THIRD QUESTION. IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEVING THAT ANY [MR. HOLMES' FIRST SPEECH.] Messrs. Moderators: In opening the discussion on the third question, I have to express my consciousness of inability to do justice to the fearful truth involved. And I doubt not, I should feel the same sense of inability, were my knowledge much more extensive, and could I claim a much larger share of intellectual power, than has fallen to my lot. I have not, thus far, conducted this discussion in the spirit of vanity and self-confidence, and I hope I shall still be able to preserve that modesty of pretension, and feeling of dependence on God, without which I should not deserve success. There is one peculiarity connected with this debate thus far, as relates to the course pursued by my friend of the other side, to which I beg leave to call the attention of my auditors. He has studiously avoided a frank and manly avowal of his views of a number of important subjects, intimately connected with the merits of this discussion. I was aware he would do this beforehand. Universalist champions always have taken this course; hence, reasoning from analogy, (which is always a safe method of argumentation,) it was natural and fair to presume that the gentleman opposed to me in this debate, would adopt the same policy. In this I have not been mistaken. I determined, from the first, to give him an early opportunity to explain his views on the points above referred to, but in every instance he has either passed on without reply, or disinissed the subject, with a careless and indefinite remark. On the first question, I asked him to tell me when, where and how men are punished all their sins deserve-whether it is all effected in this world, or whether God inflicts positive punishment in another world, upon those who die without repentance and reformation. But I could get no satisfactory answer. Sometimes, when pressed with difficulties, he has dropped a remark which seemed to indicate a belief in future punishment; but when I have taken up the seeming admission, and pressed him with the unavoidable consequences, he has entered his disclaimer in an indirect and indefinite way, and again left the whole subject in a loose and undefined state. And yet he would have us believe there is -there can be, no mistake about this matter. God will fit all for heaven, by punishing them to the full extent of their deserts. Punishment, he tells us, is a means of salvation; and why should men be delivered from that which is intended to save them? Not to dwell now upon the absurd notion that salvation flows from penal inflictions, we ask, why should a man give himself any concern in regard to that which is incapable of definition or description? What do I care, what does any body care, for an assertion that an event will occur, if, after all, we may have no reliable information respecting it-we may know neither what the event is, nor when, where, or how it will be effected? In this condition the gentleman has left the first question. On the second question, I asked my opponent to tell me what he wished to be understood by salvation—whether men would, or could have been holy and happy, without Christ and his gospelwhether salvation is confined to this life, or may be effected in another world, in cases where the sinner lives and dies in sin, and in rejection of the offers of mercy-in short, when, where, and how, all men are to be made holy and happy? And here, too, the gentleman is mum. Why is this? He has talked considerably of deep water; and yet, when the oar is put into his hand, and the direction he should take clearly indicated, he stubbornly refuses to "Push his light shallop from the shore." It is most evident, the gentleman dreads the danger and responsibility of an attempt to guide his bark between Scylla and Charybdis. What motive can I have to seek salvation, unless I can know what it is, and where to find it? A punishment wholly indefinite as to nature, time and place-and a salvation that cannot be explained or found, can furnish no motives to avoid the one, or pursue the other. I defined the terms of the first question, taking up each word separately, and giving its signification, and thus threw myself frankly and fearlessly upon the merits of the question to sustain me. Did my friend do this on his question? I did it voluntarily; but he has refused to do it, though his attention has been repeatedly called to the subject. I am not disappointed in the course pursued thus far-it is what I expected; hence, I do not allude to it by way of complaint. The advocate must do as well as he can for his client, and when he is engaged in defence of a bad case, his only hope of success is in artifice, sophistry, and special pleading. My only object in alluding to these things, is, that the audience and public may understand the character of Universalism, from the strange freaks exhibited in the gentleman's logic, the straits to which he is reduced, and the fantastic tricks he is obliged to play off, in order to maintain his position. Please attend to another point, viz: the disadvantage under which I appear before you on this question, especially on account of the state of the human heart. My friend has frequently appealed to your sympathies, and assured you that your hearts are in favor of his doctrine. Unless your hearts have been touched by grace, and you have been made to feel the exceeding sinfulness of sin, I have reason to fear there is much truth in his assurance. I have no