Page images
PDF
EPUB

is consistent and fearfully true, since those who die in unrighteousness, have no means of acquiring an inheritance there.

5. If it be confined to this life, then that moral state of heart to which our Lord referred when he said, "the kingdom of God is within you," must terminate at death, for if it be transferred with the Christian to the future state, it follows, the same kingdom will exist there that existed here, and consequently the unrighteous shall not inherit it.

6. If the kingdom of God and Christ extends not beyond this life, then it does not embrace the resurrection; and on this hypothesis, how are men to be raised from the dead? and what is the condition of men between death and the resurrection? they under the divine government, or no government at all?

Are

7. If the kingdom of heaven, of Christ, and of God, is confined to the narrow precincts of this world, then, how is it that Christ is to reign until he has put down all rule and all authority? how is he to destroy death, the last enemy, and after the resurrection, "deliver up the kingdom to the Father?"

When Mr. Austin has fairly disposed of all these difficulties, we can furnish him with as many more.

The conclusion which unavoidably flows from all this is, that as the unrighteous have no inheritance in the kingdom of God and of Christ--those who die in a state of corruption and impenitency, can never acquire an inheritance there, and hence can never be saved.

One word in regard to another point, before I sit down.

Anxious to crowd the usual quantity of matter into his fifth reply on this question, Mr. Austin has hunted up an old pamphlet, in which he finds, from my pen, a statement on the subject of depravity, no word of which I have ever seen occasion to alter. But in that statement there is one word, a qualifying word, which he thinks capable of being misconstrued, and forthwith he proceeds, as usual, to attach to it a meaning which I never intended. About one quarter of his entire speech is built upon the misapplication of that one word. It seems a pity to spoil so much of the gentleman's labor, on which he evidently prides himself considerable. But I must inform the audience that the word "now," as found in the statement referred to, was used with respect to the whole world, embracing every descendant of Adam and was intended to distinguish their condition from what it would have been, on supposition of their existence, unconnected with the blessings of redemption. He remarks, that on my theory, the benefits of the atonement of Christ are wholly conditional, from which be endeavors to infer infant damnation. I am willing to make all the allowance required by his deficiency of information on the general subject of theology, but the rest must be put down to the score of designed misrepresentation. I have all along taught that the atonement took effect, and was available in behalf of sinners, from

657

the moment the promise was given-and that so far as the descendants of Adam (before as well as after the crucifixion,) are unconditionally (that is, without their agency) involved in the effects of transgression by their federal head, they are unconditionally saved by virtue of the atonement. No man will be damned for Adam's sin; but, if at all, for his own personal and voluntary transgressions.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S NINTH REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-Mr. Holmes resumes his argument on the Day of Judgment, at the commencement of his last speech." Driven up by the overwhelming force of the the testimony I have introduced, he has at last been compelled to acknowledge that "to judge," signifies to exercise rule and authority over men, and that Christ does commence his "judgment" in this life." This is the first time, I believe, that a clergyman who calls himself orthodox, has acknowledged his belief in these views of Judgment. I think I can, therefore, claim the honor of being instrumental in converting our evengelical brethren to this important doctrine. But the Elder insists that Christ's judgment continues to the next world. That his reign, his kingdom, continues to the future existence, I have already declared to be my settled belief. But the Elder has not proved that any such events, as his particular day of judgment when all men are to be assembled, and a judicial sentence passed All his efupon them, will ever take place in the world to come. forts to prove such a transaction by strained constructions of Scripture, are but attempts to make God's word contradict itself. I have proved by the plainest declarations of Christ, that all his special judgments, in which the wicked are sentenced to punishment, take place in this world! The fact that some passages speak of judging the dead, is no evidence that such judging does not take place until after the death of the body. Nothing is more common than to represent men in a sinful condition in this life, as being dead. St Paul says "You hath he quickened, who are dead in trespasses and sins."(Eph. ii. 1.) Judging the dead, in Scripture phraseology, signifies exercising authority and rule over the sinful This fact explains the passage in Rev. xx. 11-15, among men. which speaks of the judgment of the dead, small and great. It is a highly figurative description of the condemnation of the Jewish people, in consequence of their rejection of the Gospel of Christ. The Elder, like most supporters of his doctrine, is fond of quoting from the book of Revelations. It is one of the most uncertain books of the whole Bible-its language is highly metaphorical, and difficult to be understood-and little dependence can be placed upon

Omitted in his printed speech.

it in support of any doctrine. Yet without the least attempt to show that the passages he quotes, sustain the sentiment in behalf of which he introduces them, he depends upon the preconceived opinions of the uninformed, to give them a construction favorable to his views. For the instruction of my friend, and others equally unenlightened on this subject, let me read to him Dr. Adam Clarke's views of the book of Revelations, and his notion of the propriety of quoting passages from it in support of his theory. He says "I repeat it, I do not understand the book, [of Revelations,] and I am satisfied that not one who has written on the subject, knows any thing more of it than myself Elder Holmes seems to be wiser in this matter, than his father in Israel. In another place, Dr Clarke says-" We should be very cautious how we make a figurative expression, used in the most figurative book in the Bible, [the book of Revelations,] the foundation of a very important literal system. The strange conjectures formed on this very uncertain basis, have not been very creditable either to reason or religion." -(Dr. C. on 1 Cor. xv. 23.) Dr. Clarke also makes use of the following language" Let it ever be remembered that by the general consent of all (except the basely interested,) no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of any doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls!!—(Dr. C. on Matt. v. 26.) This enlightened decision and just rebuke, sweeps away not only all that Elder Holmes has quoted from the book of Revelations in support of his views, but much of the metaphorical language he has introduced from other parts of the Scriptures. No one can fail to see that his chief dependence is on figurative and metaphorical passages of Scripture !

