Page images
PDF
EPUB

of God, which he argues have the force of promises. Hence, when God commands all men by saying, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," it is to be regarded in the light of a promise or pledge, that all men shall love God with all the heart. But if all men love God, all men will be holy and happy. It is an easy task to show that this argument is self-contradictory, and in other respects unsound. In a former speech I corrected the gentleman's misrepresentation of Wesley on this point. God's commands have the force of a promise, no otherwise, than as they imply that those who design, and aim to do his will, shall be graciously furnished with power to obey his commands. Mr. Austin assumes that every command is an absolute and unconditional promise. But this idea contradicts the very nature of a command. A command supposes obligation to obey; obligation to obey, supposes power to disobeyand power to disobey, is inconsistent with an absolute promise or pledge that obedience shall follow. There can be no power in man to violate an absolute pledge of Almighty God; hence, in regard to such pledge or promise, there can be no moral obligation, and no command. Thus the argument destroys itself.

Moreover, how does the argument agree with facts? God commands many things, with equal plainness, which are not observed, such as, "thou shalt not steal"-" thou shalt not kill." These commands are adapted to this life, and by many are never regarded with favor, and with respect to them the command of God is never obeyed. The world is full of such facts, all of which refute Mr. Austin's conclusion.

Finally, if the command of God that men should love him, imposes on them the necessity of obedience, why do not all men love him now? The command is as plain and absolute now, as it ever will be we can have, from the command itself, no assurance that it will be more efficacious hereafter, than it is now: but it does not secure its own fulfillment in this life-hence, if our only security, for final holiness and happiness, arises from the command of God in itself considered, the inference must be anything but favorable to the salvation of the whole human family.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.]

Messrs. Moderators: Before proceeding to notice the objections urged by Elder Holmes, I will introduce the last two Arguments I shall offer on the affirmative of this question. My Eighteenth Argument is drawn from several

ANTITHETICAL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

PROPOSITION.-The Scriptures declare that whatever imperfection, disability or evil, God may have subjected his creatures to in this life, he will, in due time, deliver them from, through the instrumentality of Christ.

PROOF.-That the Creator should, on the plain principles of equisave mankind from any disadvantage to which he has volunta

rily exposed them, I have already shown in my argument from the Justice of God. It requires but a common estimation of right and wrong, to recognize the correctness of this position. The Bible fully sustains it in many passages framed in the form of antithesis, where one thing is set over against, or to balance, another. The following passages may be classed under this head:

"As we have borne the image of the eary, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."--(1 Cor. xv. 49.) Here one event balances the other. Who have borne the image of the earthy? All men-all that have bodies of flesh and blood. There, all men will bear the image of the heavenly. Dr. Adam Clarke says:“The comparison most evidently is between the state of man in this mortal life, and his state after the resurrection. Here all men are corrupt and mortal; and here all men die. Then all men are incorrupt and immortal; and whether holy or unholy, shall be eternally immortal."—(Dr. C. on 1 Cor. xv. 49.) What stronger evidence can be required to prove the holiness and happiness of all mankind? In the resurrection state all will be incorruptible and immortal, and shall bear the glorious image of Christ, the Son of God. To say that creatures who are incorruptible, immortal, glorious and heavenly, are still unholy and wretched, would be uttering the sheerest nonsense.

"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. xv. 22.) Mark the antithesis. The one declaration is made to cover the same ground, and to possess the same weight, as the other. All that is lost in Adam, is restored in Christ. And the restoration is as certain to be experienced by all men, as the loss has been endured by them. Whatever death all may have suffered in Adam--whether physical, or moral, or both-they will all be delivered from it, by being made alive in Christ. How absurd then to speak of ETERNAL death. The Bible uses no such words, and inculcates no such sentiment. Remember, all men are to be made alive IN CHRIST. What will be the moral condition of those made alive in Christ? "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away: behold all things are become new."-(2 Cor. v. 17.) All are to be made alive in Christ, and hence all will become new creatures. How conclusive and satisfactory is this argument.

It is in vain to say that Christ was speaking only of the resurrection of the righteous. Have none but the righteous died in Adam? Besides, Dr. Adam Clarke, as we have seen in the quotation just made, acknowledges St. Paul was speaking in reference to the resurrection of all men, in this chapter. It will be equally unavailing to quote the next verse-“But every man in his own order." This but refers to the order of time, in which all shall be made alive in Jesus. It does not contradict the fact just uttered, that ALL shall be made alive in Christ!!

"If through the offence of one, many [oi polloi-THE many

all] be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded upto many."(Rom. v. 15.) In regard to the word "many," Dr. Clarke says"that the oi polloi,' the many' of the Apostle, here means all mankind, needs no proof to any but that person who finds himself qualified to deny that all men are mortal."

"As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."--(Rom. v. 18.) In these two passages it will be seen that the antithesis is equally balanced and perfect. It is immaterial, so far as the weight of this testimony goes, what was the nature of the offence, whereby all men were brought into condemnation. And it is equally immaterial, what the righteousness of the one may be, through whom all men are brought unto justification of life. The great TRUTH which is asserted and reiterated again and again, is that the same number and the same beings, who were brought into condemnation by the offence of one, shall be brought unto justification of life, by the righteousness of one. And as it is allowed that all men are brought into condemnation, it must necessarily be conceded that all men will be brought to justification of life.

