Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for deliverance, instead of being treated ironically!— These words are certainly too serious and portentous for a mere irony! It should also be considered that it is said, he that is righteous let him be righteous still,' &c., and would Mr. Winchester say that this is a mere irony? -The cases are exactly parallel, and there is as much evidence of irony in one as the other.

He proceeds: If it were allowed that the above scrip tures limit the day of grace, they by no means indicate that a preparation for heaven is confined to the present life.' .'” (Ibid.) In this we think him mistaken. But as this is an important point we shall here introduce a num. ber of considerations which will contain some additional evidence in favor of the position, that a preparation for Heaven is confined to the present life.'

[ocr errors]

.

1. We are told in the scriptures that now is the accepted time-and day of salvation," and are exhorted to day to hear his voice' and not to harden our hearts' and to seek the Lord while he may be found and call up on him while he is near.' [See 2 Cor. vi, 2. Heb. iv, 7. Isa. lv, 6.] From these scriptures we infer that, this is the day of grace, or salvation;-but a time will come, when, if we shall have hardened our hearts, the Lord will not be found:-That will not be the day of salvation, but the day of retribution.

2. The shortness and uncertainty of human life are urged as a reason why we should attend to the business of securing an interest in Christ. [See Luke xii, 35–48. 1 Pet. iv, 7. Eccl. ix, 10.] But upon the supposition that the day of grace continues after death those arguments would be without force--for it might be at once replied: if this business is not accomplished in this life, it may be, yea it certainly will be in the life to come!

3. We are expressly told that there is no work, nor devise, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither' we go, that' the night cometh wherein no man can work. [See Eccl. ix, 10. John ix, 4.] Hence it appears that this work cannot be done after death. Does not this expressly limit the day of grace to this life?-Certainly unless indeed the day of grace will continue, when there is no work to be done no device to be invented-no knowledge or wisdom to be exercised by us, in what

our hand findeth to do!-The learned Jewish Rabbi Kim"There is no conversion of the soul after

chi says:

death."

But 4. There is no scripture evidence for an opportu nity, after death, of obtaining an interest in Christ.We are no where told that the work that shall remain undone at death, shall be done afterwards. This upon the Restoration hypothesis is altogether unaccountable!

But upon the supposition that the day of grace will continue after death to some unknown period, even to "ages of ages," as we cannot be certain that those who remain unsanctified after death, will then be treated essentially different from what they are in this world: As we know not that their agency will then be ovèrruled-that salvation will then be forced upon them contrary to their desire ;-and that they will not then have the same unholy opposition to God, and the same power to rebel against him:--it would still be uncertain whether they would so improve their opportunity as to be saved! For anything that appears, it may be as difficult to persuade men to love God and comply with the terms of reconciliation after death as before. Supposing then the day of grace to continue after death, what evidence does it afford of the Universal Restoration?

The editor quotes one scripture" as entirely decisive in this case: it is Rom. v, 20. 21. "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin bath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." [See P. 186.] As he has often introduced this passage in this discussion, it will be proper, in this place, to enquire into its true meaning. He has built no particular argument upon it: But Mr. Winchester argues from it thus:

Sin reigned unto death this is certain; so shall grace reign through righteousness, not only so far as to make life possible to all, but certain for all; or else the reign of grace would not be so extensive and powerful as that of sin." [See Winchester's Lectures Vol. II, P. 264.] In answer to this it is urged 1, "That the phrase grace did more abound has no reference to numbers; because sin abounded to all, and grace could not abound to more than all. 2. That the Apostle in the comparison which he Araws between Adam and Christ, considers the con dem

nation of the one offence, of Adam, as coming upon all mankind then in him: and so on the other hand he allows that by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.' Here the subjects of condemnation and justification are exactly the same in all respects. But the Apostle does not stop here.He carries the advantages on the part of Christ beyond the disadvantages on Adam's side of the comparison. For 3. He shows that provision is made for many offences ⚫ and not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift, for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence, death reigned by one; much more they which received abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.' (Verses 16, 17.) But then the question is, are all mankind the receivers of this grace and the gift of righteousness? For of such only, it is said that where sin abounded grace did much more abound. The Universalists say yes; but matter of fact and the word of God say no." (Universal Salvation Refuted pp. 57, 38.)

