Page images
PDF
EPUB

the condemnation and confusion of face he was endeavoring to cast on his neighbors.

In my friend's next speech, which closes the discussion on this question, he will tell you of the wonderful things he has accomplished. He has informed you that on the last question, he was left"in full possession of all his arguments," notwithstanding the utter failure he experienced in satisfying even his own friends of the soundness of his positions, and notwithstanding, too, the utter annihilation which his scripture quotations and criticisms experienced. With a modesty and humility which can but challenge the highest admiration, he will make similar boasts of his achievements on this question. He will inform you that all my arguments are demolished, that my scripture proofs are dissipated, and my every position has been overturned. Most positively he will assert that complete success has attended his beautiful and amiable work of showing that Jehovah's wise and gracious plans for the redemption of the world have been overthrown-that Christ's attempt to rescue the race from sin and death, has been frustratedthat the hopes of all angels, the desires of all good men, have been forever blasted!! Notwithstanding my arguments are the clearest deductions from the attributes and purposes of God, and afford in fact, the most positive demonstration of the truth of the aflirmative of this question-notwithstanding I have shown you by the plainest declarations of scripture, that God will have mercy upon all men, and will save all men-still he will insist I have offered no proof, and have not approached to a demonstration of the soundness of my doctrines. But I have the utmost confidence in the bility of this audience to see through all these pretences. Words e cheap, and easily spoken. It is by far more convenient to im a victory, than to gain it! Those who have listened and d, are the umpires between the parties in this debate. To them cheerfully submit the subject matter we have had in hand. Let em weigh carefully, judge candidly, and decide honestly and unerstandingly, and I have no fear for the issue.

In conclusion, allow me to say that the destiny which I have contended God has in store for all his creatures, is one which corresponds with all the teachings of the scriptures, with the highest dictates of reason, and the holiest wishes of the christian's heart. It is under the light of these views only, that man is enabled to conceive of harmony and unity in Jehovah's councils. Here alone Justice, Mercy, and all God's attributes are removed from an antagonistic attitude, and made to meet and "kiss each other." Here only we can see them go together hand in hand in all the movements of a wonder working Providence, to the accomplishment of purposes the most grand, and desirable, of which man can conceive. Blessed Harmony! Glorious agreement! Worthy a perfect God! Infinitely worthy the father of all Spirits. O, the bright and blissful prospect which is unveiled to the eye of

397

A vast family of intelligencies Faith, in this heavenly system! all tending towards their common Father, through a wise and well adjusted series of progressive stages-going up from one degree of light and knowledge to another-continually approximating the Infinite Fountain of Being and Perfection-continually increasing in happiness as they are prepared for it, by an increase in Truth, Holiness, and Love-until at last, the entire race shall stand before the throne of the common Father, emancipated from sin and imperfection, and with a full, perfect, glorious developement of the image of the eternal Godhead in which they were originally created!! The ways of Providence are vindicated, and their wisdom and perfection manifested to all. The great God of heaven is honored in all his works, and infinitely glorified in the dignity, holiness, and bliss, to which he has elevated the creatures of his hands!

My soul soars far away in delightful survey of this blessed hope! It ascends higher and higher, as truth after truth, like new discovered stars in Night's sparkling diadem, break in grandeur and sublimity on its expanding vision, sending abroad floods of light divine! The wing of thought droops and fails in its rapid flight, beholding no bound nor limit to the still enlarging expanse of Infinite Grace, until every power of conception becomes bewildered and lost in the IMMENSITY OF GOOD, which the Parent of all has prepared for his creatures! In view of a destiny for fallen man, so great, so holy, so blessed, my heart gladly and joyfully unites in the divine strain of the Psalmist-" Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye Lands. Serve the Lord with gladness; come before his presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord he is God. It is he that made us, and not we ourselves. We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise. Be thankful unto him and bless his name. For the Lord is Good, his Mercy is everlasting, and his Truth endureth to all generations."— (Ps. c. 1--5.)-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' TWELFTH REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators :-Mr. Austin is entitled to my thanks for reminding me of another and very weighty argument, against his doctrine of unconditional, inevitable salvation for the whole human family. He has made a strong appeal, and with much apparent confidence, to the hearts of the audience, claiming its decision in favor of his doctrine. Of course his remarks refer to the heart, as it is. Universalism knows nothing of a renewed heart--a regenerated heart: it claims that the heart, in its natural and unholy state, gives its suffrage for annihilating the endless sanctions of the divine law, and unconditionally saving all men, without

ment.

regard to character or conduct, as subjects of God's moral governOf the truth of this there can be no doubt: hence, 1 freely grant the gentleman his claim. But mark-so far is it from proving his system true, it demonstrates its depravity and falsehood. The Bible declares the heart to be evil, deceitful and wicked. Our Lord says, "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."

This being the moral state of the heart, it is wholly at variance with the purity of God's law, and the principles of his gospel. A wicked heart will love only that which is assimilated to its likeness. The gospel requires self-denial-renunciation of sin, and a course of holy obedience. Hence, the wicked heart hates the gospel. But Mr. Austin says it loves Universalism; and no wonder, since that theory allows all that a wicked heart can claim or desire, without the least hazard as to final consequences. Mr. Austin is right. The sinful, depraved heart loves his doctrine, and is never more happy than when the intellect has become so perverted as to allow it the undisturbed enjoyment of the object of its gross, sensual and depraved affections.

The argument may be stated thus: Any system of religious doctrine which falls in with the natural bent of the human heartis loved and cherished by it-must be false in its character, displeasing to God, and dangerous to the souls of men. But Mr. Austin says, Universalism is loved and cherished by the heart, with all its sinful tendencies and corrupt purposes and desires: and often, in opposition to the dictates of the intellect and judgment. The conclusion, therefore, is as sound and forcible, as the premise is truthful-Universalism is false in its character, displeasing to God, and dangerous to the souls of men.

