Page images
PDF
EPUB

sense ? Acknowledged. And by all rules of enlightened criticism, his taking upon himself the iniquities and chastisements of men, must also be understood figuratively. In what sense did the Savior bear the sorrows and sicknesses of men? All agree it was in removing them. Very well. In the same sense of removing them, he bore our iniquities-not in bearing in our place the punishment due our iniquities.

What are we to understand by those passages which speak of Christ as being wounded for our transgressions-giving himself a ransom for us--suffering and dying for men ? Simply that he sufjered, bled, died, in our service, in laboring for our good, and in accomplishing his great work of reconciling the world to God. The marked distinction between my friend and myself, on this subject, is, that while he maintains Jesus suffered and died as a punishment borne for men, and in their stead, I insist all he experienced was in behalf of mankind, as a noble hearted philanthropist labors and suffers for the good of his needy fellow beings.-{Time erpired.

(MR. HOLMES' THIRD SPEECH.] MR. HOLMES— Messers. Moderators: How many minutes may I speak? I understand Mr. Austin has spoken over his time, somewhat.

MR. AUSTIN-I prefer that the opposite side should take five minutes. They belong to him, and can be taken from me.

Respected Audience :-In opening the debate for this evening, I wish to call your attention to the fact that my friend, Mr. Austin, has not paid the slightest attention to any of the arguments I have presented, except the one drawn from the redemption of Christ, spoken of in Galatians. Mr. Austin has treated us to two or three dissertations on subjects, to say the least, but indirectly connected with the question. To much of what he has said, I have no objection to offer. But the question under discussion is, “ Does Gospel Salvation embrace deliverance from just and deserved punishment ?" We are not discussing the nature or design of punishment, but simply whether the gospel as a merciful provision, does propose to save men from that punishment which they deserve. " Whether God inflicts punishment or saves them from it

, in either case, the design is good. But the question does not relate to the design or nature of punishment, but whether God proposes through Jesus Christ to save men from it. I asked Mr. Austin to define his position in regard to future punishment. He declines doing so; says it is not relevant, and yet he introduces a great deal of matter of less relevancy. I am going to show, if I have time, why I asked this of him. There are a number of considerations besides the one that it would have brought us nearer together. There is no neces

1

sity for widening the difference between us, by refusing to avow our sentiments on points intimately connected with the merits of our respective theories. We are far enough apart, when we come as near together as we can; and an explanation of his views in regard to future punishment, if it did not bring us nearer together, would at least give me a knowledge of his real position. And unless he consents to define his whereabouts on this subject, the inference will be unavoidable, that he is afraid to give a frank and manly expose of his real views.

He states, the Bible says nothing of salvation from punishment : a declaration which must appear most strange and unaccountable to any one who has read his Bible with the slightest attention. I shall have occasion, before the question is finished, to present an argument based on the plain language of scripture, and then it will be seen what this allegation is worth. He also says God would not enact a law, and then proceed to save men from its penalty. Were this all there is about it, I might agree with him; but the gentleman does not seem to comprehend either the nature or design of the Divine law. He seems to suppose the whole design and use of law embraced in the infliction of penalty. But the case stands thus: The law is intended for the good of the universe-its revelation makes known the rule of moral rectitude to the moral world -its penalty has two uses ; first, to guard the law from infraction -second, to visit the transgressor with just and deserved punishment. It was never the design of God that man should transgress his law, hence the first use of penalty was to deter from sin; but sin being committed, the law must be vindicated and the government maintained by the punishment of the guilty, unless as already remarked, an expedient be resorted to that will relieve the trans. gressor, and still maintain the ends of good government. Has this expedient been resorted to ? This is the question now being discussed. According to Universalism, God has made it necessary for man to commit sin, and having done that goes on 10 punish him to the full extent of his deserts. This shows the question in a light wholly irreconcilable with justice. But there is nothing inconsistent in my view of deliverance from punishment. He also says that to save man froin just and deserved punishment would be to do wrong. We have already spoken of the atonement of Christ. It was made for the express purpose of making it consistent and righteous for Go:l to exonerate the sinner from the infliction of punishment. Hence St. Paul says in the third chapter of his epistle to the Romans, “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness." That is to show that God may be righteous and good in exonerating the sinner from the infliction of pnnishment, and in the " remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God.” “That he might be just,” is the language of the Apostle, “and yet the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." Were there no Redeemer-no atonement

[ocr errors][merged small]

through which men might be saved from punishment, such salvation would conflict with justice. But through Christ the repenting sinner is saved from punishment in perfect harmony with the divine attributes. The passage to which I have just alluded needs no comment; it presents with singular clearness the great central doctrine of christianity. Mr. Austin also gives us to understand that punishment is not an evil in any sense of the word. But if it be not an evil in any sense, it must be a blessing in every sense, and God proposes to punish man with a blessing. If that punishment which the Bible teaches us is the just and deserved consequence of sin, be a blessing, then it follows that those who have the most sin are the most blessed. Where, then, is the motive to desist from sin ? Has a man under such circumstances any motive to repent of his sins and turn to God? Punishment is a blessing, and hence he who sins most, is most punished, and most blessed! A strange view, this, of the government of God and the character of punishment ! We admit that God often chastens his children and that this is a good to them. But he must make a difference between the chastening of his people, and the punishment of the incorrigible sinner. The Bible represents the one as chastened, while the other is punished. In the case of the sinner it is punishment—the first fruits of that endless perdition which will be awarded him in the retributions of the last day. In the case of the christian, the visitations of God loose their penal character, and become the corrections of a kind and loving Father. And the corrections administered to the children of God do not necessarily result in good. This result depends upon the disposition with which they are received and improved.

