« PreviousContinue »
us from"-what? Elder Holmes gays, from just and deserved punishment; but what does the Bible say?—" from this present evil world !” —(Gal. i. 4.)–Or, from the wickedness of this present evil generation. In our Lord's prayer we are directed to pray for what? That God would deliver us from punishment? No: bui—" deliver us from evil,” or sin.
I will now attend to my friend's third argument, predicated on the sufferings of Christ. His position is that Christ's sufferings were in the place, in the stea:l, of sinners He attempted a brief criticism, on the original language, in which I wish he had ventured a little farther. The New Testament asserts that Christ “died for us.” (Rom. v. 8.) “He died for all.”—(2 Cor. v. 15.) He tasted death for every man.”—(Heb. ii. 9.) He “gave himself a ransom for all.”—(1 Tim. ii. 6.) He “died for the ungodly.”—(Rom. v. 6.) He was "made a curse for us,” &c.—(Gal. iii. 13.) My friend says that the word " for” in these quotations, is from the Greek words " anti” and “uper," and that the meaning is “ in the place of man.” I maintain that “ for” in these passages has not that signification. As for the Greek word “anti,” it does not occur at all, in either passage above quoted. I can find no place in the New TesLament, where it has the signification of “in the place of,” or “in stead of,” in reference to the sufferings of Christ. There are instances where it signifies " in the place of”-as the following :" But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room (anti] of his father Herod,” &c. -(Matt. ii. 22.) Here the word anti is correctly translated “in the room.” But let a place be shown in the New Testament where that word possesses any such meaning, in reference to the sufferings or death of Christ.
What is the general use of the word “anti” in the New Testament? It occurs in such sentences as this-- Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for (anti] an eye, and a tooth for (anti] a tooth.”—Matt. v. 38.) Here anti is used in its general and proper sense, not in reference to things that take the place of each other; but things that are set opposite. In David's exclamation, “would to God 'I had died for thee,” in reference to Absalom, no doubt h meant in the stead of Absalom. Yet he did not express a desire t save Absalom from just and deserved punishment for his rebellion It was simply a common expression, indicative of great grief fo the loss of a beloved friend or relative.
In the passages quoted by Elder Holmes in support of his view of the sufferings of Christ, •- for” is translated from the Greek word "uper.” It is a preposition, to which Robinson’s Lexicon gives some ten different meanings. It is singular that my brother opposite should take one of these meanings, and assume, (for he has attempted no proof,) that it has that signification in all those places where it refers to the sufferings of the Redeemer. It is true “uper” sometimes signifies " in the place of,” as in St. Paul's exhortation
“We pray you in Christ's stead [uper] be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) Also in the following —“Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead [uper] he might have ministered unto me.”—(Phil. 13.) But I deny that “uper" has this sense, when referring to Christ's sufferings and death for the world. Robinson himself, while he says that some Lexicographers give those passages where “uper” occurs in connection with ihe sufferings of the Son of God, the sense of " in the place of,” yet he places them under the signification of “in behalf of.” For instance—“Christ died for the ungodly”—“Christ died for us." In these instances Robinson gives “ uper” the signification of “in behalf of.”
But in examining the meaning of disputed words, the most satisfactory and convincing method is to refer to their scripture usage. I will give some examples where the word "uper” occurs in the New Testament. By ascertaining, in this manner, its meaning when applied to others—to the Apostles, and even to God-we are prepared to learn its signification when used in reference to Jesus and his sufferings. “Pray for [uper] them which despitefully use you.”—(Matt. v. 44.) Does praying for men, signify praying in their stead ? Clearly not, but in their behalf, for their benefit? Again—“What shall we then say to these things ? If God be for super] us, who can be against us.”—(Rom. viii. 31.) “ And Jesus said unto him, forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for super) us.”—(Luke ix. 50.) “Whereof I, Paul, am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for super] you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, in my flesh, for [uper] his body's sake, which is the Church.—(Col. i. 23, 24.) “ And whether we be afflicted, it is for super] your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; or whether we be comforted, it is for super] your consolation and salvation.”—(2 Cor. i. 6.) “For unto you it is given, in the behalf [uper] of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for (uper] his sake.”—(Phillip. i. 29.) “Hereby perceive we the love of God, (or of Christ] because he laid down his life for [uper) us: and we ought to lay down our lives for [uper) the brethren.”-(1 John iii. 16.) These passages should decide the question. In the last quotation, uper is used in both cases. Now, if it means in the place of, where it refers to Christ, it means the same where it refers to the brethren. Can we suppose that the Apostle John would use the word in the signification of in the place of, when it refers to Christ, and then go on and use it as in behalf of, in the other case. He makes use of the word uper in both cases in the same sense.
Many other passages where “uper" occurs in like sense, might be quoted. How is it to be understood in these instances ? If we give it the meaning in the place of,” it will make utter nonsense of the language of divine writers. Try it! But understand
it as signifying" for the benefit," or "in behalf,” as it is rendered in Phillip. i. 29, and the language is sensible and beautiful! The last passage quoted, (1 John ii. 16,) is singularly instructive in regard to the word under consideration. There "uper” occurs twice. It cannot be doubted that the Apostle used it in the same sense, in both instances. If in the first case, where “uper" is applied to Christ, it signifies, he died in the place of sinners, to satisfy the divine law in their stead, then it has the same sense in reference to the Apostles and christian professors, and teaches that they should die in each other's stead, and for the satisfaction of any claim which violated law may have upon their brethren. But if “ uper” when used in reference to the followers of Christ, means that ihey should die in behalf of one another, and for each other's benefit, then it has a similar signification in reference to Christ's death for man. To suppose St. John would, in a single sentence, give to precisely the same word, two meanings, the one vastly different from the other, without any intimation to the reader, would be charging him with a stupidity and blindness in the highest degree derogatory to his good sense. He undoubtedly understood the death of Christ for man to be of the same nature, and for the same purpose, as the death of his brethren for each other.
