66

2. Another point in our argument for the futurity of the general judgment is, that it is to take place after death; hence, God is said to be judge of the quick and dead." (2 Tim. iv. 1.)— Here it is said, The Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and dead, at his appearing, and his kingdom." (John v. 22–29.)— In this place Christ says, God "hath committed all judgment unto the Son;" and that by his " authority to execute judgment," "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (Acts x. 42.)-Peter declares Christ was ordained of God, to be the judge of quick and dead." (Heb. ix. 27.)-"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time, without sin unto salvation." Also, St. Paul speaks of receiving a crown of righteousness, after his martyrdom-which, says he, "the righteous judge shall give me at that day." Finally, in Jude 6-the angels which kept not their first estate, are said to be "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."

3. The third point we make in this part of our argument is, that this day of general judgment is said to be appointed. (Acts xvii. 30, 31.) "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath or dained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Here we have the day "appointed," the judge [Christ] selected, the rule of judgment specified, righteousness," and the confirmation or proof of the whole is in the resurrection of Christ "from the dead."

66

The passages quoted above, to prove the fact of a general judgment-and that it will take place in the future world, are so direct and specific, that no comment can make them plainer; but the construction of this last passage is so peculiar and forcible, that we cannot forbear to give it in the original.“ Estesen emeran en e mellei krinein ten oikoumenen." He [God] estesen, hath appointed or fixed upon, emeran a day, en e in which, mellei he will, intends, or is about, krinein to judge, oikoumenen the world or habitable globe." The verb mellei, is from melldo, and signifies "to be about to do-to intend doing—to be about to come to pass, or destined to happen." Donnegan says, when used "with a verb in the infinitive of the present, aorist, or future, it expresses the future, in relation to another time which is marked by that in which melldo stands." In the present case, mellei is connected with krinein, which is of the infinitive future; hence it expresses the future in relation to another time which is marked-marked by the verb estesen, "hath appointed." The time marked, is the day appointed, in which God will judge the world. Donnegan farther states Homer rarely uses it [melldo] to signify a future depend

ent on the will or purposes of men, but chiefly to express that which is to follow by a decree of fate"―in the present case, by a decree of God. Krenein, is from krino-" to judge, to separate. put asunder, to discriminate, to decide a difference, give a verdict, pass sentence."

I close the scriptural representation of this subject by reference to (Rev. xx. 12.) "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

The last statement I make is, that though the doctrine established by this argument bears with tremendous force against the conclusions of Universalism, yet many Universalists by the force of the arguments which support it, have been constrained to admit its truth and reality. The biographer of Murray says "He looked forward to a judgment to come, when countless numbers among the children of men would rise to the resurrection of damnation." Murray's coadjutors in preaching old school Universalism, embraced the same doctrine; nor did their successors become sufficiently bold and reckless to repudiate this scriptural truth, until they were convinced that it stood directly in the way of their favorite dogma.

The force of the argument from a future judgment may be stated as follows: As there is to be a general judgment in the fu ture state, hence the future, will be a state of retribution: and as punishment always follows condemnation, those condemned "at that day," will receive subsequent punishment: therefore, future punishment will exist after the decisions of the day of judgment. Now, if Mr. Austin can rescue the subjects of that punishment and transfer them to heaven, we shall be bound to submit the case, and shall do so with as good a grace as possible, when the point is made out.

We have been told the Jews did not believe in endless punishment.

MR. AUSTIN.-Told by whom?

MR. HOLMES.-We have been told by Mr. Austin that the Jews did not believe in endless punishment. In the gentleman's second speech on this question he remarked-"The Jews, the only people who had oral intercourse with the Creator for ages, were not instructed in that sentiment." Again he asks--"if they were liable to sink inte an endless hell at death, why was not that doctrine made known to them." We answer, the doctrine was made known to them, and they taught it, as we have just shown by quotations from the Talmuds, and from Josephus, who remarks, God will "allot to lovers of wicked works eternal punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire, and that without end.”–

(Discourse on Hades.) Mosheim also confirms the fact that the great body of Jews (a few Infidels excepted,) believed the doctrine of endless punishment, and were unanimous in excluding the Gentiles from the enjoyment of future, endless felicity.--(Vol. 1, Page 21.) Dr. Goodrich, in his ecclesiastical history, states distinctly that the Jews believed in future punishment. Professor Stuart in his criticism on the word "sheol," says the same, though Mr. Austin has extorted a meaning from his words which they will not bear, and which the Professor never intended to convey. The word sheol was never employed to express duration, any more than the word Hades. All that was ever claimed for either of these words is, that they reveal a place of punishment—the fact, and not its duration. This is the point embraced in the Professor's inquiry.--[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S EIGHTH REPLY.]*

If there are any more of our Methodist friends who intend to leave the house while I am speaking, as they have frequently done heretofore, they will confer a favour upon me by going out now, before I commence my speech. I can but admire the intrepidity and candor of men-especially of preachers—who skulk away when their favorite sentiments are to be tested, lest they should be compelled to see their absurdity. This admiration is increased, when they set themselves up as impartial judges of the merits of the discussion, and boast that the advocate of their views has achieved a mighty victory. It is about as correct a way to form a just estimate, as it would be to find the weight of an object by the use of half a pair of scales.

