« PreviousContinue »
it as signifying " for the benefit," or "in behalf," as it is rendered in Phillip. i. 29, and the language is sensible and beautiful! The last passage quoted, (1 John iii. 16,) is singularly instructive in regard to the word under consideration. There “uper" occurs twice. It cannot be doubted that the Apostle used it in the same sense, in both instances. If in the first case, where - uper” is applied to Christ, it signifies, he died in the place of sinners, to satisfy the divine law in their stead, then it has the same sense in reference to the Apostles and christian professors, and teaches that they should die in each other's stead, and for the satisfaction of any claim wbich violated law may have upon their brethren. But if “ upep” when used in reference to the followers of Christ, means that they should die in behalf of one another, and for each other's benefit, then it has a similar signification in reference to Christ's death for man. To suppose St. John would, in a single sentence, give to precisely the same word, two meanings, the one vastly different from the other, without any intimation to the reader, would be charging him with a stupidity and blindness in the highest degree derogatory to his good sense. He undoubtedly understood the death of Christ for man to be of the same nature, and for the same purpose, as the death of his brethren for each other.
The examples I have given of the meaning of “uper,” both from Lexicons, and the scripture usage of the word, justify me in the assertion, that when it occurs in reference to the sufferings and death of the Redeemer, it in no sense proves them to be vicarious, or in the place of the guilty. The whole weight of evidence is on the other side, proving that Christ suffered and died in behalf and for the benefit of a world of sinners. Hence the arguments which my opponent builds on those passages where “uper” occurs, fall prostrate and helpless to the ground.--[Time expired.
[MR. HOLMES' FOURTH SPEECH.] Not anticipating so lengthy and worthy a criticism on the Greek prepositions anti and uper, I shall not be able perhaps to make as many remarks on this point now, as at some future time when I shall be able to look up authorities. But as has been the case heretofore, so in the present instance, Mr. Austin's arguments are based mainly on assumption. He assumes that the use I made of these terms excluded the meaning he has given to them. I have never denied that uper is used in the signification for which he has contended. I have only said that when applied to Christ it is used in the sense of one dying to save the life of another. I have argued for no other application of the term, than to Christ's death, as endured for sinners. To illustrate my views I will read you from, Rom. v. 7-8. "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die : yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” We have the testimony of all commentators, except those who support Mr. Austin's views, that St. Paul, introduces this case to illustrate the sense in which Christ died for sinners. I have also the testimony oi Thobuck, a distinguished German Divine, who has given the world a most learned and critical comment on the Epistle to the Romans: in which be says uper is used “synonymously, with anti when applied to the death of Christ.”
When I sat down last, I was remarking upon passages Mr. Aus. tin had quoted to sustain his view of punishment, and I alluded to the 80th Psalm 31-32. I do not intend to charge him with mis. quoting the passage purposely, of course, if he says he had no such intention, I am bound by all rules of discussion, and considerations of respect to regard it as a mere mistake. That is, however the sense in which I understood him, and others understood him in the same way. Perhaps I should not have alluded to it at all, if it had not been thus quoted in the “ es position of Universalism” by Mr. I. D. Williamson, in which he preaches a sermon on that very text, and reads it in that way in the text itself. I allude to it, because the correction of that word certainly vitiates the whole argument built upon that passage. Any one who will read the Psalm through, will see that the author is speaking of the family and throne of David, and promises that even though the children do transgress and incur divine punishment; yet his loving kindness “ he will not utterly take from him,” that is from David. You can see the difference at once. Mr. Austin quoted a number of pas. sages to prove that Christ came to save us from sin, and also that he came to save us from the evil of this present world, that he came to take away our sins, &c. I never disputed this, I believe as firm. Jy as I ever believed any thing, that all this will result from Christ's death to those who believe in him. But that does not vitiate my argument in the least. To make this good, Mr. Austin ought to have gone on and shown an inconsistency between being saved from sin and saved from punishment. He ought also to show how a man can be saved from sin and not saved from the punishment of sin, Unless he does this his argument is not worth a straw. I say there is no consistent sense in which a inan can be saved from sin without being saved from its punishment: and moreover, he bas not given you the pbraseology correctly. He says “He shall save his people from the commission of sin.” It is one thing to be saved from sin hereafter, another to be saved from sins already committed. True Christ came to turn away from ini. quity, but also to save his people from their sins. That is the point alluded to in my argument, and in no way can he save his people from their sins, without involving salvation from punishment.