It is scarcely worth my while to reply to the representations of my friend respecting retaliation and revenge. On the principles which I advocate, he knows it has no existence, and is not the doc trine of any of my school, but he must say something, and not be ing able to remove any of my arguments, he proceeds to erect th. man of straw, and then shows himself redoubtable by knocking over. Against his own theory, however, the charge of retaliation may be made to lie, as every offender must expiate his offences in his own person ; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, becomes the ruling principle of action,

Vyniriend protests against judging of the nature of the Divine government from human governments, and yet he makes the most of his arguments rest on the administration of a father in his family, thus erecting a human standard as the criterion of the divine administration, and Jaboring to establish what he strenuously condemns in me. We shall have occasion to show up his paternal arguments

bedre we close, but we pass it by for the present. I now call your attention to what Mr. Austin says is the curse of the law. I quoted and built an argument on the passage, “ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." This I said was pun

[graphic]

ishment, the penalty of the law. Christ having redeened us from that, provides a way to escape from the punishment of sin. Mr. Austin replied that this meant the Levitical law. First, let us say, there is no proof of this whatever, except his ipse dixit. We are to take it on his authority, and to suppose we have the argument answered. My reply is this: In the first place, the Apostle was preaching to the Galatians, who were never under the Levitical law, and had nothing to do with it. How then could the redemption of Christ be intended to free them from the Levitical law ? My second point, is that the object of this redemption was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles by faith. What was that blessing? It was justification by faith ; for, says the Apostle, “ Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now this blessing of Abraham existed before the Levitical law, consequently the redemption of Christ, was intended to save them, the Jews and Gentiles, and all the world, from a curse that existed anterior to the Levitical law. And the result of such salvation would be to bring them the blessing of Abraham, which is justification by faith. Is this consistent with Mr. Austin's version of the matter? In the third place, the Levitical law was typical of Christ, and hence in no sense a curse. If it was as Mr. Austin says, then God established the typical representation of Christ, his son, as a curse, and then sends Christ to redeem men from that curse! How does this look ? Moreover this law is called the “shadow of good things to come.” Is that a curse ? The only sense in which Christ removed the Levitical law, was in bringing it to an end. When he came there was no further necessity for it, because it was all fulfilled in him. He therefore was the end of the law, for righteousness to every one who believeth. Moreover, Mr. Austin says, to remain under this law was a curse, but this same chapter says, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” On his method of interpretation, how is he to harmonize with St. Paul ? He says, to continue under the law is to be cursed; but St. Paul says, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things writin the book of the law, to do them.” I think this is sufficient to show that his version of the matter was got up on the spur of the moment, as the best theory that could be presented to counteract a fact, in itself unanswerable.

I now present my next argument, founded on the scriptural view of pardon, forgiveness, and remission. These words are of very frequent occurrence in the scriptures as expressive of benefits con. ferred, or favors shown to those who repent and turn from their evil ways. With respect to such it is said, they shall be “abundantly pardoned,” “ be forgiven,” “obtain remission of sins,” and

All English dictionaries to which we have been able to gajn access, agree that the signification of these terms, is, in substance, to release the guilty from penalty, from the abligation to suffer the legal consequences of his guilt, and treat him, so far as punishment is concerned, as though he were innocent. Webster, as a correct exponent of the views of others, uses these terms to detine each other, and his definition substantially is, “ release of an offence, or of the obligation of an offender to suffer a penalty, or to bear the displeasure of an offended party.” If these words do not mean this, Mr. Austin can tell us what they do mean. Moreover, this definition of the English words is sustained by the Greek of the New Testament. The words translated "forgiveness,” “remission,” and so on, being defined by Greek lexicographers to mean, release of a captive, remission of a debt, or punishment. These terms thus defined, there is no difficulty in understanding our Lord, when he says " Father forgive them;" or the Psalmist when he says, “ Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered."

so on.

The scriptures represent that in pardoning, forgiving, or remitting the sins of the guilty, God confers on them a great benefit; hence the language of the Psalmist just quoted. Bui in what possible way can a sinner be blessed in the pardon of his sins, without being released from the just and deserved consequences of his sins? We say there is no way; Hence, as forgiveness, pardon, Temission, and so on, are gospel favors, it follows that gospel salration embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishment.

I will now present my sixth argument, based on the scriptural doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. Being justified by faith,” says Paul, “ we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans v. 13. To be justified is to be acquitted from guilt, and treated as though we were innocent. Hence the Greek word Dikaio, signifies to vindicate, acquit, defend, to pronounce righteous. To be justified, therefore, is to be declared righteous. To be justified by faith in Christ is to be acquitted from our guilt, and declared righteous for Christ's sake, and on account of our faith in him. The immediate effect of this justification, is peace with God; that is deliverance from the punishment with which God visits the sinner. Therefore the justified can say with truth, “Oh Lord, I will praise thee, though thou wast angry with ine, thine anger is turned away, and thou comforteth me.” The doctrine set up by my friend not only destroys the nature of justification by depriving it of the elements of salvation, but it also makes it depend on the law, and not on Christ. The difference between Universalism and the Bible, is as plain as the light of Heaven. Universalism makes justification the result of being punished all our sins deserve ; the Bible makes it depend on our faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible says, had there been a law given that could have given life, righteousness should have been by the law; but “is righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Universalism, on the contrary, so far as justification is concerned,

« PreviousContinue »