Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

perimental and practical religion? And can you feel safe while neglecting the duties you owe your God and Saviour? Have you considered that religion is designed for your moral and spiritual improvement, and to fit you for the enjoyment of the heavenly state? If then you neglect religion, do you not neglect your own mercies, your own salvation? And can you be sure you shall be saved if you neglect your own salvation? On what does your faith rest? Do you say on the Scriptures?" But where do you find in all the Scriptures a single passage that teaches you that all mankind shall be saved without suffering any punishment in the future state? Do you say that you infer it from such passages as have been considered in the foregoing pages? But are you sure that you understand those Scriptures? The whole Christian world has, for eighteen hundred years, understood those Scriptures in a different sense; nay, all former Universalists, and one half of the present Universalists understand those Scriptures differently from you; and what assurance have you that you understand them better than all the rest of the wold? Have you searched more diligently? Have you better means of knowledge than others? Can you look over the arguments which have been brought against this doctrine in the course of this discussion, and pronounce that they have no weight in them? Are you sure that you are not free agents-sure there are no conditions in salvation sure that if you should

die in a state of intoxication, or kill yourselves, God will produce holiness in you at the last moment? Can you meet the objections to this, or say that they have been fairly met in the course of this discussion ?

Finally. The doctrine now proposed for your acceptance involves the greatest responsibility. In this respect it differs from all other systems ever proposed to the children of men. The question is, shall all men be saved in the future state? If you say, yes, and trust to the doctrine, and it should prove false, you are of all men most miserable, because the most deceived, and disappointed, and nothing can retrieve your loss. In view of this subject, and in view of the arguments which, in the course of this discussion, have been urged against the doctrine of universal salvation, I ask you, in the fear of God, whether there is one in this assembly who is so fully satisfied of the truth of the doctrine, that he is willing, without repentance, without faith, without holiness, to meet his final hour-and-his Judge! Nov. 23, 1827.

ANSWER IV.

Remarks on Mr. Paige's Reply to Answer III. "Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel!" Ezek. xxxiii, 11.

In my opponent's reply of Nov. 23, he advanced the doctrine, of necessity, as founded

on the Divine foreknowledge of human actions. and events; but I declined discussing this subject with him any farther at that time, for the following reasons:

First, he did not bring this subject forward till the evening of the third discussion upon my second lecture. Previous to this he had pursued a course which had the appearance of design to wear out the congregation by protracting the discussion till the cold season should drive the congregation from the place of meeting;-particularly his playing off from the points at issue, neglecting many of my. proofs and arguments, and bringing in foreign matter, as he did in his second reply. Upon this I took the resolution not to discuss any more new matter upon the second lecture; and waited on him with this view. I observed to him that we had gone over a good deal of ground-that the points in dispute had not been closely discussed, and that I thought it not proper to bring in any more new matter till the old was disposed of. He made no objection, but said he thought as I did upon the subject. If these are not the exact words made use of, the conversation was substantially as here related.

Secondly. In my second answer upon this lecture I had anticipated his views of foreknowledge and necessity, and framed an article explanatory of the former, and offered three arguments against the latter. And yet in his third reply, contrary to the mutual un

·derstanding between us, and without noticing my arguments against necessity, he brought in that doctrine, and argued it at length, making more new matter than he had brought into any reply since the commencement of the discussion. My principal reason, however, for not discussing the doctrine of necessity with him was his passing over my arguments on that subject without noticing them. It was evident that in this way we might continue the discussion all winter, without bringing any thing to a close. Rather there can be no discussion when the arguments on one side are entirely overlooked on the other.

I now propose to examine closely the ground of his doctrine of necessity, and the arguments by which he attempts to support it. His particular views of necessity,-whether the moral necessity contended for by our Calvinist brethren, or the philosophical fatal necessity contended for by the Deists in general, he has never given us; but I suppose they accord with the latter, not only because he has used the word fate in this connection with arguments of this character, but because these are the views of Mr. Ballou, with whom he appears to agree in all points.* He was

* My opponent was understood to say on the even. ing of the last discussion, that though the Treatise on Atonement, by Mr. Ballou, had been before the public thirty years, it had never been answered. This is a mistake, as may be seen by the 6th volume of the Me thodist Magazine, I believe also that the Rev. Mr.

called upon to make this expression of his particular views on this subject, but never did it; and this is one circumstance among many, that shows with what reluctance he brought this subject forward. He probably anticipated that this would not only be unpopular with the public at large, but with many of his own brethren in particular, who, it is said, are known to be opposed to the doctrine of necessity.*

The proposition which he lays down, and endeavours to support, is the following:

[ocr errors]

"Man is an agent, free to do what God may choose and no more." This proposition is at variance with itself; for if man be an agent, he is not a patient-if he be free, his actions are not necessary: and to say that man is an agent, and a patient-that his actions are free and are necessary, is not less absurd than to say, a man is a slave and has full liberty at the same time. Freedom and necessity are as much opposed to each other as any conditions of life, or any principles that can be imagined. There is a perfect contrariety between them. We will, however, hear my opponent, and we will consider his arguments.

Hudson, of Westminster, a Universalist preacher, has answered this work in connection with some other of Mr. Ballou's.

* Since the discussion closed, he has said that "he advanced and defended the doctrine of philosophical necessity," in his "account" of the discussion published in the Universalist Magazine,

« PreviousContinue »