The examples I have given of the meaning of “uper,” both from Lexicons, and the scripture usage of the word, justify me in the assertion, that when it occurs in reference to the sufferings and death of the Redeemer, it in no sense proves them to be vicarious, or 'in the place of the guilty. The whole weight of evidence is on the other side, proving that Christ suffered and died in behalf and for the benefit of a world of sinners. Hence the arguments which my opponent builds on those passages where “uper” occurs, fall prostrate and helpless to the ground.—[ Time expired.
[MR. HOLMES' FOURTH SPEECH.] Not anticipating so lengthy and worthy a criticism on the Greek prepositions anti and uper, I shall not be able perhaps to make as many remarks on this point now, as at some future time when I shall be able to look up authorities. But as has been the case heretofore, so in the present instance, Mr. Austin's arguments are based mainly on assumption. He assumes that the use I made of these terms excluded the meaning he has given to them. I have never denied that uper is used in the signification for which he has contended. I have only said that when applied to Christ it is used in the sense of one dying to save the life of another. I have argued for no other application of the term, than to Christ's death, as endured for sinners. To illustrate my views I will read you from, Rom. v. 7–8. “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die :
yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” We have the testimony of all commentators, except those who support Mr. Austin's views, that St. Paul, introduces this case to illustrate the sense in which Christ died for sinners. I have also the testimony of Thobuck, a distin-guished German Divine, who has given the world a most learned and critical comment on the Epistle to the Romans: in which he says uper is used "synonymously, with anti when applied to the death of Christ.”
When I sat down last, I was remarking upon passages Mr. Austin had quoted to sustain his view of punishment, and I alluded to the 80ih Psalm 31–32. I do not intend to charge him with misquoting the passage purposely, of course, if he says he had no such intention, I am bound by all rules of discussion, and considerations of respect to regard it as a mere mistake. That is, however the sense in which I understood him, and others understood him in the same way. Perhaps I should not have alluded to it at all, if it had not been thus quoted in the “ exposition of Universalism" by Mr. I. D. Williamson, in which he preaches a sermon on that very text, and reads it in that way in the text itself. I allude to it, because the correction of that word certainly vitiates the whole argument built upon that passage. Any one who will read the Psalm through, will see that the author is speaking of the family and throne of David, and promises that even though the children do transgress and incur divine punishment; yet his loving kindness “ he will not utterly take from him," that is from David. You can see the difference at once. Mr. Austin quoted a number of passages to prove that Christ came to save us from sin, and also that he came to save us from the evil of this present world, that he came to take away our sins, &c. I never disputed this, I believe as firmly as I ever believed any thing, that all this will result from Christ's death to those who believe in him. But that does not vitiate my argument in the least. To make this good, Mr. Austin ought to have gone on and shown an inconsistency between being saved from sin and saved from punishment. He ought also to show how a man can be saved from sin and not saved from the punishment of sin. Unless he does this his argument is not worth a straw. I say there is no consistent sense in which a man can be saved from sin without being saved from its punishment: and moreover, he has not given you the phraseology correctly: He says “He shall save his people from the commission of sin." It is one thing to be saved from sin hereafter, another to be saved from sins already committed. True Christ came to turn away from ini. quity, but also to save his people from their sins. That is the point alluded to in my argument, and in no way can he save his people from their sins, without involving salvation from punishment.
I will now attend to the passage quoted from Hebrews. He has attempted to show that there is no differance, between the punishment of the sinner and the chastening of the people of God or that if there is any, those denominated the people of God are the most guilty and deserve the most punishment. Well, if they become sin. bers, they are no longer the people of God, and hence no longer proper subjects for chastisement but rather of punishment. By chastisement of the people of God, is not meant positive punishment for actual sins committed, but a course of discipline in which Gol corrects their judgments and strengthens their graces. Let it be remember that this world is a state of probation, à course of discipline and trial, and though the visitations of God upon impenitent einners, are the incipient state of that future and final retribution which awaits the ungodly, yet to the christian, the man whose purpose it is to love and serve God, the providential dealings of heaven are not properly punishments, but a course of discipline by wbich God tries his people as he did Abram, strengthens their faith, perfects their graces, and matures their christian character. And ihis passage in Hebrews, 12th chapter, is directly confirmatory of this view of the subject : "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” The plain implication is that there were some who were not received as sons. The passage goes on, “ If ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then ye are bastards and not sons.” A little further on, he exhorts them to take heed lest there be any among them who like Esau, for a morsel of meat, should sell their birthright. That is, the liberty wherein Christ had made them free, was their birthright, the source of their titles and privileges, as children of God. This does not support Mr. Austin's views of punishment—not at all. My friend also says that Universalism does not impose on men the necessity of sinning. Perhaps Universalism has made new discoveries recently, but I will read from a living author. Mr. Ballou on atonement, page 31, says: “natural evil is the necessary result of the physical organization and constitution of animal nature.” Page 32d, he tells us, that “moral evil or sin owes its origin to natural evil.” Page 64, he adds--"man is dependent in all his volitions, and moves by necessity.” This is corroborated by Mr. Rogers, in “Pro and Con of Universalism,” page 290, where he says "the notion of free will is a chimera.” Mr. Ballou is therefore consistent with himself, and with Universalism, when he remarks, page 104, " the Almighty had no occasion to dislike Adam after the transgression, any more than he had even before he made him.” The plain import of all this is, that God made man with an imperfect constitution, and thus purposely subjected him to the necessity of sinning. It is vain to attempt a denial of this conclusion; it is unavoidable.