Page images
PDF
EPUB

liam Browne married Mary, daughter of Philip d'French, Esq. of New-Brunswick, in New-Jersey, of which second marriage was born Anne, whose death this article announces. Her father resided principally at his seat at Danvers, near Salem, where, having also survived his second wife, he died in 1763, leaving, besides his son and the subject of this memoir, a daughter, who afterwards married Francis Hall, Esq. of the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

In consequence of the death of both her parents, and of her brother, Miss Browne was removed, at an early age, to this city, where she received her education under the superintendance of her maternal relations. At the breaking out of the Revolutionary war, she accepted the offer of an asylum in the family of one of her female friends, whose father held an important post in the American army. From this circumstance, Miss Browne became personally acquainted with all the most distinguished officers in our army, and familiar with the most interesting occurrences of the times. She often resided in camp, and at head quarters, or in their vicinity, and she was frequently an inmate in the family of Washington, both during the War, and afterwards, when he was President. The important events and distinguished personages, of which Miss Browne was thus in early life the contemporary, together with the impression made by them upon an uncommonly retentive memory, imparted in her later years an interest to her conversation and to her character itself, which can only be estimated by those who knew her intimately, and felt some of that enthusiasm with regard to the subjects of her recollection and discourse, which is inspired by love of our country, and by sentiments of gratitude to the authors of its independence. Upon the marriage of her friend, Miss Browne continued with her as a guest and companion for many years, and it was only by the

vicissitudes of fortune that they were eventually separated. From that period, until her death, Miss Browne lived in lodgings in this city, in the enjoyment of the esteem and friendship of a numerous circle of relatives and acquaintances, by whom she was beloved for her piety, benevolence, and good temper, and for her purity of heart and simplicity of character. For several years before her deceasc, she suffered indeed the tortures of a lingering and cruel disease, for which as she conceived all remedies hopeless, she deliberately resolved to await the progress and termination, without resorting to any but temporary expedients for its mitigation. In this resolution she was fortified by the ill success of a surgical operation, which she endured upwards of thirty years previous to the reappearance of her complaint; and she persevered in concealing both her sufferings and their cause from the knowledge of her most intimate friends, until within a few months of her decease. From the nature and eventual state of her disorder, the pain she must have undergone is almost incredible, and can only have been excelled by the fortitude with which she supported it. It was only for the last few weeks that she was confined to her bed, or to her room, and the last Easter was the first Sunday, for thirty years, that she omitted to receive the Communion in Church. It was her religion, and its great Author alone, that could have enabled her to sustain herself in her anguish without murmur or complaintto note every arrangement in relation to her departure from this life, with as much composure as she would have directed the preparations for au ordinary journey-and thus to exhibit, in sickness and in death, a firmness of character which, whilst in health, she was never supposed to possess, and which contrasted finely with the meek and humble disposition for which she was remarkable in her life.

We have to apologize for the delay in issuing the present number, which has arisen from Our desire to insert in it the Report of the Professors of the Theological Seminary, the MS. of which had been placed in a situation not to be accessible in season for the Journal to appear as usual on the first day of the month,

[blocks in formation]

For the Christian Journal.

No. VI.

Universal Redemption. THE universality of the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ may likewise be fairly inferred from the impartiality of our Creator. He is said to be no respecter of persons, to extend equal justice to all men, to be good to all, to send his rain, and to cause his sun to shine upon the just and upon the unjust. Such being the case, can we suppose that he would give the Son of his love to die only for a part of the human race, thereby putting it out of the power of the rest to attain future happiness, and in truth virtually consigning them to perdition? Farther, can we suppose that it is his will-(such is the doctrine of Calvinists)-his ministers should offer pardon and life to all, when at the same time only a part can accept and enjoy them? If such is the fact, may we not ask, "Why does he complain of his people, saying, Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life?" Surely this language implies that they may come, and that the fault is in themselves if they do not.