MR. HOLMES.-I hope my friends will tarry in the church while Mr Austin is speaking.

MR. AUSTIN.-Messrs. Moderators:-Elder Holmes' twelfth Argument is that salvation is conditional. From what is it conditional? He assumes it is from eternal agony. This is begging the question. He has not proved that there is, or will, or can be, any such thing as endless woe. This must first be done, before he can talk about salvation from it it, whether con

A remark on page 596, may be misunderstood. My words are that I have not said in this debate that Paternity was an attribute of God. On looking back to to page. 233, I find I made a remark which implies that paternity is an attribute. That remark was in reply to an argument of Elder Holmes, in which I understood him to declare that Paternity was one of the attributes of the Most High. What I designed to say on page 596, is that while I consider paternity an attribute of the Creator, yet I have laid no stress on that point. My arguments have been drawn from the fact that God is the Parent of 11 men. Whether "paternity" is, or is not, an attribute, cannot weaken, or effect that argument in any sense.

ditional or unconditional! Of what avail to enter upon a labored argument to prove that salvation is conditional, from what does not exist? Let him show that mankind are exposed to ceaseless wretchedness, and then there will be something for his argument to rest upon at least; however illogical and unsound it may be in other respects.

I acknowledge that salvation from sin and unbelief is condi tional. There is no way in which the human soul can become absolved from its servitude to these destroyers of its happiness, except by repentance and faith. Hence these become the terms or conditions of salvation. The existence of these terms, furnishes no proof in support of the affirmative of this question. Before he can find any evidence from this source, he must show that men will never comply with these terms. This circumstance cannot be taken for granted. It is vital to the strength of his argument, and must be proved, by the most convincing evidence. Let my friend remember he is in the affirmative, and he cannot be allowed to assume a negative. To contend that some men will never be saved, because salvation is conditional on faith and repentance, is as sound as it would be to say that some men will starve to death in the midst food, because their partaking of it, is conditional on their reaching forth their hands and taking it! The probability, nay the certainty of the case, is against the Elder's argument. Many wicked men do comply with the conditions of salvation-they believe in Christ, and experience the salvation of the gospel. This shows sinners have the power, the privilege, of complying with the stipulated terms. What one sinner does, to become released from the evils of disobedience and unbelief, all sinners will do in process of time, unless especially prevented by divine interposition-which cannot be supposed. The difference between sinners, in regard to complying with the conditions of salvation, is entirely one of time. Some repent in youth, others in middle life, others still, not until old age; and some not at all, in this world. What then? Does the Elder say they will never repent? Where is his proof? An assertion on this point, is nothing. It might with as much propriety be maintained that those who do not repent in youth, will not repent in middle life, or in old age as that those, who do not comply with the terms of salvation in this existence, will not in the next. No one dares say that God will prevent them-or that Christ, angels or saints, will prevent them! In that world they will come under higher and better influences-will feel the odiousness of sin, and behold the beauty of righteousness more sensibly; and at length, all will turn to the Redeemer, embrace his gospel, and enjoy its light and love! This is not mere assertion on my part. The scriptures abundantly corroborate it, in many passages I might quote. The following must suffice." Wherefore God also bath highly exalted him, and given him a name

which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."(Phil. ii. 9-11.) This bowing of the knee and confessing of the tongue, which is yet to be witnessed from all men, is a most convincing evidence that all will then have complied with every condition of gospel salvation.

The Elder says the notion that those who die in sin, are unconditionally" saved in heaven, cannot be proved. The frequent charging me with beliveing in "unconditional" salvation, after my repeated denials, shows a disposition on the part of my opponent, to persevere in willful misrepresentation, which the audience and the world will duly appreciate. The manner in which those who die in sin will be saved in the future world, has just been described. Hence all he says about their being no promise of spiritual salvation without conditions, is wholly irrelevant. His declaration that all the promises of future salvation, are made alone to the righteous, is a small mistake. They are made to all men. And the sinful will inherit that salvation, the moment they comply with the terms, and turn from sin to righteousness, whenever and wherever that may be.

Mr. Holmes has quoted several passages to show that eternal happiness depends on the deeds of this life. His course on this point shows a remarkable lameness. I have insisted that he holds the doctrine of salvation by works-that immortal felicity depends upon men's works here-which is in direct conflict with the scriptures. He has repeatedly denied this sentiment. But soon he falls to quoting scripture, as in the present instance, to prove the very doctrine he had just denied.

My partialist brother clergymen will pardon me for plainly saying, that they have maifested in regard to the scripture phrase "eternal life," a stupidity and ignorance which is truly astonishing. That the class of passages where these words occur has not the slightest reference to the other world, in contradistinction to this, is self-evident from the phraseology. What is "eternal life?" Elder Holmes and his clerical co-workers, declare it is a condition of endless happiness, in the future world. In this, however, they contradict the Savior, who says-" This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."-(John xvii. 3.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, [not will have it hereafter,] and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life."--(John v. 14.) Eternal life, everlasting life, consists in possesing a knowledge of God and Christ, and is something that men can obtain and enjoy in this world! What folly to quote such expressions to prove that only a part of mankind will be