"For as by one man's disobedience many [or polloi--ALL MEN] were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many [oi polloi-ALL MEN] be made righteous."--(Rom. v. 19.) Here it is positively asserted that ALL MEN shall be made righteous through the obedience of Christ. Where is there any ground for debating this question farther, if we are disposed to give the least weight to the solemn declarations of God's word!! Dr. Clarke says: "It is most evident that the same persons are referred to, in both clauses of the 15th verse." The Doctor ridicules the idea that the same number who experienced the loss, will not experience the gain. He thinks if Calvinism was true, i. e. if but part of mankind are to be made righteous, then St. Paul's language should read as follows: "As by the offence of one, judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon SOME to justification." "As by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall some be made righteous." "As in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall soME be made alive." "But," adds Dr. C., neither the doctrine [that but a part shall be made alive and made righteous] nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man." Then of course, the doctrine and the thing taught by St. Paul, was that ALL MANKIND shall be made alive and righteous in Christ! There is no avoiding this conclusion !!

"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did MUCH MORE abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord."-(Rom.

[graphic]

v. 20--21.) Here the sins of all the world are put into one side of the Antithetical scales, and the Grace of God into the other. What is the result? Does Sin weigh down Grace, or even balance it? No; the Grace far outweighs the Sin. The Apostle declares Jehovah's Grace to be MUCH MORE than the sins of men!! Upon what principle, then, can it be maintained that Sin shall so infinitely preponderate over Grace, as to perpetuate its existence and its triumph forever!! According to my opponent's doctrine, the grace of God is but as a feather, when placed in the balance against the mountain weight of human sin! To correspond with this belief, or grant it any support, the Apostle should have penned his language thus: "Where sin abounded, grace did MUCH LESS abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, in respect to the vast majority of mankind, plunging them into endless wrath, even so might grace reign toward a meagre few, and by great exertions get them into heaven!"

Dr. Clarke, in summing up his remarks on these passages, breaks forth into the following strain of triumphant exultation, in which I most heartily unite with him: "Thus we find, that the salvation from sin here, is as extensive and complete, as the guilt and contamination of sin. Death is conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin TOTALLY DESTROYED!!" If Dr. C. does not teach Universal Salvation here, in what possible sense can he be understood? These Antithetical passages of scripture, afford a most conclusive argument in support of the final salvation of all mankind. Let Elder Holmes overthrow it, or even weaken it, if he can!

My Nineteenth Argument is drawn from

DIRECT SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE.

PROPOSITION.-The Scriptures distinctly and positively assert the final holiness and happiness of all mankind.

PROOF.-There are still many passages of scripture which support the affirinative of this question, that I cannot do better than bring together in one body.

1. "There is no God else besides me; a just God and a Savior. There is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear. Surely shall say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength. Even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed."-(Isa. xlv. 21-24.) Elder Holmes noticed this passage in his last speech, and made an effort to destroy the meaning which lies on its very face, and to force upon it an interpretation totally foreign to the intention of the divine writer. He says, it was uttered by the Prophet to denote the general spread of the gospel. This is very

true. It declares the gospel shall spread so generally, as to reach all men, and cause all to bow the knee of willing obedience, and confess with exulting joy, that in the Lord they have righteousness and strength! Moreover, he contends that so far as the extent of salvation is involved, all the passage teaches is that every individual shall have an opportunity to be saved! Surely, the Most High used remarkable language to express such an idea. When he says "every knee SHALL bow-every tongue SHALL Confess—SHALL SURELY say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength"-the Creator only meant that every knee shall have an OPPORTUNITY to bow-that every tongue should have an OPPORTUNITY to confess, that in the Lord they have righteousness and strength!! How long would such an exposition of language stand the test of criticism in a court of law, or before any authority competent to decide the meaning of words? Not a moment. To insist that the passage only means all shall have an opportunity to bow the knee, and confess with the tongue, is giving but a portion of the great truth conveyed by Divine Inspiration. It goes farther, and asserts that all shall, in due time, improve this opportunity, and actually and willingly bow the knee of obedience, and exultingly confess that in the Lord they have righteousness and strength!

The Elder also informs us that the word one, in our English version-(" surely shall one say,")--was added by the translators, to make sense of the passage. If this was their object, they utterly failed; for instead of sense, it makes perfect NONSENSE of the entire connection ! There never was a word more arbitrarily or foolishly thrust into a place where it did not belong! Of all that look to God and are saved"—of all that bow the knee, and confess with the tongue-will there surely be but one creature that can say, "in the Lord have I righteousness and strength?" What propriety is there in maintaining that the word "one" should be added to denote Christ? Will there be no one in the universe but Jesus, who can say "in the Lord have I righteousness and strength?" Will all the rest of created beings be plunged in- . to unrighteousness and helplessness? According to my friend's Trinitarian notions, Christ is the very God himself! What propriety or sense is there in representing one infinite portion of the Godhead as saying that it has righteousness and strength in another infinite portion of the Godhead? Mr. Holmes insists that the last verse in the chapter--" In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory"-shows that the promise was designed to be confined to but a portion of mankind, the "spiritual seed of Israel" that is, I suppose, modern partialists! Here is another instance of the theological tergiversation for which my friend is becoming eminent. So far from conveying any such idea, the true intent of the last verse, is to confirm the universality which runs through the whole of this remarkable prophecy. The inspired penman, in that verse, designed to assure the Israelites that their

« PreviousContinue »