A NEW DOCTRINE.

Mr. Alexander Campbell,

SIR-I have been a careful reader of your writings, for a long time, and have profited much by your labors; although, as you will perceive by the doctrine which I am about to prove, that, any person believing it, must consider you a very great heretic; and your friend Skinner cannot be regarded in any other or more favorable point of view. I shall not oppose my doctrine to yours, lest you should refuse to give this article a place in the Harbinger, but I will place it in contrast with Mr. Skinner's; and if I shall succeed in producing, at least, as incontestible proof of its truth as did this gentleman of the truth of Universalism, one half of the Universalists ought to abandon his doctrine and adopt mine, that we may be equal on the score of proselytes as well as on the score of proof. My doctrine, sir, is the doctrine of UNIVERSAL DAMNATION. I am not pleased with his circuitous and loose method of arguing; and therefore I will avoid it by coming directly to the point. This is my method:-1st. Prove that all have sinned; and, 2d. That all sinners shall be damned.

In Romans iii. 9. the Apostle Paul says, "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." Be it particularly noticed that the proof is that "all" are under sin-not a part, but all-that is, the whole. I will not rest the whole of my argument on this one word; for I am not so straitened for proof as to require this. The 14th Psalm is quite to my purpose: The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside; they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good; no, not one." This the Apostle quoted to prove the same proposition which I now labor to prove. But he goes still farther, and convicts them of outrageous sins. He says, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes." To all this the Apostle adds, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” This is the testimony of David and Paul on the subject of my first proposition. Let us next hear what John says, 1 Epis. v. 19. "The whole world lieth in wickedness." Now for the testimony of the Preacher: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Eccles. vi. 20. The testimony on this point is clear and full. Even the all-seeing Being himself could not find any that did good "no, not one." Now suppose we could find it written in the scriptures that the Lord looked down from heaven to see if there were any that should be finally lost, and examination had, he should say, There are none that shall be lost; no, not one. Would not Mr. Skinner consider this incontestible proof of the truth of a universal salvation? Would he not quote it with triumph? If he would, he must admit it as incontrovertible proof of my first proposition; namely, that all have sinned.

I will now proceed to the proof of my 2d proposition-All sinners shall be damned. "he wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Ps. ix. 17. "The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment." Ps. i. 5. "As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law." The Lord "will by no means clear the guilty." Ex. xxxiv. 7.

I have now produced proof that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"-that the whole world has "become guilty before God"—and that he "will by no means clear the guilty;" but that they "shall be turned into hell." Now, as the Universalists admit that Christ did not come to save people from hell; and as the Apostle affirms that his name is the only "name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;" does it not follow that there is no salvation for any person, but that a universal damnation awaits the human family? Those who have sinned without law, shall perish without; those who have sinned in the law, shall be JUDGED by the law; and all have sinned, either without law, or in the law, and the ungodly shall not stand IN THE JUDGMENT. Of course they must fall. Into what place? Response by the scriptures—Into hell.

Now, Mr. Campbell, if I have not proved the doctrine of universal damnation clearly and unequivocally, then no man can prove its opposite. Let me appeal to you, sir, as you neither believe Mr. Skinner's doctrine nor mine, and consequently you are an impartial umpire between us-am I not justly and honorably entitled to one-half of all the Universalists, since I have proved my doctrine as clearly and as fairly from the scriptures as Mr. Skinner, or any other man, ever proved his? S. E. S.

THE APOSTOLIC AGE OF THE CHURCH.

THERE was at first no distinction of sects and opinions in the church; she knew no difference of men, but good and bad; there was no separation made, but what was made by piety or impiety; or, which is all one, by fidelity and infidelity. The kingdom of God did not then consist in words, but in power-the power of godliness; though now we are fallen into another method. We have turned all religion into faith, and our faith is nothing but the productions of interest or disputing. It is adhering to a party, and a wrangling against all the world beside; and when it is asked of what religion he is, we understand the meaning to be-What faction does he follow? What are the articles of his sect? Not-What is the manner of his life? And if men be zealous for their party and that interest, then they are precious men, though otherwise they be covetous as the grave, factious as Dathan, schismatical as Corah, or proud as the fallen angels.

[Bishop Jeremy Taylor,]

DEFINITIONS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS-M. I.

"WHAT is a Unitarian?" Etymologically it means one that believes in unity-in simple unity, without regard to person, place, or thing. Technically it denotes one that is opposed to trinity or triunity in the godhead or deity. All Christians say that "there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and men-the man Christ Jesus." But he is more than a man, more than an inspired man, more than an angelic man, more than any created thing. These theories have different names-such as Humanitarian, Socinian, Arian, Semi-Arian, &c. But we enter not into the merits of these shadows of shades of metaphysical abstractions.

I use the term Unitarian in its obnoxious sense, as indicating one who regards the death of Christ as not for sins, nor for sinners; but for a proof of his sincerity and benevolence. With the real Unitarian no real sin-offering, no real atonement was needed; and therefore Christ died as a martyr. This, with me, is practically no better than theism. Indeed, such a person says he does not believe "that Jesus died for our sins;" or "that he, the Just One, suffered for the unjust."