There are a few other particulars to which I wish to call attention, before I proceed to recapitulate my opposing arguments, and sum up the discussion on this question.

As was anticipated, Mr. Austin has presented a long list of eminent names, claimed as Universalists. His object in this is to weaken, if not destroy, the force of my last negative argument, based on the very recent origin of Universalism; as well as to sustain, by the authority of great names, a system which must fall, if left with no other support than its own intrinsic merits. As I intend to bestow more attention upon this nominal argument of my friend, before the discussion closes, than I can at present, I will esteem it a favor, if he will give me the authority from which his materials are drawn.

It is not

MR. AUSTIN. They are taken from various sources. possible for me to designate all of them. Some of the names read, were taken from the "Ancient History of Universalism."

MR. HOLMES.-This is a very convenient method of avoiding responsibility, in a matter that my friend is well aware will not

bear investigation. From "various sources." Well, in the absence of more specific information, we have the whole field before us, and must do as well as we can. The gentleman has, however, ventured to refer to the "Ancient History of Universalism," as one of the sources of his information. It is really enough to excite a smile, to hear of the "Ancient History of Universalism," a book written for the first time, by the son of the man who first gave being and form to the system defended by my opponent, not far from the beginning of the nineteenth century. On the list of names introduced by the gentleman, we will only remark at present two or three things. First: Many of the distinguished individuals referred to, did not embrace Universalism in any form whatever, but taught a directly contrary doctrine, as is abundantly evident from their published works. Of this class are Doddridge, Watts, Dick, Sir Isaac Newton, and others. To claim these as Universalists, is a false and slanderous imputation upon their hitherto unsullied reputation. Secondly: Of all the names read to us, (so far as my recollection now extends) not one embraced anything like the system of doctrine advocated here by Mr. Austin, nor had they the least fellowship for such views. There is no more similarity between the views they held, and modern Universalism, than between Deism and the Gospel of Christ. Finally: Those who symbolized with Universalism in any respect, flourished, for the most part, during the age of speculation which succeeded the reformation by Luther; and their Universalism, with scarcely a single exception, consisted merely in admitting a doubt of the perpetuity of future punishment. In all other respects, they were orthodox, embracing evangelical views of Christ and his Gospel; and yet Mr. Austin parades their names before us as Universalists, without a single word of explanation. My negative argument, founded on the modern origin of Universalism, is untouched as yet by anything that has been said. Names are nothing, however distinguished, when brought to sustain a false and anti-christian scheme-and besides, the names embraced in the list referred to, so far as they might claim to be Christians at all, cannot, with either truth or propriety, be associated with the anti-scriptural, semi-infidel theory, defended by my opponent. The measures adopted by Universalist writers generally, and the course pursued by Mr. Austin in this discussion, in quoting the views of orthodox ministers, authorize the supposition, that wherever they find a writer repudiating the notion of unconditional reprobation to damnation, and maintaining the universality of the atonement, they at once place his name in the list of Universalists. It is in this way they make out their catalogue. I have no doubt, that under other circumstances, the list would have been enlarged by adding the names of Wesley and Clarke.

The audience will recollect, that when the debate on this question commenced, I advertised them of my intention to take hold of

every affirmative argument presented, and show the fallacy in the gentleman's premises, and the unsoundness of his whole course of argumentation. He has multiplied his arguments without precedent, and beyond what was required by the nature of the question. By this course, though my friend has weakened his main position rather than otherwise, by spreading his proofs over so large a surface, yet he has rendered the discussion more complex, and imposed a more difficult task on me, inasmuch as I have found it necessary to to reply again and again, to the same arguments, presented with a slight change in phraseology and the mode of illustration. Whether I have redeemed my pledge, I most cheerfully submit to the decision of the public, after I shall have briefly reviewed the ground over which we have passed.

The first argument brought forward by Mr. Austin to sustain the affirmative of this question, was drawn from the desire of God. God desires the happiness of all his creatures, therefore all will become holy and happy. In reply to this, I have shown that it involves a number of assumptions and sophisms, which render it wholly nugatory. The argument is worthless, unless the desire of God controls, in an absolute and resistless manner, the final destinies of men, irrespective of moral agency or moral desert. But this is a mere assumption, not only without proof, but directly in the face of the most stern and decisive evidence to the contrary. God's moral attributes, his moral government, the plain declarations of his own word, the moral agency and responsibility of man, together with the facts existing in the moral universe, unite in asserting the unsoundness of the process by which the gentleman has reached his erroneous conclusion. God will never desire the holiness and happiness of men, more strongly and ardently than he does at present. Hence, nothing can be predicated of this desire in the future, beyond what we see effected by it now; but this desire does not, by its own resistless control, nor by the means employed to secure its object, remove the sinfulness and misery of moral beings, without regard to their agency and conduct. It therefore contradicts analogy and fact, as well as the nature of the gospel, and the plainest dictates of his word, to assume, from the desire of God, the unconditional, inevitable salvation of the whole human family.

The same remarks will apply, with all their force, to the intention of God, from which my friend, by a strong physical, not to say intellectual effort, leaps to the conclusion he seeks to establish. The gentleman cannot claim to have any other knowledge of the divine intention, than that communicated through his government and his directly revealed will; but neither of these authorize the deduction of Universalism. What may be expected from the operations of the divine government, is constantly being developed around us. Beyond this, we are authorized to expect nothing, only on the positive assurance of direct revelation. And what is this assurance? Can the gentleman refer me to a single

« PreviousContinue »