« PreviousContinue »
God; and the punishment due to them must be executed upon you, unless prevented by your repentance and turning to him whom ye have pierced.” Romans iii. 24–27.: “ Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ : Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.” Here it is said, that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ-because or on account of our faith in him whom God hath set forth, as a propitiation. What is a propitiation? It is an act performed by a third person, for the purpose of effecting reconciliation between parties at variance : and this is done by turning away the displeasure of the justly offended party. This act was performed by Christ, who became the propi. tiation for the sins of the whole world. As the effect of this pro. pitiation, the obstacles to human salvation are removed, the righteousness of God declared, or vindicated, while he proceeds in the exercise of forbearance, to remit the past sins of those who “believe in Jesus." Here the doctrine of forgiveness of punishment is clearly taught.-[ Time expired..
[MR. AUSTIN'S FOURTH REPLY.] Gentlemen Morlerators :-) propose in the present half hour, to pass my friend's fifth and sixth arguments, based on bis views of pardon and justification, until to-morrow, in order to give them a more critical examination. I wish to notice this evening, his seve enth argument. It is drawn from certain passages of scripture, which, he asserts, teach that men have been saved from punish. ment. He has quoted these passages, he says, to prove that there are instances where God has not punished men as much as they deserve! I can but express my exceeding regret that he has thought proper to resort to an argument of this nature! Can it be possible he has maturely reflected on the practical influences of such an argument, on the minds of this audience, and especially the youthful por tion of it? Has he duly considered the moral tendency of quoting scripture to prove to the young as well as old, that they may sin with impunity, to their hearts' content, and escape all punishment whatever? What more do the inexperienced need as an inducement to ein? I call upon my brother and all clergymen of the so-called Evangelical school, in the name of Heaven, and humanity, and for the good of society, to desist from such a course. I pray them to refrain from going to the Bible, and quoting God's holy word to prove that men can violate his commandments—trample on every thing holy and good-and yet be screened from all penalty! I beg
of them not to taint the minds of the rising generation, with a doctrine so demoralizing--so peculiarly calculated to seduce them into the path of sin! Did the passages Elder Holmes has quoted, prove that God has saved sinners from just and deserved punishment, they would prove more-they would prove that God has done violence to the plainest dictates of justice that he has subverted the fundamental principles of his own government--and made his revealed word contradict itself in the most positive manner. If there is any doctrine that is plainly and unequivocally laid down in the Bible, it is the certainty of the punishment of the wicked. What signification should we attach to the passages my friend has quoted? They are not to be taken literally; but are to be under. stood as declaratione uttered by men laboring under a deep sense of the heinousness of their crimes, and of the depth of guilt which rested on their souls. With their minds overwhelmed with a just estimation of their wickedness, they make these strong declarations. Yet these very passages show that God had punished them for their sins, which overthrows the position of my opponent, of salvation from just and deserved puuishment. But under their excited feelings, they thought they had not been punished quite as much as they ought to have been. This does not invalidate, or even reach the great principles for which I contend-viz: the cer. tainty of punishment. I insist an enlightened interpretation of scripture compels us to understand these high wrought passages, as the declarations of men, smarting under a sense of guilt; and not as overturning the great fundamental principle every where taught in the Bible, that God's punishments are inflicted with unvarying certainty, and inflexible justice. They are certain, because they are just. Were they unjust, they might well be uncertain !
My brother on the affirmative, has repeatedly represented that gospel salvation is an "expedient,” to which God was compelled to resort to rescue man from the claims of justice. This is a most remarkable view of the Creator and the perfection of his ways. What is an expedient ? Its definition is—" Means to an end contrived in an ezigence or difficulty—a shift.” It appears then, according to my friend's position, that Deity managed the affairs of his world so imperfectly, and with so little foresight, that every thing fell into confusion against his intention, and in violence to all his calculations. Being thus surrounded with difficulties, he could not follow out his original plan in man's creation; but pressed by the strong exigency of the case, he was compelled to resort to an expedient contrived on the spur of the occasion, to rescue his creatures from their perilous condition. In this manner the so-called orthodox “plan of salvation," is supposed to have originated. Who can believe this, of an all-perfect God?
My friend refers to my quotation from Hebrews—"Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; nevertheless afterward, it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteous
ness unto them which are exercised thereby." He maintains that chastisement is not punishment, but that it is a salutary course of discipline! I acknowledge that chastisement is a salutary course of discipline, and I insist that such also is the nature of punishment. These terms are synonymous, so far as the object of their infliction is concerned. The only distinction between them is, that chastisement is a lighter infliction of penalty for less heinous crimes, and punishment a more severe correction for deeper guilt. But they both are imposed for the same purpose, expressed distinctly in the language of the Apostle above quoted--that they may “afterward yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby.”-(Heb. xii. 11.) Upon what principle of propriety could the father of a family correct one portion of his children for their benefit, for the purpose of restoring them to obedience and uprightness; and another portion, only to injure them, and in such a manner as to confirm them in their disobedience and crime? The words "chastening" and "corrected,” (Heb. xii.) are from the Greek word " paideian." Robinson's Lexicon gives as its definition-a training, consisting of instruction, admonition, examples, rewards, punishments. That this Greek word signifies punishment, is evident from its use in Luke xxiii. 16, where Pilate says, in reference to Christ, who was arraigned before him-_“I will therefore, chastise (paideusas] him, and release him.” Here this word has the meaning of scourging, lacerating the body with rods-(see Matt. Xxvii. 26,]-which surely was a punishment of a severe and ignominious character. Dr. Adam Clarke says of scourging—“This is allowed to have been a very severe punishment of itself, among the Romans, the flesh being generally cut by the whips used for this purpose." (Clarke on Matt. xxvii. 26.)