Many theists believe that Jesus Christ lived and died in Judea, at the time affirmed, and that he was a great reformer-a pious and excellent man-liberally inspired, as other sages were—and that he was slain by the hands of wicked Jews and Romans. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine both believed all this; but they laughed to scorn the idea of his dying for sin as an atoning sacrifice.

Many persons have been called Unitarians, and some have so called themselves, who believe in the death of Christ as a sin-offering, who reject trinitarianism because of its unscriptural, unintelligible, and barbarous phraseology; regarding it as a system of polytheism; who, nevertheless, know not what to say or think of the pre-existent or antehuman state of the author of Christianity; some repudiating the phrases “eternal son," "second person," "consubstantial," "co-equal,” "very God of very God," "Supreme Deity," &c. &c. They reject these terms because to them barbarous and incomprehensible; but have no distinct idea or name for the antecedent state, relation, or character of Him that was made flesh. These differ, in my judgment, very materially from the Unitarian, who has no other use for Jesus than as a prophet, a king, or a martyr; therefore virtually rejecting every thing that concerns his high priesthood. The phrase "Supreme Deity" is, to my mind, perfectly Pagan. What! have we got one upreme Jove with his retinue of inferior gods and demi-gods! I was

once asked by a very conceited and self-confident preacher, whether Ibelieved that Jesus was the Supreme God? Had it not been in a worshipping assembly, I would have asked him how many inferior gods he acknowledged? 1 neither believe in one supreme god, or more. The term Jehovah is itself indicative of the supreme. What would any sensible person say to him that asked him, 'Sir, do you believe that Jesus Christ was a human man-a supreme man?' Would he not reply, Sir, with me, man is man. I know nothing of supreme humanity, nor of supreme divinity. If any being be human, he is human; if he be divine, he is divine, possessed of a nature which has no positive, comparative, or superlative degrees in it. Indeed, what nature has in it degrees of comparison! It is not the divine, the angelic, the human.' I have long taught that the Trinitarian, Arian, and Sabellian theories are wholly a corrupt speech-irrational and unscriptural speculations.

But there is this difference: All Trinitarians believe in the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and in his death as a real sacrifice for sin-an expiatory offering, without which there could be no remission. 1 believe this most sincerely, but without any fellowship for their humanisms, their barbarous diction, and unscriptural modes of reasoning on the subject. Therefore that Unitarianism which I repudiate denies both the divine nature of my Redeemer, and the necessity of his death as a sin-offering in order to remission.

It is long since we proposed to abandon all this style, and to call Bible things by Bible names. Our brethren have generally agreed to do so; but in their definition of certain Bible names, I have sometimes seen a sense imposed upon them wholly modern, and which would ultimate in a doctrine as certainly unapostolic as either Arianism or Trinitarianism.

I have therefore suggested to the propounder of this question, and to others who seem to object to my style as too Trinitarian—that a calm, discreet, affectionate, fraternal, and unimpassioned discussion of the terms "sin," "sin-offering," "sacrifice for sin," "atonement," "propitiation," "reconciliation," "expiation," (or purification, for they are two versions of the same word.) "redemption," "remission," "rightcousness of God,” “Mediator," "Redeemer,"-would tend very much to the edification of the brethren, and to a more perfect union of all the elements of modern partyism which have been associated under the banners of Reformation.

I have accordingly proposed to have an aged brother, an old student of the Bible, well versed in these matters, to write four pages per month for the Harbinger; and should any difference occur, I will occupy four

pages in biblical criticism upon such terms as may not be by us understood in the same sense.

All this can be done without the least interruptionof the most per fect Christian feeling and obliging good manners. And thus may we help one another forward on our journey out of the labyrinths of false philosophy, false philology, and false theology; and concentrate not only our own minds, but those of all the brethren, on the study of the holy scriptures, and the immense and soul-absorbing themes represented by those celestial terms which I have collected in this essay.

I will only add that I have addressel, not long since. our amiable, learned, and greatly venerated Elder B. W. STONE, who has propounded this question on this subject, before I knew that he was about to revive the "Christian Messenger." And as the matter can have a more extensive hearing in this paper than in any other, I proposed it to be the medium of communication. Besides, I have in the present number, before I heard of his intentions, given reasons why I must object to a discussion going on in two papers as holding opposite sides on any question whatever.

I therefore most respectfully and affectionately solicit from him an essay on Sin and Sin-Offerings, exegetically and philologically, (or, if any one prefer a more intelligible style,) scripturally setting forth the import of these terms in sacred writ. I must limit the essays to four octavo pages each. A. C.

QUESTIONS AND DEFINITIONS-No. II.

[The following are from Amelia county, Virginiaa.]

Question 2. What was that promise referred to Heb. xi. 39., which none of the ancient saints had received?-"These all having obtained a good report through faith, did not receive the promise."

Answer. The promise here stands for the thing promised, or for its accomplishment. So in other places:-"When the time of the promise drew nigh," Acts vii. 17.-i. e. its accomplishment. "I send the promise," Luke xxiv. 49.,-the thing promised.

What, then, was the thing promised? Not Canaan, because most of all these men of faith and mighty deeds had lived and died in it, but the thing signified and prefigured in the promised land. Now what that was, Paul and his cloud of witnesses shall declare. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, all "died in faith," not of Canaan, for they lived and died in it; but of certain good things promised to them through