An appalling conclusion.

A great mistake.

Christ did in this world, as they maintain, affects our condition hereafter in the least degree!

Mr. Thomas very frequently falls into the same er

He refers in his Discussion,' (p. 264,) to the phrase the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world,' "in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." How does it prove this point, when the salvation of the gospel relates only to this present world, and not at all to the final state of mankind?

Again the same writer observes, (p. 261,) "since Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, you must either admit that all will be restored, or consent to the appalling conclusion that Christ died in vain." But if Christ only saves men from sinning in this world,-the only world, according to them, in which sin can be commited,—is not this " appalling conclusion" taught by themselves.

66

So, too, in commenting on the words' He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world'-he remarks, (p. 267,) "All I now contend for, is, that the salvation of all mankind was contemplated in the mission of Christ.”—" And to grant (p. 269,) that sufficient provision has been made for the salvation of all, is equivalent to an admission that all men will be saved;"-but where? Not in a future state, but in this. Not from punishment, but from sin. Are then all saved from sin in this life? No. Then all will not be-are not certainly saved even in this world; and this salvation does not concern another world!

Shifting their position.

Subterfuges.

But I need not cite further examples in point. Mr. Thomas' book, is wholly based on this fallacy. From beginning to end he refers to such texts in proof of the salvation of all mankind in another state. And I scarcely know one of their books in which this sophistry does not appear. They are continually shifting their ground -now maintaining that salvation has nothing to do with a future state, and that Christ's death accomplishes nothing for us except while we remain here in this world, and then proving that all men will be taken to dwell for ever in heaven, freed from all sin and sorrow, because Christ died for all, and is, or was, the Savior of the world!!! Away with such dishonesty— such pitiful subterfuges such tricks and double meanings. It shows that they do not believe their own definitions and doctrines, when they are thus driven to swallow their own words. A long schooling it needs, indeed, for men to unlearn the plainest lessons of com

mon sense.

CHAPTER XIV.

DENIAL OF THE TRINITY.

No need of an Incarnate God-Christ only a man- -No truth in the doctrine of the Trinity-Views of MurrayThe Trinity exploded by Hosea Ballou-Christ superior to other men only by office-Christ not possessed of two natures, human and superhuman-Socinianism favorable to devotion-They profess to honor Christ more than others.

66

'They now are deem'd the faithful, and are prais'd,
Who, constant only in rejecting THEE,

Deny thy Godhead with a martyr's zeal,

Blind and in love with darkness! Yet e'en these
Worthy, compar'd with sycophants, who knee

Thy name adoring, and then preach thee man!"-CowPER.

UNIVERSALISM has no need of an Incarnate God. Man may be fitted to act the part of such a Savior as this system sets forth. The Savior of the Universalist is merely a distinguished philanthropist—an ardent lover of his race, and a pure specimen of human nature. He is superior to man, but only as one man is superior to another. He is exalted over even the highest, but this is owing to the fact, that God has anointed him with the oil of Gladness above his fellows. The orthodox Christian has learned from his Bible, that, 66 in the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God;" that this same WORD,

Jesus Christ only a man.

Murray a Sabeliian.

that was God," was made flesh and dwelt among us;" became incarnate, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; so that "God was manifest in the flesh," God became incarnate God became man. The Universalist, on the other hand, does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth, or any part of the spiritual nature of Jesus had any existence in the beginning, or even before his conception as a human being. He maintains that

XV. JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A MAN OF SUPERIOR GIFTS. And consequently, that

XVI. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION OF PERSONS IN THE DEITY.

These two articles of their creed are so connected that it will be proper to consider them together. By holding the inferiority of the Son, they of course, exclude equality with the Father, and so deny the Trinity. In this respect they are Socinians of the lowest stamp.

"Father Murray" was a Sabellian-neither a Trinitarian, properly, nor yet a Socinian. The editor of his 'Life,' in an exhibition of his faith, represents him, (p. 264,) as a believer in the complex character of the Divine Being, after this manner;—" In process of time this august CREATOR, was to be enrobed in humanity, and become the SoN born; was to be exhibited as a HOLY SPIRIT of consolation, taking of the things of Jesus, and exhibiting them to the mind, thus speaking peace."

Murray's views of Christ.

These views discarded.

"Mr. Murray was at the same time a UNITARIAN and a TRINITARIAN, constantly beholding the trinity in unity. -The Almighty, clad in garments of flesh, became the GOD-MAN, and speaking of himself as man, he says'My Father is greater than I;' while reverting to the divinity he affirms-I and my Father are one.' Was this true or was Jesus Christ an imposter? In this view the Scriptures are beautifully consistent. 'I am God THE SAVIOR; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.'-Such were the comprehensive views of Deity, which became more and more luminous to the mental eye of the preacher."

Although Mr. Murray held the doctrine of the Trinity, if at all, only in a modified sense, he certainly regarded Jesus of Nazareth, as the SUPREME GOD INCARNATE. "It is manifest," he says, (' Letters and Sketches,' I. 81,)" that our Savior Jesus Christ, is both God and man. All fulness dwelleth in him. He was the God with us. The fullness of the God-head dwelling in him was the offended Being; the fullness of our humanity in him was the offending nature." The two distinct and independent natures of Christ, are here most fully and plainly set forth. "These sentiments,” says Mr. Everett, the editor of the fifth edition of his "Life,'" are held, (p. 279,) but by few among those now denominated Universalists." This departure from their great leader will now be shown by a reference to their authorities.

It was owing to the superior discernment of Hosea Ballou, as I have already shown, that the doctrine of