I will now attend to the passage quoted from Hebrews. He has attempted to show that there is no ditferance, between the punishment of the singer and the chastening of the people of God or that if there is any, those denominated the people of God are the most guilty and deserve the most punishment. Well, if they become sinners, ihey are no longer the people of God, and hence no longer proper subjects for chastiseinent but rather of punishment. By chastisement of the people of God, is not meant positive punishment for actual sins committed, buta course of discipline in which God corrects their judgments and strengthens their graces. Let it be rememberd that this world is a state of probation, à course of discipline and trial, and though the visitations of God upon impenitent sinners, are the incipient state of that future and final retribution which awaits the ungodly, yet to the christian, the man whose purpose it is to love and serve God, the providential dealings of bearen are not properly punishments, but a course of discipline by which God tries his people as he did Abram, strengthens their faith, perfects their graces, and matures their christian character. And this passage in Hebrews, 12th chapter, is directly confirmatory of this view of the subject : “ For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” The plain implication is that there were some who were not received as sons. The passage goes on, “ If ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons; for wbat son is he whom the father chasteneth not. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are parlakers, then ye are bastards and not sons.” A little further on, he exhorts them to take heed lest there be any among them who like Esau, for a morsel of meat, should sell their birthright. That is, the lib. erty wherein Christ had made them free, was their birthright, the source of their titles and privileges, as children of God. This does not support Mr. Austin's views of punishment-not at all. ' My friend also says that Universalism does not impose on men the ne. cessity of sinning. Perhaps Universalism has made new discoy. eries recently, but I will read from a living author. Mr. Ballou on atonement, page 31, says: “natural evil is the necessary result of the physical organization and constitution of animal nature.” Page 32d, he tells us, that “moral evil or sin owes its origin to natural evil.” Page 64, he adds—“ man is dependent in all his volitions, and moves by necessity.” This is corroborated by Mr. Rogers, in “ Pro and Con of Universalism," page 290, where he says "the notion of free will is a chimera.” Mr. Ballou is therefore consistent with himself, and with Universalism, when he remarks, page 104, "ibe Almighty had no occasion to dislike Adam after the transgression, any more than he had even before he made him.” The plain import of all this is, that God made man with an imperfect constitution, and thus purposely subjected him to the necessity of sin. ning. It is vain to attempt a denial of this conclusion; it is unavoidable.
The passage quoted by Mr. Austin from 51st Psalm, claims a passing remark. It is as follows: “ Have mercy upon me O God, according to thy loving kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions.” Let Mr. Austin tell me if he can, how a man can have his sins blotted out, and yet not be saved from the consequences of those sins. The tender mercy of God has been brought into the question, Now what is mercy? It is a term that relates only to those who are guilty, and who stand in need of favor which they do not deserve. And its proper application is only in cases where individuals are treated with favor, though deserving punishment. The very passage quoted is a refu. tation of Mr. Austin's views on that point. The position assumed by him is that God punishes man first according to his deserls. Hence there is no mercy to be exercised towards him, in any application of the term.
With these remarks, I proceed to present my eighth argument, founded on those passages that clearly imply salvation from punishment. Luke xiii. 7-9. The parable of the barren ng tree. This represents moral beings who deserve to be punished for past delinquency. The proposition to spare the tree another year as a trial, clearly implies that if it bore fruit, it should then be spared the punishment already deserved on account of past barrenness. If it should not bear fruit then, that punishment should be inflicted. The tree deserved to be cut down or it did not. If it did not, then God threatened unjust punishment; but if it did, then the proposi. tion to spare the tree is a proposition to spare from deserved pun. ishment. Ezekiel xviii. 2i.: “ But if the wicked will turn from his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned unto him." In Ezekiel xxxiii. 14–16, we have the same truth in nearly the same language. Jeremiah xviii. 7–8.: “At what instant I shall speak, concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Here God promises that when he threatens punishment against a nation for its sin, if they repent of that sin he will not inflict the punishment. We have already seen an illustration of this passage in the case of the Ninevites. They were threatened with punishment, just and deserved, and it would have been inflicted had they not repented. But repenting at the preaching of Jonah, God did not inflict the punishment threatened, and hence they were saved from just and deserved punishment. “He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” It is said in another place he that believeth not is condemned already. It therefore follows that he that believes is free from condemnation. Thence he must be saved from punishment. Micah vii. 18.; " Who is a God like unto thee,
that forgiveth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage.” And now we ask the candid, what mean. ing, other than that for which we contend can be attributed to this language? God is said to pass by the iniquity of his people. How? By pardoning them; that is saving from just and deserved punishment.' 2 Kings xxiv. 4. : “ Manassah filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon.” What would have been the effect of a pardon here? We see it in the consequences of a refusal to pardon. God would not pardon Manassah, and the effect was the destruction of Judah. Hence, if he had pardoned him, Judah would have been saved from this destruction. Thus the effect of a pardon is to save from just punishment. I would like to know if it can be explained, how pardon can be exercised at all, if it does not save from punishment ? And when the gentleman has made out a clear case of pardon without removing punishment, I would thank him to reconcile it with the account given in Luke vii. 41–50. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, thou hast rightly judged. Our Lord then refers to the woman who had washed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, and assures Simon that “ her sins which were many are all forgiven.” Then says he to the woman, verse 50, “ Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace.” On this case we remark,
1. The debtors had incurred a just obligation, but had nothing with which to discharge it.
2. In view of their poverty, and consequent inability to pay, the creditor frankly forgave them both.
3. This act of forgiveness released them from all the consequences of their indebtedness.
4. Our Lord employs this account of the creditor and debtors, to illustrate that act of forgiveness, then and there performed in behalf of the woman. Hence, as the creditor did grant a bona fide release to the debtors from the consequences of their indebtedness, so Christ, in pardoning the woman, released her from the penal consequences of sin ; that is, from just and deserved punishment,
If there be any truth or force in the illustration, as applicable to the case of the woman, it proves her released from the punishment deserved on account of sin. Acts iji. 19.: “ Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” The Greek word translated blotted out, is to expunge, annul, obliterate. See Donegan, page 504. On this passage, Clark remarks as follows: " That your sins may be blotted out, which are not only recorded against you, but for which you are condemned by the justice of