תמונות בעמוד


[ocr errors]


Med såys, « The love of God, is a pleasing theme, but it is not to be estiinated by the passiou of human nature. How far this assertion's right, will be seen by teferring to John, 1:4 7. 'where what is here termed the passion of human nature is considered in itielf of a divine

tinti?T 11.9**+.37 origin.

; “ The apostle's apothegm (we are told) contains a delightful truihin Goy, is LOY; but love in God is one of his perfections, or God himself loying, and cannot be detached from his nature or essence, and in its exercise it must be abşolutely free; that is, the re can be no previous qualification in is object to deserve it, nor can any after compensation be made to him by the objects of it. llis design is to glorify himself in glorifying the objects of his love." But who are they? Mr.R. believes a certain determinate number, whom God has made choice of, and that especially share in his affection. I do not dispute that God loves some especially, but not exclusively; .yei, viewing manking simply, as his creatures, one may join issue with Peter, saying, “ of a truth, God is no respecter of persons." Psalın cxlv. y. John, iii. 16. Ileb. ii. g. As to the concluding part of the quotation, “ His design is to be, glorified bimself in glorifying the objects of his love;" let Pau answer . Every, songue shall confess, of things in heaven, and things is earth, and things under the carth, that. Jesus Christ. is Lord (of all who gave himself a ransom for all) to 1.c glors, of God the latter." Sae Phil, ii, 10, 11 Rev, 13:v . sejak lecia. .! .::.5:

Ok. Rö speaking of the duration of future punishment, concludesa Siskad everlasting (ondless) it must be, because Jesus, the only savious of signetsog, took. Tipi: on: him, the Dature of angeis." This is tacitly allowing that if Ghriskfook on him the nature of angels, (and here it is so be observed, falleg gugels are intendes), their restoration must tahe places in consequence:o Holuhstanding, God's absolute decree qof reprobation; how well giris agrees with MrvR.'s avowed opinions, I leave you to determine. Besides, this once granted, by the same, inode of seasoning, we may say, thai, as Chust 190k ,og bjin human nature, 49 all men will be saved, which Mc, R. does not believe is plain from his publicaţiona But. Merong perhaps may, raise a quibble on the term seed of Apraham, the use of which expression of the apostleri's easily accounted for when it is remembered of what nation the people were to whom he wrote See Afts, xvii, 26. Como XV: 39• ; Reading of the offering of the body of Jesus Christi Lassociate, with it, the idea of ydood but could this ihaye been shed by only, an immaterial, being? Surely. Aots fon that, ietson, Jesus did not take on him the nature of angels. Is Mr.R. though suela metaphysician, able to prove there is any Sifferense between the diving nature of Christ and that of angels, except is dildee of perfection site. If ,120. more forcible objęction can be brought against the doctrine of universal restoration than this, it must certainly semasa buto sito o O C9 y 1 cors bo Mod. says, he does not a sejoice in the eternal misery of any creature, consideredtus şuch; . why theg, (for it seems, iinplied he does from fornesetben consideration). I am ipclined 10 believe it is because, as he elsewhere expresses it, “ This awful state of theirs is according to the

appointment and ordination of him whose will is irreversible, and who sitteth in the throne, judging right, 1 Thes. v. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 9." No part of the word of God can be properly produced that will support the doctrine of ahsolute personal reprobation, in the Calvinistic'sense, nor do those texts in the least contribute to it. I recommend Mr. R. to look again at 1 Pet. ii, 9, and by that to explain the cause of a being appointed to wraih, 1 Thes. v. 9.

