The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-03-25

you said it was "sin" itself. In reply te
the question, can sin exist abstractly
you ask. "what tempted the first sinner
to sin ?" Exceedingly non .committal,
for an q6irmant think he sinned with
out temptation. What do you think :
Again upon John |. &c.. you ask "sup
pose the world rejects and no man is
saved"-rather an extravsgant supposi
tion:-"how has Christ taken away the
sin Of the world ?" answer provision
ally for all, actually for those that believe
or como within the stipula,ons of the
gospel.
| Your defence upon John 3. 10. il
simply-in keeping with your non com
initial policy-a question, much more
cute than argumentatiye viz. "Did
Christ come to destroy the devil--if the
devil would let him ?" I answer, 1. The
text does not say that Christ came to de-
stroy the devil, at all, but his "work,''
nor,.2. Does it say, all "the works OF
the devil" and 3. III il did, it remains
for you to prove that ito Destroy means
10 annihilste.
Upon Heb 9. IA. Is, you say ode
stroy" "means to deprive Of oil vitalitg
and pouer." Now let us put a little OF
your work together and see how il fits
In your first letter you say, "Sin is to
be destroyed" And again 'Sin has no
vital force. no self-subsisting life." Then
the destruction of sin is the depriving of
ALL the vitality of that which has no VI
rALlrY Fearful destruction! This must
be very embarrassing to gentleman of
your celebrity.
But, agreeable with your definition of
destruction. what is meant by the ex-
preston, "who shall bs punished with
everla,ting dessru(sion. -. Thess. /. O.,
You utterly fail to establish the as.
sumptions upon which your argument
from Rom. s. 10. is founded. The text
clear y teache. what is confirmed by the
whole tenor Of scripture. That what was
passively lost in Adam was passive
ly gained in Christ. 2. That the su.
perabundance Of grace, consists in the
atonement made for actual transgression,
hence the expression "many offences
that "grace MIGur"-not Musr-"reign
through righteousness, unto eternal life. "
3. That those guilty Of a actual transgres.
sion "who receive abundance of grace
and of the gift of righteousness s'~-not all
men-"shal reign in life by one Jesus
Christ" Hence it is said, "but unto as
many as received him, to them, gave He
power to become the soas Of God. even
to them that believe on His name" You
say, "Paul states not the philosophy but
the facts" But l would say. he both
stated philosophical facts, and facts phil
osophically.
In reply to my negative argument you
say they are tout Of place" Twill sim
ply state that these are texts which l do
not expect to use in my affirmative, but
shall use them to confute your PROPOSE
ton. You ask ma to prove that Mat. 7.
IA, "refers 10 the immortal life." 1t
either refers to future life or present spir-
i,ual life, and the immortal life can only
be enjoyed by those who are made re-
cipents Of spiritual life, SO that the argu-
ment loses none of its validity.
Mat 7. 50. and s.ls, you say refer to
the Kingdom of God" That this ex
preston is somewhat ambiguous, allow;
but it cannot mean the kingdom Of grace
as the kingdom referred 10, is
That in which abraham, Isaac, and ia
cob are sested,' hence must refer to the
sindom oi glory. Nor is there any vi
idity in the quibble, that least out i'm
plies chat they had been in, us the term
rom which it is translated often signifies
o force a,oav, to cast dOpn or 10 refuse.
Your criticism upon Mat 10. 80. will
,ot answer for reference is clearly made
% the reward Of the faithful, and the pun
shment of the ungodly at the judgment.
Is will appear from the context.
Your ARGUMENT for the salvation Of all
nsn from the liability of Gof'. is in
msny respects ambiguous. That God is
lble to save all men with their consent,
allow. That he can save one without
!. or against his will. I deny.
That Fla can AMI does drinv IN hear