Page images
PDF
EPUB

two mistakes, in supposing the grave is all the hell there is, and that the destruction of hell implies the final salvation of all men. Both these points are unsupported-nay, contradicted by scripture. The destruction of hell is described in Rev. xx. 14-" And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire."

Again, the gentleman says, according to my doctrine, a great majority of the human family must be lost. If this were so, it is difficult to see what connection it has with this question. But I have not said so, nor do I believe so.

MR. AUSTIN. Of those who have already lived.

MR. HOLMES.--I have no objection to this explanation, still, I do not believe the greater part are lost, but, on the contrary, that the great majority will secure heaven, through Jesus Christ, who is "the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

Mr. Austin also dwells considerably upon the words, "All things are given into his (Christ's) hands." The plain meaning of this is, that Christ possesses, by divine authority, all the quali fications necessary to execute the mediatorial scheme, and is supreme in the mediatorial kingdom. Having made the atonement, he has the control of means and measures to be employed in proclaiming his gospel and calling sinners to repentance. The Father has committed the management of this whole subject to Christ, who in his office of Mediator, must reign until the time of the end, when the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father, and God shall be all in all. In the meantime, all men are embraced in the designs of his mercy, and "they that come to him, he will in no wise cast out."-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S TWELFTH SPEECH.]

Gent. Moderators:-Mr. Holmes denies he ever prayed that the wicked might go down to hell. But why not? If there is a place of endless torment, and it is just and right for the wicked to go there, as he professes to believe, why should he not PRAY for such an event to take place? Why should he not say "O Lord, send the wicked to hell-allow them there no opportunity to repent, but compel them to remain in torment and sin forever!" There is not a professing christian in the world, having the slightest regard for his reputation, who would dare make such a prayer in public. Indeed there is no true christian who

*

The nearest approach to a prayer of this description, of which I have ever heard, was in the case of a certain D. D. in Auburn, who in the midst of a revival prayed O Lord, we THANK thee that thou hast made a HELL for the wicked! !^!"

could have the slightest inclination to put up such a prayer to the Throne of Infinite Love. Is it not most remarkable that the self-constituted Evangelical sects, hold a prominent and fundamental doctrine, for which not one of them would be caught praying-yea, for which every one of them would be ASHAMED to pray!!

The Elder declares there is no need of praying for the salvation of all, if all are to be saved! This thought is singularly origi nal. According to this idea, when we believe that men will be damned, then we should pray that they may be saved. But if we believe that the heavenly Father has willed to save all, then we must not pray for their salvation-we must not say--"Thy Will be done!" It is evident the gentleman's view of prayer is, that it will induce the Deity to change his purposes towards man. Hence he thinks, if prayer will not have such an influence, it would be wholly useless. May I inform my brother, that one great object of prayer, is its effect upon the supplicant's own heart to bring it into submission to the Will and Purpose of God. During the agony in Gethsemane, Christ prayed "Not my will but thine be done." (Luke xxii. 42.) Are we to suppose Jesus was doubtful whether God would accomplish his Will, and prayed in order to persuade him to be willing to do his own Will? No; the object of the Redeemer's prayer was to bring his will into subjection to the Will of his Father! Thus St. Paul directs, that prayers be made for all men-(1 Tim. ii. 1)—not to induce God to save all, but to bring the hearts of those who utter such a prayer, into a willingness, that the glorious purpose of Jehovah to bring every creature to salvation, should be accomplished. A prayer to produce such effect, is greatly needed by thousands in our own day, as well as in the age of the Apostle!!

He charges me with perverting Dr. Clarke's views. I plead not guilty to this accusation. Whatever I have given from Dr. C., has been in his own language. If some of the sentiments quoted, conflict with the views and language of the Doctor on other topics, the disagreement arises from the confused notions of Dr. C. himself, and which prevail among his own sect, and not in any use I have made of his plain declarations.

Elder Holmes attempts a very feeble reply to my argument from Antithetical passages of scripture. Does he even assert that my construction of those passages, was not correct? Does he attempt to show they do not conclusively prove the salvation of all men? No. He simply introduces one solitary passage(John v. 28, 29)—which he claims to be antithetical, and which he would have you believe overthrows all those I brought forward in my argument. In other words, he makes the Bible contradict itself, in order to overthrow Universalism! But here his usual misfortune attends him. Allowing the passage to be anti

thetical, it proves nothing against the final salvation of all men. The Savior is simply describing the moral resurrection which takes place wherever his gospel is proclaimed. Those who hear, believe and practice the doctrines and precepts of the gospel, are introduced into the enjoyment of spiritual life and peace. But those on the contrary, who reject the gospel, and violate its principles, enter into a state of damnation-(Gr. kriscos-CONDEMNATION)-i. e. an unhappy condition of mind and heart. This moral resurrection had already commenced when Jesus uttered the passage under consideration. This is evident from the context: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, [Gr. krisin] but IS PASSED from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and NOW IS, when the DEAD shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear, shall live."-(v. 24, 25.) Thus, allowing the passage to be antithetical, it furnishes no evidence against the doctrine of Universal Salvation. But it is not antithetical. What is an antithesis? It is not a sentence where one fact is simply mentioned in connection with another fact, as in the passage quoted by Elder Holmes. But it is a sentence where one thing is set over against another to balance it, as in a pair of scales. A pure specimen of this description of composition, is found in 1 Cor. xv. 22:-

"As in Adam
ALL DIE,

-EVEN SO

In Christ shall
ALL BE MADE ALIVE."

