Page images
PDF
EPUB

a ireasure in the heavens that faileth not; where no thief approacheih, neither moth corrupteth." Language cannot be better selecfed than this, to express the doctrine, that a course of self-denial, benevolence and piety, induced by devotion to Christ, shall find its ample compensation in a heavenly treasure. 1 Tim. vi. 8.** Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.The motive by which the duties here enjoined upon the rich are enforced, is, that in “the time to come," they may “lay hold on eternal life."

2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.--"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me, a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to all them also that love his appearing." Here the crown of righteousness is referred to, as the reward of his fidelity in his master's cause, and his integrity as a christian: and as this language was penned in full view of eternity, when he was “ready to be offered” [to die as a martyr,] this crown of righteousness was to be awarded, and enjoyed in the heavenly state.

Matt. v. 11, 12.—“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven. In this passage, our Lord assures his disciples that their reward in heaven will correspond to, or be increased by, their patient endurance of persecution for his sake, or in his cause.

Mark x. 29, 30.-Jesus said: “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters,

for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold more now, in this time, houses, and brethren,

with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life." 1 Pet. v. 2-4._ Feed the flock of God, which is among you,

not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

and when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory, that fadeth not away.

2 Cor. iv. 17.-“For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding, and eternal weight of glory.

2 Tiin. ii. 12.—“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us."

1 Pet. i. 3-5.--- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus

*

*

*

Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.”

These declarations of Christ and his Apostles are so clear, definite, and emphatic, in support of future retribution-reward in heaven, for a life of holiness and usefulness on earth, that it is one of the most remarkable things we have to account for, in the history of religious opinions, that men should be found, professing to believe the Bible, and yet rejecting the doctrine of rewards and punishments in another world. In rejecting the doctrine set forth in the passages above adduced, Universalism proves itself not merely false, but malignant, in its opposition to the great truths of Christianity. I earnestly call the attention of Mr. Austin to this subject, and when he shall have disposed of these plain scripture proofs, I have as many more for his consideration. For the present, I will suspend this argument, to be taken up and finished when I speak again. In the meantime, I will give you some farther views on atonement, as a supplement to what I have already said on that subject, in an off-hand way.

The Apostle Paul says, “the Law is holy, just, and good.” It is [agia] holy; free from moral defect: the very essence of moral purity; [dekaia,] just; promoting justice, and punishing sin: sagaihe,] good; in its object and end, tending to secure the ends of benevolence, and adapted to display the perfections of the divine character. The human race have voluntarily become transgressors of this law, and have thereby incurred its righteous penalty. Goodness may be inclined to show mercy, but holiness must maintain an opposition to sin, by an active display of justice. Holiness, as an attribute of God, is not inferior to goodness; hence, justice is not subordinate to mercy. The condition of the race is hopeless, unless deliverance can be effected upon principles that will harmonize with goodness and holiness, justice and mercy. Men, fallen and guilty, cannot save themselves, because in a state of death ; and death cannot produce life. And should we allow the natural availableness of repentance, it would not relieve them; since both the disposition and power to repent are wanting. Nor can the law save thein. By the law is the knowledge of sinnot the knowledge of salvation. Disconnected with atonement, it knows nothing of mercy. It makes an exhibition of its claims, that annihilates hope in the breast of the guilty, and leaves them nothing to expect, but the full execution of its threatened penalty. St. Paul says, “I was alive without the law once : but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Hence, “by the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified"-a declaration implying the impossibility of salvation to man, in a fallen state, either by personal obedience to the law, or by suffering in their own persons, the full extent of its penalty. If this reasoning be

correct, it follows, there is no hope for a condemned world, only in a divine interposition, that shall provide for extending pardon to the guilty. But how shall this be done? This is the great problem of Christianity. We answer first : Pardon must be extended to the guilty on mere clemency; or, secondly, a satisfaction must be offered, of such a nature as will honor the law, and secure the ends of the divine administration, while the sinner is released, and allowed, if he will, to renew his allegiance to God.

To the salvation of sinners on mere clemency, there are insuperable obstacles, founded in the essential and rectoral justice of God. By the essential justice of God, we mean that manifestation of righteous displeasure against sin, as such, which has its foundation in the holiness of the divine character. God is of “purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” It is an eternal and necessary opposition to sin, arising out of the nature of holiness, and has its outward revelations in the penal enactments of the divine law. Its retributive voice can no more be hushed, in the presence of sin, than holiness can be abstracted from the divine nature. Hence, should God extend pardon on a principle that disregards the claims of his essential justice, he would contravene his own natureresist and suppress the tendencies of holiness.

