Page images
PDF
EPUB

time of punishment is not so important to deter from sin, as a belief of its certainty. My friend's own system is far more defective upon this subject, than any thing he can justly charge on my views. If there is imperfection on either side, it is better for men not to know positively when or where punishment is to be experienced, and yet that at some time, and in some place, it will assuredly, and without failure, be inflicted, than to have an exact knowledge of time and place, and still cherish the belief that it can very easily be avoided! Of what utility is the knowledge of the location and of the moment of punishment, except to encourage the believer of it, that it furnishes him greater facilities to escape its infliction!

Elder Holmes declares Atheists, Sabbath breakers, and other vile sinners, do not know whether they receive any punishment or not, in this life. Does he speak from experience, on this subject -or how does he know what is suffered by these classes, through the power of conscience and the numerous other ways in which God chastises the guilty? Let him consult those who have been addicted to immoral practices, and when they speak the honest convictions of their hearts, they will instruct him, that they found no true happiness in sin; but that however fair they endeavored to make the outside, there was a worm gnawing within, that destroyed all real peace of mind. He refers to their worldly prosperity to barns full of grain, as an evidence that they are not punished.* Does he not yet know that God frequently causes the very abundance of the possessions of the wicked, to prove the greatest torment and curse of their lives? Hence all he says in regard to governments who so punish the criminal that they do not know they are punished, is wholly inapplicable.

The twelfth argument in the affirmative, is that Universalism repudiates the highest example in the Universe of the forgiveness of injuries. This is a most remarkable argument, or rather charge. What more salutary or beautiful example can be placed before the world, than the principle which my system attributes to God, that at any time, and in any world, he forgives men their offentes, on due repentance. But look at the example of the Creator as represented by Elder Holmes, and theologians of his schoolThat God would not forgive the transgressions of men, until an innocent being had been punished in their place. Ah! worse than even thisThat if sinners do not, during the brief years of

This proof that the sinner is not punished here, which pre-supposes also that the righteous are not rewarded in this life, reminds me of the couplet of the poet:-"But sometimes virtue starves while vice is fed, What then? Is the reward of virtue, bread

Oh, fool! to think God hates the worthy mind,
The lover and the love of human-kind,

Whose life is healthful, and whose conscience clear,
Because he wants a thousand pounds a year!!"—POPE.

this life, believe that the innocent Son of God has been punished in their place, their heavenly Father will never forgive them, but will inflict an endless storm of retaliation and revenge upon them! What kind of an example is this? What influence would it have on society, were man never to forgive an offender until some innocent person was punished in his stead; and then, if the guilty man did not believe this, within a given space of time, turn upon him and seek revenge during the entire course of his life?

His thirteenth argument I have alrealy noticed at the commencement of my last speech. He complains that Universalism represents God as exacting every iota of punishment on the sinner. Acknowledged. And does not his system attribute the same principle to Deity? Does it not insist that he exacts all the punishment due every sin that has ever been committed, and that his exaction is so rigid, if it cannot be fulfilled by the guilty, he wil accept of it from the innocent? Have it, he will, in one way o another! We do indeed maintain that God exacts punishment to the "last iota." And why? Because it is designed for the reformation of the sinner. The physician very properly demands that all his medicines shall be taken, because it is designed for the recovery of the patient. Is it cruel to give a sick man all the medicine that his restoration to health requires? Is it cruel to punish the sinful all their restoration to moral health requires?

His fourteenth argument rests on the assertion, that my views contradict the common sense of mankind and the common usage of words. He reiterates his complaint that I have not quoted from Dictionaries and Lexicons. I acknowledge I have quoted more from the scriptures than from Dictionaries. And the reason is satisfactory to me, if not to my brother opposite. It is because I have more confidence in God's word, than man's explanations. I would give more for one "Thus saith the Lord," than all the Dictionaries ever made. Most of them were compiled by men under the influence of what I believe to be erroneous views of religion; and they have made their Dictionaries conform to their preconceived opinions. This is especially obvious in regard to words of uncertain or disputed meaning. I would not by any means repudiate Dictionaries or Lexicons. I give them all the weight they can legitimately claim. But I go to the Bible as the best Diction ary to teach us its own meaning. So long as I can explain scripture by scripture, I feel satisfied.

The supposition of the Elder, that the keeper of a prison should draw up a petition to the Governor for the pardon of a convict whose term of imprisonment had expired, is pointless and witless. It rests on the old mistake which has run through the entire length of his arguments, that pardon or forgiveness is from punishment -whereas the Bible declares it is from sin. The question whether a discharged convict should be forgiven his crimes-i. e. have the remembrance of them blotted out, and be restored to good standing

in community-would depend upon the influence which his imprisonment had exerted upon him. If it had brought him to sincere repentance, he should be forgiven-restored. But if he came forth unrepenting and hardened, who will maintain he should be forgiven, notwithstanding he had been imprisoned all the law required?

