« PreviousContinue »
The Apostle differs from Elder Holmes in confining the chastisements of God to those who claim to be righteous. He declares in the sixth verse, “Whom the Lord LOVETH he chasteneth ?” Who are embraced in God's love! The entire world of mankind-“God SO LOVED the world,” &c. (John iii. 16.) “But God who is rich in mercy, for his GREAT LOVE wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins," &c.--(Eph. ii. 4, 5.) These quotations prove beyond controversy, thai the principle or object of chastening, made known in the passage under consideration, is one on which God acts in his dealings with all men who incur the just penalty of sin. Elder Holmes read from Ballou on the Atonement, to show that on Universalist principles men are compelled to sin. I should have been happy to listen to more extended extracts from that book, for it inculcates many salutary truihs and sound principles. But he failed to make the author prove that for which he quoted him. True, Mr. Ballou says man was created subject to vanity and sin. In this, however, he but agrees with St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 20.) But being created subject to sin is very different from being under an absolute necessity of sinning. This, Mr. Ballou does not assert. He only contends that the creature was exposed to sin. Yet he was left free to combat it and resist its temptations.
My friend in the affirmative, quotes Doddridge and Tholuck in fupport of his position, that in those passages which speak of the suflerings and death of Christ for man, the word “for," [uper] signifies " in the place of.” Doddridge and Tholuck are good authority on points where they are disinterested witnesses. In this instance, however, they give to the passages to which reference is made, such construction as agreed with pre-conceived opinions, and theories already adopted. However learned and eminent commentalors may be, the frequent and wide disagreements among themselves, show they are far from being reliable guides in all cases. Where they pointedly differ from the Bible, I shall prefer God's word to their ipse dixit. In the full quotations introduced in my last speech, I showed the scripture usage of the word “ uper." These quotations proved conclusively, that its meaning when applied to Christ's sufferings and death, was, that they were “in behalf” of the sinner, and not " in his place.” My opponent has not attempted, and will not attempt, to invalidate my argument from the scripture usage of “ uper."" He is perfectly aware that it is inTulnerable.
I propose now to show that the position taken by my friend in the affirmative of this question, is in direct contradiciton to the most plain and positive declarations to be found in the Bible. If any reliance can be placed on language, either the Scriptures or Élder Holmes take erroneous grounds on this subject. Which of the two would be most likely to err on a topic of this nature, the good sense of this audience will have but little difficulty to determine. What is the doctrine of the sacred volume in regard to the certainty of the punishment of sin? Listen!—“Who will render to every man ac. cording to his deeds. To them who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentiles.****For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom. ii. 6-11.) My friend maintains that God will not render to every man according to his deeds—that he will not render indigna. tion and tribulation to every soul of man that doeth evil-that he will do this to a portion; but that he will screen the remainder from all tribulation and anguish. In other words, that God is a respecter of persons. The audience must decide between Elder Holmes and the Bible. The statements of both cannot be received.
Again—"The soul that sinneth, it shall die.-(Ezek. xviii, 4.) My brother opposite, maintains that a soul may sin for a long se. ries of years, and not die--that a man can do wickedly for forty years a whole life time—and yet escape all punishment by repen. tance just before death. According to his doctrine, if I had the power, I might slay this entire congregation, run rioting in blood through the community, spreading devastation on every hand, kil. ling men, women, and children--and at last be screened from every item of punishment, by becoming converted a day before I passed to another world !!
“The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked, shall be upon him.”–(Ezek. xviii. 20.) The doctrine of Elder Holmes perfecily destroys the force of this passage. It teaches that a man may be righteous and obtain no reward, and be wicked and receive no punishment. Suppose for instance, my friend is a righteous man, as I hope he is, and leads a righteous life for forty or fifty years. But shortly previous to his death, he falls into temptation--he sins and dies. Is he rewarded for his good deeds ? No. He receives no reward in this life. According to the Evangelical school, all rewards and punishments are administered in the future world. He is not rewarded hereafter ; because the last fatal act of his life cut him off from future reward, and plunged him into regions of endless despair. Hence for his long life of righteousness he is forever unrewarded. This is in point blank conflict with the scripture just quoted. On the other hand, if the Elder or any other man, should be a depraved sinner, and vile hypocrite through life; and yet repents before death, his wickedness is not upon him, but on an innocent substitute, while the sinner, after indulging in crime with impunity, darts through this loop-hole of repentance, into boundless bliss, and laughs at law, justice, punishment!
Thongh hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunish. ed.”—(Prov. xi. 21.) Young men! mark that declaration! I regret
to say, my friend virtually instructs you that you can sin and go unpunished !! I beseech you, listen not to him; but give heed to God, who tells you, that if you sin, “though hand join hand” you SHALL NOT avoid its punishment!! This is a solemn truth, which should never escape from your sight. Again—" In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”—(Gen. ji. 17.) ACcording to my friend's argument, Adam and Eve did not die, in the day they ate the forbidden fruit, nor at any other time. They never received a just and deserved punishment for those sins which according to the poet
* Brought death into the world, and all our woc." " He that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.”--(Colos. iii. 25.) How plainly the position of Elder Holmes contradicts this declaration. He insists men may, and can, and shall do wrong, and NOT receive for the wrong they have done. Here God asserts positively one thing, and blinded man as positively asserts another and opposite thing! Which are we to believe?
