Page images
PDF
EPUB

pel salvation embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishment. The penalty of the law violated by the sinner, is so satisfied by the suffering and death of Christ, that those who repent and believe in him, are freely justified and exonerated from the legal consequences of their sins.

We now present our Fourth Argument, founded on the doctrine of redemption as expressed in Galatians iii. 15. "Christ hath reclaimed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." To understand the force of this passage, and by consequence the force of this argument, we must first understand what the curse of the law is. I suppose Mr. Austin will agree with me that the curse of the law is the punishment which it inflicts on the transgressor. Hence say the Scriptures, "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." He who disobeys incurs the penalty of the law; that is, is liable to the threatened penalty. Besides, the Greek word katara, signifies malediction or punishment, proceeding from the sanction of law, and is so used in the Greek classics. In this case it is the curse or punishment which proceeds by the authority and sanction of the divine law, to visit the sinner with a just and deserved punishment. If this is not so, Mr. Austin can tell us what it does mean. This passage says, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, that is, from the punishment which the law denounces against the transgressor. To be redeemed is to be ransomed or delivered from pain, distress, liability, penalty, or any exposure. If this is not what it means, my friend will be able to tell us what it does mean. But until we have more light, with Webster, Walker, Richardson, and Donegan, to sustain us, we claim that to redeem, is to buy off from exposure, bondage, penalty, suffering, &c. Hence, as Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, it follows that as our Savior, he has made provision for our "deliverance from just and deserved punishment," and the proposition under consideration is sustained. When I ceased speaking last, I was on my second argument and had not finished it. I will therefore now proceed to finish that argument. I closed by saying that to deliver man from guilt would be to deliver him from punishment unless they were punished after they ceased to be condemned. To deliver him from condemnation, would be to relieve him from punishment, unless they were punished after they ceased to be condemed. Take what view of the salvation you please, deliverance from punishment must follow. On the principles of Universalism to save a sinner from his sins, it must he effected in one of three ways. 1. Before he is punished. 2. After he is punished. Or, 3. At the same time he is punished. But either of these suppositions would involve absurdity. If he is saved from sin before he is punished, then if he is punished at all, he must be punished as a sinner after he has become a Christian. If after he is punished, then there is no room for salvation, since he is no longer guilty or condemned; all the consequences of sin are

fulfilled on his own person. There are no consequences of sin for which he is to be saved. If he is saved at the time of his punishment, then it follows salvation, and damnation meet at the same moment, in the same person. Hence they either become identical or destroy each other. That is, the unbeliever believes at the same time he disbelieves, and is saved on account of his faith at the moment that he is punished for his unbelief. The only rational conclusion is that salvation from sin, involves deliverance from punishment.

Here, then, Universalism and Jesus Christ occupy antagonistic positions. The congregation must make their selection.

I will not take up another argument at this time, but I wish to make a remark or two. I hope my friend Mr. Austin will find it convenient to define his position in his next speech with regard to the place where this punishment will be inflicted and whether he believes in punishment after this life, or whether all this punishment may be endured in the present state.—[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S SECOND REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-My friend as he sat down, requested me to define my position in regard to the place, where men are to be punished. If my opinion on that point was of importance to the discussion of this question, I should not hesitate to make any explanation that might be deemed proper. But I really can conceive of no reason why, in this debate, I should be called upon to express my views on that subject. The question is not where, when, or how, men shall be punished; but simply this:-Are men to be saved from just and deserved punishment, or not? To this single point, the discussion must be confined to be profitable. I shall have no hesitation in defining my position on future punishment, when it is legitimately in the sphere of our investigations. But why turn aside from the question before us and enter on topics which will lead us far away from the real matter at issue. It is comparatively of no importance to the sinner, nor has it any practical bearing on his mind, to inquire where he will be punished. The great fact which he wants to know, and the only one which excites his solicitude, is, whether he will be punished at all. Convince him that he will surely receive a just punishment for all his sins, and it will have the effect to deter him from wickedness. But if he believes he can avoid punishment-that a way is open for him to sin and escape the penalty, he is strongly tempted-nay, encouraged, into its commission. He cares not when or where God would have punished him, if he can but escape that punishment. Hence the unprofitableness of leaving the open track before us, and entering upon discussions in regard to the time and place of punishment. If my friend wants to lead off in that direction, I have no objection; but I shall not follow him. I intend to confine myself to the particular question

before us-"Does gospel salvation embrace deliverance from just and deserved punishment?"

Much that my friend has said thus far, has but little bearing on this question. His first argument is founded on the annunciation made by the angels to the shepherds at the advent of the Savior: "Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people." (Luke ii. 10.) If I understand him correctly, he insists this annunciation could not be true, unless men were to be saved through the instrumentality of the gospel, from the effects of sin. He cannot see what good tidings the gospel can convey to men, without it proclaims deliverance from the consequences of sin. Let me inform him what would be much better tidings-viz: a deliverance from SIN itself! Disconnected from its legal consequences-if God had enacted no law against it, and had threatened no punishment in consequence of it-sin would have still been a terrible evil, and deliverance from it the highest possible blessing that could be conferred upon an intellectual and moral being.

If by the "effects of sin," my friend means its punishments, I entirely disagree with him. But if he means salvation from a state in which we are exposed to sin, then I coincide with him. I believe the "good tidings" announced by the angels, were salvation from that state of imperfection, in which we commit sin, and not from punishment due sin once committed. The Bible recognizes no such doctrine as salvation from penalty. There is nothing said in God's word about delivering men from the "just and deserved punishment" of sin. On the contrary, it insists that sin must and shall, be punished. I will introduce, in due time, declarations of the Bible, where-this is asserted in so many words. The Apostle declares "the creature was made subject to vanity." From this state of subjection the gospel proposes to save the world. Not from punishment, but from sin and imperfection. And this momentous truth was the "good tidings," announced by the angelic messengers.

