none of his." Although there is to be hereafter a general effusion of the Spirit, it is so far from being universal in all ages, that some who have enjoyed its miraculous gifts, and who have even been personal acquaintances and professed disciples of Christ, shall be pronounced none of his. "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." As, therefore, the workers of iniquity, who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, do not belong to him, and never did, they shall not be made alive in him; wherefore the word all must here be understood in the sense which is limited by the subject to which it is applied. The meaning of the passage is simply this. "As in Adam all [that belong to Adam] die, so in Christ, all [that belong to Christ] shall be made alive." 66 The last passage to be noticed in the latter part of Rom. 5, in which it is said that. "the free gift came upon all men "unto justification of life," and "by the obedience of one "shall many be made righteous." We have already seen that the word all is often used for a part of mankind, and the younger Edwards d has proved, in opposition to Dr. Chauncy, that the same thing may be said of the word many. The whole chapter shews that these all men who receive justification of life, and these many who are made righteous, are justified and made righteous through faith. The chapter begins, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom "also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we "stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." He lets us know that these all men are the same pious us of which he speaks so often. Besides that faith and hope already attributed to them, he says in verse 5th, "the love of God is "shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given. unto us." In verse 4th, they have patience and experience. In verse 10, they are reconciled to God. No wonder then, that in verse 17, they are said to have abundance of grace "and of the gift of righteousness." Are all men universally patient and experienced christians? have all men faith hope, and love? Are all universally reconciled to God? Is the Holy Ghost given to all men? Not so. But let it be remembered that Paul says in this same epistle, "if any man "have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Christ himself has declared that he that believeth not shall be damn σε d Of his writings and his father's, free use is made in this discussion. ed, and that his enemies, who love him not, shall be slain before him. Surely if all men universally enjoyed justification unto life, our infallible judge would not condemn some to be slain. What makes it evident beyond a reasonable doubt, that these all men are believers, is, that the 18th verse, in which they are said to be justified, is introduced by therefore, as an express inference from the 17th, in which they are said to receive abundance of grace, as well as the gift of righteousness and in verse 2nd they are said to have access by "faith into this grace." His promises in verse 17th are concerning believers, and are therefore particular. This calls for a particular and not an universal conclusion. As he does not draw any of those lame conclusions of which my opponent's friends and the enemies of God accuse him, his inference in verse 18th must be confined to believers, which were contemplated in the promises. And Dr. Chauncy's fear that this interpretation would confound the antithesis maintained from verse 12th to the close, is entirely without foundation, as his great antagonist has shown. Is there no antithesis in saying that as the world of sinners transgressed and died in the first Adam their federal head, so the world of believers, are justified and saved in the second Adam, their federal Head? This is the doctrine of the chapter, of the epistle, and of the scriptures. The argument from the extent of Christ's atonement is considered the citadel of Universalism. The result of the examination which it has now received is, that there are some who are not profited by Christ's atonement, but must be sent to prison until they satisfy for themselves, which they can never do. Many plain authorities have been advanced, which shew that Christ died exclusively for those who shall be saved; for his sheep and people, brethren and friends, children and bride, body and church. It has also been shewn by the context of Universalist authorities that the sacred writers mean believers, even where they use such general expressions as many, all, every, the world, and the whole world, in relation to this subject. We conclude therefore, that unbelievers must perish. In the course of this discussion my opponent has been represented as an enemy to the Atonement. The word occurs in our translation of Rom. 5: 11. In his Lecture on this passage, he says, "if this word had been correctly translated, a The meaning of the word damn, 1 "the word atonement, and of course the doctrine of atone"ment, as it is now understood, would not have been found, "(as it is not contained) in the New Testament. Neither is "the doctrine of atonement, i. e. in the sense of making sa"tisfaction to divine justice, by the means of a suffering vic"tim, any where to be found in the Bible." Soon after, in a note, he makes a similar remark concerning "the commonly received doctrine of atonement by vicarious sufferings."a For farther information, he refers us to the article atonement, in Priestley's History of the Corruptions of Christianity, a work which he earnestly recommends to the attention of his readers. Of this work, its own author in the last century, professed to