« PreviousContinue »
understood him in the same way. “Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not take from him," (David, the word them is not in the passage, but the gentlemaa takes the liberty to put it there, because without it, the text proves nothing to his purpose.—[ T'ime expired.
(MR. AUSTIN'S THIRD REPLY.] Gentlemen Moderators:-I trust my friend opposite, even if I did quote the passage alluded to, in the manner described, will not attribute it to design. Of course, I hold myself responsible to the audience and the public, for the course I shall pursue in this discussion. It would be very unwise in me to attempt to mislead by erroneous quotations of scripture. I think he is in error, in charging me with a misquotation. Be this as it may, whether the word “them” or “him’ is used, does not, I am confident, change the meaning of the quotation in the least. The evident import of this passage (Ps. Ixxxix. 31—33) is, that from those on whom God inflicts the threatened punishment, he will not utterly take away his loving kindness. If this is not the sentiment conveyed, pray what can it be?
The second argument of Elder Holmes, is founded on the passage which speaks of the name or title of Christ_" Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matt. i. 21.) I am surprised that he should quote that passage of Scripture in proof of the affirmative of this question. “ Thou shalt call his name Jesus”—Why? Because " he shall save his people from” the punishment due “ their sins ?” Does the language of the angel assert this? No: it asserts nothing of the kind. Is there not a marked difference between sin and the punishment of sin ? Christ came to save men from sin, and not from punishment. My friend is unfortunate in quoting a passage in support of his position, which furnishes one of the strongest scripture arguments against it.
Elder Holmes asserts, that according to Universalism, God has inade it first necessary that man should commit sin, and then punishes them because they do sin. Universalism affirms no such thing. And no inference of this description can be drawn from my positions. It is not my assertion, but the declaration of the Bible, (Rom. viji. 20,) that God has subjected man to “ vanity," or an exposure to temptation. This does not make it absolutely necessary that man should sin. There is no such arbitrary necessity resting on him. While exposed to temptation, power has been given him to resist it. Moreover, he possesses abundant ability to do right. It is at his own option to pursue either good or evil. If while in possession of ability to resist temptation,
he voluntarily gives way to it, and falls into sin, he is justly deserving of punishment. And
he needs it, that he may be enlightened into a wiser exercise of his powers, in order to be happy. In this need, we see the reason of the certainty of punishment.
My brother opposite, says that as according to the Universalist Rotion of punishment, it is designed for the good of those on whom it is inflicted, then whoever receive the most of it, must have the most good. I will not call this absurd, for that perhaps would be impolite; but I must say it is exceedingly weak. It might with the same propriety be said, that because medicine is designed for the good of the patient, to save him from sickness, therefore those who have the most sickness, and take the most medicine, enjoy the greatest amount of good among men. Here is wisdom !
The Elder attempts, (and no doubt will repeat it during this discussion,) to make a distinction between the punishment of sinners, so called, and that inflicted on the righteous. He insists that God punishes the righteous for a different purpose from that which influences him in punishing the wicked! A most remarkable distinction! The punishment of the righteous !! A righteous sin. NER !!! Pray, what kind of a sinner is that? If an individual sins wilfully against God, and incurs his just punishments, I take it for granted, no one will pretend he is a righteous man. Indeed, one who has had the light of truth granted him, and yet sins against ihat light, is deserving of more punishment, than the ignorant, un. enlightened sinner. And this will be the only distinction made by God, in respect to their punishment, if justice, integrity and equity exist in his government. The argument of my brother is that God will punish his children on different principles—some for their own benefit--some for the good of others, by way of example. This would be like a parent who should whip one disobedient child for his good—to restore him to obedience ani virtue—but another for no such benevolent purpose, but in such a manner as shall confirm him in wickedness-tormenting him perpetually as an example for the rest of the family!! Does not the good sense of all intelligent men teach them that no such distinction can exist in the perfect government of the Universal Father?
The simple fact that Christ came to “save” men, is no proof of the affirmative of this question. I sincerely believe he came to "save" the world. But from what? In other words, What is "Gospel Salvation ?" If it is a salvation from punishment, then Christ came to save men from “just and deserved punishment.” Bat I insist, this is not Bible doctrine. In no place do the scrip-' tures assert that salvation is from punishment, much less from “ just and deserved punishment.” We must leave God's word and turn to the creeds of men to find any sentiment of this description. What, then, is Gospel Salvation? It is a salvation from "SIN. Or the same truth may be expressed in another form. It is salvation from that state wherein men are exposed to sin, and those unhappy con. sequences which inevitably flow from its commission.
In proof that gospel salvation is from sin, and not punishment, I will quote a few passages of scripture. The first shall be the same words on which my brother opposite based his second argument in the affirmative--" Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.” To say this teaches salvation from punishment, is to make the angel utter words without meaning. There is a wide distinction between the act of stealing, and the infliction of the punishment which our laws decree for that crime. So a declaration that men shall be saved from sin, cannot be understood as asserting, or implying, that the guilty shall be saved from just and deserved punishment. Again-- Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”—(John i. 29.) Mark, the sin of the world—not the punishment due that sin. Do not believe, do not flatter yourselves, my audience, that Jesus came to save you from the punishment of your sins! Again--"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God, hav. ing raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless yon, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”—(Acts iii 25, 26.) Accor ding to this declaration of St. Peter, the blessing to be wrought through Christ, is not salvation from just and deserved punishment, but from iniquity-or from that condition of mind and heart, in which men fall into iniquity.
