Page images
PDF
EPUB

that God rules, reigns, and judges in this world, is an important item in my theology. For the most part, however, this judgment relates to those affairs which belong wholly to this world; such as his dealings with nations, communities and families-personal character, responsibility and destiny, not being immediately involved. We may also admit, that the judgment of God in this world extends to individuals, so far as to give them a prelude of what will be their final sentence and doom, if they appear before the Judge in the moral character which they have acquired here; that is, the influence of God's retributive administration is felt previous to the arrival of the "appointed" day, which shall measure out to every man a just award, " according to his works." I trust, now, I have satisfactorily removed the difficutly started by Mr. Austin, and which seems to have arisen in his own mind, out of the narrow and deficient views he takes of God as a moral Gov

ernor.

In reply to my argument from the conditionality of salvation, Mr. Austin says, "eternal life is something men enjoy in this life." This is true, though the conclusion he would draw from it is false. That conclusion is, that it is confined to this life. If Mr. Austin intends to say that eternal life is confined to this world, I wish him to say so distinctly, and not talk any of his non-committalism on this point. There are two questions I would be pleased to have answered. 1. In what does eternal life differ from final holiness and happiness? 2. Is eternal life confined to this world? Please give us a plain and direct response.

That eternal life is enjoyed by the believer in this world, is plain from John xvii. 3.--" And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Also 1 John v. 11, 12.-" And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life." But while these passages prove eternal life may, in its nature and essence, be enjoyed in this world, they also prove with equal plainness that it is conditional--" he that hath not the Son, hath not life."

Moreover, eternal life is not confined to this world. Mark x. 30.-Our Lord promises those who endure losses and persecutions for his sake in this world, that they shall receive, "in the world to come, eternal life." Rom. vi. 22, 23.--We are told, the end of a course of Christian obedience is "everlasting [aionion,] eternal life." Now, I proved in my former speech that "eternal life," "everlasting life," "eternal salvation"--and salvation in all its aspects and relations to time and eternity, is conditional. The gentleman can no more disprove this, than he can move the earth from its axis. And yet he must say something; he therefore cavils and quibbles about eternal life being enjoyed in this life!!! Who ever disputed this? Eternal life is enjoyed in the soul, and

the soul exists in this life; but does it not also exist in the future life? Eternal life is adapted to the spiritual and moral nature of man, and this never dies. Being imparted to the believer in this world, and cherished by him until the termination of life on earth, it is transferred with him to his endless state, and ripens into the full fruition of eternal glory.

The gentleman has again connected the subject of insanity with this discussion. His object is to make the religious views I advocate responsible for all, or most of the insanity which exists. This is a favorite theme with Universalists, especially in their harangues to those who are uninformed upon this subject. If they can make the ignorant believe that evangelical religion is by far the most fruitful source of insanity, they will succeed when the force of their arguments might not be felt. And no matter if it is at the expense of candor and fair dealing; the end justifies the means. But this is a species of trickery and special pleading, which is never resorted to by candid men, in defence of a cause which may be sustained upon its own merits. The gentleman touches the subject on this occasion with some caution. He is evidently aware that when the subject is laid open in all its bearings, there is not much capital to be made of it.

The occasions of insanity are various as the numerous subjects which claim the attention of the mind. In most cases, the cause, near or remote, is in the constitution, latent until revealed by some casual circumstance, which imparts a sudden or unusual excitement to the mind. In very many instances, the direct occasion is known to be a hereditary pre-disposition to insanity, which is almost sure to show itself at a particular stage of mental development, under all circumstances. In general, any subject which attracts attention and excites the mind beyond what is consistent with health of body or mind, tends to destroy the harmony of the mind and produce insanity. In some countries, cases of insanity are much more numerous than in others. Climate, diet and customs, become inducing causes, by the influence they exert over physical and mental developments. The exciting causes of insanity in a great majority of cases, are either of a business character, or arise from sudden and calamitous change, of one kind or another, in worldly circumstances and prospects. Recent investigations of this subject in Paris, confirm these remarks, and so does the last report from our own State Asylum. Out of 1609 cases, only 152 are put down as occasioned by "religious anxiety," leaving 1557 to be referred to other causes. of these, 289 are connected with "ill health;" and "perplexity of business," "loss of property" and friends, are made responsible for 176. Out of 50 professional men affected with insanity, only 8 were clergymen; while the other classes range from 12 to 17 and scholars alone are set down at 44. That religious anxiety does in some cases lead to insanity, I have no disposi

And

tion to deny; but this fact is no argument against the causes of this anxiety. To suppose it is, would compel us to condemn all mental discipline, and all business transactions, because the anxieties and perplexities connected with such pursuits, are sometimes inducing causes of insanity. Moreover, I wish you to mark and remember, that for every single case of insanity produced by those religious feelings which arise out of evangelical views of Christianity, we may safely calculate upon the preservation of two from that affliction, by the salutury and conservative influence of that same religion. By far the greatest amount of insanity is amongst the irreligious and depraved. In so far as they are brought under the influence and power of true religion, are they reformed and preserved from those habits of dissipation, and acts of dishonesty and wild speculations in business, which lead to so many catastrophies, and become the inducing causes of insanity. This subject is beginning to be understood by those who have charge of the insane, who are recommending the exercises and motives of religion, as a means of restoration. The Christian religion is the greatest, the most lofty subject the mind of man can contemplate. It is founded on the revealed character of an infinite God, and is therefore adapted and intended to call into exercise the highest powers of the human mind. A religion incapable of interesting the mind, or exciting it to an extent that might, under some circumstances, induce insanity, would, in my humble judgment, be unworthy the attention of intelligent beings. Before I leave this point, let me ask why Universalists become insane and commit suicide? Does this arise from the doctrine of endless punishment? The gentleman will say no: if Universalists commit suicide, they must be insane. Well, allow it to be so; I claim the same apology for all suicides. At least, I put it upon this ground if they are insane, their self-murder cannot be connected with the doctrine I advocate; if they are not insane, they do not believe the doctrine of endless punishment, because the same authority which teaches the doctrine, also declares, “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." The only rational conclusion is, that if men commit suicide in a sane state of mind, they do not believe the doctrine of endless punishment, and are therefore Universalists. The gentleman is welcome to all he can gain by the argument, viewed in either of its aspects.

