Page images
PDF
EPUB

On the Arminian principle, Mr. H. opposes the doctrine on this wise; "The doctrine of universal salvation is inconsistent with the character of God as a rewarder, and with the principles of a righteous moral government. If in the future world vice is not to be punished and virtue rewarded, then God is not a righteous moral Governor."

[ocr errors]

But to settle the certainty of a partial salvation, and to cut short some of their reward in a future world, for services rendered to God in this, the nature, or properties of a reward are explained in the following summary expression; "What is bestowed indiscriminately on all is reward to none. Thus is an appeal to your understanding instantaneous and decisive. You may have learned the maxim, that "the hope of reward sweetens labour," but should all who labour indiscriminately receive their due wages, it is no longer a reward. The motive no longer exists for exertion-no reward is offered, because every man receives his penny; and that is no SATISFACTION in which all partake!!

You will recollect what has just been quoted from Mr. H. "If in the future world, vice is not to be punished, and virtue rewarded, God is not a righteous moral Governor." It is necessary to keep this in mind, that we may see the application of his philippic against Universalists, when it comes home to his business and bosom. After opposing the tenet of Universalists, that the Salvation of God, is salvation from sin, or a sinning disposition, and denying that he who is duly punished can be saved, because not saved from the curse of sin, he says;

"According to them, there is no forgiveness, with God. Every man who sins, is punished to the full extent of his guilt. [Here is one truth.] And if he is saved, it is not from the penalty of the law, which takes its course with every offender, but from the

dominion of a sinful temper, or a depraved heart. [True again.] But what says the Bible? [Yes, what says it?] Does that explain salvation to mean, simply, deliverance from the power of sin? Is all that it says of justification, of forgiveness, of pardon, [See Isa. 40: 1, 2.] of remission of sin, without meaning? [No.] Do the scriptures, after all that has been said and sung on the Heavenly theme, give us no idea of a pardoning, forgiving, justifying God?" "Forgiveness is remission of penality; pardon is deliverence of the guilty from the due punishment of their sins."

After carefully comparing this quotation with the one a little above, will you say that this description of salvation is "consistent with the character of God as rewarder?" Or will you answer the question proposed by Mr. Hawes relative to Universalists ?

"Why do the abettors of this system find it necessary so to torture and wrest the scriptures in order to make them speak the sentiments of their creed?"

Let it now be asked in the face of these clashing testimonies, on what plan shall an individual be saved, with the consent of God's justice? The scriptures declare all men sinners, and as fully assert, that every man, without respect to persons, shall be rewarded according to his works. Mr. H. settles the question on the Arminian plan, by charging God with being an unrighteous moral Governor, if sinners are not punished in a future world, and to strengthen it as far as assertion can go, he assures us, that "since such retribution does not take place in this world," it evidently must in the future. But forgetting, or intending to brow beat by the most consummate arrogance, the understanding of his readers, he finds it necessary to meet the Universalist by a counter argument. Hence the Uneversalist, who has already been accused of setting aside the sanctions of the divine law, is now assailed by the complaint, that God's mercy is also set

aside, and Mr. H. seems to quarrel in earnest, lest some should enjoy happiness consistently with the justice of God. While with one hand he hurls the thunders of Sinai, and is jealous of the law, with the other he extends the offers of mercy, conditional on the hell-deserving character of the claimant. Do you see the least exaggeration in this statement?

"Let me see wherein

My pen hath wronged him; if I do him right,
Then he hath wronged himself."

Perhaps, however, my powers of discernment are overrated, for Mr. H. assures us, with the whole authority of his ipse dixit that

"Universalism perverts the judgment and stupifies the conscience, so that the mind under the influence of it, becomes incapable of feeling the force of evidence and of having any proper sense of moral obligation."

Should you rest satisfied with the logical propriety of his decision, I must submit; but I see not why the infallibility of the Pope has so long been rejected, whose credentials make it as clear that he cannot err, as do those of the Protestants that they do not.

[ocr errors]

What

ever wrong may be done to the cause of truth by his assertion, I am not now disposed to retaliate in the same manner, because a paragraph which now meets the eye, convinces me, that his "conscience" is not so stupified" as to prevent his "feeling the force of evidence," and instinctively pointing out the very place where his argument is defective, and where his scheme resembles the toes of the image. True, a spark of passion discolours the acknowledgment, but it only renders the fact more glaring. Read for yourselves.

"I am not to be met here with the thread-bare slang of Universalism [quite classical] respecting election, and decrees, as confining men in their sins and making it physically impossible for them to escape.

Whatever may be true respecting the doctrine expressed in those terms, one thing is plain; the Bible does not so teach them, [I think so too] nor does any intelligent Calvinist so hold them as to destroy the free agency of man,* or the sincerity of God in the offers of his mercy. The invitations of the gospel are free, made sincerely to all, and all who will, may accept them. This I know is, by Universalists, charged as an inconsistency upon Calvinism; and they are for ever talking, and writing, and preaching about it, as though this were working out their salvation. No inconsistency can be shown! but I will not, in this place argue the point with them."

Whether it be the slang of Universalism, or matter of fact, every man of sense must admit, that Calvinism, is the system of doctrine, taught by John Calvin, the murderer of Servetus; an appellation not likely to be misunderstood by any one. The unnatural alliance between this and Arminianism, has no claim to the name of either. John Calvin's Calvinism is no more like the Arminianism of James Arminius, than the preaching of modern doctors of Divinity, is like that of Paul of Tarsus. Dreadful as was the scheme of Calvin, it went directly through with "election and decrees, ," and cut down, with the relentless hand of a sturdy villain, all those whom its author imagined God had predestinated to wrath, whether men or angels. Neither age, nor sex was spared-the system went straight forward. Calvin had no eye to pity, nor would he raise a hand to save. But the decision of the council of Dort, settled the heresy of Arminius,

* A Calvinistic writer, in exhibiting the advantages of Calvinism over Arminianism, says; "The Calvinistic system supposes the salvation of some to be secured; but on the Arminian system there is no security for the success of the gospel in a single instance, from the creation of the world to the judgment day."

by the immolation of Barneveldt, who stood in his deceased master's place on the trial. He was condemned by orthodox Calvinists, for maintaining the principles avowed by Mr. H. though a professed Calvinist. The" intelligent Calvinist," if he be also consistent, rejects the scheme advocated by Mr. H. as puerile, and falling far short of his ideas, either as to salvation, or the cause of it. Whether the author of the Letters will at any future time," argue the point with" those who deny the general invitations of the gospel, as a part of the system of Calvin, you may easily judge, after reading Calvin's Institutes, a book formerly in much repute.

We have seen that Mr. H. appears determined, at any rate, to maintain the doctrine of endless misery, and that to do this, both consistency and truth have been sacrificed. He has, however, spoken the truth rather unwittingly in the following declaration. What is to be the fate of the culprits, who practice vices which "bring their own chastisement with them," ap. pears a problem. If the law is satisfied, as he would term it, I perceive no claim to lie against them in a future state of being; for even my opponent allows, that if they are not punished in this life, they may justly be in the life to come. This, I think, implies, that if punished in this life, that punishment is sufficient. On the Arminian side of his system, I see not but he must be the recipient of blessedness, or remain in a state of quiescence. But here is the concession. "Admit, if you please, that flagrant vices commonly bring their own chastisement with them."

Whatever was meant by this concession, you will be at no loss to discover, that the want of uniformity in character, which is disgraceful, and a badge of error, when found on Universalists, is so far from wrong when found in company with the orthodox, that it is an absolute sine qua non. My antagonist has declared

« PreviousContinue »