Recloral justice, is that which awards to moral beings, according to their deeds, under a specified form of government. It has its foundation in the contrariety between sin and the best good of the moral world; and its maintenance is necessary, to secure the ends of a holy and benevolent administration. It is the moral universe in arms against sin, because sin tends to defeat the happiness of the universe. To extend pardon to the guilty, regardless of the claims of rectoral justice, would be to give impunity to sin, and thus resist and suppress the tendencies of good government. To any scheme, therefore, that would pardon the guilty without satisfaction, the essential holiness and justice of God, as well as public justice, must ever stand opposed. These constitute the ground of necessity for atonement. To punish all, to the full extent of their deserts, and thus make satisfaction for sin, would be to destroy the whole race, since all are sinners. To pardon without satisfaction, would be to destroy the government. The only remaining alternative, is that which has been adopted. Jesus Christ has, by his personal intervention and suffering for sinners, made such satisfaction as supports the honor of the law, secures the ends of the Divine government, and opens a way for the sinner's release and return to divine favor, to holiness and happiness. From these views, the following conclusions are unavoidable :

1. Without the atonement of Christ, no sinner could ever have been saved.

2. Through the atonement of Christ, all sinners may be saved. 3. Those who reject Christ and his atonement for sinners, must

perish without remedy. Let the gentleman refute these conclusions, if he can.--[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S NINTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators : —Yesterday my friend, during his last speech, went back to the first question, and read quite an extract from his article in the Methodist Quarterly Review, in explanation of his views on the subject of the Atonement. If he wishes to return to that topic, I will offer no obstacle. I might introduce whole chapters on various subjects, from some of my published works, if I was lacking in matter, and wanted to fill up time. I think it best, however, to confine myself exclusively to the question before us. But I am not much surprised the Elder should be anxious to go back. He will pardon me for expressing the belief that he is quite willing to leave the present question, in any stage almost, and return to improve his arguments on the former subject.

Mr. HOLMES.— I had no sort of reference to the first questionthey were simply views which come in under this question.

Nr. Austin.—The extract Mr. Holmes read, was in reference to the Atonement, and he remarked that it was in explanation of the grounds he had taken on the first question. But I will not in. terfere with the course of my opponent. He can read whatever he chooses.

In reply to my Argument on the Will of God, Elder Holmes has taken a ground which shows that no dependence can be placed on the Will of the Most High! He says it is God's Will that all men should be saved now; but all are not saved. Hence he draws the conclusion that notwithstanding the Creator has willed that all men shall be saved hereafter, this is no evidence they will experience salvation. Did sophistry ever show its foolish face more nakedly! My friend overlooked the importance of having his premises cor. rect; and hence his conclusions are necessarily erroneous. God does not Will that all men shall be saved NOW-i. e. be brought in this life, to a state of sinless perfection and immortal glory. The Deity has revealed no such purpose or will. The Elder's objection built on this assumption, falls prostrate to the earth.

The principle adopted by my opposer, in this and all his objections to my argument on the will of God, is that the creature can overthrow and destroy the Will of the Creator. The unreasona. Weness of this position cannot fail of being self-evident to all minds. A finite will overthrow an Infinite Will! Man DEFEAT his Maker!! How inconsistent! Can any thought more thoroughly violate the first principles of reason Hear what Professor Stuart says in reference to those who doubt God's ability to accoinplish his Will :

“Of what avail, then, are the doubts and fears, the cold speculations of skeptics, and of half-skeptics in relation to the deeply interesting subject before us ? None at all. Men who doubt and reason thus, do in their own hearts, make the work of conversion a mere business of moral suasion by force of reasoning and argument. They overlook the Omnipotence of that Spirit, whose ottice it is to bow the stubborn will, and soften the hearts of the unbelieving. What! are not all things possible with God? Can he not “make the people willing in the day of his Power ?" Cannot he, who works in men “ according to the working of his Mighty Power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead,” can he not make the deaf to hear, and the blind to see? Can he not raise the dead to life! Has he not promised to do all this? Has he not often repeated the assurance that he will do it? Has he not done it in numberless instances ? Is any thing TOO HARD for God? Are not “all hearts in his hand ;” and so in it that he can TURN THEM whithersoever he WILL, even as the rivers of waters are turned? Can any RESIST God's WILL?

To doubt on this subject, is to question his power and his truth, the reality of the Christian Religion, and the Omnipotence of the Holy Spirit ! Believers in the scriptures are not per: mitted to DOUBT ! The thing is certain. The decree has gone forth, stamped with Heaven's own seal upon it. Jehovah haih sworn by himself, that every knee shall yet bow to Jesus, and every tongue confess that he is Lord. Away then, forever away, with all doubt and fear in regard to this part of our subject. The day and the hour, when all which has been promised may be fulfilled, we may not know. It is not essential that we should know them. But the promises of God, the facts which he has declared shall take place, ARE CERTAIN!! To doubt, is to call his veracity in question. To deny, is to tax him with having said that which is not true !''-[ Sermon at the Ordination of Rev. Wm. G. Schauffer.

Although this language was uttered in reference to the final restoration of the Jews, yet it retains all its power and strength, when applied to God's Will and Purpose to restore all mankind to holiness and happiness. Let it be read in reference to St Paul's declaration, that God “WILL have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,” and how convincingly it establishes the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Here we have, on the one side, Professor Moses Stuart, of the Andover Theological Seminary, advocating the Omnipotence and Irresistibility of God's Will, and the certainty of the accomplishment of his purposes-and on the other side, Elder David Holmes, with an astonishing puerility, absolutely denying that the least dependence can be placed upon that Will!!

If man can thwart and destroy God's Will in regard to one thing, he can in respect to another. Hence though God should Will and

« PreviousContinue »