The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-09-23

tradiclion. And |, If be lifted up, will
draw all men unto me-" This We lsarI
from the context lie said, "signfyin!
what death he should die" Hence, w
read: LAS Moses lifted up the serpent il
the wilderness, even so must the Son o
; Man be lifted up, that whosoeyer believ
eth in Him, should not perish, but hav'
eternal iIe," John 8, Ia, 10. incentives
were offered to induce the Israelites t.
look upon the brazen serpent and live, ,an(
those who complied were saved, but ma
ny perished. So by the gospel light. ant
spiritual influence, Christ is drawing al
men to Himself, and those that acquiesct
are saved.
You seem exceedingly reluctant, t,
give up pour favoiite plea, "and so al
Israel shall be saved" but the confused
manner in which you refer to it in youl
last, aifIrds syidence.of your having felt
the force OF criticism. Yes, allow tina,
'al Israel shall be saved" in the day OF
Christ, "J they ab,ae not IN un5eiief.--
The question turns upon their belief or
or unbelict. Many believed on Him."
we learn, and many believed not Hence
it is said ale came unto His own, aud
His own received him not but to as ma.
ny as received Him, to them gave lie
power to become the sons of God, 3even
TO them that believed on his name."--
These were grated in again." but to
those persisting in unbelef, He said "le
shall die in your sins; whithsr l. go ys can
not come
You repeat your argument from the
hoirship of Chitst, Notwithstanding it
was completely demolished in my last
Now, | submit that the very declaration,
"Thou hast given him power over all
flesh, that He might give eternal life to as
many as thou last given Him." guards
against your doctrine Of universality,--
Why not say that He sAoula-not might
give eternal life to all, which would have
been straught-out universalism, simply
because there was limitation? God so
loved the world. that He gave his only
begotten Son that whosoever 6eleiveth in
Him, should not perish, but have ever
lasting life." Hence, instead of your eel
ebrated argument, we have: |. All who
ale given to Christ, shall have everlasting
life. 2. All believers are given to Christ
2. Therefore, all believers shall have ev-
life. But on the other hand,
''He that bel:eveth not shall be damned"
-"shall not see life, Jun the wrath oil
God abideth on him."
must now attend moment to the
sstute logic by which you convict mo OF
lolding to infant damnaLion. You refer
. remark made in one of my letters,
where | was treating of adults, viz: That
Christ uonfl .yire slsrnat life to a: many
~ more-aS are given Him--those that be.
irVs Which you say "imples the dam
la.ion of infants, as they do not believe
Bull. Your logic involve the Bible in the
anne, dilfiaul'y lor"He that beievsth not,
hall be d,mned" Infants cannot be-
eve, aud, therefore, must be damned
And hence, either your logic, or your
roposilion must be false. Ii the Bible
caches infant damnaton, your PROPOSE
on is false, and if it does not, your log
, is false, and | am clear of the charge.
Your logic would involve yourself in
le same nd.mnation, for In your first
'tter, you say Universal Salvation i'm
lies universal repentance; but inl"nts are
) ncapabable of repentng as believing, t
ld, therefore, are not comprehended in S
our universal scheme, and, hence, must 9
8 lost )! Now the upshot of this matter '
doubtless. this, being exceedingly en-
for argument, and feeling it /;
TO make some kind of show b
e, you have resorted 10 contemtable 6
tie bubble, of which any honorable !,
sputant ought to be ashamed. and it is a
ss excusable, from the fact that my
ews Of the condition of infants, and ir.
sponsible persons, have been clearly :,
ated in this correspondence.
You advance one or two new argu- C
ents in your last, which deserve a pas
,g notice. The first CLAIMS to be foun.
d upon Is. As, 1924. 1t announces pl