Page images
PDF
EPUB

all they deserve; for punishment is one of the means by which they are brought to salvation from sin.

Does the hearer see any deep water here? To me the water appears exceedingly shallow! Î beg the audience to keep the sophistry attempted to be imposed upon them by this syllogism, in mind hereafter, as we shall undoubtedly be treated to many more of these hair-splitting arguments. They are the metaphysician's slimpsy crutches, designed to help along a limping theory!

Elder Holmes has made an attempt to invalidate the strength of the passages I introduced last evening, in proof of the absolute certainty of punishment. He says they are all associated with conditions, expressed or understood. This I distinctly deny. After an individual becomes guilty of sin, there are no conditions expressed in the Bible, upon which he shall or shall not be punished. God's declarations are positive on this subject. What can be farther removed from all conditions, than the assertion: "Though hand join in hand, the wicked SHALL NOT be unpunished!" He strives to do away with the force of this declaration, by quoting the remainder of the verse: "But the seed of the righteous shall be delivered." Did God in this sentence, design to contradict his own assertion just made, and say that he has contrived a way by which the wicked may go unpunished? No. In the latter portion of the passage it is simply asserted, that "the seed of the righteous"-in other words, those who obey God-shall not experience the wretchedness which comes upon the sinful. His efforts to nullify the solema declaration that "God will by no means clear the guilty" were equally fruitless. He says the passage means that those who repent, shall receive mercy and be saved from punishment. The language neither asserts, nor intimates any thing of the kind. If it did, then it would overthrow the very truth it was designed to establish, and prove that there were means, by which God would clear the guilty! The prayer of Moses which succeeds the passage under consideration, does not countenance, in the slightest degree, the sentiment in support of which the Elder introduced it. Moses prays that the iniquities and sins of the Israelites may be pardoned-that is, removed, blotted out-and not that the just punishment due past transgressions, might be remitted.

I desire to notice briefly, the criticism of Mr. Holmes on Gala. iii. 13-" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." In my second speech I contended that "the Law," referred to in this passage, was the Levitical Law of Moses, and not the great moral law of God. My friend insists this cannot be, inasmuch as the Epistle was addressed to the Galatians, who were Gentiles and could know nothing about the Ceremonial Law. It is somewhat remarkable that my friend, who deals so much in deep water, should attempt to raise an objection of this character. It was a step in the dark, made at hazard, and without forethought. Does not a man of his learning know that there were

Jews at Galatia, and that many of them as well as of the Gentiles, had become Christians, when St. Paul wrote this epistle? If he doubts this, let me give him some authority on the subject, which he will not dispute. Dr. Adam Clarke says, in reference to the Epistle to the Galatians: “From the complexion of this Epistle, it appears to have been written to the Jews, who were dispersed in Galatia."-[Preface to Galatians.] Our Methodist friends can take their choice between Dr. Clarke and Elder Holmes.

That the Apostle throughout the Epistle treats largely of the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, must be evident to every intelligent reader, from the entire current of his language. In this I am supported by all commentators, except Elder Holmes. "These Galatians," says Dr. Clarke, [Preface to Galatians.] "were doubtless converted by St. Paul. But after his departure from them, some teachers had got in among them, who endeavored to persuade them, and successfully too, that they should be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law. And the Apostle labors to bring them back from the errors of these false teachers." A knowledge of these facts, (of which my friend seems deficient,) will show that there was great necessity that St. Paul should write to the Galatians in regard to the Ceremonial Law; and good evidence that he referred especially to that Law, when he declared Christ had redeemed them from "the curse of the Law." This is farther evident from the fact, that four verses (v. 17,) from that under consideration, the Apostle informs us, the Law, to which he refers, was that delivered to the Israelites 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham. What Law was that? Necessarily the Ceremonial Law established at the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation.

