Page images
PDF
EPUB

however, some cases in which discussions of theological and other questions have been attended with good, and I hope this occasion will present such an instance. When I remember that Jesus Christ did not hesitate to dispute with the Scribes and Doctors of the law and expose their fallacies in the hearing of the people, that St. Paul disputed with the distinguished Jews and Greeks, that Luther and his associates held public discussions with the Cardinals and Legates of Rome, that Wesley and his coadjutors were as distinguished for their polemics as for their christian catholcity, my mind is relieved, and my sense of duty under the circumstances enables me to rise superior to the judgment of friends; and I stand fully committed to the prosecution of this debate. But while my mind is affected with hesitation and diffidence on these and some other accounts, there are other considerations which are a source of real pleasure. It is a pleasure to know that I am to address a congregation of candid persons, who will duly appreciate and weigh the arguments presented. I do not know that I could have suited myself better in this respect, had the choice been left entirely to me. Some apprehension was felt that the contracted dimensions of the house would not afford sufficient accommodation for the people; but I have never believed that the congregation would not lis ten with candor and impartiality to what was said. And it shall be my study to give reasons for what I may say; indeed, I should consider it trifling with the good sense of the audience, if I were to fill up the time with common place remarks, or throw dust into their eyes, instead of addressing their understanding.

It is also a source of pleasure to me, that the disputants have been able to secure the services of the gentlemen who are to act as Moderators. I have confidence in those gentlemen, in their intelligence, judgment and integrity; and I believe, if circumstances shall require them to give decisions, they will be characterized by impartiality, and that the whole business of the debate, as far as they are responsible for its conduct, will be so carried forward as to give satisfaction to to all parties.

It is also a source of great pleasure to me that I have for my opponent the Rev. J. M. AUSTIN, whose praise is in all the Universalist Congregations. There is only one man of whom I have any information whom I would prefer to meet in a discussion of this kind; namely MR. SKINNER: not because I suppose he is more talented, but he has more reputation as a debater, and as the champion of Universalism in Central New York: But in the absence of Mr. Skinner, Mr. Austin is of all others, the man I prefer to meet. So far as I know, he has the confidence of his own people; he claims the authorship of a number of books and pamphlets; is the corresponding editor of the Evangelical Magazine, so called; is the preacher of the most wealthy and respectable Universalist society in this section of the state; and exhibits too as I understand, great learning and ability in criticism on the Greek text. In meet

ing Mr. Austin, therefore, I meet a man who can defend Universalism, if a defence of that system be possible. And if in thecourse of this debate, he finds it necessary to avoid defining his position on questions which will incidentally arise; should he cavil and deal in sophistry or attempt to throw dust in your eyes, where he ought to meet arguments, and dispose of them in a fair and candid way, the congregation will understand that it is not because he lacks ability, or information, but it must be attributed to some inherent and unconquerable perversity in the nature of the cause he advocates. Mr. Austin will understand me as intending nothing disrespectful in these personal allusions. My own course shall be, to give arguments that pertain to the merits of the subject, and reasons for what I have to say; and if Mr. Austin will meet me on this ground he shall have my thanks for his candor whatever I may think of his logic. With these preliminary remarks I approach the question before us.

The question is, DOES GOSPEL SALVATION EMBRACE DELIVERANCE FROM JUST AND DESERVED PUNISHMENT? Here Mr. Austin denies, and I affirm. Before I lay down the first argument in support of the affirmative of this question, I wish to state a few principles, which more or less govern the administration of law, associated with the docrine of divine punishment. 1. The law of God is like himself, holy, just, and good-a transcript of the Divine mind. 2. The penalty associated with the law, is like the law itself, holy, just, and good, and hence it must be as right and just, that the penalty should be inflicted upon those who violate the law, as that the law itself should demand obedience. 3. Where the law is transgressed, and the penalty incurred, there is no power in the creature to avert the penalty, nor does the law itself provide a remedy. 4. As all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, all have incurred the penalty, and it must be inflicted upon all to the full extent of their deserts, unless the law-giver or governmental power, resort to some expedient, in view of which the ends of good government are equally well sustained, while the sinner is allowed to escape the penalty and become the subject of divine clemency. 5. This expedient is found in the gospel and in the docrine of atonement. It will be perceived that the question does not relate to the nature of the penalty nor yet to the duration of the penalty, but simply to this fact; whether the Gospel makes provision whereby the sinner may escape the penalty of the law which he has violated, as well as escape from the tendency and necessity of committing sin. At this point I affirm, and Mr. Austin denies.

Perhaps it will prevent misapprehension if I here define the terms of the question. By the Gospel, I mean that system of grace and mercy introduced to the world through the Savior revealed in . scripture, and illustrated by all the principles and facts developed under every dispensation of God to man. By salvation, I mean

deliverance from sin and its consequences. Deliverance is used synomymously with salvation, though restricted to the consequences of sin. By punishment, I mean the natural and legal consequences of sin. By just and deserved, I mean that kind and amount of punishment which the sinner deserves on account of transgres

Bion.