Salvation is a work effected in the hearts of men through the instruction which Christ gives the world in his gospel, by which he leads them from darkness to light-from the darkness of error and sin, into the light of truth and righteousness. It is saving from a sinful state of the affections, and not from the consequences of past wickedness. To save man from ignorance is not to save him from the effects of past ignorance, but to instruct and enlighten him. In like manner to save from sin, is not to rescue from the consequences or punishments of past sins, but to enlighten and purify the affections, to make men hate wrong, and love piety and righteousness. Let me read another passage or two, in illustration. * Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions, wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For [ acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.” (Ps. li. 1-3.) That was a prayer for true Gospel Salvation. Not “ blot out" my punishment, but my transgressions! Not save ine from just and deserved chastisement, but “wash me thoroughly from iniquity, and cleanse me from sin.” Again--" Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins.”—1 John iii. 5.) Yet my friend insists it was to take away the just and deserved punishment due sinners, that Christ was manifested. In this position he is at variance with the whole testimony of the Bible. Take another passage-"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver ts from” — what? Elder Holmes says, from just and deserved pun. ishment; but what does the Bible say?-_" from this present evil world !"-(Gal. i. 4.)-Or, from the wickedness of this present evil generation. In our Lord's prayer we are directed to pray for what? That God would deliver us from punishment? No: bai---" deliver us from evil,” or sin.
I will now attend to my friend's third argument, predicated on the sufferings of Christ. His position is that Christ's sufferings were in the place, in the stead, of sinners He attempted a brief criticism, on the original language, in which I wish he had ventured a little farther. The New Testament asserts that Christ “died for us." (Rom. v. 8.) “He died for all."-(2 Cor. y. 15.) “He tasted death for every man.”--(Ileb. ii. 9.) He "gave himself a ransom for all.”—(1 Tim. ii. 6.) He “died for the ungodly.”—(Rom. v. 6.) He was “made a curse for us,” &c.—(Gal. i. 13.) My friend says that the word “fors in these quotations, is from the Greek words“ anti” and “uper," and that the meaning is “ in the place of man.” I maintain that " for" in these passages has not that signification. As for the Greek word "anti,” it does not occur at all, in either passage above quoted. I can find no place in the New Tes. tament, where it has the signification of “in the place of,” or “in stead of,” in reference to the sufferings of Christ. There are instances where it signifies “in the place of”-as the following: “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room (anti] of his father Herod,” &c. --(Matt. ii. 22.) Here the word anti is correctly translated “in the room.” But let a place be shown in the New Testament where that word possesses any such meaning, in reference to the sufferings or death of Christ.
What is the general use of the word “anti” in the New Testament? It occurs in such sentences as this " Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for (anti] an eye, and a tooth for (anti) a tooth."—(Matt. v. 38.) Here anti is used in its general and proper sense, not in reference to things that take the place of each other; but things that are set opposite. În David's exclamation, “would to God 'I had died for thec,” in reference to Absalom, no doubt he meant in the stead of Absalom. Yet he did not express a desire to save Absalom from just and deserved punishment for his rebellion. It was simply a common expression, indicative of great grief for the loss of a beloved friend or relative.
In the passages quoted by Elder Holmes in support of his view of the sufferings of Christ, •- for” is translated from the Greek word “uper.” It is a preposition, to which Robinson's Lexicon gives some ten different meanings. It is singular that my brother opposite should take one of these meanings, and assume, (for he has attempted no proof,) that it has that signification in all those places where it refers to the sufferings of the Redeemer. It is true "super" sometimes signifies " in the place of,” as in St. Paul's exhortation
“We pray you in Christ's stead [uper] be ye reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) Also in the following—“Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead [uper] he might have ministered unto me.”—(Phil. 13.) But I deny that “uper" has this sense, when referring to Christ's sufferings and death for the world. Ro. binson himself, while he says that some Lexicographers give those passages where “uper” occurs in connection with the sufferings of the Son of God, the sense of “in the place of,” yet he places them under the signification of “in behalf of.” For instance—“Christ died for the ungodly”—“ Christ died for us." In these instances Robinson gives “ uper” the signification of “in behalf of.”
But in examining the meaning of disputed words, the most satis. factory and convincing method is to refer to their scripture usage. I will give some examples where the word “uper” occurs in the New Testament. By ascertaining, in this manner, its meaning when applied to others—to the Apostles, and even to God-we are prepared to learn its signification when used in reference to Jesus and his sufferings. · Pray for (uper] them which despitefully use you.”—(Matt. V. 44.) Does praying for men, signify praying in their stead? Clearly not, but in the behalf, for their benefit? Again—“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for super) us, who can be against us.”—(Rom. viii. 31.) “ And Jesus said unto him, forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for [uper) us.”——(Luke ix. 50.) Whereof I, Paul, am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for (uper] you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, in my flesh, for super] his body's sake, which is the Church.—(Col. i. 23, 24.) “ And whether we be afflicted, it is for super] your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; or whether we be comforted, it is for super] your consolation and salvation.”——(2 Cor. i. 6.) “For unto you it is given, in the behalf [uper) of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also lo suffer for super] his sake.”--(Phillip. i. 29.) “Hereby perceive we the love of God, (or of Christ] because he laid down his life for super] us: and we ought to lay down our lives for super) the brethren."-(1 John iii. 16.) These passages should decide the question. In the last quotation, uper is used in both cases.
Now, if it means in the place of, where it refers to Christ, it means the same where it refers to the brethren. Can we suppose that the Apostle John would use the word in the sig. nification of in the place of, when it refers to Christ, and then go on and use it as in beholf of, in the other case. He makes use of the word uper in both cases in the same sense.
Many other passages where “uper” occurs in like sense, might be quoted. How is it to be understood in these instances ? If we give it the meaning " in the place of,” it will make utter nonsense of the language of divine writers. Try it! But understand