Allow me to notice a moment, a passage he has introduced from Heb. ix. 27, 28. If I understood him correctly, he quoted the passage thus-"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." By omitting the first word" as," the whole sense of the passage is destroyed. The language is purely “antithetical," It will be evident to every careful reader of the chapter where this passage is found, that the Apostle, throughout its extent, runs a parallel, or comparison, between Jewish High Priests under the Levitical dispensation, and Jesus the great High Priest of the Gospel dispensation. With this fact in view, the passage quoted becomes very plain-"AS it is appointed unto men, [Jewish High Priests,] once to die, [once a year to die sacrificially,] but after this the judgment, [i. e. the decision which they brought from God, of approbation or disapprobation of the proceedings of the Jews,] SO Christ was once offered, to bear the sins of many."

Elder Holmes favors us with a lecture on insanity and its remote causes. In some cases, there may have been a predisposition to insanity, and in others not. But this cannot affect my argument. The fact which I assert is, that Insanity, in multitudes

of cases, has been produced by a belief in the doctrine of endless wretchedness. Even if one thus crazed had been predisposed to insanity, it does not lessen the weight of the fact, that it was that monstrous error, which worked upon the poor creature's fears until it made him a miserable maniac. When was a mortal inade crazy by listening to the preaching of Jesus or his Apostles -whether predisposed to insanity or not? The fact that their preaching never produced such a result, is the clearest proof that they did not proclaim the doctrine of endless tortures. He says orthodoxy has saved men from insanity. This bare assertion is really cool! Show us one well authenticated case, where the preaching of those sentiments which are peculiar to orthodoxy, ever saved a mortal from insanity. Did the proclamation of eter nal woe ever save a human being from insanity? We know it has plunged hundreds into the depths of insanity! The Elder asserts that one great cause of insanity is depression of spirits on account of worldly affairs. This declaration contradicts the most positive and well attested facts. I have given the ratio of causes from statistical tables made at Insane Asylums. From these tables we learn that intemperance has generally reduced the greatest numbers to insanity, and that religious excitement stands as the next most prolific cause. These tables speak the truth, and are more to be depended upon than the assertions of any man. As to suicide, while it may not be caused the most frequently by religious depression, it is well known that believers in endless woe, are frequently driven to self destruction through the influence that sentiment exerts on their minds.

Elder Holmes declares, that for every case of insanity produced by orthodox dogmas, at least two are saved by these sentiments from insanity! Show us the proof! Not a particle exists. This is one of those things which my friend so vehemently asserts when he is unfortunately lacking in evidence.

He says the preaching of christianity is found beneficial in Insane Asylums, to restore those who have lost their reason. I have no doubt the sublime, beautiful and soothing doctrines and principles of the true and pure religion of Christ, must exert a most salutary influence on the insane. But does the preaching of endless punishment exert such an influence? Never! It cannot. The proclamation of it to the insane would be but adding fuel to fire. I venture to say he cannot find an Insane Asylum in the United States, where that abhorrent sentiment is preached to the inmates. The keepers of those institutions know better than to allow so monstrous an error to diffuse its poison on minds already shattered into ruins, or just recovering a healthy tone. Nothing can benefit such minds but those beautiful views of God, of Christ and immortality, embraced in Universalism. My opponent asserts, moreover, that a religion that would not in some cases produce insanity, would not, in his estimation, be worthy the attention of intelligent

beings. I have no doubt this is his opinion. Of course, it follows that he rejects the gospel ; for it never produced insanity. In no case did its proclamation by its divine Founder, deprive his hearers of their reason. I defy the Elder to produce an instance of this description. I have long suspected there was a broad tide of skepticism prevailing in the Evangelical ranks, which allowed them to hold and value christianity no farther than it would support partial and favorite creeds. Here we have additional evidence of this fact! At the same time my opponent declared that all who reject endless punishment are Universalists. This is as intelligent and candid, as it would be for me to insist that all who reject Universalism, sceptics, infidels, atheists, are orthodox! No man is a Universalist, even in theory, but he who believes in God, in Christ, in the Scriptures, in rewards and punishments, and in an immortal state of existence, where all men shall finally attain to holiness and happiness. And none are practical Universalists, but those whose lives comport with the pure and sublime precepts of the gospel.

My friend informs us that Unitarians are Calvinists! I thought I had obtained some knowledge of the sentiments of that class of christians, during a residence of ten years in their midst; but this is the first time I have ever heard they were Calvinists!

MR. HOLMES.-I said some Unitarians were Calvinists.

MR. AUSTIN. Where can my friend have been all his days? Where could he have received his religious education? How profound his knowledge in theology! How edifying to hear him dash off his assertions, right and left, hit or miss, when it is evident he is in the most profound ignorance of the subjects to which they relate. A Calvinist must necessarily be a Trinitarian. How a Unitarian can be a Trinitarian, surpasses my comprehension ! While in utter ignorance of the sentiments of Unitarians, he insists Sir Isaac Newton was not a Unitarian. Pray how does he know, when he cannot himself even tell what Unitarianism is? This is as consistent as his declaration that Newton did not reject endless punishment, in the face of the positive testimony I offered, that he wholly repudiated that heathen dogma.

The Elder haunted and tormented with the consciousness of past failures to sustain his cause, goes back to the second question, to deal with certain individuals, whose names I introduced on the affirmative of that question. He gives a long dissertation on the sentiments of Origen, and the Basilidians and Carpocratians. But his labors on this point, like most of his attempts at learned display, have proved wholly abortive, as a few words will show. That Origen, and the Basilidians and Carpocratians, had imbibed many errors, which they mingled with the gospel truths they held, I think I have acknowledged. But while these errors were condemned by their cotemporaries, and in after ages, yet for several hundred years not

« PreviousContinue »