« AnteriorContinuar »
already, that the phrase all men, neither in the sciiptural nor common use, necessarily means all the individuals of the human race; but is very often applied to numerous classes and bodies of men, not meaning the whole of mankind."
Jf we should allow this remark to be just, what then ? Will it necessarily follow that, when St. Paul uses the phrase all men, it means only some numer~ ous class or body of men, and not all tht individuals of the human race? let us try the experiment with St. Paul's language in the 18th and 19th verles of the 5th chapter of his epistle to the Romans. -,
18, 19. *' Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon the Jtwt to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon the Jews to justisication of lise. For as by one man's disobedience the Jews were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall the Jews be made righteous.*'
A man of half common sense, and one dram of honesty of heart, would readily see, and frankly own, that St. Paul must mean the same by oilmen, in one part of the verse, that he does in the other. And what is the inserence, from the reading we have given the verses, in compliance with Mr. S,'s remark? The Jews, most certainly, are all saved. This Mr. S. cannot deny. And what becomes of the reff of mankind, of the whole Gentile world? St. Paul tells us, that^w entered into the world by one man. The Gentile world then have never known sin ;.
jhey are all holy and righteous. They will, therefore, certainly, all be saved. So that universal salvation is most permanently founded on a scheme of Mr. S.'s own fabrication.
It does not avail for Mr. S. or any other man, to attempt to take St. Paul's writings out of the hands of those peraicious errorists, the Ui» niversalists. For common sense will always bo able to reduce any observations they shall make for this purpose, to the grossest absurdity. They had better quietly agree to resign these writings to the Universalists, or to demonstrate to the world that they are interpolated. To explain them, so as to make them speak in favor of eternal misery, they cannot.
Mr. S/'s next observation is, p. 233, " It mast be supposed that St. Paul is consistent with himself in his writings. In the sirst part of this work, I have taken a general view of all his canonical writings, and particularly of his epistle to the Romans, from which this passage is taken; and collected a great number of places, in which future and e* ternal punishment is asserted in the most express terms."
One side of the grand question is, that all xnea will be saved. The other side is, that some men will\iot be saved. How is it proved that some men will not be saved? Plainly, by proving that the future punishment, which it is conceded on all hands, that some will suffer, will be endless.
This- proof must come from reason, or scripture, «J>r both. If from scripture, it will be expressed, or implied. If expressed, it will be in plain, unequivocal language. If implied, the manner of expression will be such as$*o-' communicate the ideas intelligibly, to every intelligent, attentive reader. A thing is not expressed, if doubt and uncertainty attend the mode of expression.
As to the salvation of all men, we say the scripture is express, because it asserts it in plain unequivocal terms, and in so many words.
"God, our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved."—.«' For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one Jball many be made righteous.'*
We fay these passages are express, because they assert the salvation of all men in so many words.
Mr. S. affirms that he has collected a great number 0/places, in which future and eternal punishment is asJerted i% tibe most express terms. If he has made such a collection from St. Paul's writings, he secretes it, from the public, at least, it is not in the book in which he afsirms he has made the collection. He may have given it to the public in some other book.
There is but one single expression, m all those passages which he hath cited from St. Paul, that gives any idea of the continuance of future punishment. If what I now affirm is true, Mr. S.'y affirmation cannot be true. That what 1 affirm is true, any one may satisfy himself, by looking over the passages which Mr. S. hath produced from Sr. Paul's Writ* ings.
What I affirm is this, that but one single word can be found, in all the passages which Mr. S. cites from St. haul's writings, that speaks of the contir.uar.ee of future punishment. And what does not speak of the continuance, certainly does not speak of the eternity, of future punishment. That one word which I reser to, is in a passage cited from 2r* Thes. i. 6—Io. '« Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in il-.ming sire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with tverlajiing destruction, olethron aioonion, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The reader hath already seen the reasons why the word oioonion cannot be admitted to signify perpetuity without end, unless the nature and circumstances of the subject rt quire.it; which Is not the present case.
Scriptures, if there were such, as only imply that future punishment will be without end, cannot be said to assert it in the most express terms. Mr. S. was a little too eager, too full of the idea of eternal misery. He did not mean to write falsehood. He saw several texts that spoke of future punishment, and he instantly added the epithet eternal, in his own
inihd, and finally put it down on paper. I am persuaded this is the way in which his unlucky assertion came abroad.
Another observation of Mr. S. is, p; 234, " Ifwe were reduced to the alternative, either of saying this passage means universal salvatiofi • or of saying, we know nothing of its meaning, the last must be chosen to preserve any consistency in the writings of this apostle." What if I should propose some alternatives respecting St. Paul's writings? Either St. Paul means universal salvation in this 5th chapter to the Romans i or he means that which is directly contrary to what he afsirmed; when he said, for be must reign, till be bath put all enemies under bis feet. The last enemy that /ball be destroyed is death,-.Contrary also to what he afsirmed, when he said, And so all Israel Jhall be saved -, as it is written, There shall come out of Siori the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, #hen 1 shall take away their sins..-— Contrary also to his Own most express assertion, when he said, For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. And (having mads peace through the blood of bis croft) by him to reconcile all things to himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.—Contrary to his own assertion, when he said, Arid that be might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the cross, bavingflain the enmity thereby.—Contrary to what he' affirmed,- when be said, having mdde known Unto ui A at the'