"In every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." Such was the language of Peter on occasion of the admission of Cornelius the centurion into the church. Cornelius was a heathen, but by his upright life he had acquired the favour of his Maker-his prayers and his alms had ascended up for a memorial before God. The case of Cornelius is a strong argument in favour of universal redemption, since it is one of the proofs that may be adduced, that the benefits of the Saviour's death will be extended to all nations, to many of those who have never heard of his name. The redemption wrought by him, we believe to be universal in the strictest sense of VOL. VI.

[VOL. VI.

the term; extending not only over Christian countries, but over the whole earth-over Mahometan and pagan, as well as Christian lands. All those in these different regions of the earth, who conform their lives to the light and the knowledge they enjoy, who "work righteousness,"will be accepted by him. "There is no respect of persons with God," says St. Paul. "For 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. (For not the hearers of the law shall be just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.)" Here is an express declaration, that those heathens who do their duty as far as they know it, will find favour with God. But the Calvinist contends that all heathens must perish. Why? Because they have not the right faith. All, say they, who have not this faith and they cannot have it if they have never heard the name of Christall who have never been regenerated, or born again in their acceptation of the term, must be cast into outer darkness, May we not call this doctrine, in the language of Calvin himself, "horribile decretum ?"

But a conclusive proof of the doctrine of universal redemption may be drawn from the nature of the Christian covenant. This covenant differs only from the Jewish, in that the latter was confined to one people, whereas the former is to include all nations. They are both covenants of grace and mercy. The mode of admission into the Jewish was

33

by circumcision, a rite to be applied to the young as well as to the old. Admission into the Christian Church is by baptism-"Go ye and teach," or make disciples of, says our Saviour, "all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." And we know from Scripture, and the practice of the primitive Church, that infants as well as adults were admitted into the covenant by this rite. They were received into the Church of Christ, which is called his body and his spouse. By one spirit, says the Apostle, we are all baptized into one body. This Church is in other places styled the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God; that is, the kingdom of God in this world-a state of grace and of mercy, in opposition to the state of nature in which we are born. Is there then no blessing attached to admission into the Church? Is it no privilege to become members of the body of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of hea ven? Christ, says the Apostle, loved the Church, and gave himself for it. He redeemed it by his blood, and, as the Church will consist of good and bad members to the end of time, many are redeemed who will not be saved. When we enter the Church, we embark upon that stream, if I may so speak, whose natural course will lead us to the haven of eternal rest. We do not say it will necessarily lead us to the haven, for we may be cast away on the rocks and shoals of vice, and be ruined-but we say that we have embarked upon the true course, and that if we do our duty we shall safely reach the end of our journey. But perhaps it will be denied that we are received into the Church, and placed in a state of grace by baptism. We ask, then, what are the benefits to be derived from this rite? If we take this ground we reduce it to an unmeaning ceremony, and, by fair reasoning, shall be led to the conclusion, that the doctrine of partial election extends to infants as well as adults. If baptism does not admit infants into the Church, they must remain in a state of nature. And if they remain in a state of nature, and all mankind are divided into the two classes of elect and reprobate, (or, if you choose, substitute pre

terition for reprobate,) the inference is fair, that the decree extends to the young as well as the old. And what an awful view does this give us of the Divine proceedings with respect to man? How, under this view, can the Gospel be styled glad tidings—how can it be good news of great joy to all people? If, on the other hand, all persons baptized are brought into the Church, the conclusion appears to be inevitable, that such at least are redeemed; and as the Christian Church is designed to embrace all nations, the inference again is fair, that all men have been redeemed.*

