v-^ BX 9947 .EA 1825 Empie, Adam , 1785- -1860. Remarks on the distin guis hing doctrine of wmmm Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/remarksondistingOOempi REMARKS ON THE ' J DISTINGUISHING DOCT^mE..,^,,, ^ .^,^vj OP WHICH TEACHES THAT THERE IS NO HELL AND NO PUNISHMENT FOn THE WICKED AFTER DEATH. V BY ADAM EMPIE, A. M. Rector of St. James's Church, Wilmington, North-Carolins. A little learning is a davgeroua thing. Drink deep, or taste 7iot Pope. / am set for the defence of the Gospel. — Though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. St. Paul, J\rEW-YORKr PRINTED BY T. AND J. SWORDS, *No. 99 Pearl-street. 1825. ^ ♦% Southern District of J\l'ew-Yorky ss. r' ^ Tl^^ '"^ remembered, that on the third day of June, A. D. 1825, in c , \ -'-' the 49th year of the Independence of the United States of Amer j rica, T. & J Swords, of the said District, have deposited in this Office ^ ./ the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the ■words following, to wit : *' Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of Modern Universalism, -tehich teaches that there is no Hell and no Pu7iish7nent for the Wicked after Death. By Adam Empie, A. M. Rector of St. Jameses Churchy Wilmington, JVorth- Carolina. A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not Pope. / am set for the defence of the Gospel—Though we, or an Angel from hea- ven, preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. St. Paul." In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled " An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the time therein mentioned." And also to au Act, entitled " An Act, supplementary to an Act, entitled An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts of Pesignine, Engraving, aud Etching Historical and other Prints." JAMES DILL, Cleric of the Southern District of JVevi-York. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. Singe the doctrine of universal salvation has been publicly proclaimed^ and excited so much interest and attention in our tovs^n, I have been naturally led (o inquire, whether it is my dull/ to publish any thing on the subject. The following con- siderations have influenced my opinion and n:jy conduct. Every minister of the Gospel is in duty boundy not only to preach the truth, but also to defend it. For this is an essen- tial part of the ministerial office. The Apostle Paul says, he was " set (appointed) for the defence of the Gospel :'*a so is every minister of the Lord Jesus. Nor are his obligations circumscribed within the duties of preaching and defending the truth. As our civil rulers are bound to take care that the commonwealth sustain no injury, but that its best interests be promoted — as the shepherd must not only feed his flock, but protect them from harm — so are ministers bound by laws human and divine to endeavour, by all the means in their power, to prevent the progress and the existence of error, to discountenance every species of sin, and to promote the interests of revealed truth and godliness, in order thereby to promote the salvation of souls. They are laid indeed under an awfid responsibility ; and their induce- ment for faithfulness, in the discharge of their various duties, is almost overpowering. " Son of man," says God to his pro- phet, " I have made thee a watchman unto the house of " Israel : therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give " them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, " Thou shalt surely die 5 and thou givest him not %varning, a Philip. I. ir 4 Introductory Remarks, ** nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to " save his life ; the same wicked man shall die in his inl- " quity ; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if " thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wicked- " ness, he shall die in his iniquity ; but thou hast delivered " thy soul."^ Nor are the embassadors of Christ the only persons under obligations to oppose error, to promote holiness, and to main- tain and spread " the truth as it is in Jesus." This is the common duty of every one who believes in divine revelation. And while ministers are particularly charged, "in meekness, " to instruct those that oppose themselves"*^ — " by sound " doctrine to convince gainsayers"*i — to rebuke sharply^ and to stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not — and to hold fast the form of sound words, ^ which they have received — both pastors and people are addressed as follows : " Mark *• them Avhich cause divisions, contrary to the doctrines which " ye have learned ; and avoid them. For they that are such *' serve not our Lord Jesus Christ ; and by good words and *^fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."^ — " If there " come any that bring not this doctrine," (the doctrine that the eternal Son of God came in the flesh, or assumed human nature,) " receive him not into your houses ; neither bid him " God speed : for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker *' of his evil deeds.''"'^ — " Be not carried about with divers and " strange doctrines .'^''^ — " Beware, lest ye, being led away " with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfast' " ness : as there shall be false teachers among you, who pri- " vily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord " that bought them. And many shall follow their pernicious " ways ; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil *' spoken of.^'-' — " Ye should earnestly contend for the faith " which was once delivered unto the 5cmfs."j In fine^ the b Ezek. iii. 17, 18, 19. c 2 Tim. ii. 25. a Titus i. 9, 10, IL c2Tim. i. 13. f Rom. xvi. 17, 18. B 2 John 10, 11. ^ Heb. xiii. 9. > 2 Pet. iii. 17; ii. 1, 2. J >ude 3. Introductory Remarks. 