Page images
PDF
EPUB

which we also contend." But that was not the point in dispute, but whether the verb "believeth not" is to be taken in the present or future time. This is little better than downright equivocation.

He makes a farther attempt to support his conclusion from our argument, that it would damn all heathen and infants. He informs you that I said 'infants cannot be unbelievers, for the reason that they have no belief or knowledge of the subject. Here he has omitted three of my arguments to show that infants cannot be unbelievers, and has ascribed to me one that I did not use. I did not say that "infants cannot be unbelievers for the reason that they have no belief." I should have concluded that this was an accident, were it not that he says, I said this "to evade the force of his argument." But surely he ought not to accuse me of "evasion," and then to make it out, ascribe to me an absurd argument that I did not use, and omit three sound ones that I did use. But he says "he has been in the habit of thinking that an unbeliever was one who did not believe, and that unbelief signified simply a want of belief." This then was not a hasty thought, or sudden conclusion with him, but what he was in the habit of thinking. But we have "been in the habit of thinking" that unbelief, as well as belief, implies moral action; and that if it be not so, a horse may be an unbeliever as well as a man; for I ask, does a horse believe? The answer must be, no ;-then, says my opponent,

a horse is an unbeliever, "because unbelief signifies simply a want of belief.” :

Again. He thinks that our argument built on the words, "He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," "hangs up the heathen between heaven and hell as fit for neither:" because if they have not faith in Christ they cannot be saved; and "if they have not unbelief they cannot be damned." Had he attended properly to Rom. ii, 12, and to the observations on it, when that passage was under consideration in the discussion on future judgment, he would have seen that different nations are under different dispensations of light, and that each is to be judged according to the light of his dispensation. Those under the Gospel will be judged by the Gospel; those under the law of Moses, by the law of Moses; and those under what is called "the law of nature," by the law of nature; and according to their respective dispensations will be saved or lost. And therefore the heathen who never had the offer of Christ, can have neither faith nor unbelief in the Gospel sense of those words.

In my last answer I considered the case of Paul, as I supposed my opponent intended it, as one of his two arguments to show that the self murderer, the drunkard who dies while he is drunk, &c., may be made holy without their own agency; and proved, if I mistake not, that it was not a case in point. My opponent now gives us to understand that he produced that

case for another purpose, viz., to show that sinners receive their whole desert of punishment in this life. Whether he has given it this turn to evade the force of my remarks, (as he has not replied to them,) I cannot tell; but he has again fallen into a little inaccuracy in representing me as saying "that Paul was a very good man before he was converted." I neither said, nor implied this. My words were, "in many respects he was an amiable man." I never disputed, however, that on the whole, he was a great sinner and as it respects his suffering the whole penalty of the law in his own person, I still feel justified in saying, notwithstanding the loud complaint of my opponent, that if he did so, he was never pardoned. And if I "fight a man of straw," when I assert this, my opponent will have to encounter a giant, when he undertakes to show that the man whose sins are all forgiven, is nevertheless holden to suffer the whole penalty of the law in his own person. And this he must now do, or cease his complaints in future.

Once more. To show that he who dies in a state of intoxication may be made holy, it is said, 1. “That all things are possible with God." We dispute this, unless it be qualified; for "God cannot lie,"-" God cannot deny himself;" and if God has made man a free agent, given him his law, and required his obedience as the condition of his salvation, he cannot save him in a different way without denying himself.

2. It is said, "If it be a fact that the Scriptures declare that God will make all men holy in his own time, this supposed case (is it not a real case?) cannot prove that such person shall never be made holy."-True, "if the Scriptures declare" this: but this is the point to be proved, and not taken for granted.

3. A case is supposed, of two men born at the same time, one lives a notoriously wicked life, and at last is executed for murder: but just before his execution experiences converting grace, and goes to heaven. The other lives a good, moral, and Christian life, till just before he dies he gets drunk, dies in that state, and goes to hell. Now it is supposed that these cases form a strong objection to our doctrine, because the one is not rewarded according to his good deeds, nor the other punished according to his sins. But we cannot see that these cases form any objection at all to our doctrine, since they take place according to the statute of Christ's kingdom, "in such case made and provided." This case may be fully illustrated by reference to "the story of rebellion and the president's proclamation," which you no doubt remember. One of the "rebels" stands out till the last hour of the space allowed by the proclamation for the submission of the rebels, when he submits, is pardoned, escapes the gallows, and enjoys all the privileges of society. Another, who had been true to his country all his days, or had been pardoned on the first promulgation of the proclamation, rebels at the

last hour, and is hung for it. I leave you to make the application.

I have now gone over with all that part of the reply which was intended to apply to my lecture, and what do we find? We find, as before, that the principal points in my lecture remain untouched. To this hour my opponent has never examined one of the many texts alleged in proof of conditions, to see whether they require repentance, faith, and obedience, as the actions of free agents, or only express what they must have in a passive sense, as when it is supposed that God impresses these virtues upon the soul in a state of intoxication. Nor has he applied a single remark to obviate the awful consequences of asserting that God makes the impenitent sinner holy at the last moment of his life, while he dies in a state of intoxication. What becomes of the truth of the Divine threatenings, and of the honour of the Lawgiver in this case, we are left to conjecture. He has not brought a single text of Scripture to bear directly on the point of free agency, conditions, or God's making the sinner holy at the last moment of his life. He

has in no instance, except that of the verbs in the apostles' commission, attempted a close examination of my argument, and we have seen how he has succeeded in that. In general he entirely overlooks my arguments, as in the case of conditions being parts of salvation, or has merely glanced at them. If I wrongfully accuse him here, he has it in his power

« PreviousContinue »