give a compend in this desk; in which he says, "I "regard with horror such doctrines as those of transubstan"tiation, the trinity, atonement, and other corruptions of "christianity." Here then, is the consistency of my opponent and his Universalist and Unitarian friends. They quote scripture to prove their point, although in this very work of Dr. Priestley's, recommended earnestly by my opponent, the inspiration of the Scriptures is as unequivocally denied as in Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. They urge an argument from the extent of Christ's atonement, which presupposes his vicarious satisfaction, and is perfectly nugatory without it; yet they dare, in the face of high heaven, to express as blasphemous an abhorrence of the atonement and its author, as could be expected from devils incarnate, Yet this is the man who calls me brother.b After thus impiously insulting my Divine Master, he gives the sacred name of brother to his unworthy servant. Worthless as I am, I desire no such confraternity. "O my soul! come "not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour be not thou united." a See Lectures, pp. 105. 106. b. Minutes p. 256. "But my brother,-yes, I say my brother, though he is my opponent in this debate, says &c." A DEFENCE. PART SECOND. Thus much concisely concerning the arguments of the Universalists. My own evidence for the Orthodox opinion may now be expected. Preparatory to this, allow me to say a few things concerning the true statement of the question, and the sources from which this evidence shall be drawn. Nothing but the subtlety of Universalist writers makes it necessary, formally to declare that these sources are the inspired oracles exclusively. Mr. Balfour insinuates that we consider the Bible rather scarce of proof, and that on this account, we resort to uninspired Jewish authority. The doctrine of the Targums which he has proved to be on our side, appears to grieve him. He also shews that the Apocrypha which Mr. Winchester had quoted against us,a is really in our favour: and it is very remarkable that they generally denote the state of eternal torment by that word b which is used in the account of the rich man and Lazarus. Although he gives us Josephus and Philo also, we lay but little stress on such writers, in doctrinal matters. If however, my opponent is driven to the hard necessity, of resting an affair of criticism upon uninspired Jewish authority, it would surely be more reasonable to resort to them, than to that Hebrew Professor whom he is so often calling upon in this debate. Instead of comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual, and determining the meaning of Scripture words by scripture usage, he is perpetually appealing to my friend the learned Professor, an uninspired Hebrew, for an ultimate decision on the meaning of the words of inspiration. So anxious is he to have him for an umpire between us, a In his 4th Dialogue he quotes Wisdom xi. 23-26. xii. 1, 2. 16. xv. 1. 2. bans Hades. c2 Esdras, ii. 29 iv. 8. viii. 53. Tobit xiii. 2. Wisdom xvii. 14. Ecclas. xxi. 10. li. 5,6. Song of the three children, verse 66. that he calls upon him no less than four times in the same half hour. In the last of these instances he says, "I now once more "call upon my opponent to submit to the determination of this "point depending on the meaning of these words to the decision "of the Professor, and if he will not consent, I appeal to the "Professor myself, or to any other competent person who "may now be present, to tell me if I am wrong." Thus my opponent who unjustly accuses us of servile regard to human authority, actually goes begging for some Father Confessor, either Jew or Gentile, to tell him whether he is right or wrong and while he professes not to know what opinion the umpire may express, he promises submission to his determination in matters of doctrine and criticism. We might as well decide the question by lot. He has been long challenging the clergy to discuss this important subject with him." Is this decision by unknown and uninspired arbitrators what he means by a discussion? In ascertaining the meaning of words, we should look for higher authority than the mere assertion of any man living? yet in an affair of this sort, my opponent gives Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen and a gentleman of this city, who is really a greater man, as paramount authority. Says he "1 give them as my authori"ty for not using these words according to the common ac"ceptation." These gentlemen are really in my favour; yet the Bible itself is my authority. 66 ૪૯ 66 With regard to the christian church in general, and in overy age, my opponent is much more modest and more correct. He appears to know that his system has never been considered a part of their religion, In his article on the word Universalists, in the spurious edition of Buck's Theological Dictionary, he says, "The sentiments of the Univer“salists were embraced by Origen in the third century, and in "more modern times by Chevalier Ramsay, Dr. Cheyne, Mr. Hartley and others:" Although I could hot, with Bishop Horsley, deny Origen's credibility in matters of fact, the whole Christian world will admit that à diminution of his heathenish eccentricities, would have been a great addition to his Christian character. His follies were many: yet a total denial of future punishment, a doctrine which my opponent has borrowed from Mr. Huntingdon, and which he advocates in this debate, is not acknowledged to be among the articles of Origen's creed. The above extract is, how a Minutes pp. 161. 163. 166. 2 ice. b Minutes pp. 165. 176 |