All this, we are informed, is of him who sitteth on the throne judging right.' But, according to Mr. R. judgment is out of the question, being superceded by the irreversible will of the Almighty, who yet himself solemnly avers, I have pleasure in the death of him that dieth.***.P

Mr. R. enquires, “ Can any one believe that 'fallen angels and the whole race of mankind are the objects of divine love, or designed for everlasting bliss, unless the Bible reveals the end and the means "T answer, this restoration is to be effected by means of Christ; for he "hath put all things under his feet: but when he saith, all things are put 'under him, 'it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. (Though we see not as yer all things put utider him; but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man) And when alt things shall be subdued unto him, when he shall put down all rule and all authority, and power, for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; then cometh the end." See 1 Cor. xv. 'Heb. i. After cominenting on 'Mat. xxv. 34. Mr. R. adds," "have spoken of the end of things, or the final state of men;" I think not, as instanced in the last Scripture; and especially as the earth, in its burning state, after the day of judgment, is to be the place of punishment, is plain from 2 Pet. ili 7., and that the general conflagration is to be succeeded by the new creation, when New Jerusalem shall descend from God out of heaven. Rev. xxi.'), 2:'

"The restitutionist has to prove (says the writer) that every individual of the human race is included in the term body, spouse, or church of Christ?" It is certain, that this epithet, comprehending the two former, cannot be applied to every individual, in the present state ; but yet this does not affect the doctrine here defended. See i' John,-i: 1, 2. I hope I am not harsh (I would not be) in saying the good minister is here dogmátizing, and not arguing: If Mr. R.'s pamphlet was only expected to fall into the hands of men of the same sentiment with himself, he Heeded not to lay aside his prepossessions to convince the reader.? "But when it was more than likely to be perused by those of different views, he ought to have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of election, according to His scheme, to be couched under those relative names, and subtitted the whole to impartial examination. ! *-* vastu to wait, 69, 121.686

Mr. R. goes on " If any come into condemnation, and yet be afterwards delivered, such supposed deliverance must be obtained either, first, without an atonement; but this is contrary to Heb. ix. 17. w Without shedding of blood there is no remission;"> or, secondly, of

Sului 3

[ocr errors]

1 10 stick.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

a repetition of the obedience and death of Christ; but the apostle says, “ after he had made one sacrifice for sins, he for ever sat down at the right hand of God;" or, 3dly, by their own doings."

In answer to the first assertion, Christ is declared to have made peace by the blood of his cross, and for the express purpose of reconciling all things, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven, unto himself. The apostle in this citation, adds it as an emphasis, by him, 1 say. Col. i. 20. 2ndly, After having made one sacrifice for sins, he for ever sat down at the right hand of God. When Mr. R. penned these words, did he forget what is immediately and inseparably connected with thein? viz. “ from henceforth expecting that his enemies be made his footstool.” Here again, we see the means and the end, together with the nature and extent of Christ's intercession fully set forth. He who when dying prayed for his enemies, “ Father, forgive them," still continues 30 to do in behalf of all his enemies, without any regard to place. The universality of the saviour's death being proved, his intercession must follow in the same equal sense. See again, 1 Tim. ii. 3dly, We see by this, then, the deliverance of the damned will not be obtained by their own doings.

Imight enlarge here, but, not wishing to be prolix, forbear. .

• No matter (Mr. R. says) how warm our profession of magnifying his (God's) name may be, we know that his perfections and his word are in the most consuinmate harmony, and therefore, if what we teach be not supported by Thus saith the Lord, it must eventually terminate in our confusion." Such support the doctrine which Mr. R. contends against has. As I live, saith the Lord, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear, surely shall say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength : even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.” Isaiah, xly, 23, 24. If it be objected, that this has reference to the day of judgment, from what is said, Rom xiv. I observe, that it is only made use of there in a way of accommodation, (such as frequently occurs in the New Testament) the harmony of other parts of the word on the same subject bearing witness, and from the detached manner in which Paul has it, it appears not to be the primary signification of the passage.

Mr. R. takes notice of two passages which he says are considered as decisive on the subject. The one is Acts, iii. 21. “ whom the heavens must receive till the restitution of all things;" by which, according to Mr. R., nothing more is meant than the gathering together of the mystical body of Christ, (when, as he says a little before, time shall be no longer) which is the restitution intended in the passage.

. Mr. R. has here laid himself under an obligation to shew how a few things, according to any construction of language, can be said to be all things. “ Now, I take it for granted (to adopt the words of an able writer on this matter) that all things are really all things : and when all things are restored, then nothing will be left in sin and misery; because · VOL. IV.