[ocr errors]

I now come to the consideration of the fifth argument in the affirmative. It is drawn from Forgiveness, Pardon, and Repentance." Universalists believe as strongly as any other Christian denomination, in the doctrine of forgiveness and remission of sins, and look upon it as based on the most beautiful attributes of the Divine Government. What is the nature of forgiveness, as applicable to the government of a perfect God? In other words-What is forgiven? My friend declares it is the just and deserved punishment due the sinner. Here we differ. I maintain that it is the sin, the offence, and not the punishment due the sinner, that is forgiven or remitted. No one can fail to see a wide distinction here. Forgiving or remitting punishment, is to screen a guilty soul from that infliction of pain or chastisement, which justice, equity and right demand, and which the good, the reformation of the sinner, require. I have already shown that to allow the guilty thus to escape what justice and right require, would be doing that which is palpably wrong and unjust, and moreover, injurious to the guilty themselves. Hence, this theory which charges such injustice, wrong and injury on the government of a holy and just God, must be false. The doctrine of forgiveness of punishment, is singularly

unscriptural. I wish the audience to understand, that the Bible never in a single instance, connects the words forgiveness and punishment, together. It is a remarkable fact indeed, if the scripture writers designed to teach the doctrine that God would save men from just and deserved punishment, that they did not say so in distinct language, and make the declaration so plain that there could be no misapprehension in regard to the matter. If God meant to teach that men could be saved from just punishment, it is remarkable that he should so often, and in such emphatic terms declare the absolute certainty of punishment! How are those things to be reconciled? For instance, the Bible declares: "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "Woe unto the wicked, it shall be ill with him." "Though hand join in hand, the wicked SHALL NOT be unpunished." "God will by no means clear the guilty." Are we to suppose the Bible contradicts itself? Would my Brother make the Bible teach two opposite doctrines ?

"What then, are we to understand by the "forgiveness," "pardon," and "remission" of sin, in the Bible sense of these terms, and as applicable to the perfect government of a holy and just God? To forgive, pardon, or to remit sins, is to wipe out the remembrance of sin, and not to lay up the fact of the sinner's guilt, to be held as a continual charge against him. It is to restore one who has sinned -broken the divine law-to the favor and approbation of God, which he had lost by his transgressions. It is to have the transgressor brought back to the same standing in the estimation of the Judge of all, that he was in before he sinned. When a creature possessing a moral nature and a conscience, does a wrong, an evil, against any being, he feels there rests in the bosom of the one sinned against, a disapprobation, a condemnation, of his deeds. The consciousness of this fact, makes him unhappy, and that unhappiness is in exact accordance with the goodness of the being thus sinned against, and the favors and blessings received from him Now for an offender to be forgiven, is to be assured by the being against whom he has sinned, that he has wiped out the offence, restored him to his approbation, and esteems him as highly as he did before the sin was committed. This-and no more, and no lessis the scripture doctrine of forgiveness.

On what terms does God forgive sinners? I answer-on sincere, heart-felt repentance. Not sorrow because sin subjects to punishment merely. This is a spurious kind of repentance, which I sincerely believe is the character of a great portion of the so called repentance in the Christian world. It is the kind of repentance experienced by those who declare that if it was not for the fear of Eternal Punishment, they would lie, steal, murder, and indulge in every species of immorality. This spurious repentance is denominated by the schools attrition, in contradistinction to contrition, or genuine repentance. In the Bible sense, and the only true sense, repentance is a heart-felt, harrowing regret-a deep feeling of shame,

and remorse-not that we have done that which subjects us to punishment (for the man who experiences genuine repentance, will not seek to avoid punishment, but is glad that it is laid upon him) -but that we have violated laws so wise, holy, pure, good and benevolent; so designed for our own best good, as those of God-a bitter sorrow that we have sinned against, and gained the disapprobation of a being so kind, just and benevolent, as our Father in Heaven! Such a sense of shame and regret as leads us to HATE sin and evil forever after!! This alone is genuine repentance. When the soul experiences this true repentance, God will blot out the remembrance of the sins committed. This is proved by the language of Peter: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."-(Acts iii. 19.) Mark, the language is not-Repent and be converted, that you may be saved from the punishment due your sins, but that your sins themselves, may be blotted out?

