Page images
PDF
EPUB

⚫ his transgressions deserve. "To restore men to the favor of God which they have lost by their transgression," Mr Austin says is forgiveness. I should like to know if this is not a contradiction of all he has said on this question. Men lose the favor of God by their transgression; and is not that loss one of the consequences of sin, and a part of its punishment? Is it no punishment for a man to lose the favor of God? And yet he tells us that forgiveness, is to be restored to the favor of God which has been lost by transgression. The loss of divine favor is one of the consequences of sin, and a part of its punishment: that which restores divine favor to the sinner removes the punishment of sin. Mr. Austin says forgiveness restores what transgression lost : therefore the gentleman himself being judge, forgiveness delivers from deserved punishment. Verily I did not expect my friend would thus easily yield the point for which he has contended so stoutly.

On the nature of repentance much of what Mr. Austin has said is well enough, it would harmonize very well with my own views. Let me say however, it never existed in the sinners mind as a fruit of Universalism. I venture to assert, that no individual in the full belief of the doctrine that men do, and must expiate their sins by personal suffering, was ever known to exercise the feelings described by Mr. Austin. Let a man be exercised in this way, and he can no more be a Universalist than an Infidel. He possesses an element of saving faith, and if he yields to its moral influence, he will be led to Christ, and through the channel of mercy, experience the fruits of his forgiving power. In connecting evangelical repentance with Universalism, my friend has given another specimen of his peculiar artifice. But we might as well expect to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles," as that such repentance should flow from such principles.

Lest I should not have time to refer to my other arguments, I will do it now. My eleventh argument is founded on the fact, that if the sinner is, and must be punished to the full extent of his deserts, his punishment is so indefinite as to time, place and means, that it is unworthy of the government of God, and exerts no moral influence on his subjects. If the sinner is punished for his sins, he does not know the time when, the place where, nor the means by which this punishment has been effected. In many cases he not only remains in entire ignorance of these important facts, but entirely incredulous as to the whole operation. Such is the case with the Atheist, the Infidel, and the great mass of the ungodly, who die in a state of impenitency. Ask them if they do not know that they have been tried, judged and punished, for all their sins against God; and they will answer, "no, I know nothing of it. When, how, and where, was this done and I not know it? I do not so much as believe there is a God, how then can I know of his judgment and punishment?" Now supposing he has been punished for his sins, what good has it done? Where is the moral influence

upon his mind? Is such an administration worthy of God? But take the case of a living, active sinner, and many such there are, who neither fear God nor regard man. Suppose he has been a profane swearer and sabbath breaker, right straight along for twenty years, without interruption; we would suppose that if God punished the sinner according to his sins in this world, this man would know something about it by this time, but what is the fact? Ask him, "Sir don't you know that God holds you responsible?" He will laugh you in the face and tell you, "I am not afraid of God; besides if he is displeased with me, why don't he show it?" Ask him again, "don't you know that you are now a subject of punishment, that you have been tried, judged and punished? He will tell you," If this be the case I don't know it, besides, if what I have experienced the last twenty years be punishment, I would like a little more of it. Look at my poor neighbor here if there are any Christians in the world, I suppose he would be called one. His crops have failed, he has been afflicted with ill health, his children are crippled, and he is scarcely able to procure bread for his family: and yet he is a christian. I make no pretensions of that kind, I do not believe in God even, and yet I have prospered in every way; and if this be punishment, the more I have, the better I shall like it." Now what has the government of God done towards producing a salutary effect on the mind of such a man. Where in the thousands of such cases is the honor of God's government, and the moral influence of his administration? What would be thought of that human government, which would allow the thief, robber and murderer to commit their depredations upon the lives and rights of others, and then punish them in such a way, that they would not know the time, place or means by which they had been brought to justice, and even would not acknowledge the authority or existence of any government? Would such a government be worth the name? And yet such, and even worse. does Universalism in this case, make the government of God. Such the divine administration must be, if Mr. Austin's doctrine be true; and this fact itself is enough to stamp it with the mark of falsehood.

My twelfth argument is founded on the fact that it removes the highest example in the universe for the forgiveness of insults and injuries. We are commanded in the Bible to be "followers of God, as dear children," "to forgive one another as he forgives us." -see Luke vi. 36. Now, on the principle of Universalism, God never forgives sinners in the sense of remitting punishment, hence we are not required to forgive one another, in the sense of forgiving any punishment, we may suppose due for the injuries done us. God exacts the last mite, and never forgives until the debt is fully paid. We therefore, as God is our highest example, are to follow him in this, and if our neighbor has injured us and done us palpable wrong, instead of exercising that forgiveness which would re

mit the punishment, we are to pursue him to the very last degree, until we have exacted the very last mite of punishment, which their ill conduct towards us deserves, and then graciously and kindly give them a full and free pardon. Now it is an old adage-"show me the Gods, and I will show you the people." If the God whom the Universalist worships, exacts the last mite of punishment, never forgives, then it is certainly not to be expected that they should be more perfect than the God they worship. It should not excite surprise, therefore, if Universalists should adopt "lex talionis” as their rule of action, and "render to every man according to their deeds," that is, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," according to the example of the God they adore.

I know, Universalists do not generally practice upon this principle in their intercourse with others, though by their theology they are bound to do so. And this fact is in proof that the theory of my friend is not only contradictory to the Bible, but to the common sense of Universalists themselves.