In his conclusion he pronounces all the evidence which we have produced in favor of eternal punishment," presumptive" & "equivocal" at the best: for he says, "there is not a term or form of speech applied to misery that is not applied to things which we know come to an end." (P. 186.) Not to say that this is a loose and unguarded statement, made without a due regard to fact;-we would observe; that we have seen in the course of this investigation that the same terms and forms of speech, are used with reference to the duration of future punishment, which are ordinarily used with reference to the duration of the happiness of the righteous, the existence of God, &c. The editor then in order to be consistent with himself, ought of course, to conclude, that the evidence of the eternity of happiness, and the eternity of God, is also ❝ equivocal!"

[ocr errors]

But as it must be acknowledged that the doctrine of eternal misery, if it be true, is of as much importance as that of the eternal happiness of the glorified, he wishes to know, why the scriptures do not establish it with as much certainty." (Ibid,) We answer they do!-But he quotes Isa. lv, 17, as more "positive" than any thing

[ocr errors]

which can be found for eternal punishment Mr. Kneeland in debate with Mr. M Calla challenged him to bring a passage where the same phrase is used in reference to punishment, as is used in this passage in reference to happiness, rendered world without end? And Mr. M' Calla gave him as substantially the same. Ps. ix. 5."Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name forever and ever, or to the eternity of endless duration. or world without end." (See M Calla on Universalism pp. 276, 277.) But supposing that a phrase could not be found of precisely as many words-just so arranged-if there be plain and positive testimony that is equivalent, ought not this to satisfy us? Well, this, we contend we have!

Those who have attended to what we have ́adduced in proof of the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have noticed the difficulty which Examiner has found in getting round it, will know how to estimate his assertion that he finds "not a single passage to defend it from the weight of testimony against it." (Ibid.) He has adduced some "testimony against" our doctrine, but when correctly understood, it is at once perceived to possess no "weight" whatever, in his favor or against us!

But he thinks this doctrine one in which no good being in heaven or in earth can rejoice, or pray for its accomplishment " (Ibid.) And does he rejoice in limited punishment, and pray for its accomplishment? Did Mr. Winchester, Dr. Chauncey, and others, rejoice that some sinners would remain in hell for " ages of ages,' and pray that it might be accomplished? We should rather suppose not:-and yet they did not question the truth of this doctrine.

We have now completed our review of the editor's “reply." And though we have considerably transcended the bounds, which we originally proposed to this rejoinder, (particularly in the five latter numbers,) we hope not much of it, will be considered altogether redundant. After having viewed his arguments in their strongest light we are still fully persuaded that Universalism is altogether indefensible! But though we still differ from him in sentiment, to his concluding prayer, that "in conducting this controversy, good motives may influence our labours," we most sincerely and heartily respond.AMEN.

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

CONSIDERED, &C.

PART III.

A Defence

OF THE FOREGOING REJOINDER.

No. I. The nature of Salvation.

As fhe editor published five numbers of the rejoinder, he of course must publish something at the same time which would pass for an answer. In this part we shall review this answer, and though we must be brief we shall consider every thing which is important to the general argument.

He commences with an incorrect statement thus: "Observer still perseveres in the sentiment that there is no punishment for any sin save for the sin of rejecting the Mediator." [Vol. II. P. 11.] It appears to us altogether unnecessary to explain this point more particularly than we have done. Were we to do so we could not expect to "remove" his " objections," in his view of the subject:-we would however just observe; that he was perfectly aware that we had said, all sins unrepented of, will be punished in a future state:'-why he should make the above assertion, with this fact before him, we are unable to say. All that he says upon this point was fully answered before it was written, and of course it is unnecessary to add any thing farther. The remark itself

« AnteriorContinuar »