What induces true repentance? It is pain, anguish, sorrow-or in other words, punishment, mingled with a sense of the goodness of the being whose wise and benevolent laws we have broken. No man can seriously repent of sin without being strongly convinced of the enormity of the crimes he has committed, by a sense of the goodness, beauty, sublimity and value of the principles he has violated, and of the kindness, equity and benevolence of the God against whom he has sinned. This sense of the nature of his deeds, fills his heart with bitter regret, wrings his soul with cutting anguish, and destroys for the time being, all his peace and happiness! And what is this state of the heart, but punishment, and that too, of the most severe character? What pain can compare with the upbraidings and gnawings of a guilty conscience, filled with a sense of the enormity of crime? Thus, it will be seen, repentance is induced by punishment.

There are two kinds of punishment-outward, or bodily, and inward, or mental. Outward punishment consists in inflicting pains, sufferings, and chastisements of a physical character-subjecting men to deprivations, losses and afflictions of a worldly nature. This, when faithfully and wisely administered, leads to a deep and mature reflection on the nature and heinousness of the crimes committed, resulting in a conviction of guilt, which leads to a sincere repentance. Such a repentance entitles them to the forgiveness, or blotting out the remembrance of their sins, and a restoration to the favor of God. Thus Jonah speaks of the influence of outward punishment inflicted on him: " When my soul fainted within me, [while enduring punishment in the belly of the whale,] I remembered the Lord, [was brought to reflection,] and my prayer [of repentance] came in unto thee, into the holy temple."—(Jonah ii. 7.) Inward or mental punishment, is that sorrow, regret, and anguish, which is very often experienced by the guilty, without the inflic

tion of outward, or bodily punishment. In such cases, bodily punishment is withheld, being, unnecessary. But still the guilty are punished by that internal anguish which wrings their hearts. The wise parent does not inflict bodily chastisement on a disobedient child, when he sees it truly penitent and sorrowful. But the child goes not unpunished. There is a severe punishment experienced in the anguish which preys upon him, under a sense of his blindness and ingratitude in violating the requirements of a kind, watchful, and provident Father. When the child, however, is stubborn and hardened, and manifests no compunctions, then the bodily punishment is inflicted until sorrow for the crime, and repentance of its wickedness, are induced. Punishment then ceases, having brought that regret of sin, which is its great end and aim.

Thus God sometimes withholds outward punishments, which have been conditionally threatened, when he sees that inward punishment has done its work alone, and induced true repentance. The withholding of outward punishment, does not save from the infliction of inward. Neither is the outward withheld as a reward for repentance. But repentance is the fruit of the inward infliction. Thus the Ninevites were threatened with outward punishment— the destruction of their city-which was not inflicted. Why? Be cause they were brought to repentance, by that inward punishment that sorrow and grief for sin, which pressed upon them in consequence of a deep sense of their guilt.

It is from considerations of this description, that I insist repentance does not take the place of punishment, or save from punishment, but is the legitimnte effect, the direct result of punishment. Neither does forgiveness or pardon, save from punishment, but is the fruit or reward of repentance. Men are not forgiven because they have been punished, but because they have repented. And repentance is that frame of mind into which the sinful are brought through the infliction of punishment. Thus punishment leads to repentance, and repentance entitles to forgiveness.

To

In view of these facts, how evident it becomes that the doctrine of salvation from punishment, must necessarily be erroneous. save a sinner from punishment, would be to keep him from repentance; and without repentance, there can be no forgiveness.. From the structure of the human mind, no man can truly repent, without passing through a mental chastisement, which is the severest punishment that can be inflicted on intelligent beings.

The position I have taken on this subject is fully sustained by the scriptures. "They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."-(Jer. xxxi. 34.) This is true forgiveness -the remembering their sins no more. Weigh the evidence of those passages where both the forgiveness and punishment of the

« PreviousContinue »