« PreviousContinue »
horrible aggregate of the number of the damned, according to their beautiful hypothesis, the Doctor strives to conceal it under a blaze of glory drawn from the great number to be saved among those who will be born by.and-bye. Their theology makes the past and present so black and terrific, that they fain would relieve the odious picture, by drawing imaginary light from the future !! Bui this is all moon-shine! We know, if orthodoxy is true, that the number already lost, in comparison with the saved, is immense, beyond all human conception. Of what avail to surmize in regard to the future. How does Dr. Beecher, or any other man know the proportion to be saved hereafter, will be any larger than heretofore? What assurance have they that the world will stand another century, or that even one generation more will ever exist on earth! The whole scheme is a cowardly attempt to skulk from the responsibility of charging God with casting into torment, so vast a majority of his own offspring, as they insist he has already done.
The Elder touches for an instant, my sixteenth Negative Argument, that the doctrine of Endless Punishment condemns multitudes of the best moral men on earth, to eternal perdition. He cannot gainsay this position. Its truth is self evident. The most honored and loved statesmen in the annals of American history, who have labored, bled and died for our country's good, are now in hell, if modern orthodoxy is true! And they are there, not for any immorality-not because they were not strictly honest, benev. olent, patriotic and pure, in their habits and lives ; but because their good sense would not permit them to receive unquestioned, the dogmas which self-styled evangelism would impose upon them! My opponent asks what I mean by a moral man? I do not won. der he is at a loss as to the meaning of this phraseology, considering the views he propagates! Let me enlighten him. A moral man, is not one one who joins some limitarian church, prays, shouts, runs down the Universalists, and then turns and cheats his neighbor, and indulges in his dealings, in all the trickery that he can and avoid the ineshes of the law! But he is one who is honest, temperate, fair in his business transactions, pure in all his habits, benevolent and friendly in his intercourse with all men. Elder Holmes acknowledges his doctrine condemns all such men to hell, unless they bow down to the tenets of orthodoxy. At the same time it opens the gates of heaven to the most hardened af villains on earth, if they will repent an hour before they die, and adopt the evangelical creed! I ask the world what they think of such a doctrine ?
Elder Holmes has several times declared that according to my views, the reformatory power of punishment is the only instrument of man's salvation. He must be perfecily aware that this is a sheer misrepresentation. Punishment is but one of the means of salvation. The teachings of the Gospel, the influence of God's spirit,
the displays of his love and grace, and a numerous catalogue of means, which Jesus brings to bear upon the hearts of sinners, all have a part in that most wise, benevolent and blessed process, whereby an alienated and sinful soul is brought to the love and obedience of God, and whereby all intelligencies shall at last be brought to holiness and heaven.
My friend insists his religion is not based on fear. This is a matter which may easily be tested. Take away fear of future torment, and how many revivals could our orthodox friends get up! How many converts could they make to their peculiar notions ? Let that fear be banished, and how many would submit to their discipline, or remain in their churches ? It is one of the strongest objections our opposers urge against Universalism, that it removes the fear of endless punishment, without which, multitudes imagine religion could not exist at all. Let fear be removed, and the whole superstructure of modern orthodoxy would fall into ruins in a single month.”