Here the latter part of the sentence balances the former, and proves a restoration in Christ, of ALL that was lost in Adam. It must be evident to every mind, that the Elder has not even approached my Antithetical argument. I would urge our hearers to review that argument, and carefully note the remarkable character of the passages of scripture which are there quoted. They prove to a demonstration, that whatever and all, that the human race may be said to have lost, in consequence of being created in the Adamic nature, subject to temptation, evil and sin-shall be restored or made up to them in Christ; in the spiritual nature he will bestow upon them.

Mr. Holmes endeavors to overthrow this argument by attempting to show that my views on several points, are incorrect. Suppose all this were so, what connection have my alleged errors with the meaning of the passages under consideration? I have shown that St. Paul declares in so many words, that all that mankind have lost in their Adamic nature, will be restored to them in Christ. This is the argument. Has the Elder attempted to disprove it? No. He has wholly evaded it. Hence the argument is mine.

The Elder indulges in a bold assertion in relation to my views of the 5th chapter of Romans, from whence I have drawn seve

ral passages in my Antithetical argument. He says I do not believe the plain assertions of this chapter, and that Universalism wholly denies them. There is not one word of truth in this declaration!! I could with as much propriety charge him with rejecting the whole Bible, and there would be quite as much truth in such an assertion! Universalism denies nothing in that chapter; but draws some of its strongest proofs from its comprehensive teachings. And as for myself, I believe every word the Apostle has there written. No part of the Divine Volume is more precious to me, or gives me more enlarged and glorious views of the work which Christ has pledged himself to complete! But I frankly acknowledge, I disbelieve and reject the limping construction which Elder Holmes, and his theological coadjutors, put upon the 5th of Romans. Here we have a specimen of his short-sighted logic. He assumes that his construction of the chapter is the true one; and because I repudiate that, he childishly accuses me of disbelieving the chapter itself! I humbly suggest that there is an infinite distinction between the principles which St. Paul inculcates in that chapter, and the doctrines which the partialist school seek to draw from it. The latter I reject-the former I believe.

The last of the forlorn array of Negative Arguments, which Elder Holmes has introduced, is truly unique. It is that Universalism is a new discovery. He declares it was never dreamed of, until modern days and is not fifty years old! Why does he not give credit for this argument? It came from Matthew Hale

Smith.

MR. HOLMES. I have never seen any thing about that in Matthew Hale Smith.

MR. AUSTIN.-It is in the book which the Elder shook at me a few days ago, and from which he has not ventured to read a word. The distinguished honor of originating this crushing argument on the age of Universalism, belongs to MATTHEW, and he should not be robbed of it. But look at this argument for a moment, under the supposition that I should allow it to be well founded. Universalism is a new doctrine, therefore it must be FALSE. Who can but admire this logic! Let us apply it to some other cases. There was a time when the Gospel was a new doctrine-there was a time when Protestantism was newwhen Methodism was new. Now if the opposers of these systems, were as shrewd, and dealt in as "deep water" as my opponent, they would have insisted that Christianity, Protestantism and Armenianism, were all false, because new! How easy and certain the triumph of the Jews, the Catholics, and the Calvinists, when defended by an argument so mighty!!

But the argument has not even the virtue of resting on correct premises. Universalism is NOT a new doctrine. What is Uni

versalism? I am aware my friend and the rest of his school, labor to make the public believe that Universalism consists simply in rejecting the doctrine of future punishment. But I beg the audience to be assured, the rejection of this sentiment, has no more necessary connection with Universalism, than with Calvinism. Some Universalists believe in future punishment, and others do not. But neither the belief nor the disbelief of that doctrine, constitutes any individual a Üniversalist. An Atheist rejects future punishment. Does that make him a Universalist? A Catholic believes in future (purgatorial) limited punishment, to be followed by restoration to holiness and happiness. Does that constitute him a Universalist? What, then, is Universalism? It is the doctrine that in the "fullness of times," all mankind will be brought into a condition of holiness and happiness, through the Mediatorial reign of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Every man who believes this great truth, is in faith a Universalist, whatever else he may believe. It is but a matter of common courtesy, observed among the candid of all classes, to allow each sect to explain their own sentiments. And such as I have described it, is the meaning invariably given to Universalism, by believers in that doctrine. How shallow, then, the objection that Universalism is not fifty years old!

Mr. Holmes says John Murray did not find modern Universalism in the Bible. John Murray found the same Universalism in the Bible in his day, that the venerable Hosea Ballou, and all living Universalist ministers do in our day. There is no difference in their opinions on this great doctrine. True, they may hold various views on minor points, and some Universalists now, may entertain opinions on secondary matters, different from those of Murray. So, I have no doubt, many of the Methodists entertain opinions on various religious topics, which materially differ from the views of John Wesley; but does this prove that they are not Methodists?

Friend Holmes thinks if John Murray should come back to earth, his eyes would flash with "HOLY* indignation" at the condition in which he would find his Universalist brethren. If my friend thinks Murray's indignation would be of a holy nature, he must believe that he is now holy and happy, notwithstanding his Universalism. It would seem then that all the Elder's outcry about the danger and peril of believing in the salvation of the world, was mere sound and moon-shine, got up for effect! He evidently believes a man can be a Universalist, and yet be saved! I desire our hearers to bear this in mind, when he warns again of the danger of believing in Universalism. Should the sainted Murray come back to earth, his eyes would flash with joy, instead of indignation, at the wide diffusion of the beloved

ler Holmes has omitted the word "holy" in his printed speech.

« PreviousContinue »