1

Christ died and rose from the dead; and by destroying the devil the apostle does not mean a literal destruction, as my opponent seems to think, but a destruction of his power, by which he had held the children of God in bondage through the fear of death, verse 15. And the apostle applies this to the time which then was, and not to the future state. If then it proves universal salvation, it must be that all men are now, and have been for eighteen hundred years, saved, and the devil actually destroyed.

you, in

We next meet with the promises made to the patriarchs of "a seed, in whom all the families and nations of the earth were to be blessed ;" and for the accomplishment of these we are referred to Gal. iii, 8, "The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham," &c, and to Acts iii, 25, 26, “ Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless turning away every one of you from his iniquities." I have recited these passages at length, that you may see for yourselves that the promises here mentioned relate to the calling of the Gentiles, when "the middle wall of partition," ," which had stood between them and the Jews, was taken away by the death of Christ. To this they were applied by the apostles. They, therefore, afford no proof of the future salvation of all men. They have no aspect that way, unless being "blessed," means to be actually and for ever saved. But this is the thing to be proved, and not taken for granted. This, however, cannot be proved; because many Jews and Gentiles who were in the apostles' days, and since then, blessed with the offers of salvation, were not actually saved. But what surprises me most of all is, to hear my opponent say, and repeat it, that the blessing contained in these promises is "justifi

cation through faith." I could hardly believe my own eyes, till I had read this passage again and again. He here gives up the whole ground work of his system, and assents to that which we have always contended for against Universalism, viz. "justification through faith." This makes justification to be conditional to all intents and purposes; for if justification be through faith, then faith is first, and justification is dependent on it as its medium. Thus, if you say water is conveyed through an aqueduct, the idea is that the aqueduct was first laid; and then the water passed through it, being dependent on it for its passage. If you say that you received a letter from your friend through the post office, you do thereby acknowledge that the post office was first, before the receipt of the letter, and the letter was dependent on that medium for its conveyance. And this concession is the more important, as it occurs in the very place where he is labouring to prove the salvation of all men. He uses the word "justification" as synonymous with "salvation." If then salvation be "through" faith, he can have no reasonable objection to admit that repentance and obedience are conditions in the same sense; for they are both implied in faith. Here, then, if he will stand to what he has said, we will make up, and there shall be no more controversy between us. But something whispers me that this dropped from his pen in an unguarded moment, and that when he sees what he has done he will endeavour to be off: I think it, therefore, best to proceed in my

answer.

We are told that "God promised to give his Son the Heathen for his inheritance," &c. But this relates to the calling of the Gentiles, and has nothing to do with the future salvation of all mankind. He reasons from the "profiting" of the regenerate "children of God" by the chastisements of their Father, that all will be saved, though all are not the regenerate children of God. “Must

we not suppose," he says, "that all who are chastised will receive profit, and that all who receive profit, will be saved? If not, will not the purpose of God be frustrated ?" If my hearers will have the goodness to refer to the foregoing illustration, they may recollect an instance of reasoning similar to this and to what follows: "Christ will draw all men unto him." But does this prove that all will "come" to him when he draws them? Has he not drawn thousands by the strivings of the Spirit, and the invitations of the Gospel, who never came to him— who perished in their sins?" God hath revealed his purpose of gathering together all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth," &c. But this text expressly limits those who are to be gathered into one body, to those who are "in Christ;" but all men are not in Christ; for he tells us of some branches in him that are taken away and cast into the fire. Phil. ii, 9-11, is quoted, where it is said, "That every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This passage is taken from Isa. xlv, 23-is quoted again, in Rom. xiv, 10-12, and in every place it is used by way of admonition. In Romans the apostle applies it to the general judgment, where “ every one must give account of himself to God." The bowing and confessing, therefore, in this passage, are, on the part of the righteous, acts of voluntary worship; on the part of the wicked, they are constrained. I must here again refer to the specimen of reasoning in the foregoing illustration, for an answer to what follows, till we come to the last passage under this head, Rev. v, 13, which speaks of "every creature in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, as ascribing blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever." What if I should here also present my opponent with a piece of his own coin? It may be re

membered that when I quoted a passage from this book to prove a future judgment, an exception was taken to it, on account of the general character of the book as "figurative." We now have a quotation from the most figurative part of the book, and every thing is taken literally. Is this consistent? Does it indicate that his objection on the other occasion, or his argument on the present, proceeds on well defined principles? But I follow him a little farther with his own rules: How does he know that this passage relates to the future state? It does not "say" this; and if a passage must always say what it means, in so many words, as he thought the other evening, why should he this evening bring a passage to prove what it does not say? Does this indicate any established rules for interpreting Scripture? But I spare him. I have no pleasure in torturing a man as upon the rack; and were he not identified with the errors he supports, and did not a sense of duty to the cause of truth and righteousness compel me, I should not have said so much as I have. One thought, however, spoils his conclusion from this text,-If, as he supposes, the text relates to the consummation of the heavenly society, it is a period subsequent to the casting of the wicked into hell; which will account for no mention being made of the inhabitants of those regions joining in the general chorus of praise to God and the Lamb.

I have only one argument more to notice, and that is built upon the law, which requires us to "love God with all our heart," &c, in connection with our Saviour's words, "heaven and earth shall pass away; but one jot or tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." When he says "that this law is binding on all the children of God," he speaks a great truth; but when he adds, " And -Christ declares that all mankind shall fulfil it," he speaks a great-error. This "law has been binding," not only "on all the children of God,” but on all mankind since the

66

world began; but we know that all have not fulfilled it; and if my opponent's faith that it will be fulfilled by all mankind, rest upon that phrase " shall not pass-till all be fulfilled," then his faith rests on no better foundation than a mere Hebraism; and he might just as well suppose that the man who was cast into prison, because "he had not to pay," could nevertheless, in close confinement pay a debt of "ten thousand talents," because it was said, "he should not come out till he should pay all that was due."

I had intended to go farther with this answer, and to follow my opponent's proofs with a large list of threatenings, declarative of the penalty of the Divine law, and calculated to throw light on our subject, by showing that both promises and threatenings, expressed in universal language, are generally figurative and conditional. The threatenings of the law are expressed in terms as general as the promises, and are no doubt as true. I had intended also to state arguments against the doctrine I oppose, which have not been brought into view, and perhaps will not be, in the course of this discussion. But this answer being much longer than I expected, I am compelled to close.

Nov. 15, 1827.

ANSWER III.

Remarks on Mr. Paige's Reply to Answer II.

"He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi, 16.

As the discussion on the conditions of salvation has taken a wide range, and embraced some foreign matter, it is now thought best to confine it to the original question as far as possible; in order to which it may be proper to take a general view of my second lecture, that we may have before us the several points to which the arguments on both sides should be directed.