
"That he might gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and on earth.' Now, if you limit all things,' as it respects things on earth, which Christ came to save, you must limit it, as respects things in heaven. And therefore you must say, that there will be hu
man intelligencies in heaven, that will not be in Christ. But the text does not say some of all things, but all things in heaven and on earth..
Professor Stuart, of Andover College, Mass. says: Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers, for the universe.' See his letters to Dr. Channing on Unitarianism. The correctness of this remark is unquestionable, and therefore, we can say, with the Revelator, that 'every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, shall sing, blessing and honor, glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the lamb forever and ever.' There are but two answers, which I have ever heard given to this text. The first is, that it proves too much, and the second that every creature in heaven, &c. saw John, singing this song, and not that John saw every creature! And why not say this, as well as to say, that 'all things' means 'a part,' and that when Paul says, 'every knee shall bow,' he means, some knees shall bow?
Thus sir, I have considered your assertions, and I think fully sustained my application of the four texts contained in letter No. 7. I have but a short space for remarks on what you have said concerning my 8th letter. And but a few remarks are necessary; for you have not attacked a single position which I there took concerning Gehenna.
You charge me with scurrility in speaking of
Whitfield. Be it remembered, that I have not said a word for or against him. I merely quoted his happy apology for rambling in one of his sermons, to justify my departure from the subject in discussion,
Your proofs that Origen was the first Universalist, next claim our attention. 1. You deny that the Basilidians, Carpocratians, and Valentinians believed in the restoration of all men. But not a word have you given to prove this denial. To say 'I maintain,” I deny,” and 'I assert' is quite easy, but no man who has proof will deal in such things in a controversy like this. In the Ancient History of Universalism, a work of undisputed authority and unrivalled merit, p. 45, we read, "The Carpocratians, who arose at the same time with the Basilidians agreed with them in the final salvation of all souls.' On pp. 42 and 47 the same views are ascribed to the Valentinians.
That these sects were fanatical, I admit, tho' Lardner says, 'that as bad things were said of the primitive christians, as were ever said of them.' Slandering opposing sects has been the besetting sin of Christians in all ages. Look at the vile things said of Methodists, at their first organization. But what if these sects were impious and fanatical, does that prove the doctrine of the restoration false? In all that the fathers said against them, we find not a word of complaint on this ground, which_is indisputable proof, that the doctrine of the Restoration was the common sentiment of that day (A. D. 120.) If it had not been, they would have condemned them for this.