Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 sinners, 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 God corrects their judgments and strengthens their graces. Let it be rememberd that this world is a state of probation, a course of discipline and trial, and though the visitations of God upon impenitent sinners, 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 which God tries his people as he did Abram, strengthens their faith, perfects their graces, and matures their christian character. And this 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.

The passage quoted by Mr. Austin from 51st Psalm, claims a passing remark. It is as follows: "Have mercy upon me O God, according to thy loving kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions." Let Mr. Austin tell me if he can, how a man can have his sins blotted out, and yet not be saved from the consequences of those sins. The tender mercy of God has been brought into the question, Now what is mercy? It is a term that relates only to those who are guilty, and who stand in need of favor which they do not deserve. And its proper application is only in cases where individuals are treated with favor, though deserving punishment. The very passage quoted is a refutation of Mr. Austin's views on that point. The position assumed by him is that God punishes man first according to his deserts. Hence there is no mercy to be exercised towards him, in any application of the term.

..

With these remarks, I proceed to present my eighth argument, founded on those passages that clearly imply salvation from punishment. Luke xiii. 7-9. The parable of the barren fig tree. Tais represents moral beings who deserve to be punished for past delinquency. The proposition to spare the tree another year as a trial, clearly implies that if it bore fruit, it should then be spared the punishment already deserved on account of past barrenness. If it should not bear fruit then, that punishment should be inflicted. The tree deserved to be cut down or it did not. If it did not, then God threatened unjust punishment; but if it did, then the proposition to spare the tree is a proposition to spare from deserved punishment. Ezekiel xviii. 21.: But if the wicked will turn from his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned unto him." In Ezekiel xxxiii. 14-16, we have the same truth in nearly the same language. Jeremiah xviii. 7-8.: "At what instant I shall speak, concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." Here God promises that when he threatens punishment against a nation for its sin, if they repent of that sin he will not inflict the punishment. We have already seen an illustration of this passage in the case of the Ninevites. They were threatened with punishment, just and deserved, and it would have been inflicted had they not repented. But repenting at the preaching of Jonah, God did not inflict the punishment threatened, and hence they were saved from just and deserved punishment. He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." It is said in another place he that believeth not is condemned already. It therefore follows that he that believes is free from condemnation. Thence he must be saved from punishment. Micah vii. 18.: "Who is a God like unto thee,

that forgiveth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage." And now we ask the candid, what meaning, other than that for which we contend can be attributed to this language? God is said to pass by the iniquity of his people. How? By pardoning them; that is saving from just and deserved punishment. 2 Kings xxiv. 4.: "Manassah filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon." What would have been the effect of a pardon here? We see it in the consequences of a refusal to pardon. God would not pardon Manassah, and the effect was the destruction of Judah. Hence, if he had pardoned him, Judah would have been saved from this destruction. Thus the effect of a pardon is to save from just punishment. I would like to know if it can be explained, how pardon can be exercised at all, if it does not save from punishment? And when the gentleman has made out a clear case of pardon without removing punishment, I would thank him to reconcile it with the account given in Luke vii. 41-50. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, thou hast rightly judged. Our Lord then refers to the woman who had washed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, and assures Simon that her sins which were many are all forgiven." Then says he to the woman, verse 50, "Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace." On this case we remark,

[ocr errors]

1. The debtors had incurred a just obligation, but had nothing with which to discharge it.

2. In view of their poverty, and consequent inability to pay, the creditor frankly forgave them both.

3. This act of forgiveness released them from all the consequences of their indebtedness.

4. Our Lord employs this account of the creditor and debtors, to illustrate that act of forgiveness, then and there performed in behalf of the woman. Hence, as the creditor did grant a bona fide release to the debtors from the consequences of their indebtedness, so Christ, in pardoning the woman, released her from the penal consequences of sin; that is, from just and deserved punishment. If there be any truth or force in the illustration, as applicable to the case of the woman, it proves her released from the punishment deserved on account of sin. Acts iii. 19.: "Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." The Greek word translated blotted out, is to expunge, annul, obliterate. See Donegan, page 504. On this passage, Clark remarks as follows: That your sins may be blotted out, which are not only recorded against you, but for which you are condemned by the justice of