*The writer of these remarks does not pro

fess to know what are the sentiments of Calvinistic churches generally on the subject of baptism. It is believed that there is great diversity of opinion among them, as they find it impossible to reconcile the doctrine of admission into the Church by baptism, with that of partial redemption-but he was told, not long since, by a Presbyterian minister, that the doctrine inculcated in their seminary is, that the children of believing parents (that is, the children of communicants-or, if one of the parents is a communicant, it is considered to be sufficient) are born into the Church, and that baptizing them, in their view, is merely putting a seat upon them. But how strange a doctrine? It reduces baptism almost to an unmeaning ceremony to a simple declaratory act-that the children thus baptized are the children of be birth they are in the Church. But another lieving parents-since at the moment of their difficulty arises. To be a believer with them, means that the person has been regenerated in their view of the term-has been born againis a Christian in the strictest sense of the word, and will persevere in the true course to the end. Now, how does the officiating minister know, that the parents of the children he baptizes, are believers in this sense? Are there not hypocrites in all denominations? If, then, the parents should be of this character, what is the effect of baptism upon their children? Again, are all the children thus born into the Church redeemed? And if so, are they all saved? This is an assertion no one would make. If, the Calvinistic doctrine of redemption falls to then, some are redeemed who are not saved, the ground. But if the children born into the Church are not redeemed, what is the benefit arising therefrom? The same and no more than from being born out of it. Such is the dìlemma arising from the doctrine of partial redemption, a dilemma that strongly points out the propriety of excluding the doctrines of Calvin altogether from theology. The reader who wishes to see the subject of Calvinism thoroughly discussed, is referred to Bishop White's "Comthree sermons on universal redemption, that parison." The celebrated Dr. Barrow also has

appear to be unanswerable. The late Dr. Smith, of Princeton, although by some supposer to inculcate the tenets of Calvin, in his work on "Natural and Revealed Religion," in reality abandons them, since he advocates the

Let us now examine some of the arguments usually adduced in favour of the doctrine of partial redemption.

It is said, if Christ died for all mankind, and only a part is saved, then his blood was shed in vain for that part which is not saved-and is it not an idea unworthy of the majesty and power of God, that he should provide a ransom for all, while only a part are benefitted by it-that he should do any thing in vain? We reply, 1st. That it is a doctrine much more un worthy of the acknowledged attributes of the Creator, that he should give the Son of his love to suffer on the cross for a select few, when all are by nature equally deserving. In truth, it is only on the supposition of the truth of universal redemption that the goodness and justice of God can be vindicated. The doctrine of partial election is in open hostility to both. According to that doctrine, a part of the human race was chosen by God from eternity, before the foundations of the world were laid, and without regard to their faith or good works to eternal life. The other part was doomed from eternity to eternal death. For those who were thus chosen to eternal life, Jesus Christ in due time gave up his life on the cross, redeemed and saved them; while the rest were passed by as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. Such is a fair account of the doctrine. And may we not ask, is it consistent with either the justice or goodness of God? Is it consistent with his justice, to punish a part of the human race, because they will not avail themselves of the benefits of Christ's death, when that death was not designed to effect their salvation when it was out of their power to rely upon it as their rock and support? Is it consistent with his goodness, to place the boon of eternal happiness within the reach of some, and to deny it to others, and without regard to their faith or good works, when they are all by nature equally worthy, or rather

doctrines of Universal Redemption, the Freedom of the Will, and the suasive, but not irre sistible operations of the Holy Spirit. How the learned Doctor could consistently support these doctrines, and yet hold to the " "perseverance of the saints," is more than the writer of this can comprehend.

equally unworthy? If this is true doctrine, the reprobates may well ask, why are we condemned for rejecting a boon that was never offered to us? Why are we punished for not believing and trusting in Christ, when he never died for us? But if we adhere to the doctrine of universal redemption, the un believing and impenitent, when they come to receive their sentence, and are asked what excuse they have to offer, will, in silence and terror, acknowledge the justice of their doom. But, 2dly, we reply to those who make the objection, that if Christ died for all, then his death is in vain to those who are not saved, and we ought not to believe that God would do any thing in vain→→→→ "the death of Christ, if God is so disposed, is sufficient for the redemption of all mankind—that is, there is merit enough in him as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the whole world. This all must admit. Why then should he resign his life for a part only, when that life was sufficient to ransom all ?” The advocate for partial redemption will say, perhaps, such was the good pleasure of God. We deny that such was the will of God, and for proof we appeal to Holy Scripture a much more proper mode of settling the question, than by resting upon philosophical and metaphysical arguments-the founda tion, by the bye, upon which the whole edifice of Calvinism rests.

