for Jesus spoke of this as already accomplished, and of that as yet to come.

With the latitude given us by our author, we can make the Bible mean what we please. Clad with this armor, we should consider ourselves invulnerable; we should even venture to approach the strong hold of our opponent. Should he, to confine all punishment to the destruction of Jerusalem, cite the saying of the Savior, all these things shall take place in this generation, we should have only to inform him that the Scriptures speak of things already past as yet future. So when he cites the dead shall be raised,” we can reply, this is already past according to Scripture language. The merits of our reviewer's remark upon Matt. xi. 24, is happily expressed in his own language: "Such arguments always refute themselves, as they carry no conviction with them excepting that something is wanting in the person that uses them."

As evidence of his system, our opponent quotes several texts ;="The wages of sin is death-He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption," &c.--Upon these passages we submit his own mode of reasoning, and however evasive it may appear to the reader, our author can have no reason to complain. "Now, what of all this?” “How is it possible that a passage of scripture should prove that which it says nothing about?” “Does the apostle speak of all punishment being confined to this world ? Certainly not.” “Why does he not tell us in what his argument consists ?” If there is any thing in the Bible. that declares his views, where is it?"

Again ; our author pretends that punishment is trot apportioned to the malignity of our crimes. But does this accord with the language of Scripture ? «With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. again.”-Once more; our author says, "We conceive nose had thought of future punishment during the long perion in which the Scriptures were written.'-We conceive they had. Thus have we noticed whatever

appeared to us worthy of attention, and the remarks are submitted to the public.

HYRAM. Erratum. Vol. 2d, p. 52, bottom line, for wanted read awarded.

N. B. It was the intention of the Editor to have published the writings* of Hyram's opponent in this controversy, that our readers might see what is offered on both sides of the question ; but, altho we take the (Philadelphia) Universalist Magazine, the No. which contains the piece Hyram now answers, has not arrived at the office of the Christian Repository.



UNIVERSALISTS CONVERTED IN BAKERSFIELD! From the Evangelical Monitor, page 165, we give the following extract, from the pen of the Rev. Mr. Boardman.

"I have not time, dear sir, to give you a particular account of the wonderful dealings of God among this people of late. Very many exhibit the fruits of that great moral change, which can be produced only by the special influences of the Holy Spirit. Already between 80 and 90 háve united with the church, and pearly forty more are reckoned among the subjects of renewing grace in the awakening:

Many of these were heads of families, and had advocated the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Several, who in the commencement of the work, were its most violent opposers,

have since become its warmest friends. When they came forward to relate to the Church what the Lord had done for their souls, they declared that for years, they had rested their immortal interests upon this sandy foundation. They also declared that they were brought by the grace of God to see themselves without a resting place, and to fly to the arms of a sin-hating and a sin-pardoning God. Many of this character have renounced their former

*Received since the above was sent to the press.

sentiments, and embraced the distinguishing doctrines of the Cross."

In the above extract, we notice what these new converts were brought to embrace, and how they were brought to embrace what they did.

1. They "embraced the distinguishing doctrines of the Cross.”

2. They were brought "by the special influences of the Holy Spirit.”

These are modern theological phrases. They are peither the language, nor the doctrine of the Bible. The Bible doctrine of the cross is contained in the following passages, which we exhort our readers to view carefully, and see if they can discern any thing, like the distinguishing doctrines above named. Ephe. ii. 15, 16, 17. “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached PEACE to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.”-No distinguishing doctrine here. Col. i. 19, 20. “For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell; and having made PEACE by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”- Look at this, another testimony of the Bible doctrine of the cross. We give one more. See Phil ii. 8, 9, 10, 11. “And, being found in fashion as a man; he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a '

name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth : and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The writer says, “They also declared that they were brought by the grace of God to see themselves

without a resting place." By:"the grace of God," we are here to understand, no doubt, what was before stated the special influences of the Holy Spirit.” It is what theologians call special grace. "Þivines,” says a writer, “haye distinguished grace into common or general, special or particular. Special grace, is that which is peculiar to some persons only."

Now as those people were brought by “special influences” to embrace the distinguishing doctrines of the cross," we think it is undeniable, that they must have been brought by special grace ; such as saves some people, and leaves others. St. Paul says, “The grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared.”+ This is a saving grace, but not the grace that converted the people in Bakersfield, and that vicinity according to Mr. Boardman ; because they were convorted by “special influences ;" whereas this is the grace of God that saves all men. See Titus ii. 11, 12. By the grace of God, Christ tasted death for every man. -Heb. ii. 9. We think the modern theological phrases, "distinguishing doctrines of the cross," “special influence," "special grace,” &c. are cuculated to deceive the people, and, therefore, ought to be explained

and compared with the scripture. If Mr. Boardman has given a correct account of the Universalists in his vicinity, we do not wonder that they were shaken. They ought to have placed their hopes upon their Savior, and not on any particular system of doctrine whatever. But if they have embraced the distinguishing doctrines of the cross, we think they need another conversion to the Bible doctrine of the cross. Respecting the remarkable instance of the old man, who had been a strong Universalist for many years, the account appears to be so special and distinguishing, that we think it would have afforded an additional interest, had the public been

* Buck's Theological Dictionary, page 171, column 2d.

+ In this translation, we have adopted the marginal reading, and are supported by the translations of Wakefield, and the Improved Version.

favored with his name. Have the Philistinęs slain Saul? Then let David ascend the throne.


Continued. In opposition to the doctrine of free agency, we have heard it asserted that it implies "sovereignty.” A certain writer says, “This is fairly deducible from the signification which all professed denominations of Christians give the term." Perhaps it may be as difficult to tell what the writer means by sovereignty, as to make him acquainted with what we mean by free agency. If by sovereignty is meant what is cominonly understood ; namely, supremacy, the inference must be very foreign to the subject. Because men are free in their actions, are they sovereigns ? Who then are their subjects ? No man, because every man is a lord. For this reason, perhaps, an opposer will say, they cannot be free. But if freedom imply sovereignty, what shall we do with the scriptures ? St. Paul said, he was free born. Did that constitute him a proper sovereign? In another place he interrogates, "Am I not free po And Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free.” No one supposes he meant, The truth will make a man a sovereign or a lord.

If by man's being a sovereign is meant the power of self government, we accede to the idea. Not that man possesses

this power to an unlimited extent, but according to the prescribed powers which experience teaches that God has bestowed upon us.

Altho we would not differ about words, we can hardly conceive that this power constitutes a proper sovereignty. But we are very sensible that by giving it this term, it forms a very plausible objection to the divine sove: reignty, and affords the abettors of absolute necessity,. a weapon with which they appear loth to part.

Another argument against free agency is, that it destroys man's dependence on his Creator. But we

« ForrigeFortsett »