Columbus Whig. (Columbus, Miss.) 1843-18??, 1844-03-21

PoSAly HcIIoE I'd 0ous LlaL 10 preserve ms LIZ
vInlty, 1T is necessary to ascribe to han a sep.
arate and distinct identity not embraced In these
illusions But unfortunately the Bible makes
no division OF him, and always speaks of him
IN the same character: SO that if we rely upon
that as our authority, there lis certainly no
Christ, but one. Amongst multitude of passa>
ges to prove that fact. the following is one,-
"Let all the House of Israel know that God
hath made that same Jesus whom We have
crucifed, both Lord and Christ" 1t was
therefore, the same Jesus, whether humane Oh
divine, who suffered and persisted on The cross
that assembled into heaven and was made by
his Father both Lord and Christ.
But this doctrine, like the Trinity, its par
ent, is also on terms of irreconciIabe hostility
to reason. The union of two natures, one God
and the other man, in one,person is impossible
God is invisible, lmperisAable and his presence
Hills immensely; and, hence, it wouldbe a sola-
cIsm to say that he was contracted, circumscri-
bed and made perishable in a human form. Ii
would be contradiction IN terms. 1t would
be saying that he was omnipotent yet limited
IN person. immortal yet perishable, omnipo-
tent yet IN measure, powerless. For If ON
niprescnce, omnipotence and immortality, can
be identified with humanity. made subject to
the mental agony and bloody sweat, the temp
tation, suffering and death Of c hrist, then lam
guage has no meaning and reason no concep-
tons. But even the trintarians admit that
Chrlst's Divinity did MT perish, because it
could not, And this difficulty is the founda-
ton for the two natures which they ascribe to
him.
The point which we have now arrived at in
the doctrine of the trinity is this:-That Christ
was both God and man; that these two ma
lures were distinct though united;that at death
they separated, and one persisted whilst the
other did not, because from its nature, it could
not. And, from that hypothesis, it follows,
that 1t was only human form with human
nature, after all. that persisted for mans sake.
But that very being which did suffer death,
whether Christ divine or Christ human, was
raised up from the dead again, exalted into hea-
ven and made Prince and Saviour. From
all which, it seems. there are at this moment
two Christs in heaven; the one which, being
divine, was immortal and never died, and the
other which, being human, persisted, and was
raised up from the dead, and is "the first fruits
of item that slept" The last is Christ the
Messiah and Son God, not member of the
Godhead, but distinct from God the Father
God Christ and God the Holy Ghost.
But if ChrIst's human nature only suffered
death, what becomes ofthe infinite atonement!
For the trinitarians tell us that having offended
an infinite God man becomes infinitely guilty.
and that it required, of consequence, an infn-
tie atnnement 10 save him; that such an
atonement could only be made by Divinity; and
that it was made by the death of Christ. But
at the same time they say that Christ's Divini.
ty did not die! Now if Christ's divine nature
did not die. which they admit was impossible,
it follows from their own hypothesis that no in.
finite atonement was ever made for the sins OF
and lVy ST. a.
Gods infinite wrath.
But notwithstanding the 5lasphemous hypo-
thesis of Gods death would strip him of his ess-
entail attributes;and notwithstanding the impe-
Instability of all that is immortal, and the mani
fest impossibility of Divine death; We. there
are some, no doubt, who really believe that
God did die; and, that an infinite atonement
aCGS made for the sins of men. If now for
the sake of argument we admit this, it follows
that all men are saved; and they are saved not
by pardon, grace and mercy, but by redemption;
for the sins OF all have been GtOned for; an in
finite sufferer has paid the full penalty ofthe
offended law, and the utmost limits OF its de-
mands are satisfied. The atonement being
infinite. no sin could possibly exist either in the
past or present. and more can ever be committed
in the future which it does not reach and cover
No place on earth could be so remote, and no
pit in hell so deep as 10 be beyond its influence.
For if there be a single sin unrernitted or
single sinner damned, that one exception, es
tAblishes imit-to the atonement and DESTROYS
the hypothesis.
If therefore we adopt the belief Of an infinite
atonement, or of tie Divinity of Christ and his
yiCarious death,we are irresistabiy compelled to
admit the truth OF Universalism. For if mans
sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ died for
all, then are all saved; or else his death was
vain. But we are told repeatedly; in the scrip
lures, that Christ die die for all, without one
exception, "for as in Adam all die, SO in Christ
shall all be made alive" Now his death was
either vicarious or not v:carious: lie either
died in the stead of man, and TO atone for the
sins of men, or else he died to accomplish some
other and for the good of men. But if he died
as substitute for man and bore upon himself
mans sins, he has paid the full penalty Of sin,
and man by that act was redeemed from death;
and yet, strange to tell, he is still as niue SUBJ
lect to death as If Christ had never died. But
it may be replied, he did not die to redeem
mankind from physical but from a spiritual
death. Then his physical death was not vica-
rious; and we have no shadow of evidence that
he suffered anything morethan physical death.
But suppose ifyou will, that he died spiritual
and vicarious death. 1t follows. then, OF course,
that man is redeemed from spiritual death.
anu yet lLCy IGH 10 liIoI IudH 10 nOI OLIy Sui
subject to it, but absolutely born in that kind
Of death. Then in the name of common sense
(if they have any respecl for that kind ofsense)
Why do they tell US that Christ was divine and
bis death vicarious?
But the Divinity Of Christ and his vicarious
atcnement are essential doctrines of the trini-
ty; and they are either both true, and establish
the doctrine of Universaiisn1, or they are not
true, and Christ's death had some other object
than a substitution for mans death and pun
shment And itwould be blasphemy against
God; so it would be stripping him of all love
and mercy, and impious in the sight of heaven
to suppose that his hatred was sosimplacable
towards men. that nothing could appease his
wrath but the death of a being equal with HIM
SELF and offered as a sacrifice in the place of
man. No idea was ever conceived by man
more repugnant TO the doctrines of the Bible
and more insulting TO God. For as sure as his
word 10 true, he never hated man, though he
hated sin; but he $50 LOUed The lcorld, that he
gave his only begotten Son to die, that the
world through him might be saved" He is
God of slowing kindness and OF ''tender mer-
~" He sent his son into The world to reveal |
70 men the marvellous light of his love and mer.
~ towards them, to convince them of his will |
ingness to save, and to persuade them 10 be