doubt, Mr. Austin, and those associated with him, and thousands who are not known as Universalists, do, as he says, hate and abhor the principles for which I contend, and specially the doctrine now under consideration. How can I doubt it? since St Paul says the carnal mind is enmity against God-is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. And another scripture declares The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Now, it is that same law referred to by St. Paul as being opposed by the carnal mind, for which I am contending here. He says the carnal mind (the natural, unregenerate heart,) is opposed to it. My friend, Mr. Austin, says the same; and the desperate effort he has made, during this discussion, thus far, is a sufficient illustration of the other passage. And this is, by no means, a strange thing. I have no doubt, that the gentleman might collect a congregation in any of our cities, or populous towns, and deliver them a Deistical or Atheistical lecture, and then appeal to them in confidence that he would be answered with thundering applause, gentlemen, your hearts are in favor of my doctrine. Robespierre and his infamous coadjutors beheaded the Priests of France, denied the existence of God, declared death an eternal sleep, overturned the altars of religion, converted the temples of Christianity into halls of infidel blasphemy, set up a woman of ill fame as the representative of their Goddess-Reason; and then they could appeal to the multitude, and say, with no danger of being disputed, gentlemen, your hearts are in favor of our doctrine. A few years since, French infidelity paid us a visit in petticoats, in the person of Fanny Wright. She was associated with Robert Dale Owen, and supported by the presence of Mr. Ballou, and other prominent Universalists. She collected large assemblies in Boston, New York, and other cities, and handed out to them her abominable and licentious principles; and the clapping of hands, and stamping of feet, proved that their hearts were in favor of her doctrines. It was the testimony of Almighty God, respecting the antediluvians, that every imagination of the thoughts of their heart, "was only evil, continually." And he sent Noah to preach to them, but their hearts were not in favor of his doctrine. I must suppose, if my friend, Mr. Austin, had been there as a preacher, he would have come directly in contact with old Noah. Had he been there. he would doubtless have said this notion of the general and final destruction of this generation from the face of the earth, must be false-it contradicts the intention, desire, pleasure, love, mercy, justice and foreknowledge of God. Moreover, is not God the Father of us all? And would our kind and merciful Father treat his erring children in this way? Besides, did not God foreknow what we would be? Why then punish us for what he foreknew would happen? How much better to have left us in the unconscious sleep of non-entity. Why! oh why!! COMPEL us to live for SUCH A DOOM? No, no, this dogma is not true; your hearts "abhor and detest it; my view of the subject must be correct, for your hearts are in favor of my doctrine. Or instead of this, if the gentleman had been there to say to them, as he has said to us hereyour punishment, whatever it may be, is in no sense an evil—it is a wholesome medicine to cure your disease, and though the deluge come, and you are all destroyed, it will be but the commencement of a course of salutary discipline, through which you will graduate to glory; no doubt, their hearts would have been in favor of his doctrine. Messrs. Moderators, I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness; could I claim the suffrage of the world's heart for my doctrine, my confidence in it, would cease from this hour. The whole world is guilty, and in a state of rebellion against God; and who does not know how difficult it is to reconcile rebels to the laws and claims of the government to which they stand opposed. But, though I may not claim the suffrage of the world's heart, I do claim the suffrage of the world's conscience. Conscience, when not violated, silenced, crushed, by the wickedness of the heart, and the false reasonings of men, always gives her decisions in conformity to the truth of God. We have both a proof and illustration of this, in the case of Felix. Paul reasoned he did not tell him God was about to give him a dose of wholesome medicine to cure his licentiousness. He "reasoned of righteousness, temperance and a judgment to come." Universalists never reason in this way. They sometimes talk of temperance, but never of a judgment to come. Felix trembled. Conscience was roused; the voice of God within, responded to the voice of God without, and he trembled. But alas for him, his heart was not in favor of the doctrine preached by Paul, and he said "Go thy way for this time, when I have a more convenient season, I will call for thee." Conscience has kept the doctrine of future retribution alive amongst the heathen, while almost every thing dependent on the mere deductions of reason, (of a religious nature,) has perished from their midst, or been variously corrupted. Conscience now often causes the Universalist to tremble as he approaches the hour of dissolution, and reflects upon the insecurity of his foundation, while resting his hopes of heaven upon a doctrine so loved by the corrupt and selfish heart. Mr. Austin is welcome to the world's heart; I feel myself better supported by the heart of the true Christian, and the conscience of the sinner. |