The question before us was drawn up by my friend Elder Holmes. Yet its very phraseology contradicts the position he advocates, and of itself overturns every argument he can bring to sustain it. Mark how it reads: "Does gospel salvation embrace deliverance from just an i deserved punishment?" My friend inquired what is punishment? But I think it more important to ask what is just and deserved punishment? A man violates the law of God. Just and deserved punishment, for his transgression, is such punishment as the principles of equity and right would inflict. In other words, such a chastisement as the sinner's own good and the welfare of community require. God's government is designed for the good of all over whom it is exercised; and hence all its measures tend to secure that end. Punishment is one of those measures. Its true object is not one of unmixed evil toward the guilty; but its legitimate aim is the benefit, the reformation, of all upon whom it is inflicted. I maintain, therefore, that a just and deserved punishment, is a good

punishment-good for those who receive it, as well as for those who witness it. To save a man from the benefits of such punishment, is to deprive him of that which he actually needs, and which his own welfare requires. This would violate justice, equity, and enlightened benevolence. If an individual was threatened with an unjust and undeserved punishment, to save him from it would be just and right. Conceding this, it becomes self evident that to screen man from just and deserved punishment, would be equally unjust and wrong. Hence I consider the question before us, when reduced to its naked proposition, to be virtually this:-" Will God do that which is unjust and wrong in his dealings with sinners?" All will see that the very statement and nature of the question, amounts to this. And however my friend opposite may introduce fine spun theories, or deal in the bewildering metaphysics of a dilapidated theology, to conceal this naked point, yet it is the real issue between us.

I stand here to vindicate the character of God against this virtual charge of injustice and wrong—A charge, which, if true, would vitiate the purity of the Divine nature and destroy the integrity of his government. I insist Jehovah will do precisely just and right in all cases and with all men-both individually and collectively. God is no respecter of persons." He will deal with all upon the principle of administering, with unfailing certainty, such rewards as they merit and such punishment as justice decides they deserve.

I am aware I shall differ from my friend in viewing each act, in the doings of an accountable creature, as a destined matter of consideration in God's dealings with man. The school of theology to which he belongs, is in the habit of lumping moral desert. It teaches that men are either rewarded for all their good deeds, and punished for none of their bad, or punished for all of their bad deeds, and rewarded for none of their good. Not so, however, with the class to which I am attached: we believe God deals with men with relation to each separate act of their lives. For every worthy deed, or even thought, he bestows a just and deserved reward; and there is no danger or possibility of losing that reward. And for every wicked act or thought, the Supreme Judge of the Universe will inflict a just and deserved punishment, from which there is no possibility that the sinner can, in any manner, be saved or screened. We maintain, moreover, it would be as unjust and wrong, to screen a man from deserved punishment, as it would be to deprive him of the reward a good deed merits. Why should a Deity of infinite wisdom, annex a penalty to his law, and then immediately proceed to provide a way to avoid its infliction when justly incurred? Shall we be told the penalty is designed to give influence to the law, and secure obedience? This it would unquestionably do, was there an absolute certainty that it would be imposed upon the guilty. But how can penalty impart any strength to law, where nothing can be

more easy than to avoid its infliction? Thus the affirmative of this question robs God's law of that which can alone make penalty of avail. Take away certainty of infliction, and law may about as well be without penalty as with. The views entertained on the opposite side, in my estimation, violate all proper conception of the nature and objects of divine punishment. They represent it virtually as vindictive, retaliatory, revengeful. The sinner commits an injury on God or his government, and God seeks satisfaction or payment by inflicting injury on the sinner in return. There are but two general objects, so far as the guilty are personally concerned, for which punishment can be inflicted on them, viz. either to injure or to benefit them. The former is retaliation,-the latter is the dictate of benevolence. Which shall we attribute to God?

Divine punishment cannot be viewed, in any enlightened sense, as being administered on a principle of retaliation, a rendering of evil for evil-or from promptings of malice or hatred. God has forbidden man to act on these principles; can it be supposed he will violate his own injunctions? Can it be right in Jehovah to render evil for evil, and wrong in man? Are we not commanded to imitate our Father in heaven? The great injunction every where to be found in the New Testament, is that good should be returned for evil-blessing for cursing. God himself, we are bound to believe, in all his dealings with dependent creatures, acts on this perfect and lovely moral principle. The proposition of my friend, makes the Creator to falsify that principle, in that it represents his punishments as inflicted solely to injure the guilty-which would be but a return of evil for evil. It is on this ground alone he can consistently maintain that it would be a blessing to save man from pur.ishment. Whereas, the moment it is acknowledged punishment is inflicted for the reformation and benefit of the wicked, it must be allowed that to save them from it, would be in no wise a blessing, but an injury.

There must be a marked distinction between suffering inflicted on the principles of retaliation, and inflicted as a Divine punishment. What is the nature of that distinction? It can be only this: Retaliation is inflicting suffering in hatred of the offender, and with a sole desire to torment him. Divine punishment consists in bringing pain on the sinner, in love-with a deep interest in his welfare and with the intention of restoring him, to obedience and happiness, as a wise and affectionate earthly father, chastises his child for his reformation and ultimate good. It is by overlooking this distinction, and confounding retaliation with punishment, that the world has been lead so far astray on this subject, and brought to believe that salvation from punishment would be a great favor from God.

What are the true objects of God's punishment? They are,First, The reformation of the punished-and Second, The benefit of those who witness punishment, in the light of a salutary example.

« PreviousContinue »