His fifteenth argument is built upon another assertion-that if men cannot be saved from punishment, they cannot be saved at all. and hence universal damnation will prove the doom of the world! It cannot be necessary I should spend a moment in examining this assertion, for it is not an argument. Salvation is from sin. Punishment is one of the means of salvation. How absurd to speak of saving men from that which leads to salvation!

I proceed now to urge another argument against the affirmative of this question. My friend complains I have insisted with much pertinacity, that his doctrine exerts an immoral influence. This I have done from a deep and solemn conviction that such is its tendency. I now re-assert the position. I introduce it as an argument of the most weighty and convincing nature against the truth of the whole theory of the affirmative of this question. The practical influence of the doctrines maintained on this subject by Elder Holmes and his Evangelical co-laborers, is to throw open a broad highway in which the transgressor can proceed to the commission of crime at pleasure and with utter impunity. I insist it is precisely such a doctrine as sinful men want and approbate. Ask them, and they will tell you they desire nothing better.

Under the influence of sinful promptings, mankind are ever seeking to separate wickedness from punishment-striving to contrive ways and means to indulge in sin, and avoid the infliction of its just penalties. We see all around us, men plunging into every species of immorality, under the deceptive expectation that it will make them happy, and then struggling to get away from punishment. To delude and flatter themselves that this can be done, they go to work and invent theories, systems, doctrines. A great part of the modern Evangelical theories and creeds-are but a grand contrivance cunningly and adroitly penned to allow the indulgence of wicked passions, and to shift the just punishment from the guilty to an innocent substitute! I regret exceedingly that learned Professors of Theology, Doctors of Divinity, Ministers of the Gospel, and professors of religion, lend themselves to such a work-I do not say intentionally, yet none the less certainly. They virtually take their place alongside the most depraved, and insist that men ought to be allowed to sin under such circumstances, that they can escape all punishment! Instead of teaching the people the great and salutary truth, that sin and punishment are indissolubly connected, they continue to proclaim the most seductive and flattering error, that there is a way

this life believe that the innocent Son of God ha
ather pace. their heavenly Father will never
aft an endless storm of retaliation and rev
What an example is this! What influer
oa society, were man never to forgive an offend
BOLT 762801 was punished in his stead: and t
man od not believe this within a given space o!
bar and seek revenge daring the entire course o
ste argument I have alrealy noticed
ment of my last speech. He complains that U
815 Gal as exacting every nota of punishme
Ackolded. And does not his system attrib
cizle 2 Dely! Does it not insist that he exa
ment the every sin that has ever been comm
exon is so tigd. if it cannot be fulfilled by t
accept of it from the innocent! Have it, he v
ander! We do indeed maintain that God exa
the-ass Away? Because it is des
sation of the sinner. The physician very pro
4. is neities shall be taken. because it is.
covery of the penet. Is it cruel to give a sic
ee that his restoration to health requires?
the sail all their restoration to moral health

His argument rests on the asse
cestralet the common sense of mankind and
ei weels. He reiterates his complaint that I
Petonaries and Lexicons. I acknowledge
from the semiptures than from Dictionaries.
sausfactory to me, if not to my brother opp
I have more confidence in God's word, than"
I would give more for on
Dictionaries ever made
under the influence of
ligion; and they h
conceived opinions
of uncertain or

[graphic]

Thus saith the

of them wo love to he

and

[ocr errors]

ed in this world, and that can escape from every eatened against sin hereurage men to commit sin? overnments, should legisinals should be punished out that if they would repunishment, and an innoy of the law? All must ve, even in human governbe salutary, in a divine go

of this theory upon the comlions into wicked practices, work every hour. It has mitted on earth. This very ed to our first parents. "Ye y provided whereby ye may ust punishment!! That was ent to Adam and Eve. It was to be so. And from that day ich has led men to the perpecommitted a wilful and known ce of one or both of these two ords pleasure, and that just and d. Go to our prisons, our peninks of pollution, the haunts of why they pursue their reckless t an exception, they will return in would make me truly happy, liment!"

is theory, have much to say in reearn the sinner of great, appalling of their time is spent in dwelling on horting the wicked to flee from the rid. But of what avail is all this,

? How can it restrain them from put afar off-in an unseen and unopportunity is furnished to avoid it neutralizes all the influence which otherwise exert. Sinners are taught -or so little that the wicked do not but that all punishment is hereafter ! instructed that religion, the gospel, the hrist, are designed expressly to enable fter punishment. All restraint is thus give way to temptation they keep off, endless punishment, which

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »