The record-union., 1894-01-24
Reply TO Mr.. Horner.

people of Sacramento are from time to
time given occasion to read sketches of
sermons preached in the different pulpits
of the city, and these short sermons are
generally highly appreciated by all who
prefer To read clean literature; something
that will educate and cultivate their
minds. But while the RECORD UNION is
10 be congratulated for its good will to
furnish good and Wholesome literature to
lis readers, The same, also, cannot always
De SAID concerning certain authors. who
are anxious To see the overdows OF their
overstocked minds brought before an in
telligent leadership.
The writer OF this refers TO the sermons
or sketches recently published i'll the
Monday issues OF the RECORD UNIoN,
the author OF which is a gentleman per-
sonalIy unknown to him-narnely, the
pastor of the Unitarian Society OF this
city, Mr.. Horner. In these sermons,
God the Father, and the Holy Bible, our
Savior, Jesus Christ, have been con-
stantly dragged in the mud, and more
than one earnest Christian has expressed
To the writer OF this article their disgust
concerning the sermons referred TO.
Now, though we must, as Christians,
expect the enmity OF sceptics and iuti
dels, and though we know that such en-
nifty Will not shock Christianity, which
grew strong under such influences, and
from mustard-seed developed into
mighty tree, we cannot be expected to
remain silent over arguments and asser
tons which lack ali that is within the
limits or truth, of reason and of logic.
In these lines we wish particularly To re-
Ter To the sermon of the said clergyman,
published in last Mondays issue of the
RECORD UNION, i'll which was discussed
the question OF eternal punishment. 1t
VIII De profitable To the reader to read
over the discussion mentioned and then
TO follow closely the line of thoughts pre-
scented in this paper.
From what standpoint Mr.. II. speaks is
nearly impossible TO say, but il will be
clearly shown that he does neither Judge
from the standpoint OF Christianity nor
OF the Scriptures nor of Il scholar nor of
reason or OF common sense.
tirst--Christianity is charged with "the
most horrible thought that ever entered
human mind" This charge necessarily
falls back on Christ, the author OF the
Christian religion. Indeed, every reader
OF the Gospel knows that Christ was the
lirst one that clearly spoke concerning
the state Of the soul in eternity. There
tore, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose lille,
words and deeds were nothing but love to
the soul OF man, who is universally and
also has been occasionally acknowledged
by Mr.. h. the WiseSt ana best teacher OF
humanity, Is charged with 1.-The most
horrible thong 1t that ever entered human
mind" That Christ really taught this
doctrine OF eternal punishment will be
seen from Luke Kill, %, and Matth. XIV,
1I-46. Notwithstanding, Mr.. ii. claims
that Christianity did not have its origin
III Christ, but in Paul! The reader Will
at once perceive the contradiction IN this
argument Poor st. PAUL. The persecu-
tons Tor eXpounding the truths OF the
Gospel have not even ceased l,SU0 years
after his death!
Second-The argument is not made
from the standpoint OF the Holy Script
ures. Notwithstanding the Scriptures
clearly speak OF an eternal punishment,
Mr.. Horner declares that he does not find
it necessary to believe that the Scriptures
teach this doctrine, nor that Christ taught
II. Mr.. IL. wishes TO take his argument
from the Bible, and at the same time does
not find it necessary to believe that or
what it teaches OF this subject. With
other words Mr.. II. proves the fallacy of
this terrible doctrine with something
he does not md necessary to believe him
self. VIVA: a contradiction What did
the hearers and readers think when they
heard or read it? Further, it said that
the Bible nowhere teaches that there is
no end TO the punishment of the wicked.
Mr.. Horner must have overlooked
great many passages in the book or he
would have found such as Isaiah Xvi,
q; Dan. Xii, 2; Matth. XIV, 10, Al, 40;
Matth. V, 70. But while these passages
allow no doubt In regard to everlasting
punishment they are passed with silence.
This part of Mr.. HIS argument is an ut
ter failure. The Bible nowhere teaches
that there will be an end to everlasting
punishment, whilst it clearly upholds
that there will not be an end to it.
Thlrd-The argument does not even
stand the test of scholarship. 1t is strange
that wherever word there are but FOUR
from the Scriptures is quoted, it is only to
prove that it means, not what it says, but
the very contrary. This is not scholarly,
for the scholar takes the word by its most
true meaning. The words eternal ev-
erlasting," are quoted. They are strong
words, that cannot be misunderstood by
anyone. But Mr.. II. says these words
mean the contrary of their meaning;
eternal does not mean eternal, everlaSt-
ing does not mean everlasting, but these
words imply more to quality than to
duration of time. Noah Webster would
turn over in his grave could he
hear such nonsense, such perver-
sion of conception. According to such an
explanation "a man would have to say II
ate an eternal dinner" instead Of Il ate
good dinner for eternal implies rather
L
resentatOn OF words would be a cOmpli-
ment to the smartest lawyer in the coun-
try. But when the word eternal in con-
nection with punishment does not mean
what it says, how can Mr.. II. believe that
il retains its true characteristic meaning
in connection with other words, the sound
of which seems much dearer to his ear?
With equal consequence we would be
justified to apply the same Interpretation
in connection with other terms, such as
eternal life, so that eternal, everlasting
life would only mean certain period OF
happiness in the life TO come. In other
instances the word eternal would also be
subject 10 this Derversion. So in Gen.
XXI, y, where the book speaks of the
everlasting God, that shall reign forever
and ever (Ex. xvi. 49,. To what must
such unscholarly arguments bring us !?
one truth perverted destroys the next,
and nothing bat uniruths are left.
tourth-Ihe argument mentioned in
that discourse cannot be upheld in the
light of reason or common sense. Mr..
ii. speaks a great deal about reason, rea-
sonable and unreasonableness. But there
is hardly a taste of reason in his own
argument. There is no reason why God
should not reward man with everlasting
punishment who wiliiully and obsti-
nately rejects this grace ana salvation
offered TO him. Should GOD treat alike
in eternity the one who faithfully loves,
serves and obeys him and accepts his
grace in Jesus Christ, and the one who
curses God and dies? Much is spoken of
Gods love- But when His love is rejected
His Justice must commence Live as you
please; steal, rob and murder; ridicule
and tramp under foot Christ our Savior,
the reward shall be alike to all That is
the doctrine upheld by the argument here
spoken OF, and with this doctrine are up
held all sorts of sins and crimes, sinners,
criminals and dynamiters If God pun
ishes eIernslly he is not wise; if man is
able TO resist the love of God, ii God can
not overcome him, then man is equal to
God that is the argument.