God; and the punishment due to them must be executed upon you, unless prevented by your repentance and turning to him whom ye have pierced." Romans iii. 24-27.: “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith." Here it is said, that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ-because or on account of our faith in him whom God hath set forth, as a propitiation. What is a propitiation? It is an act performed by a third person, for the purpose of effecting reconciliation between parties at variance: and this is done by turning away the displeasure of the justly offended party. This act was performed by Christ, who became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. As the effect of this propitiation, the obstacles to human salvation are removed, the righteousness of God declared, or vindicated, while he proceeds in the exercise of forbearance, to remit the past sins of those who "believe in Jesus." Here the doctrine of forgiveness of punishment is clearly taught.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FOURTH REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-I propose in the present half hour, to pass my friend's fifth and sixth arguments, based on his views of pardon and justification, until to-morrow, in order to give them a more critical examination. I wish to notice this evening, his seventh argument. It is drawn from certain passages of scripture, which, he asserts, teach that men have been saved from punishment. He has quoted these passages, he says, to prove that there are instances where God has not punished men as much as they deserve! I can but express my exceeding regret that he has thought proper to resort to an argument of this nature! Can it be possible he has maturely reflected on the practical influences of such an argument, on the minds of this audience, and especially the youthful portion of it? Has he duly considered the moral tendency of quoting seripture to prove to the young as well as old, that they may sin with impunity, to their hearts' content, and escape all punishment whatever? What more do the inexperienced need as an inducement to sin? I call upon my brother and all clergymen of the so-called Evangelical school, in the name of Heaven, and humanity, and for the good of society, to desist from such a course. I pray them to refrain from going to the Bible, and quoting God's holy word to prove that men can violate his commandments-trample on every thing holy and good—and yet be screened from all penalty! I beg

of them not to taint the minds of the rising generation, with a doctrine so demoralizing—so peculiarly calculated to seduce them into the path of sin! Did the passages Elder Holmes has quoted, prove that God has saved sinners from just and deserved punishment, they would prove more-they would prove that God has done violence to the plainest dictates of justice-that he has subverted the fundamental principles of his own government-and made his revealed word contradict itself in the most positive manner. If there is any doctrine that is plainly and unequivocally laid down in the Bible, it is the certainty of the punishment of the wicked. What signification should we attach to the passages my friend has quoted? They are not to be taken literally; but are to be understood as declarations uttered by men laboring under a deep sense of the heinousness of their crimes, and of the depth of guilt which rested on their souls. With their minds overwhelmed with a just estimation of their wickedness, they make these strong declarations. Yet these very passages show that God had punished them for their sins, which overthrows the position of my opponent, of salvation from just and deserved puuishment. But under their excited feelings, they thought they had not been punished quite as much as they ought to have been. This does not invalidate, or even reach the great principles for which I contend-viz: the certainty of punishment. I insist an enlightened interpretation of scripture compels us to understand these high wrought passages, as the declarations of men, smarting under a sense of guilt; and not as overturning the great fundamental principle every where taught in the Bible, that God's punishments are inflicted with unvarying certainty, and inflexible justice. They are certain, because they are just. Were they unjust, they might well be uncertain!

My brother on the affirmative, has repeatedly represented that gospel salvation is an "expedient," to which God was compelled to resort to rescue man from the claims of justice. This is a most remarkable view of the Creator and the perfection of his ways. What is an expedient? Its definition is-" Means to an end contrived in an exigence or difficulty-a shift." It appears then, according to my friend's position, that Deity managed the affairs of his world so imperfectly, and with so little foresight, that every thing fell into confusion against his intention, and in violence to all his calculations. Being thus surrounded with difficulties, he could not follow out his original plan in man's creation; but pressed by the strong exigency of the case, he was compelled to resort to an expedient contrived on the spur of the occasion, to rescue his creatures from their perilous condition. In this manner the so-called orthodox "plan of salvation," is supposed to have originated. Who can believe this, of an all-perfect God?

My friend refers to my quotation from Hebrews-"Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward, it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteous

« PreviousContinue »