The Elder, in his seventh speeclı, stung to madness at the tottering condition of his cause, asks, as he imagines, some " killing" questions.* He inquires where are our Martyrs and our Mis. sionaries? In reply, I point him to Christ and his Apostles and early followers, who were put to death, solely for proclaiming that God is the Father of all men, and Jesus is the Savior of the world! I would also direct his attention to Servelus, the eminent and pious Unitarian, who was burned at the stake by the Evangelical John Calvin. Neither would I have him forget ihe Quakers who were whipped, banished and hung by the Evangelicals of Massachuselts. Let me remind him also of that truly learned and christian Unitarian and Universalist, the renowned Dr. Priestly, who was driven from England by the persecutions of orthodox religionists. And now let me ask the Elder, where are his Methodist Martyrs ? Come, friend, march them out. We would know who they are ? As to Missionaries, we hold it to be our duty to cultivate first, the field at home. God knows there is a call for all the laborers we can obtain, to counteract the poisonous influences to corruption, hypocrisy and infidelity, which modern evangelism is exerting on community While priests and elders have the presumption to stand up in the face of the world, and contend by the day, that men can riot in sin with impunity, and escape all puniehment —while they will so blacken the character of God, as to declare that he will torture his own offspring forever for the frailties of a few years—while we see the deadly virus of these errors, diffusing itself through the community, and manifesting its fatal influences in the skepticism which is so generally prevailing in evangelical congregations, and in the foul corruptions, alas! so frequently seen among professors of religion—while witnessing all around us
See p. 582
this sad state of things, we feel under obligations to tarry in our own country, and counteract heathen errors, and heathen vices here, rather than to spend our strength in distant lands! I am pained to make these allusions, and point the public to the wellknown facts which justify them. li is only when in self-defence I am compelled, by the censure and reproach which my opponent seeks every oportunity to cast on God's holy truth, and those who defend it, that I lift the veil for a moment, and allow the public to catch a brief glance of the enormities which are continually taking place in the very bosom of that body who arrogantly assume the name of Evangelical. I warn my friend not to tempt me too far in this direction. His abuse may compel me to state certain FACTS in relation to orthodox morality, which will make his ears tingle!!
In commencing his eighth speech, Elder Holmes makes a desperate plunge at iny twelfth Negative Argument, that Endless Punishment makes God dependent on man for the accomplishment of his purposes. He says this argument is "stuff." The pronouncing of such a word is very easy, and I must also say, very childish. My argument is composed of plain common sense-a kind of “stuff," in which my friend would seem to deal very sparingly. Does he attempt to overthrow the argument, or show there is a defective point in it? Not in the least. He pursues a more easy course. With solemn gravity he turns up his lip, and attempts to kill all I have said, by exclaiming-"stuff!!"-imagining, I have no douht, that the community, in admiration of the profound depths of such logic, Ivould catch up the death-dealing word, and from mouth to mouth, the echo would be heard, on every hand—“ STUFF!!! After thus summarily disposing of my argument, in the only feasible way within his reach, he sets off in a long, rambling and prosy discussion, composed of musty assertions, which he has heretofore been in the habit of urging against Calvinism, in which there is a delectable compound of sense and nonsense, of consistent conclusions drawn from false premises, and false conclusions from true premises-all proving my friend skilful in murdering logic, and reason, and in perverting the Scriptures. But why start off in this tangent? To find something that would really bear against the plain proposition sustained in my argument? He had not the slightest hope of such a result. The object of this long journey, was to lead the mind so far away from the real point at issue, that it would lose sight of it entirely, and then befog it in such a wil. derness of metaphysics, as to inake it believe that God forms a def. inite purpose, and then selects such means to accomplish it, as shall totally defeat it! Come back my friend, from your tedious wanderings, and let us look at the point which separates us. The whole subject is comprised within a nut-shell, and can easily be comprehended by the most ordinary capacity. Elder Holmes has acknowledged throughout this discussion, that it was God's original Purpose, as well as Will and Desire, to save all mankind from
their lapsed condition. The fulfilment of this purpose, is all there is in dispute between us. Who cannot see that all God's purposes which Elder Holmes has enumerated, in regard to man's agency, obedience, the conseqnences of his actions, and the rewards and punishments inflicted on him, are secondary purposes, subordinate io the grand original purpose to save all men, and designed to pro. mote that original purpose, and secure its final accomplishment ? The idea that an infinitely wise Deity would deliberately purpose to bring all mankind ultimately into a condition of holiness and happiness, and then proceed to purpose such other things respect. ing ihe same creatures, as would totally defeat that great primary purpose, is an absurdity so glaring, that I declare before God, a man of common sense must be WILFULLY and WICKEDLY blind to maintain it !! That God's original purpose to save all men, was absolute--i. e. clear, positive and certain-is self-evident. Will my friend inform us how an infinite Deity can form any other than an absolute or certain design, so far as its results are concerned ? Contingency, which is uncertainty, belongs to man's purposes and not to Gol's. Elder Holmes acknowledges it was God's original purpose to save the whole race of man. The fulfillment of this purpose-the deciding power—the turning point
must rest either in God or in man. If it rests in God, as I contend, then it is as certain of final fulfilment, as that Jehovah has infinite resources to accomplish his plans. But my opponent insists the turning point of this purpose of God, rests in man-in man's will and choice. If man will consent to be saved in a cer. tain way-if he will do somethiug to secure his own salvation, then God's original purpose respecting his final condition, can be accomplished. But is man refuses to do these things for a certain lengih of time, then God's purpose to save him CANNOT be completed. Thus it is as clear as sun-light, that according to the Elder's theory, Jehovah is dependent on his srail, ignorant and blind creatures, for the fulfillinent of the most important and glorious purpose he has ever formed.
