POPULAR DEBATE.-No. I.

IS THE FUTURE SALVATION CONDITIONAL?

ARGUMENT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

1st. Man is a free moral agent; as such he is a subject of law, of exhortation appealing to his interests and his fears, and of rewards and punishments. If his future safety is independent of his present conduct I can conceive of no use that religion can be to him; why Christ should have died for his redemption; or why he should be so earnestly, and repeatedly urged to attend to the important business of his salvation! Surely if he is not to be regarded as a probationer for eternity there was no need for all this; religion is a mockery: and the means of grace utterly useless, if his future felicity is secure without them.

2nd. We are solemnly assured in the Bible, that "the soul that sinneth it shall die," that "he that believeth not shall be damned,”—that “he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption,❞—that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive for the things done in his body, whether they be good, or whether they be evil." &c. Universalists tell us that these threatenings, with the accompanying promises relate wholly to the present state, but for this we have but their assertion, and the strength of language which marks many of these texts, proves that assertion groundless. Is it in the present world that "they who sow to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting"? Do universalists enjoy their everlasting life in this world? Christ is said to have become "the author of eter nal salvation to all them that obey him." Does this also happen in the present state? Is the eternal salvation to be realised here? Moreover, an apostle exhorts to "give all diligence to make your calling and election sure"-" for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Now that in this passage the reference is not to Christ's kingdom here, is certain, for Christ's kingdom here is not everlasting. Here, then, is an insurmountable proof, that our condition beyond death is dependant on our

conduct in life; but this is so important a point that it shall be proven farther.

The momentous question was put to Christ" Are there few that be saved?" And what was his answer? was it such as favored the universalian theory? No indeed. "Strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many I say unto you shall seek to enter in and shall not be able-for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Here we have a direct issue between the Saviour and the universalian theory, the former af firming that but few will arrive at eternal bliss, and that few conditionally, and the latter affirming that all will arrive there, and that unconditionally.

But a still plainer case occurs; when the lawyer and the rich young man, inquired each of Christ what good thing he should do to inherit eternal life: instead of receiving an answer such as universalism would render, viz: Do nothing-you will be saved at all events; they were both informed that to mere legal obedience they must add the charity of the gospel; to the rich young man was said, “sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Here observe by the way, that heaven is put by the Saviour in apposition with eternal life; which implies that they are synonimous. Treasure in heaven, then, it seems, may be secured by acts of charity upon earth. I defy all the sophistry of universalism to fairly meet the argument in this case, against their unconditional salvation! It cannot be done.

Finally, Let me caution you, my friends, against the vitiating and soul-destroying dogma of universal salvation; vitiating and soul-destroying it must necessarily be, since it takes away from virtue all its encouragements, and from vice all its restraints; which encouragements and restraints are eminently yielded by the hope of future reward, and the fear of future punishment. This is the very theory referred to by the prophet, which “makes the hearts of the righteous sad," and "strengthens the hands of the wicked by promising them life." For must it not dishearten.the righteous to be told, that in the future world God will make no distinction between them and the vilest of sinners? Again then

I exhort you, my friends, to shun this doctrine, and pray God to guard you against a belief in it.

ARGUMENT IN THE NEGATIVE.

1st. Whether man is a free agent, and if so, to what extent, are questions which I will not here attempt to resolve; these subtleties have in all ages engaged the highest orders of intellect, and, if Milton's authority in these matters be considered as valid, they have engaged even the reasoning powers of fallen angels in their dreary pandemonium.

"Others apart sat on a hill retir'd,

In thoughts more elevate, and reason'd high
Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate;
Fix'd fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute;
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost."

The mist of uncertainty, nevertheless, still clings around these questions as much as ever. I choose to assume that man is, in some degree, master of his volitions, and the actions thence ensuing; that in many cases he could both will, and do, otherwise than as he does; but that he is not free, to the extent supposed by my opponent, is susceptible of both philosophical and scriptural proof; he surely is not at liberty to ruin himself past the remedial reach of his creator's graces to suppose the contrary, is an almost blasphemous arraignment of that creator's wisdom and benevolence! But if we even concede to inan all the freedom contended for, it will not thence follow that he is a probationer (i. e. on trial) for eternity; that he is not, is evident from several circumstances.