Elder Holmes acknowledges God punishes his children, so-called -(i. e., those among men who are peculiarly his children by general obedience and imitation,) on a principle of salutary discipline, with a view to their amendment and happiness. Why should he not deal with all his children-all men--upon the same principle ? If it is important to punish those who are but occasionally disobedient, with a view to their amendment, how much more important that those children who are habitually disobedient, should have such a punishment as shall lead them back to virtue and godliness.
But my friend insists the chastisements mentioned in Hebrews, refers only to the righteous. I have already alluded to the impropriety of speaking of the punishment of righteous men. The perfect groundlesness of this position will be made evident to all, by the declaration of St. Paul in the 11th verse. He says that chastening “afterward yieldeth the peaceable fruit of RIGHT. EOUSNESS unto them who are exercised thereby." This shows that chastening or punishment is not inflicted on those already righteous, but on the sinful to make them become BIGHTEOUS!! It is designed to produce RIGHTEOUSNESS where it was not before ! The Apostle differs from Elder Holmes in confining the cbastisements of God to those who claim to be righteous. He declares in the sixth verse,“ Whom the Lord LOVETH he chasteneth?” Who are embraced in God's love? The entire world of mankind—“God 80 LOVED the world,” &c. (John iii. 16.) “ But God who is rich in mercy, for his GREAT LOVE wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins," &c.--(Eph. ii. 4,5.) These quotations prove beyond controversy, that the principle or object of chastening, made known in the passage under consideration, is one on which God acts in his dealings with all men who incur the just penalty of sin. Elder Holmes read from Ballou on the Atonement, to show that on Universalist principles men are compelled to sin. I should have been happy to listen to more extended extracts from that book, for it inculcates many salutary truths and sound principles. But he failed to make the author prove that for which he quoted him. True, Mr. Ballou says man was created subject to vanity and sin. In this, however, he but agrees with St. Paul. (Rom. viii. 20.) But being created subject to sin is very different from being under an absolute necessity of sinning. This, Mr. Ballou does not assert. He only contends that the creature was exposed to sin. Yet he was left free to combat it and resist its temptations.
My friend in the affirmative, quotes Doddridge and Tholuck in support of his position, that in those passages which speak of the sufferings and death of Christ for man, the word “for," [uper] signifies " in the place of.” Doddridge and Tholuck are good authority on points where they are disinterested witnesses. In this instance, however, they give to the passages to which reference is made, such construction as agreed with pre-conceived opinions, and theories already adopted. However learned and eminent commentators may be, the frequent and wide disagreements among themselves, show they are far from being reliable guides in all cases. Where they pointedly differ from the Bible, I shall prefer God's word to their ipse dixit. In the full quotations introduced in my last speech, I showed the scripture usage of the word “uper." These quotations proved conclusively, that its meaning when applied to Christ's sufferings and death, was, that they were “in behalf” of the sinner, and not“ in his place.” My opponent has not attempted, and will not attempt, to invalidate my argument from the scripture usage of " uper." He is perfectly aware that it is invulnerable.
I propose now to show that the position taken by my friend in the affirmative of this question, is in direct contradiciton to the most plain and positive declarations to be found in the Bible. If any reJiance can be placed on language, either the Scriptures or Elder Holmes take erroneous grounds on this subject. Which of the two would be most likely to err on a topic of this nature, the good sense of this audience will have but little difficulty to determine. What is the doctrine of the sacred volume in regard to the certainty of the punishment of sin ? Listen!" Who will render to every man according to his deeds. To them who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentiles.****For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom. ii, 6-11.) My friend maintains that God will not render to every man according to his deeds-that he will not render indigna. tion and tribulation to every soul of man that doeth evil-that he will do this to a portion; but that he will screen the remainder from all tribulation and anguish. In other words, that God is a respecter of persons. The audience must decide between Elder Holmes and the Bible. The statements of both cannot be received.
Again " The soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezek. xviii. 4.) My brother opposite, maintains that a soul may sin for a long se. ries of years, and not die-that a man can do wickedly for forty years-a whole life time and yet escape all punishment by repen. tance just before death. According to his doctrine, if I had the power, I might slay this entire congregation, run rioling in blood through the community, spreading devastation on every hand, kil. ling men, women, and children and at last be screened from every item of punishment, by becoming converted a day before I passed to another world !!
“The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked, shall be upon him." (Ezek, xviii. 20.) The doctrine of Elder Holmes perfecily destroys the force of this passage. It teaches that a man may be righteous and obtain no reward, and be wicked and receive no punishment. Suppose for instance, my friend is a righteous man, as I hope he is, and leads a righteous life for sorty or fifty years. But shortly previous to his death, he falls into temptation--be sins and dies. Is he rewarded for his good deeds ? No. He receives no reward in this life. According to the Evangelical school, all rewards and punishments are administered in the future world. He is not rewarded hereafter; because the last fatal act of his life cut him off from future reward, and plunged him into regions of endless despair. Hence for his long life of righteousnees he is forever unrewarded. This is in point blank conflict with the scripture just quoted. On the other hand, if the Elder or any other man, should be a depraved sinner, and vile hypocrite through life; and yet repents before death, his wickedness is not upon him, but on an innocent substitute, while the sioner, after indulging in crime with impunity, darts through this loop-hole of repentance, into boundless bliss, and laughs at law, justice, punishment!
"Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunish. ed." (Prov. xi. 21.) Young men ! mark that declaration! I regret