Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whatever amount of chastisement is necessary to reform the guilty, will be sufficient to operate as an example, to deter others from wrong doing. I repudiate the idea of punishing men solely for example's sake and with no aim or desire for their good! It violates all reasonable conceptions of a wise, just, and perfect government. God is the Father of all mankind. "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?" (Malachi ii. 10.) "Our Father which art in Heaven," (Matt. vi. 9.) He is the Father of the disobedient and sinful, as well as of the good. "Hear, O heavens; and give ear, O earth; for the Lord hath spoken. I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the soul of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it; but wounds and bruises and putrifying sores." (Isa, i. 2-6.) Notwithstanding the Jews were rebellious and depraved, they were still children. The Deity being thus the father of all men, his government is purely Parental. It differs from human governments in that, while they are strictly judicial, inflicting punishment with but little concern for the fate of the guilty, a Parental government holds forever in view the interests of the punished. The perfect, parental government of God cannot be illustrated by principles and operations of an imperfect judicial, earthly government. The best representation of the government of our heavenly Father, is that which a wise, just, and benevolent earthly parent exercises over his family. Good earthly fathers have disobedient children, and they deem it a duty to punish them. On what principle do they inflict chastisement? To gratefy a spirit of retaliation-or from a desire to injure the child-or merely to afford an example for the rest of the family? No, the great and leading object, is the child's own good-its restoration to obedience and virtue. A secondary object, is its influence on the other children, as a salutary example. A wise and good father endeavors to satisfy his erring child, that he punishes not in hatred or anger but in sorrow, and love, and solely for its benefit. A real zation of this fact melts the child into contrition and regret, and makes it obedient and loving.

I maintain these are the principles on which God inflicts punishment on the guilty. He is a wise and good Father, and will not save his creatures from that infliction of pain which their restoration to godliness and happiness requires. Moreover this is the most elevated, enlightened, and reasonable view we can take of the government of a holy and perfect God-a Universal Father. Any representation that his punishments are designed for the injury of the punished, degrades the Deity-introduces imperfection and evil into his counsels, and destroys the moral grandeur, beauty and glory of his government.

Allow me to bring forward a few scriptural passages, in proof that God's punishments are designed for the good of those on whom they are inflicted. "I will bring the third part through the fire,

and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God." (Zech. xiii. 9.) By bringing them through the fire, the prophet represents the punishment that God inflicts upon his disobedient people. And the influence of the punishment is described as bringing the erring back to obedience and righteousness. Again, in reference to the advent of Christ: "But who may abide the day of bis coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver. And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness."—(Mal. iii. 2-3.) What is the nature of “fuller's soup,” and “refiner's fire?" They do not destroy, but cleanse, renovate, whatever is submitted to their action. These figures are introduced by the prophet to represent the operation of God's government, and to show that his punishments purify rather than injure. Again-"If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail."-(Ps. lxxxix. 31-33.) Here is a threatening of just punishment; and yet its infliction will not take away God's kindness and faithfulness. Again-" Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of Spirits, and live? For they verily, for a few days, chastened us after their pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." (Heb. xii. 9-10). This is a most beautiful representation of the objects of Divine Punishment. Its purpose is to amend, to restore, the disobedient, and bring them into a state of heart and mind, where they will become partakers of God's holiness.

I will now refer for a moment, to the passage quoted by Elder Holmes, from Gala. iii. 13—“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." From the remarks of my brother, I suppose he understands the law in this sentence, to be the great moral law of God. I wholy dissent from this constraction. The context clearly shows that the apostle referred exclusively to the Levitical or Ceremonial Law of the old dispensation. In the 2nd verse, be asks-"This would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, [i. e. the Levitical law,] -or by the hearing of faith ?"-the Gospel. Again-verse 17th: "And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." This shows beyond a doubt, it was from the curse of the Ceremonial Law that Christ redeemed the Apostles and early christian converts.

After the gospel dispensation had been established, it was considered a curse, that is, an evil, a disadvantage for the Jews to shut their eyes to the light and glory which beamed upon them from the teachings of Christ, and cling to the old forms and ceremonies of the Levitical Law. Hence in this immediate context, (v. 10) St. Paul says: "For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. For it is written, cursed is every one [while acknowledging the authority of the law,] that continueth not in all things which are in the book of the law, to do them." The book of what Law Evidently, the Ceremonial Law. In the fourth chapter of the same Epistle, to be under the old Levitical Law is said to be in bondage-Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai, [the Levitical Law] which gendereth to bondage." From this bondage Christ came to deliver the Jews: Stand fast therefore in the liberty [the Gospel] wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage"-the Ceremonial Law-(Gala. v. 1.)

[ocr errors]

Hence in the passage quoted by my friend, we are not to understand St. Paul as teaching that Christ redeemed his followers in that age from the punishments of God's great moral law, but from the curse or bondage of the Levitical Law. How did he redeem them? By adopting their sins, and enduring punishment in their stead? Such an idea does violence to the whole subject on which the Apostle was engaged. The Savior redeemed them from the bondage of the ceremonial Law, by the enlightening teachings and influences of his Gospel.

