« PreviousContinue »
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 hooks 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 future state, hence the future, will be a stale of retributivn: 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 into 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 elernal 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 Intidels 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. lle 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 Patermly was an attribute of God. On looking back to to page. 223. 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 attrilute 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 Il 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 labore argument to prove that salvation is condilional, 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 conditional. 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, fur. nishes 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 ihat all will then have complied with every condition of gospel salvation.
The Elder says the notion that those who die in sin, are conditionally” savel 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 holls 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
forever happy hereafter. The word aionion, rendered eternal or everlasting, has not in these passages, the sense of duration, but signifies that which is spiritual. Some writers maintain that spir. itual, is the primary meaning which was anciently attached to aionion. Let the passages quoted by Elder Holmes, be read "spiritual life," instead of eternal life, and their true sense will be obtained.
This subject reminds me to notice a remark in Elder Holmes third speech, which affords a good specimen of his lack of fairness as a controversialist. He charges me with maintaining that a man can be finally holy and happy, without having eternal life. He well knows this is not my view. The ground I take is that "eternal life," consists in possessing and enjoying a knowledge of God and Christ. Hence a mon cannot be finally holy and happy without this knowledge. But he may have this knowedge, this eternal life, without being in a state of final or perfect holiness and happiness.
The thirteenth Argument which Elder Holmes introduces in defence of Endless Punishment, is the Contrast between the righteous and the wicked. That there is a contrast between the condition of the righteous and the wicked, it only requires the exercise of our senses to discover. That there will always be a contrast in their circumstances and enjoyments, so long as the wicked continue wicked, is self-evident. But I trust the audience will have sufficient penetration to see that to prove there is a contrast between the righteous and the wicked, in life, at death, or any other time, is one thing, and to prove that men will always remain wicked, is another thing. There is no possible connection between the two subjects. Yet on their identily rests all the strength there is in the Elder's present argument. Because there is a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, does it follow that the wicked will not reform and become righteous? So long as men remain wicked, this contrast will exist. But I have adduced a mass of testimony in this aiscussion to show that all the wickej will eventually reform. When this takes place, the contrast will
The Elder introduces the parable of the Rich Man and Laza. rus, to show that there is a contrast between the righteous and the wicked after death. To allow this, would grant him not the slightest evidence in support of the affirmative of this question. Because men are wicked after death, is no more proof that they will always continue wicked, than the wickedness of a willful boy, is evidence that he will never become a good and useful man. To obtain proof in support of his argument from the Rich Man and Lazarus, he is compelled to assume that it is a literal history of two veritable individuals. The custom prevailing quite
See page 472