I will now notice a passage quoted by Mr. Austin, to prove that men are punished all they deserve, and then saved. Isaiah xl. 2: "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received at the Lord's hand double for all her sins "

Mr. I. D. Williamson says the term double, is uniformly employed in scripture to indicate an exact amount. This is certainly a new discovery. But for this high authority, I never should have supposed the term double meant an exact amount of anything. But this is an age of improvement! What does this passage mean? I answer:

1. It is an obscure passage, and it is on this account that it is selected as a proof text of Universalism.

2. Whatever may be its real meaning it certainly does not aid my friend's argument. For if we suppose "double" to refer to punishment, to the quantity, it proves too much for Universalism, for I suppose Mr. Austin himself will not contend that God punishes the sinner twice the amount he deserves. It is a rule in logic-that which proves too much proves nothing.

3. This passage does not teach that Jerusalem had been punished all she deserved, because it speaks of her "iniquity being pardoned," which could not be the case if she had been punished all her sins deserve. My own opinion is, that the term double refers to her two captivities, into which she was led on account of sin. While in captivity her people humbled themselves-repented of their violations of the divine law-God forgave them in the sense of remitting their punishment-hence commissioned the prophet to "comfort" them with the promise of salvation.

Mr. Austin says if the sinner is saved from punishment he cannot repent. Here again he is at fault. Repentance always precedes salvation from sin and punishment. The gentleman has

been led into this error by the subverting influence of his system. The Bible says repent "that your sins may be blotted out." Universalism says when your sins are expiated by punishment, then, and not till then, will you repent. All know what is meant by blotting out. It is to cancel a debt, or release from an obligation. A merchant blots out an account, that has been forgiven, and thus exonerates the debtor from all obligation for the debt: so the sinner who repents, is released from the obligation to endure the penalty of sin. Forgiveness of punishment, so far from standing in the way of repentance, is one of its results, and must always be preceded by repentance, otherwise, there is no deliverance from sin in any sense.

I will now proceed to present my thirteenth argument; that it makes perfect nonsense of the scriptures. We have seen the meaning of pardon and forgiveness, and the remission of sins. Ephesians iv. 32: "Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake, has forgiven you." How shall we interpret this passage on the principle that men are not and cannot be forgiven any part of their punishment? How can we be tender-hearted to those who have sinned against us if we exact from them the very last mite of punishment? The doctrine set up by my friend is wholly inconsistent with this passage of scripture, and would require it to be turned into perfect nonsense to read at all in consistency with his doctrine. Matt. vi. 14, 15: "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." How would this passage be interpreted on the principles of Universalism? To harmonize with Universalism, it should read, "If you punish not men for their trespasses against you, that they may repent and be forgiven: neither will your heavenly Father punish you for your trespasses, that you may repent and be forgiven!" Suppose a man meets me in the street and abuses me: what is required of me that I may forgive his trespasses? I ought to say, "Sir, though I might go with you to the seat of justice, and make you smart for this insult, yet my Christian principles teach me to forgive those who despitefully use me and persecute me." would be forgiving his trespasses, but on the principles of Universalism, I ought in the first place to seek satisfaction-first by giving him a severe drubbing, and then by prosecuting him through the law-and then I might say, sir, I am now ready to give you a free and full pardon, and extend you the right hand of fellowship!! "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." If this would be the effect of not forgiving, what would be the effect of a contrary course? The application can be made by the congregation themselves. Luke vi. 36: "Be ye therefore merciful, as your father also is merciful." How is our father Merciful?— [Time expired.

That

[MR. AUSTIN'S SIXTH REPLY.1

Gentlemen Moderators:-Perhaps I cannot pursue a better course than by commencing this speech with a notice of the last remarks of my Brother Holmes. He says that my views of forgiveness make perfect nonsense of the scriptures. All careful readers of the Bible, are as capable of judging on this point! as Elder Holmes. To their decision I willingly submit the correctness of such an assertion. He insists moreover, that according to the Universalist doctrine, we must first punish one another, and then forgive one another. No sir! Universalism teaches that individuals have no legal or moral right to take the punishment of offenders into their own hands. We believe that whoever inflicts insult or injury upon another, will receive a just punishment from the hand of God, through the operation of human laws, and the workings of his own conscience. As individuals, it is our duty, not to retaliate, not to punish, but to FORGIVE the offence; leaving legal and moral consequences to higher tribunals. Hence all the display of wisdom and wit on this subject, from the other side, amounts to nothing. It shows more cunning to cover up an argument, than intelligence to fathom it, or candor and ability to meet it. Let me ask my friend what would be the course of action in the supposed case according to his doctrine, which teaches that God punishes an innocent being-Jesus Christ-in place of the offender, and then forgives the latter and allows him to go "unwhipped of justice?" On this principle, if we are insulted or injured, our first duty is to seek out some innocent person-the more pure and godlike, the better-flog him within an inch of his life, and then turn and forgive the guilty and hardened wretch. No doubt he would approve of this doctrine, as the depraved invariably do. He gladly clutches at this very convenient and easy mode of escape, and is prepared by such facilities, to go on and repeat his crimes on others!

The Elder has given you the reading of Eph. iv. 32, according to Universalism, as he declares, although in doing it, he totally perverts that system. Allow me to present the reading of that passage on the principles of modern orthodoxy: "Be kind one toanother, tender hearted, forgiving one another, [after each one has punished some innocent neighbor, in place of those who injured them, and allowed the guilty to go free of all punishment,] even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you," [after punishing his holy Son-yea, himself—in your place, thus giving you an assurance that you can sin to any extent and be screened from all retribution.] The same reading will apply to the passage-" Be ye merciful as your Father also is merciful."-(Luke vi. 36.)'

My friend on the affirmative, insists the Universalist view of forgiveness-that God does not forgive until he punishes-amounts to no forgiveness whatever. If this objection is well founded, it

« PreviousContinue »