« PreviousContinue »
the moment the promise was given -and that so far as the descendants of Adam (before as well as after the grucifixion,) are unconditionally (that is, without their agency) involved in the effects of transgression by their feileral head, they are unconditionaily 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.1 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 upon them, will ever take place in the world to come. All his efforts 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 judg. ing 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 trespas. ses and sins.”—(Eph. ii. 1.) Judging the dead, in Scripture phra. seology, signifies exercising authority and rule over the sinful among men. This fact explains the passage in Rev. xx. 11-15, 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 farorabie : 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 say's-1 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 figuratice 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 creditablo either to reason or religion." -(Dr. C.on 1 Cor. xv. 23.) Dr. Clarke also makes use of the fol. lowing language—“ Let it ever be remembered that by the general consent of all (except the basely interested,) no melaphor 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
i evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls !!-(Di. C. on Matt. v. 26.) This enlightened decision and just rebuke, sweeps away, not only all that Elder Holmes has quoied from the book of Revelations in support of his views, but much of the melaphorical language he has introduced from other parts of the Scripturcs. 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 “antithelical.” 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 ar. gument. 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 ihus 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 insarity or not? The fact that their preaching never produced such a result, is the clearest proof that ihey 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 eternal 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 10 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 ihe 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 salulary influence on the insane. But does the preaching of enilless punishment exert such an influence ? Never! It cannot. The proclamation of it to the insane would be but adding fuel 10 fire.
venture to say he cannot find an Insane Asylum in the United States, where that abhorrent sentiment is preached to the inmales. The keepers of those institutions know betier 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 helieves 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 ibose 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 iniss, 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 Uni. tarian 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 af. firmative of that question. He gives a long disse: tation 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 havs acknowledgeil. But while these errors were condemned by their cotemporaries, and in after ages, yet for several hundred years not
the slightest objection was made to their belief in the salvation of all mankind. In the enumeration of their errors, that doctrine was not named. This shows their Universalism was not considered an error, and is proof with other circumstances, that the salvation of the world was generally believed in the church of Christ, at that early age. This important fact Mr. Holmes cannot disparage.
Elder Holmes has taken a hasty glance at some of my Negative arguments, which I will notice, as far as my recollection of what he said will allow. In reply to my argument that Endless Punishment is not recognized in ihe devotional exercises of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, or A postles, he says they did not pray aguinst it! Really, if every religious chimera which these servants of God did not pray against, “is true, the scope of our religious faith should be immediately enlarged. My friend, however, is greatly mistaken in his assertion. The Prophets and A postles did pray against the doctrine of Endless Punishment. In the sublime prayer of David, recorded in the 861h Psalm, he says—“ All nations whom thou hast made, shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” St. Paul says "I ex. hort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior ; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -(1 Tim. ii. 1-4.) Are not these prayers directly against the doctrine of eternal misery? If I am not mistaken, he said Christ did not allude to heaven, in the Lord's prayer. Let him look at that prayer again. How does it commence? “Our Father which art in HEAVEN.”
Mr. Holmes complains that my fifteenth Negative Argument, in which I show the number which must inevitably be lost, according to his doctrine, is basd on a false view. He says he believes infants will be saved, (although he contends they are full of depravity,) and that many of the heathen will attain to salvation. What have we to do with Elder Holmes' opinion on this subject? According to his own rule, as applied to me, his individual views are of no consequence in this discussion. His own creed, and the whole array of self-styled evangelical systems, lay it down as a fundamental principle of the gospel, that faith and repentance, in this life, are absolutely indispensable to salvation in the future world. No doctrine in their articles of faith is more frequently and positively insisted upon than this. Now infants, the insane, the idiotic, the heathen, cannot exercise faith in Christ, nor experience true gospel repentance, in this world. Hence according to orthodoxy, they must all be lost! And all attempts to dodge this conclusion, or shrink from its terrific decision, are made at the expense of the fundamental principles of modern evangelism !
My friend flies to Dr. Beecher for assistance. Affrighted at the