DISCUSSION, PART II. No. IV. IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 25, 1843. BY F. YATES. "But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." GALATIANS, I. 7. It would seem that there were those in the days of the apostles, who were not satisfied with the pure gospel of Christ, but who differed very essentially from the plain truths it inculcated. Some of these had found their way into the church at Galatia; and in order that they might the more successfully palm their false notions off upon the Christian Church, they came as gospel ministers. We, (say they) are set for the defence of the gospel hear us." But the apostle Paul met these self-made ministers, and faithfully exposed them. In every age of the church, the robe of the sanctuary has been stolen, with which to propagate the most absurd and dangerous errors. My opponent thinks he is set for the defence of the gospel, and he says "the gospel is good news," &c. So say we, the gospel is good tidings of great joy, but not so on the hypothesis that universalism is true. To be sure, its advocates tell us that all is well, no danger, no one lost, no one can be lost. The gospel, which is such good news, only assures us that we were never in danger of the wrath to come, never in danger of hell fire, and never can be lost. This is glorious news! A man runs through the country in time of peace and quietness, when no one imagines any danger, and cries "good news! good news! glorious tidings!" and when inquired of what it is; "O, there is no war no danger of war." The people would laugh at his folly. But here is another case: A famine was prevailing to a great extent in the city of Samaria. The people were dying with hunger by multitudes. The four leprous men who stood at the gate, went to the camp of the Asyrians, which, to their great joy and astonishment, they found in their quiet possession, with an abundance of provisions. "This," said they, "is a day of good tidings- let us declare it to the king's household." Now if Samaria had been full, and there was no danger of want or starvation, this would not have been a day of such good tidings. Again, if any in the city had been disposed to doubt the message, and had perished in consequence, it would have been a true message, and good tidings still, notwithstanding their unbelief. So the gospel. It comes to a guilty and perishing world, with offers of pardon and salvation. These offers are made to all people, and it is good news, whether men receive it or reject it. On the supposition that men have exposed themselves to endless punishment by transgression, and have no means of saving themselves from this awful doom, the gospel, which brings to view a plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, is indeed good news. My opponent thinks I had better let our hearers decide whether my arguments have been answered or not, and not presume to set myself up, &c. I reply, that when my principal arguments are passed by a second time without even a notice, I have a right to remind him, and our hearers of the fact; and I shall not sit at his feet to learn lessons of modesty. I presume our hearers will recollect that my arguments presented and repeated to prove my application of Matt. xxv. 31 -46, to the future state, were not even noticed, though his attention was called to them especially. Other prominent ones might be named. I. He thinks he is under no obligation to notice my re res marks on the text he quoted from Acts iii. concerning the " titution of all things," as he did not produce it as one of his proof texts. If he did not introduce it as a proof text, he regarded it as teaching that all men will be finally holy and happy, and has quoted it frequently in the course of this discussion. Now that I have met it, and proved from the text and its connection, that it is fatal to his theory, he drops it by say ing he did not introduce it as a proof text. Would he have passed by in silence, the two arguments I raised against his doctrine from one of his own texts, if he could have done any better. The promise made to the ancient patriarchs, he still contends must prove the unconditional salvation of all men, but he has used no new argument to prove this, neither has he reconciled this idea with Paul's application of the promise. Although I consider the remarks made in my first reply sufficient on this point to satisfy any one who is willing to receive the plain testimony of God's word, yet I will here add a few remarks to show our hearers again, the obvious import of the promise in question. It is admitted that it is universal and unconditional in some respects. 1. So far as it relates to the advent of the Savior, it is unconditional, and his death has procured blessings which are universal and unconditional, such as our temporal blessings, for "in him we live and move and have our being." And blessings of a spiritual or gospel character deliverance from the original curse, -"For as by the offence of one judg ment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." In this we see how infants and idiots can be saved, and those heathen too, who obey the law that is written on their hearts by the "Spirit that enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." But 2. It is perfectly clear, that so far as it relates to individuals who have involved personal condemnation, and who are capable of receiving the gospel, and of embracing its terms, it is conditional. We say those who are capable of receiving the gospel, for the word of God addresses 1 - a volun This must be self-evi itself to no others. It regards man as a moral agent tary being. It addresses him as such. dent to every man. To such the gospel comes with its condi tions. But I must notice again his arguments to prove unconditional salvation. I will present his principal one, and try to meet it. "Acts iii. the apostle testifies to the Jews that in accordance with the promise God sent his Son to bless in 'turning away every one from his iniquities, i. e. in saving every individual from his sins.'-"The preceding verse answers the question, Who are to be blessed in Christ? which testimony is, that God covenanted with Abraham, saying, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.' Is there any condition expressed or implied here? I can discover none. If there is, will my brother point it out distinctly?" This, I think, presents the strength of his argument; and for the satisfaction of our hearers I will submit the following remarks: 1. Let it be remembered that this scripture, containing the promise, is produced by my opponent in proof of "future, and eternal salvation." This he contends is the salvation brought to view in the promise. Bear this in mind. 2. I will now prove to you, from this very text and its connection, that the salvation it treats of is conditional. Hear the testimony "for Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 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 you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." How clearly does this bear on its very face conditions of salvation. (1.) Jesus was sent to the Jews, according to the promise, made to the fathers, that he might turn them from their iniquities. Mark, he was sent for this purpose; but they were not all turned from their iniquities. It does not assert that he will turn them in the future state. He "was sent" to do it in the days of his flesh, and the fact that he did not do it proves at least a condition implied. (2.) It is positively asserted that "every soul which will not hear" the Son Jesus, "shall be destroyed from among the people." Thus the salvation spoken of in the text, which my opponent says is future and eternal, is made to depend on the condition of hearing Christ, which implies faith and obedience. I trust I have now "distinctly pointed out" the condition, which is not only "implied," but "expressed." I will introduce once more, Paul's application of the promise in Gal. iii. Still bear in mind that the salvation promised embraces the future and eternal salvation. So says my opponent. "So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. For ye [believers] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."— The same apostle speaks again of the heirship on this wise, Rom. viii. "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. If children then are heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." What can be plainer? But my opponent tries to evade the force of this reasoning, by saying that all that relates to the condition of salvation refers to the special salvation of believers in this life. But he is a little too late, having applied the very scriptures to future salvation, which we have seen proves salvation to be conditional! He has undertaken to tell us what the special salvation of believers is. He says, "should any desire to know in what the special salvation of believers consists, this is my reply: In believing the glorious truth that "God is the Savior of all men," they enter into rest," &c. By this he means, that to believe in universalism is the condition of the special blessings promised in this life! I beg leave to dissent from this. My hear |