One word in regard to Isaiah liii. 4. 5: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Eld. Holmes quotes this passage to prove that Christ took upon himself the sins and guilt of mankind, and bore in their place the penalties which God's moral law exacts of them. If this is a true construction, then several important deductions must follow. In the first place, to teach such doctrine, the words of the prophet must be received in their most literal and naked sense. This would prove that Christ actually took upon himself the "iniquity" of men, inother words, became sinful and guilty in his own character. Moreover it would prove that he, an innocent being, literally received in his own person, the punishment due all mankind, for all the sins that ever have been, or will be committed on the earth. It follows also, that Jesus literally took upon himself the griefs and sorrows, the physical infirmities and sicknesses (see Matt. viii. 17) of all mankind. There are none who believe this. Is it said his bearing our griefs and sicknesses, &c, must be understood in a figurative

sense? Acknowledged. And by all rules of enlightened criticism, his taking upon himself the iniquities and chastisements of men, must also be understood figuratively. In what sense did the Savior bear the sorrows and sicknesses of men? All agree it was in removing them. Very well. In the same sense of removing them, he bore our iniquities—not in bearing in our place the punishment due our iniquities.

What are we to understand by those passages which speak of Christ as being wounded for our transgressions-giving himself a ransom for us-suffering and dying for men? Simply that he suffered, bled, died, in our service, in laboring for our good, and in accomplishing his great work of reconciling the world to God. The marked distinction between my friend and myself, on this subject, is, that while he maintains Jesus suffered and died as a punishment borne for men, and in their stead, I insist all he experienced was in behalf of mankind, as a noble hearted philanthropist labors and suffers for the good of his needy fellow beings.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' THIRD SPEECH.]

MR. HOLMES-Messers. Moderators: How many minutes may I speak? I understand Mr. Austin has spoken over his time, somewhat.

MR. AUSTIN-I prefer that the opposite side should take five minutes. They belong to him, and can be taken from me.

Respected Audience :-In opening the debate for this evening, I wish to call your attention to the fact that my friend, Mr. Austin, has not paid the slightest attention to any of the arguments I have presented, except the one drawn from the redemption of Christ, spoken of in Galatians. Mr. Austin has treated us to two or three dissertations on subjects, to say the least, but indirectly connected with the question. To much of what he has said, I have no objection to offer. But the question under discussion is, "Does Gospel Salvation embrace deliverance from just and deserved punishment?" We are not discussing the nature or design of punishment, but simply whether the gospel as a merciful provision, does propose to save men from that punishment which they deserve. Whether God inflicts punishment or saves them from it, in either case, the design is good. But the question does not relate to the design or nature of punishment, but whether God proposes through Jesus Christ to save men from it. I asked Mr. Austin to define his position in regard to future punishment. He declines doing so; says it is not relevant, and yet he introduces a great deal of matter of less relevancy. I am going to show, if I have time, why I asked this of him. There are a number of considerations besides the one that it would have brought us nearer together. There is no neces

sity for widening the difference between us, by refusing to avow our sentiments on points intimately connected with the merits of our respective theories. We are far enough apart, when we come as near together as we can; and an explanation of his views in regard to future punishment, if it did not bring us nearer together, would at least give me a knowledge of his real position. And unless he consents to define his whereabouts on this subject, the inference will be unavoidable, that he is afraid to give a frank and manly expose of his real views.

He states, the Bible says nothing of salvation from punishment: a declaration which must appear most strange and unaccountable to any one who has read his Bible with the slightest attention. I shall have occasion, before the question is finished, to present an argument based on the plain language of scripture, and then it will be seen what this allegation is worth. He also says God would not enact a law, and then proceed to save men from its penalty. Were this all there is about it, I might agree with him; but the gentleman does not seem to comprehend either the nature or design of the Divine law. He seems to suppose the whole design and use of law embraced in the infliction of penalty. But the case stands thus: The law is intended for the good of the universe-its revelation makes known the rule of moral rectitude to the moral world -its penalty has two uses; first, to guard the law from infraction -second, to visit the transgressor with just and deserved punishment. It was never the design of God that man should transgress his law, hence the first use of penalty was to deter from sin; but sin being committed, the law must be vindicated and the government maintained by the punishment of the guilty, unless as already remarked, an expedient be resorted to that will relieve the transgressor, and still maintain the ends of good government. Has this expedient been resorted to? This is the question now being discussed. According to Universalism, God has made it necessary for man to commit sin, and having done that goes on to punish him to the full extent of his deserts. This shows the question in a light wholly irreconcilable with justice. But there is nothing inconsistent in my view of deliverance from punishment. He also says that to save man from just and deserved punishment would be to do wrong. We have already spoken of the atonement of Christ. It was made for the express purpose of making it consistent and righteous for God to exonerate the sinner from the infliction of punishment. Hence St. Paul says in the third chapter of his epistle to the Romans, "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness." That is to show that God may be righteous and good in exonerating the sinner from the infliction of punishment, and in the "remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God." "That he might be just," is the language of the Apostle, "and yet the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." Were there no Redeemer-no atonement

« PreviousContinue »