“The work of a man shall he render unto im, and cause every man to find according to his ways.”—(Job xxxiv. 11.) Again-" Thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men; to give every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his doings.”—(Jer. xxxii
. 19.) "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”—(Jer. xvii. 10.) No one can fail to see how plainly these passages overthrow the affirmative of this question, which asserts that men are saved from the consequences of their sinful ways. Again—"He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord.”—(Prov. xvii. 15.) I ask who it is that justifies the wicked? It is he who in effect, says to the wicked-God has provided a way whereby you may go on and sin to any extent, and escape all punishment! Who condemns the just? It is that man, who declares an individual may be just and righteous all his dars, and by falling into a single sin, as the last act of life, will sink to eternal condemnation! The Bible says those who inculcate these sentiments, are an abomination in the sight of the Lord !
" \oe unto the wicked! it SHALL be ILL with him; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”—(Isa. iii. 11.) The declaration is not that it may be ill with the wicked if they do not repent; but it is positive-it shall be ill with man, as certainly as he becomes wicked!! Again--" The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot resi, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.” This is a very expressive figure. It does not represent the condition of the wicked, as a calm and peaceful lake, sleeping quietly beneath a summer sky, its bosom unruffled, save by the gentle dal.
liance of aromatic zephyrs. This is the Evangelical view of the pleasures of sin, and from the punishment of which God has provided, according to the same school of theology, an easy way of escape, by repentance. But the Bible describes the condition of the wicked as being like that of the troubled sea-overbung with dark clouds, and its waters lashed into commotion by the howling storm!! Again-God “ will by no means clear the guilty.”—(Ex. xxxiv. 7.) I beg the young people of the congregation—those just about entering upon life-(and oh! how important it is, that the young should take a right view of the nature and consequences of sin at a period so critical)—to listen to this positive declaration of the Bible and govern themselves accordingly! Let them never forget that God solemnly declares he will by no means, clear the guilty !! It is to me the cause of the utmost regret and astonishment, that in the face of God's word, so positively uttered as in the passage last quoted, my brother opposite, together with all the self. styled Evangelical clergy, should devote so much of their time, their talents, their learning, to the proclamation of a doctrine which virtually enstamps falsehood on the Bible-a doctrine which insiduously instils in the minds of the inexperienced, the blinding, seductive and fatal delusion, that there are “ means" provided whereby sin can be indulged and the guilty cleared of all punishment! It is a sentiment which not only contradicts the word of the Most High-gives the lie to all past experience--but is demoralizing in the highest degree!! Man wants nothing more than this to eňcourage him into sin—nothing more to induce him to walk there through life, under the flattering proviso, that repentance at last shall wipe off all scores.
Let it be noticed that the passages I have quoted to prove the inflexible certainty of punishment, are all plain, positive, unequiv. ocal declarations. They are not clothed in figurative, metaphorical, or parabolic forms of speech. They belong to that class of Bible declarations which are strictly and rigidly literal, and hence there cannot possibly be any mistaking of their meaning. Whenever Elder Holmes will bring scripture declarations as plain, positive, and literal, that the wicked can escape a just and deserved punishment, we should then be brought to a stand in this discussion; because the Bible would be shown to contradict itself. But this cannot be. Neither is it possible to “explain away” the force and weight of these passages, by any well-grounded criticism. There they stand, plain, literal, unmovable--glowing with the light of eternal truth-truth as salutary and restraining as it is luminous and reasonable!! All that my opponent can do to weaken their force, will be to quote and dwell upon certain scripture declarations concerning justification, remission, ransom and forgiveness of sin-phrases of uncertain meaning, in regard to which there is a wide difference of opinion among equally intelligent theologians, and in regard to which, even those claiming to be Evangelical, do not fully agree. Every sensible person will acknowledge that vastly more reliance is to be placed on literal and unequivocal assertions, than on figurative forms of speech. It is a sound and saie rule that the figurative parts of the Bible should be so explained as to accord with those passages which are literal. When therefore, it is distinctly and literally declared in the scriptures that God will by no means, clear the guilty, there is positively no room left for doubt as to the meaning: It should forever settle the question that when sin is once committed, there is no way or means provided whereby the guilty can escape a just punishment.--[ Tiine expired.
[MR. HOLMES FIFTH SPEECH.] Respected Auditors: -The last speech of my opponent affords so fruitful a theme of remark, that I will present some of my affirmative arguments, before I proceed to its consideration, lest, getting engaged in its discussion, I should speak too long, and thus exclude my own proofs.
My ninth argument in support of the doctrine that God proposes by the Gospel to save men from justand deserved punishment, is founded on the intercession of Christ for sinners. St. Paul tells us that Christ is a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedeck. It was the business of the high priest to go into the holy of holies once a year, having shed much blood for himself, and the people, and to make intercession for them. While this Jewish priesthood continued, it represented the priesthood and atonement of Christ, which was finally to take its place. Christ having made his advent, the Jewish priesthood terminates in him. He is the end and perfection of this law for righteousness--as first he made atonement by shedding his own blood once for all in behalf of the whole world. The “ holy of holies” into which he entered is Heaven, where he “abideth continually.” Now as he still retains the character of priest, he still performs the work of intercession for sinners. Hence Isaiah says: “He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” So also, St. Paul, (Heb. v. 25): “ He is able to save, to the uttermost, them that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us.” How can sinners be saved at all, unless they be saved from punishment? Also, ix. 24: “ Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are but the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” Again, Rom. vii. 34, we are told"Christ is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” St. John says " If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Now our argument is this : As Christ intercedes for sinners, the object of his intercession must be their salvation from their sins; and as punishment follows sin in the order of time, to be saved