« PreviousContinue »
has not the knowledge of the fact. Is this gospel truth? If so, the world should know it. It is to be lamented that Mr. Grosh did not live contemporaneously with Christ, for he might have greatly aided him by his wisdom, and corrected the following erroneous declarations : “He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” “He that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Mr. Grosh might have told the Savior, “instead of damnation and wrath resting on the unbeliever, you must say, ignorance shall rest on him.”
Again ; Mr. Grosh says, “The witness in himself, is the life which the believer feels—the special salvation ;-the unbeliever, though he has (according to the record) eternal life in Jesus, is destitute of this witness, until he believes." Of what profit is faith ? Is it necessary to salvation or justification? Is it necessary to please God? O, no, says Mr. Grosh; it only serveth to give us a knowledge and a witness of the salvation the unbeliever actually has in Christ. Then Paul was incorrect, when he said, “ we are justified by faith”-it should have been, by believing God, we receive the witness only and not eternal life, for that we had before we believed. Reader, will you forsake God and the Bible, and follow such fabled theology?
1 Tim. iv. 10. “For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.” This passage is frequently quoted by the advocates of Universalism in support of their theory of the final holiness and happiness of all men ; but a glance at its obvious teaching will overthrow their theory and frown away all its claims as based upon this passage. Does the Universalist acknowledge God to be the Savior of all men in that sense which shall inevitably secure the salvation of all, then he must be such a Savior now, and must have saved all now with a final and everlasting salvation, otherwise the passage is inappropriate to prove their theory. The passage says, that God is the Savior of all men, and that he is the special Savior of all who believe. If this be the obvious meaning of the passage, then it becomes the advocates of this system to prove that all men are now saved in holiness and immortal life, or else frankly acknowledge that the passage does not prove their theory.
But what does the passage mean? It teaches that Jesus Christ has been appointed to be the Savior of all men, and that gracious provisions are made for all; but that those and those only receive a special benefit and are saved from sin now, who believe in God. Mr. Grosh says, “God is the special Savior of them that believe, that he is the Savior of all men.” Whoever, therefore, does not possess this species of faith, cannot enjoy a special Savior. All those who are brought to believe the theory of Universalism are blessed with a special salvation, and those who do not believe this are void of this salvation. A bright thought, indeed! But pray, how will Mr. Grosh effeet, or see accomplished the final salvation of all men? Will some be brought to heaven by a special salvation, and others by a different kind of salvation ? Will not all who are saved, be saved by a special salvation ? Error is a strange, perplexing and irreconcilable thing. Better discard it and embrace the truth. Then we shall understand what Paul teaches in Heb. v. 9. “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” Though God be the Savior of all men in many respects, yet he is the special Savior of those only who believe and obey him.
There are other passages which they quote to prove their theory true, such as Is. xxv. 8; lv. 10, 11. Lam. iii. 31.
Rev. xxi. 4; but a anigont reading of their context will afford a correct exposition and show that they cannot be used rightly to prove Universalism scriptural. There is one passage upon which great reliance is reposed, recorded in 1 Cor. xv. 22. This passage we shall investigate, together with its context, in the chapter on the Resurrection of the Dead.
The examination of truth and the sifting of the theory of Universalism which has been presented in the foregoing pages, is worthy of deep reflection and a corresponding course of life, for the theological points mentioned strike their roots deep into the very soil of grące and vital religion. We have shown what Universalism is, and what it teaches, and we shall leave the decision to the candid reader, whether the Scriptures have been, thus far, vindicated from the charge of teaching such a system,
THE GODHEAD AND THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
" He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” Luke x.'16.
This was the language of Jesus Christ, and by it he. taught the world, that a rejection of himself by the children of men would be a virtual rejection of the Father. He wished to be looked upon as possessing the nature, powers and honor of the Godhead in common with the Father. Upon another occasion he said, “ That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.” John v. 23.
Long has the doctrine had currency in the christian churches, that while there was but one true and living God, nevertheless the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separately and essentially God. That in divine essence they are one, but in distinct subsistence, they are three. That neither has any supremacy, or intrinsic superiority over the other, but that they are perfectly equal in all their natural and moral perfections. The people of God have entertained and highly appreciated this view of the divine nature and character of God; but from it the body of Universalists have greatly diverged. They have erased from their catalogue of doctrine, the doctrine called the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. It will be necessary here to examine into, and give a concise view of the sentiments held by Universalists relative to this subject.
That this is a doctrine of vast and eternal importance, may be inferred from the fact, that the opinion we entertain of the character of God, will transfer to the religion we profess, either genuineness or unsoundness, as the nature of our views may be. For God is the foundation of all true religion. If we misconceive the character and perfections of God, our religion is based upon our opinions, and not upon God. If therefore, Universalists cherish wrong and corrupt views of Jehovah, then their religion is equally corrupt-Pagans are changed by their religious views, to the character they attribute to their gods. If they conceive the character of their gods to be warlike, licentious, or malevolent, so their worship of these gods will mould their own character to the same standard. So it is with the Mohammedans, and with every body of religious worshipers. If Universalists entertain false notions and have wrong con! <ptions of the true God, their religion will be in the same proportion false and baseless. If Christ is a mere man, their worship of him will not be the worship of God, and their religion will, therefore, be worthless ; " for he that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.”
It will not be necessary to make many quotations from their writings, to prove that Universalists deny the doctrine, that in God there is a distinction of three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or the doctrine of the Trinity) equal in power and in all their attributes, for their denial is as obvious as the sun. They insist in their writings, that there is only one living God, as Unitarians do, and at times openly discard the tri-unity of God. Mr. Grosh of Utica, calls it, a “heathen tradition.” Mr. D. Skinner declares, “ that it was a doctrine unheard of during the three first centuries.of the christian era," " not sanctioned by the gospel," "and must go down to the tombs of the Capulets.'”