Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

which can be found for eternal punishment. Mr. Kneel and in debate with Mr. M Calla challenged him to bring a passage where the same phrase is used in reference to punishment, as is used in this passage in reference to happiness, rendered world without end? And Mr. M Calla gave him as substantially the same, Ps. ix, 5.— Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name forever and ever, or to the eternity of endless duration, or world without end." (See M Calla on Universalism pp. 276, 277.) But supposing that a phrase could not be found of precisely as many words-just so arranged; if there be plain and positive testimony that is equivalent, ought not this to satisfy us? Well, this, we contend we have!

Those who have attended to what we have adduced in proof of the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have noticed the difficulty which Examiner has found in getting round it, will know how to estimate his assertion that he finds "not a single passage to defend it from the weight of testimony against it." (Ibid.) He has adduced some testimony against" our doctrine, but when correctly understood, it is at once perceived to possess no "weight" whatever, in his favor or against us!

But he thinks this doctrine one in which no good being in heaven or in earth can rejoice, or pray for its accomplishment." (Ibid.) And does he rejoice in limited punishment, and pray for its accomplishment? Did Mr. Winchester, Dr. Chauncey, and others, rejoice that some sinners would remain in hell for ages of ages," and pray that it might be accomplished? We should rath-~ er suppose not:—and yet they did not question the truth of this doctrine.

[ocr errors]

We have now completed our review of the editor's "re ply." And though we have considerably transcended the bounds, which we originally proposed to this rejoinder, (particularly in the five latter numbers,) we hope not much of it, will be considered altogether redundant. After having viewed his arguments in their strongest light we are still fully persuaded that Universalism is altogether indefensible! But though we still differ from him in sentiment, to his concluding prayer, that "in conducting this controversy, good motives may influence our labours," we most sincerely and heartily respond AMEN?

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

CONSIDERED, &C.

PART III

A Defence

OF THE FOREGOING REJOINDER

No. The nature of Salvation

As the editor published five numbers of the rejoinder, he of course must publish something at the same time which would pass for an answer. In this part we shall review this answer, and though we must be brief we shall consider every thing which is important to the general argument.

He commences with an incorrect statement thus: "Ohserver still perseveres in the sentiment that there is no punishment for any sin save for the sin of rejecting the Mediator." [Vol. II, P. 11.] It appears to us altogether unnecessary to explain this point more particularly than we have done. Were we to do so we could not expect to remove" his objections," in his view of the subject:--we would however just observe; that he was perfectly aware that we had said, all sins unrepented of, will be punished in a future state:'-why he should make the above assertion, with this fact before him, we are unable to say. All that he says upon this point was fully answered before it was written, and of course it is unnecessary to add any thing farther. The remark itself

[ocr errors]

which has called forth such a flood of words from him was merely explanatory, and though we still consider it appropriate, yet if it were to be given up it would not effect the general argument.

In our remarks upon Examiner's explanation of the similes used by the writer

have really displayed ch we reviewed, he thinks we

66

66

[ocr errors]

a kind of ingenuity," but that "it would have been more pleasant had it not have been displayed at the expense of good sense." (Ibid.) If we have displayed ingenuity at the expense of good sense, (though it may perhaps be considered as rather a singular case) we are thinking that' it is quite as "pleasant" as to sacrifice good sense" without ingenuity"! We shall now see that if Examiner has not done this. he has come very near it. In explaining his friends similies he says: "He asserts salvation only from that punishment consequent on our remaining sinners." (Vol. I, P. 130.) Upon this we observed that on his hypothesis we were never in danger of remaining sinners," of course we were never in danger of the punishment consequent upon it:--this then is a salvation from nothing.' To this he re plies: Universalists believe that Jesus shall save his people from their sins. Now does it consequently follow that it is a salvation from nothing."" (Vol. II. pp. 11, 12.) It appears to us that the "good sense" which the gentle man ordinarily exercises might have enabled him to see that we were not speaking of his views of salvation in general, but of those which he made his writer express with regard to salvation from the consequences of sin. This being, according to universalism, a salvation from what we were never in danger of is indeed a salvation from nothing!