:

Mr. Austin returns again to the Paternity of God, resolved, if possible, to make something out of that subject. Well, he has my consent to proceed to the full extent of his ability. He remarks to the effect that holiness would not be worth having, unless it were received through a state of discipline and trial. That a state of trial is necessary to the moral character and happiness of man, is what I have maintained during this debate; and that a course of discipline is essential to develope, improve and strengthen the mental and moral powers, may also be affirmed. This

would have been as true if sin had never entered the world as it is now. But this trial and discipline can never change the nature of holiness, or make it more valuable than it is: and though these states involve a liability, yet neither imply the necessity of a state of sin and misery. But Mr. Austin's state of discipline and trial is a very different thing from this. It has been so fully unfolded during this discussion, that its nature cannot be mistaken. It is a state of "subjection to vanity [by which he means sin and its consequences,] not willingly," that is, against their will; or if not against their will, the will is itself subjected, coerced, so as to harmonize with this state of subjection. Through this state of sin and misery into which he has brought them himself, God is conducting the human family to regions of bliss and glory, to which the gentleman would have us believe they could not have been elevated without this course of discipline. It follows, those who plunge deepest in sin on earth, will rise highest in bliss and glory hereafter; not by the power of redemption, but ALL through the wonder-working power of disciplinary punishment!! I have frequently laid open to your view, the theological absurdity and moral rottenness of this theory, already. It makes God the author of sin-makes sin necessary to holiness-and robs the sinner of all motive to repent and lead a holy life. Indeed, it pays a premium for sin, in the increased holiness that shall result hereafter. Here you have Mr. Austin's McAadamized road, "leading through green meadows and aromatic groves, and beside gentle flowing streams. The sun always shines cheerfully upon it, and pleasant scenes present themselves on every hand. This is the road of righteousness:"* that is, a state of subjection to sin and misery, is a road of righteousness!!!

In answer to my argument on the "common consent of mankind," Mr. Austin says, "common opinion is not common sense." There may be a slight distinction between them, but they depend on each other, and cannot be separated. The common opinion of men arises out of the common intellect or understanding, as exercised upon the subjects presented to the mind; and when they are not aided by supernatural light, the result of their mental process, must be regarded as the common sense or opinion of men, especially is this the case where the conclusion at which they arrive is uniform.

I now take up my friend's fourteenth negative argument, viz. the Patriarchs and Apostles did not recognize the doctrine of endless punishment in their prayers. To this I reply,

But

1. There is in their prayers no recognition, (except by implication,) of a state of future endless bliss for the righteous. that would be strange logic which would infer from this, that they did not believe the doctrine. Even the prayer of Christ

'Page 360.

contains no direct recognition of a heaven of bliss, which is to be the final abode of the Christian.

2. There is no avowal in their prayers which contradicts the idea of the final perdition of sinners. Nor is there any principle brought out, which is inconsistent with it.

3. Though the prayers of prophets and apostles contain no declaration of endless punishment in so many words, yet the doctrine is deduced from them, by fair and unavoidable inference. They prayed for the spread of that gospel which they declared to be indispensable to salvation, and for that pardon without which there can be no peace and happiness. Our Lord prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail, and for those who had believed on him, that they might be kept, and "might be with him to behold his glory." These prayers acknowledge the conditionality of salvation, and the possibility and danger of failing to enjoy the blessings prayed for. Why should an evil be prayed against, if that evil cannot happen? Why should a blessing be prayed for, if that blessing cannot fail?

4. Finally, we have very few specimens of the prayers of Prophets and Apostles on record, and these were not left us as the sources of information respecting the principles of revelation. We are exhorted to search the scriptures, and they abound with the plainest declarations of these same Prophets and Apostles concerning the point at issue between us.

The gentleman's fifteenth negative argument is, that it, (endless punishment,) consigns nine tenths of the human family to endless perdition. This, were it true, could not affect the merits of this question. The doctrine rests upon other ground than a consideration of the numbers involved in the results of a sinful career. To make out his case, Mr. Austin proceeds to hand over to hopeless despair, all infants, all idiots, and all heathen, together with a great majority of the Christian world. If we allow his premises, he has got his case. But as usual, the gentleman has assumed all the points necessary to his conclusion. As to infants, their salvation is made unconditionally sure through the atonement of Christ. They are not guilty on account of personal sin, hence do not need to repent and believe in order to be saved. Our Lord said, "suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Here, then, is a large portion of the human family whose salvation in heaven is unconditionally made sure. In regard to those born idiots, I will not insult the common sense of this audience, by attempting a formal reply, since no one but Mr. Austin ever thought of holding them morally responsible.

Nor do I believe that the heathen will all be lost. On the declaration of St. Peter, "he that feareth God and worketh righteousness in every nation, is accepted with him," do I predicate my belief of the salvation of all heathen who fear God and work

« PreviousContinue »