[ocr errors]

sin and misery were not the original of any of God's creatures. *" Mr. Pl. himself, in the foriner part of his pamphlet, justly observes, “ the term restitution inplies a loss or absence of something once possessed and a being restored to it again.” It became him then to explain the term presented before us according to its allowed etymological meaning. But I appeal to this gentleman, has the mystical body of Christ in any prior period being so gathered to him, as he says it shall? I query whether our author did not see something in the text that militated against any opinion but that necessarily contained in it, or why did he not quote fairly? My Testament has it, “ The Times of the restitution of all things."

Mr. R. proceeds; another text is Eph. i. 10.; but as what he offers on it amounts nearly to the same in signification, and being considered as spoken of the same characters, I think it not needful to reply farther, except to the concluding part of Mr. R.'s letter. “ And had he (Christ) in convenant and on the cross represented the whole race of men, all that have gone off the stage of life must, by the power of the holy spirit, have known his salvation; and being absent from the body they must have been present with the Lord." These are misconceptions, from want of properly undestanding the nature and design of the sacrifice of Christ, and the moral agency of man. Mr. R. says, “ If Christ cau be proved to be the head of every man, the foundation of universal restoration will be well laid.” The matter is put out of all dispute by the apostle, who says “ the head of every man is Christ." i Cor. xi. 3.

Thus I have made some remarks, I hope without “ descanting on detached passages, or exhausting a critical skill on ambiguous terms," with the greatest good will to the worthy gentleman against whose opinions I am an ohponent, on his publication, “ Thoughts on Univesal Restitution:" and as an apology for their brevity, I give you to understand that Mr. R.'s painphlet is contained in only eight octavo pages, including that of the tittle, with not a very small margin. Submitting the whole to your candid consideration, I subscribe myself,

Yours in the gospel, CHATHAM


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]



SIR, TOOKING over that famous piece entitled, “ The Theology and < Philosophy of Cicero's Somnium Scipionis Explained, &c " I found the following anecdote of the great Sir Isaac Newton, (p. 27. note) which if you think a proper subject for your Miscellany, it is at your service.

J. C.

SIR Isaac Newton seems upon all'ccasions to have allowed indirectly that the doctrine of an absolute vacuum, however necessary to the establishment of his scheme, was yet indefensible. For the farther confirmation of which, I shall here lay before the public a curious and well attested anecdote, lately communicated to me by a friend, which it is hoped, will have its due weight with every unprejudiced reader. Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Pembroke, and Mr. Locke, were to pay a visit to Mr. Patrick *, weather-glass maker, in the Old.Bailey. Sir Isaac happening to mention a vacuum, Mr. Patrick said, “ God bless ine, Sir Issac, have not I told you there is no such thing?" I ain sure there is," quoth the philosopher. “ I tell you there is not,” said Mr. Patrick, “ And I will prove it by an undoubted experiment.” Lerd Pembroke said, “ Pray Mr. Patrick, let us have the experiment.".

Upon which Mr. Patrick produced a well-blown glass tube, sealed at one end, which he filled with mercury, and clapping his finger upon the other end, immerged it into a başon of mercury, ready for the purpose : upon which the mercury in the tube fell, till it became a counterballance to the weight of the atmosphere. He then asked Sir Isaac, whether there was not a better vacuum at the top of the tube, than any he couid make with the air-pump, which he readily allowed. Mr. Patrick added, “ You suppose there is nothing there; then any thing I can do, cannot affect nothing." Upon which he put an iron, properly prepared, into the fire, which he heated red-hot; then applying it gently to the upper part of the tube, where was the supposed vacuum, in a few minutes the mercury was pressed down ha f an inch. Upon which Lord Pembroke said to Sir Isaac, “ What do you say to Mr. Patrick's experiment? This is very plain and simple."

Sir Isaac, taking his lordship on one side, said, “ We must not give up this point, my lord ; if we do, all will fall to the ground." Upon which my lord replied, “ Let it fall to the ground, if it's not worth keeping up."

* For a character of this great artist, see Harris's Lexicon Technicum, under the article Barometer.

« הקודםהמשך »