But it will be asked, is there not an election spoken of in Scripture? We acknowledge there is, but it is not an election of some individuals to everlasting life, to the exclusion of all others. It is an election of nations to the privileges of the Gospel or of the true religion. Thus the Jews were the elect people of God, because he selected them from the nations around them, that he might deposit with them, the principles of the true faith. But we cannot infer that, because the Jews as a nation were the elect of God, they were all saved. On the other hand, we know that there were, at different times, perhaps at all times, many wicked and rebellious individuals among them, and that Korah and his company, for their sins, met a severe and awful punishment. Christians also,

all those nations that have embraced the Christian religion, are the elect of God; but then no one will aver, that all who bear the name of Christian will be saved. St. Paul, when directing his Epistles to the different churches, styles them the elect of God-called of God -called to be saints, &c. but, at the same time, in some instances, sharply reproves them for their unholy conduct, and warns them that they may lose the favour of God, and return "like the dog to his vomit again, and like the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

Calvinists generally advance the text, "many are called but few are chosen," in support of the doctrine of partial redemption. But this passage surely admits of a very different interpretation. It evidently applies to the Jews, as the context shows, all of whom were first called, (according to the direction of the Saviour to his Apostles, to go first unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,) but only a few of that nation obeyed the call, only a few were chosen. But admitting that it refers to the whole human race, it does not support the doctrine of Calvinism, unless it could be shown that the word chosen means irresistibly drawn. Again, "Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it." But does necessarily follow, that because Christ died for the Church, he died for none others? If the passage must bear that construction, it would not answer the purpose, for it is admitted on all hands, that the Church contains bad as well as good members-that the tares will be mixed with the wheat until the time of harvest.

But we forbear noticing any more passages that might appear to favour the Calvinistic doctrine of redemption, since it can hardly fail to strike any one, who reads the Scriptures, that their whole current runs in favour of universal redemption. Innumerable texts may be brought to support it, either expressly or by fair inference; while it is hardly rash to assert, that there is not a single passage in the sacred volume which, when rightly interpreted, gives any countenance to the doctrine of partial election. At all events, let us ever

bear in mind this necessary rule in interpreting any book, not to build our opinion on a few insulated passages that run counter to its general spirit and meaning.

In concluding these remarks we cannot avoid one reflection-how astonishing are the lengths to which prejudice and preconceived opinions will carry us? Were it not that the doctrines of partial election, irresistible grace, &c. are embraced by many Christians of great respectability as to piety and talents, we could hardly judge it possible that they could ever enter the human mind, much less claim to be supported by Holy Scripture. But, alas! the human mind is a curious principle, and no error is too absurd or irrational for it to adopt, when prejudice, prepossession, and education have lent it their aid. We know, however, (and consoling is the reflection,) that error, although sometimes rapid in its growth, is short lived-it has not a firm root, and in time it will "wither away." Truth, on the other hand, is permanent—it is a temple whose foundation rests upon a rock that can never be destroyed, and if it is sometimes obscured by the weeds of error that spring up around it with mushroom rapidity, yet the scythe of time never fails to mow down these weeds, and to cause the temple to réappear in all its beauty. Let it be our prayer, that the period may speedily come, when all "error in doctrine," as well as all "viciousness of life," may be "driven away from us," and truth and the knowledge of the Lord may "cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea."

The Country Clergyman.

Sentiments of the Shawanose relative to God and Religion.

From the Piqua (Ohio) Gazette. MR. BARRINGTON-I have been, for some time past, employed in the Shawanæse nation, procuring an account of the religion, language, manners, and customs of this people, for the use of the government. As there are great efforts making in many parts of the United States to civilize and evangelize the Indian tribes, it may be satisfactory to some of your readers to know the senti

« PreviousContinue »