« EelmineJätka »
sophislry in its defence, nor persist in asserting it when fairly beaten in argument. And when this is the case it becomes our duty to be severe. There is a difference, however, between severity and bitterness. The latter can never be justified.
I had thought of laying the whole correspondence between Mr. Paige and myself relative to the discussion, before the reader, together with that between the Methodist society in this place and my opponent, relative to his joining with them in the publication of both sides of the controversy, with his reason for refusing ; but he, having brought these subjects before the public in the newspapers, it may be sufficient to dis. cuss them there. And his refusing to publish with the society is the less to be regretted, as I have made sufficient quotations from his manuscripts* to show his sentiments, and to enable the reader to judge of my arguments.
* Both sides of the controversy were written before they were delivered, and each had the other's manuscripts to make out his replies.
ON UNIVERSAL SALVATION.
LECTURE I.-Future Judgment. “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,” Romans xiv, 10.
CHRISTIAN FRIENDS, We are assemblea here before God not to judge the Universalists but Universalism. I trust that I am not insensible of what is due from me to an erring fellow creature, at the time that I am required to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Were Universalism an error of moderate size,-did it affect the minor points only of our holy religion, charity and humility would enjoin forbearance and Christian fellowship. But I
I take this modern doctrine to be another gospel; and, when considered as a system, to be totally unevangelical. It lays another foundation than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ our Redeemer and atoning High Priest, by teaching that sinners are saved (and we are all sinners) not by the merits of Christ, but by suffering in our own persons, and in this life, the whole penalty of the Divine law: thus excluding the grace of God from having any proper efficiency, either
in forgiving our sins, or in renewing our souls after the image of God. And by holding salvation on the ground of personal suffering, it implicitly denies the necessity of experimental and practical religion in this life. According to this doctrine, mankind may reject the Gospel, treat the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing, blaspheme Christ, assert Atheism, and live accordingly up to their last moment, without incurring the displeasure of God or forfeiting their title to everlasting felicity. In The effects of this doctrine are what might be supposed. As far as it obtains among men, it banishes all concern about a preparation for heaven, and produces the most fatal neglect of their spiritual and eternal interest.
Are we deceived in these views? Is not Universalism an epistle known and read of all men? But on this point I forbear at
nt, as I would say nothing to prevent a calm attention to the points at issue. I have said enough to show our views of the doctrine ; and if we are deceived respecting its effects, those who advocate it, instead of resenting what I have said, will produce its holy fruits, and thereby undeceive us. And I assure them that no one would rejoice more than the speaker to be enlightened on this subject, if he is in an error respecting it.
If the doctrine of Universal Salvation, as generally taught at the present day, be true, the transgressor receives his whole punishment in this life, even all that is threatened by the law of God. There is another system which asserts
a limited future punishment. With this I have nothing to do at present; but shall limit the discussion to that which denies all punishment in the future state. And my object will be to prove what that denies-future punishment. If I succeed in this, I overthrow the whole system as completely as though I took it up piece by piece, and confuted each point separately. If the main pillar be taken away, the whole fabric falls to the ground.
The method I have adopted is this: to prove in the present lecture the doctrine of future judgment, or judgment in the future state ; because if the judgment is in the future state, there will be punishment in the future state also. These cannot be separated. Of this the Universalists themselves are sensible, and therefore deny that the judgment is in the future state, and assert that all the judgment there is for the transgressor is in the present life. But, says the apostle, “ We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
This is an allusion to courts of judicature, where criminals are arraigned, evidence produced, and the sentence of the law pronounced upon the transgressor ;-where the innocent, when unjustly accused, may be heard and publicly acquitted. This process does not imply that the states of the righteous and wicked are not determined immediately on their leaving this world; it does not put in “ jeopardy” the souls of the righteous, as some Universalists have expressed themselves ; much less is it