1

[ocr errors]

But he continues: "Observation teaches that the children of men are sinners--reason teaches that there is s dan ger of their still remaining sinners." (Ib.) Does “reason teach that the children of men are in danger of remaining sinners?" Then it teaches that the salvation of all men is` not absolutely certain! For if it were absolutely certain. as Universalists assert, that all will turn from sin and be saved, there would be no danger of any remaining sin ners, unless there is danger of an absolute certainty failing, which is a contradiction. If then" reason teaches that" any are in danger of remaining sinners,' as Um

[ocr errors]

versalism teaches the contrary, it must be an unreasonable doctrine! Now which side of the dilemma will Examiner take? Acknowledge that the salvation of which he speaks is indeed a salvation from nothing.--or give up the idea that the salvation of all men is certain? He may

take his choice.

As to the Universalists holding to a "present salvation," we should be happy to be convinced of the fact: but we have not been able to discover it in their writings. There appears too much indistinctness, not to say incoherenty, in their views of a change of heart:--too much of a disposition to confound all real distinction between the characters of the righteous and the wicked, to admit of any such idea. And when we read in the arti-cle which we were reviewing," when we are saved from this sin] we are saved from all punishment, all distress, and evil of every kind," we could perceive no idea either expressed or implied, but what went to identify salvation, in whole and in part, with deliverance from "evil of every kind." Nor do we yet perceive any error in our conclusion, or that we are› in the same condition" at all.

66

Examiner says: Observer and all others who believe in endless punishment for sins committed in this life, must acknowledge, either that an eternity of mental sin and alienation go unpunished, or that an eternity of punishment is inflicted on beings after they have become perfectly holy." (Ibid.) Answer: The idea that the sinner is consigned to eternal punishment for sins committed in this life, by no means concludes that “ an eternity of mental sin and alienation go unpunished:"--for it must be considered that the sinner is consigned to punishment for his sins, considered in connexion with all their aggravations and one of the greatest will be, that he has reduced himself to the necessity of remaining in a state of "mental sin and alienation" eternally. So his being consigned to eternal punishment, is receiving the whole of the punishment which he deserves, for all the sins of his whole existence.

As to the notion which the gentleman seems to have re». ceived, that sinners after death will become "perfectly holy," because they cease to commit crimes, we would beg leave to reply to him in the language of a brother Uni

versalist: [Such upon the Restoration Scheme.] Mr. Hud son in his letters to Mr. Ballou says: "Every man who has committed sin, is a sinner, and will always retain that character, until he repents, If I committed murder ten years ago, I am considered and treated as a murderer at the present day, by him who knows the thoughts and intents of my heart, unless I have repented and reformed. And a man who goes out of the world in the perpe tration of such horrid crimes, will be a murderer in a future state, unless it can be proved that he reforms in the instant of death. But you say a man cannot be a sinner when he has ceased sinning. I reply; a murderer cons fined in a dungeon has not only ceased from murdering, but is in a situation, where, perhaps, he can commit no actual sin. But does this render him holy? Is every wretch to be regarded as a saint, simply because he has no opportunities of pursuing his villanies? The principle you advance proves this, or else it is nothing to your pur pose."*

The Universalists," it seems then "do not believe that the righteous are endlessly rewarded for their righteousness in this world." (Ibid.) All the attention that this part of their faith (or rather their unbelief) will require from us, will be, simply to contrast it with the language of Christ. He says: Great is your reward in heaven.' (Mat. v. 12.) Again: Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.' (Luke xiv, 14.)

"Neither do they believe in precise alotments of time to punish men; neither do they believe in the manifest absurdity that when he begins to recieve his punishment he ceases to sin. But Universalists believe as we have said before, that sin and misery are inseperably connected as cause and effect." (Ibid.) It is very difficult to ascertain what particular scheme of Universal Salvation Examiner believes. But he must believe that the misery which is inflicted as the punishment of sin, is inflicted after

*We have not had the privilege of consulting Mr. Hudson's work. The above extract is copied from The Anti-Universalist-a paper published at Providence, R. I., by Origin Bachelor. This work is peculiarly calculated to expose the errors of Universalism, and well worthy of liberal public patronage. [See Vol. II, No. 9.]

« AnteriorContinuar »