First, we cannot control the events even of the future hour; I may propose in an hour hence, to start on a journey; but when the moment arrives, I may be prevented by illness, or the weather, or the state of the roads or streams, or a failure of the means of conveyance. In short, a score of things may interpose betwixt my purpose and its execution; and if such is the case with regard to the future hour, is it likely that God has entrusted to me a control over my eternal destinies? Secondly, Why is the term of human life of so unequal duration with regard to different individuals, if this life is a state of trial? Some pass the ordeal in one short hour, and attain the goal without the risks and hardships of the race; whilst to others are allotted the toils and trials of M

three fourths of a century! Some, moreover, if this theory be true, pass to heaven by a path of flowers; their education, habits, temperaments, worldly interest, family and social considerations; all incline them to the choice of a religious life: whilst with others, the very reverse is the case; they are religious, if at all, at a sacrifice of nearly every earthly interest! If eternal bliss is to be attained at the price of a religious life, why is not that price equally within the reach of all? And Thirdly, human life at the longest is too short, its lights are too dim; its wants, trials, temptations, cares, too numerous; and its momentous ends too obscurely revealed, if these ends are, the avoidance of an eternity of woe, and the ensurance of an eternity of bliss. No, no, it cannot be that we here are to form characters which shall last forever: for those who die in infancy form no characters at all! And shall they so remain forever? "But they are innocent," it will be said. True, but innocence is not virtue, when we have it not in our power to be otherwise. If innocence is a passport to eternal joys, we are all born into the world with the passport in our hands, and millions attain the prize by the mere accident of dying before an opportunity is offered of forfeiting the title!

But my opponent opines, that if man is not a probationer for eternity, there was no need of the saviour's advent and death, and that preaching, and the whole business of religion is useless! Really, I can see no force in this argument; man is a rational Being; he owes duties to his God, and to his fellows; it is the office of religion to acquaint him with these, and to prompt him to a discharge of them-he is subject to numerous trials and afflictions; under which it is the business of religion to sustain him— he is destined to a higher station in Being than that which he at present occupies: to this religion with friendly finger points his hopes. Jesus Christ came to expound to man the nature and claims of this religion and by his ministry, miracles, life, death, and ascension, to exemplify and establish it. No necessity for religion, indeed! It might as well he said that we shall not want religion in a future life, except it be to prepare us for another stili beyond it! Truth is, if even there were no future life, religion would still be needful to guide us peacefully and happily through t present, and wherever there is rational existence, religion is

indispensable to its happiness. I must decidedly protest against that narrow theory, which supposes religion only necessary as a sort of certificate of admission to the world of bliss! It is clear that such is the view of it which has practically obtained amongst the major part of christendom.*

2nd. Let us now glance at the texts, which my friend thinks sustain his views of a future conditional salvation; he says truly that universalists are in the habit of referring them exclusively to the present state. "The soul that sinneth it shall die." All acquainted with the language of the bible know, that soul is but another word for person or individual; “Eight souls were saved from drowning," that is eight individuals were so saved. Now how many souls have sinned? "All have sinned;" (Rom. iii. 23.) therefore, in the sense intended, all have died. To say that this is an endless death, is not only to assume beyond what is revealed, but also to incur the absurd consequence that all mankind shall endlessly die!

"He that believeth not shall be damned." The Greek word here rendered damned is in other passages rendered condemned, and judged; and might with equal propriety have been so translated in this place. We have no warrant for saying that the damnation is to ensue beyond the grave. "He that believeth not IS condemned already." (John iii. 18.) My opponent, if he is not now, has been an unbeliever: while such he was damned, or he was not; if not, the text in his case proved false; if he was damned, it must have been in this state of being, and thus his view of the text is proven incorrect.

"He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption." Where? Not surely in a future world, for there, neither flesh nor corruption exists: we have Paul for witness, that in the resurrection "this corruption shall put on incorruption :" and again," for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible." (1 Cor. xv.) But my friend thinks the language

*The quaint, and calvinistically orthodox John Bunyan, shall bear me witness to the truth of this remark. "When he was come up to the gate he looked up to the writing that was above, and then began to knock, supposing that entrance should have been quickly administered to him; but he was asked by the men, that looked over the top of the gate, Whence come you? and what would you have?' he answered, 'I have eat and drank in the presence of the king.' Then they asked him for his certificate that they might go in and show it to the king. So he fumbled in his bosom for one and found none, &c." I need hardly add, that he was denied admis sion. See Pilgrim's Progress, part first.