I now proceed to lay down my first argument in support of this proposition. It is drawn from the nature of the Gospel, as announced to the shepherds on the night-clad plains of Bethlehem, "Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Now what did the shepherds understand by this? It must mean something or it means nothing. If it means nothing, the Gospel must be worse than nothing, because it trifles with the dearest and most cherished interests and hopes of men. If it means something, that something must be worthy of the benevolence of God, of the Gospel itself, and rich in its benefits to sinful and wretched man. But I cannot conceive how this is possible unless there is embraced in the Gospel a provision for the deliverance of the sinner from the consequences of his transgressions. • Behold

I bring you good tidings of great joy." "Good tidings" of what? "Great joy," on what account? Abstract from the Gospel the idea of a provision for the deliverance of the sinner from the consequences of his sins, and you strip it at once of its high character. It will not do to say that Christ was introduced for the purpose of revealing to the world the doctrine of a future state, and that this was the design, the whole design of the Gospel. Because the doctrine of a future state was in the world before Christ's day, and before the atonement was made. No part of the world is so degraded as to have lost entirely the idea of a future state, although variously corrupted by their depravity and errors. Nor will it do to say that the design of Christ and the Gospel was to reveal to them their ignorance of the character of God, or their prejudices against his holiness, his attributes and his government, for this would not be an occasion of glad tidings and great joy to those to whom it came, but rather one of self abasement, humiliation and sorrow. But when you connect with this announcement the idea of a provision for the relief of mankind from the consequences of their sins, we have something which makes the announcement consistent with itself, and that gives sufficient occasion for it to be considered "as good tidings of great joy" to all people to whom it may come, and this, let it be understood, is precisely the point at which the human mind most needed relief. It is inseparable from a fallen and corrupt state of man to be oppressed with a sense of guilt, and fearful forebodings of future wrath. Especially is this the case in the absence of any specific knowledge of a plan by which men may be saved from that future wrath. That state of mind so feelingly and forcibly described by St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, was the leading feature of the world's experience, for centuries before his

day: "Oh wretched man that I am--who shall deliver me from the body of this death." Allusion is here made to the practice of chaining criminals to a dead body until they were poisoned by its putrifaction, and suffocated by its stench. This was the condition of the world morally, and of every sinner in particular. A sense of guilt and pollution, and fear of punishment, hung like an incubus upon the mind, and consumed their joys and drank up their spirits.

And this was true, though not to the same extent with the Jews. The revelations of Sinai, and the sacrificial demands of their law, taught them that man cannot be just with God. Oppressive conscience, and the ominous voice of nature, spoke of guilt in man, and wrath against such as transgressed his laws. The only relief they found was in the predictions of the prophets. These assured them of the coming of a Savior, of the introduction of a day in which God would be merciful to their unrighteousness and remember their sins and iniquities no more. This Savior, and this day, were heralded in by the celelestial messengers when they announced, “Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy!" "Good tidings!" how? "Great joy!" on what account? That a Savior was to save his people from their sins and introduce peace on earth, and good will to man. The sum of this argument is, that the gospel cannot be good tidings in any consistent sense if we exclude from it the idea of a deliverance from the consequences of sin. The gospel is the announcement of a general animosity to the world of rebels against the throne and government of God. That announcement is that those who repent of their sins and turn to God shall be saved, and relieved of that just and deserved punishment which must inevitably fall upon them unless some provision of this kind be introduced for their benefit.

Our second argument in support of this proposition, is based on Christ's advent as expressed to Joseph by the Angel who appeared to him in a dream: "Thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their sins." The name Jesus signifies deliverer, or one who saves. It is a modification of the term Joshua; the original name was modified by the addition of the first syllable of the name Jehovah. The import is, the deliverer, or one who saves. The name Jesus therefore indicates his business to be to save his people. He is denominated Christ, which signifies annointed, as he was for this work. He is also called Emanuel, which signifies, God with us. Christ was therefore a divine deliverer. What was his business? It was announced by the passage, "He shall save his people from their sins." But salvation means deliverance, hence if Christ delivers, there must be something from which he delivers. And this something must have a positive existence, otherwise there would be no deliverance in the case. The announcement says, that something, is sin. "He shall save his people from their sins." To understand how he saves from sin, we

[ocr errors]

must understand what sin is. Sin," says the Apostle, "is the transgression of the law." Not a mere abstraction, or something that may be thought of or contemplated-a mere ideal existence. It is a reality, a fact which exists under the government of God, and which has as real an existence as any other fact. As there can be no sin without transgression, there can be no transgression without a transgressor. And when the law is transgressed, sin exists and not before. Hence it has a real existence in connection with the sinner's moral character, and is consequently a part of the moral character of the sinner. To save man from sin implies a modification or change of moral character, and must involve in it the effects of sin, or its natural and legal consequences. The passage says, "He saves his people from their sins," and to be saved from their sins, they must be saved from the sins which they have committed. For in no other sense can they be called their sins. Therefore it is plain that to be saved from their sins, is to be delivered from the effects and consequences of their actual transgressions. This conclusion is irresistable; there is no other alternative. The effects and consequences of sin may be described as moral defilement, guilt, condemnation, and punishment. Is it said that Christ saves the sinner from sin by saving him from defilement? I answer, this would involve deliverance from punishment, unless guilt remains after defilement is removed, which would be absurd. It it said that he saves him by removing his guilt? I again answer, this removes punishment, unless God should punish a being no longer guilty, which would be unjust. Is salvation effected by removing condemnation? My answer still is, this would deliver from punishment, which always follows condemnation. If condemnation be removed, the punishment which follows condemnation must be removed also. Is it said the sinner is saved from guilt and condemnation after he has suffered all his sins deserve? Still again I answer, if he has suffered all his sins deserve, he is no longer guilty or condemned, and hence cannot be the subject of salvation in these respects. To suppose him yet saved from guilt would be to suppose him still guilty; if still guilty, he still deserves punishmenthence to save him from guilt would be to save him from punishment.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FIRST REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators, and Respected Friends:-I can fully agree with my friend on the opposite side, in so much of his introductory remarks, as relate to the importance of a discussion of this character. His personal allusions, however, are far to flattering to allow me to pass them without a decided disclaimer. I do not possess nor claim the reputation of a controversialist. Indeed, public discussion is measurably new business to me. Neither am I entitled to the encomiums for scholarship and critical abilities, which have

« PreviousContinue »