At the commencement of the Elder's journey to lead the people away from the true point between us, he acknowledged it was God's original purpose to save all mankind from their lapsed condnion. At the conclusion of that ramble, he charges me with assuming the point in debate, vir: that it was God's purpose to save all men.
That is, he charges me with assuming the very fact he had already acknowledgeit! This is a fair specimen of my friend'. clearness of perception and logic, and of the dependence whic can be placed on his most positive declarations. It shows mor over, the consistency of his assertions that I shift my grounds a assert and contradict the same thing! Blinded 10 ihe truth i the gross errors of heathenism, into which partialist theo gians have unfortunately fallen, he gropes his way along, utterly uncertain whither he is going. Like the man who is lost in the
wilderness, when he crosses his own track he knows it not, butinsists it must be the track of another. And when he runs reckless against the sharp points of my arguments, he cries out piteously, that it is not fair ! —that I have changed my ground !!-when in fact, it is his own blunderings and tergiversations, which lead the poor man into all his troubles !! Let me add here, that it is lameniable to see the ignorance of the Seriptures manifested by my opponent, in quoting for the purpose he has, such passages as these--" He that believeth not, shall be damned." He ibat is unjust, let him be unjust still,” etc. Thave already shown the true explanation of one of these passages, yet the Elder continues to give it the old and absurd construction, as though he had not been taught better.
Mr. Holmes catches wildly at my declaration, that if men will not enter heaven, when the way is prepared for them, “ let them stay out.” The eagerness with which he seizes upon this declar. ation, shows his great want of capital for declamation. I am really glad I have given my friend something to enable him to indulge in a little furor. The idea, however, that mankind in another state of existence, having a full knowledge of the odiousness of sin, and the beauty and excellency of righteousness, will not enter upon the joys of heaven when the way is open for them, is foolish in ihe extreme. All the advantage my friend can obtaia from such a supposition, he is welcome to enjoy. God will say to none, “ let then stay out,” when he has the power to make them willing to come in !! Neither the Creator, por the Redeemer, nor angels, nor good men, will say, “let them stay out!” but rather let them be prepared to come in ! Whosoever will, LET him come,” is the great declaration of the gospel, which will be inscribed over the gates of Heaven forever!!
The Elder's attempt to make out that Universalists believe infants will be tortured in fire for thousands of years, because one Universalist believed adult sinners, would esperience future limited punishment, is supremely ridiculous !! It is one of those melancholiy instances in which my opposer has been driven, to manu. facture that which is NOT TRUE, out of whole cloth!! I say this deliberately. Elder Holmes had Winchester's writings, and the writings of other Universalists, in his possession. He knew that neither Winchester, nor any other Universalist, believed thal infants will be punished hereafter!! Hence he deliberately makes this charge knowing there is not one word of truth in it!! Agilin I ask the public what they can think of a cause which demoralizes its advocates to such a degree, as to compel them to utter the most harefaced untruths ?-and what dependence they can place on the assertions of a man who so wantonly tramples under fool the dictates of veracity !! The Elder also said, that God cannot love sin