5 . Apostle called the Gospel which he preached, " the truth " which is according to godliness ;"•' and he says, " if any " man teach otherwise^ and consent not lo wholesome words, " and to the doctrine which is according to godliness ; he is *' proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and *^ strifes ofwords,^^^ These passages lay down a rule by which truth may be distinguished from error ; truth is, and error is not, " accord' " ing to godliness f^^ and these passages prone it to be the duty of all Christians, to take pains, that they may be able to de- fend the truth, to refute error, and to " give to every one " that asketh, a reason for the hope that is in them." Nor is it in all cases enough for the heralds of the Cross, merely to proclaim these things from the pulpit. Public instructions are evanescent and soon forgotten. When the subject is difficult, where prejudices are to be encountered, and where a long series of arguments is adduced, we want time to pause, to ex- amine, to compare, and to weigh what is said : or else the truth will fail to have a due influence upon our minds. Those too who stand most in need of these instructions, are not always present to hear them, at the time they are delivered. Many such are carried away by false doctrine, because they took no pains, or had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the true, A published statement of the truth, too, can always be referred to, whenever the occasion may demand it : and may do some good, by falling into the hands of those whom curiosity would prompt to read what they would never take the trouble of going to church to hear. Nor is this all. Though the authority of God, the import- ance of true religion, and the worth of souls, make it the imperative duty of every Christian to embrace, to spread, and to defend, the truth as it is in Jesus, this obligation will be carried still higher, in the view of all who consider that mea naturally " love darkness rather than light," and are prone to run into the most astonishing extravagances and delusion?.. * Titus i. 1. » 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4, 6 Inli'odudory Remarkst Cicero remarked long ago, that there is no absurdity, hotoeiicr great, which has not found some philosopher to be its advo- cate. And however flagrant the system of error and absar- dity may be, if any one steps forward as its champion, and defends it by his sophistries — ^^or throws around it the fascina^' tions of his eloquence — he is sure to meet with many disciples and adherents : particularly if his views come recommended by their novelty, and are flattering to the pride of human reason, or indulgent to the depraved inclinations of the hu- man heart. What system of rehgion can be more absurd than that which requires its professors to worship cats and dogs, and cows and onions, and stocks and stones ? and yet millions worship and put their trust in these vanities. What doctrine can be more absurd than that of transubslantiation ? which reqiiires us to believe, contrary to the evidence of all our senses^ that a morsel of bread, which would not fill a thimble, is the whole body and blood of our Saviour, and the identical flesh and blood too that hung on the cross ; and that, contrary te the nature of matter, this one identical, material horly, is pre- sent in a thousand different places, at one and the same mo- ment of time. And still, because some are found to teacb this doctrine, millions are found who implicitly believe it. Who could ever suppose that learned men, who profess to believe m the Gospel, who call themselves Christians and evangelical divines, should nevertheless declare, and write numerous volumes to prove, that there is no divine revela- tion — that there is not a single real miracle recorded in the Old or New Testament ; they being but natural events, highly exaggerated and embellished — that some of the doctrines of Scripture are absolutely false, and invented by the sacred writers — that the rest are only the truths and duties taught by reason and natural religion — and that the Gospel itself ia a pious fraud, a beautiful and instructive fable? And yet these tenets— absurd, impious, and extravagant as they are — are taught by numerous able German divines : and their system, though it be arrant Deism, is eagerly embraced and Introductory Remarks. 7 defended by their numerous disciples, who believe them- selves, in the fullest sense of the words, Gospel Christians.^ In fine, what more nonsensical than the philosophical reve- ries of the infidel Hume ? He denied the existence of every thing we see. He said there was no real sun in the heavens, nor a real earth under our feet ; and (hat our eyes, and ears, and hands, exist, 7wt in reality, but only in imagination. Now it is as easy to believe that twice two is ten, as to believe that we have no real existence, but exist only in each others imagination. And yet the reputation and sophistry of Hume, the novelty of his opinions, and their irreligious tendency, secured for him many admirers and disciples. And there is no knowing how far this moral pestilence would have spread, if, under Providence, it had not been checked by the writings of Beattie, Campbell, and other champions for the truth. The absurdity therefore of any system of error is not enough to prevent popular delusion^ particularly if it is a system that is not " according to godliness :" and the ministers of the Gospel therefore, who are the divinely appointed guardians and defenders of gospel truth and holiness, cannot, by this plea, be justified for acting the part of " dumb dogs ;" lest the people " perish for lack of knowledge."" When errors the most baneful are put into a popular and plausible shape — suited to the depraved taste of man — ingeniously disguised, and ushered forth under the sanction of, Thus saith the Lord in his holy word— and carried by a thousand vehicles to the remotest parts of our country — it becomes the friends of re« vealed truth to take care that the cause of God and of souls foe not injured.* m Home's Introd. vol- ii. part 2, ch. 1. n Isa. Ivi. 10; Hos, iv. 6. • The new Universalism, which commenced in this country about fifty years ago, being first preached by Murray, numbers at this time, about 130 ministers, 500 congregations, and thousands of professing members. The state of New-York alone has at least 70 societies. In Ohio alone, within the space of seven years, they increased from 20 to upwards of 1500 members ! They hold three annual conventions, in New England^ STew-york, and Ohio. They supported, in 1822, eight periodical publica- S Introductory Remarks. These are some of the reasons which, in our view, render the present publication a duty. And if these are not deemed sufficient, more may be found in the course of the ensuing remarks. We do not flatter ourselves with the hope of convincing all who hear or read our remarks. Some are incapable of weigh- ing an argument, or of estimating evidence. Such will always choose what pleases them best, without regard to reason or truth. Some are misled, by sophistry and false principles of reasoning, into errors flattering to their pride, or grateful to their depraved inclinations ; and as we easily believe what we wish to be true, truth has poor prospects, when both so- phistry and a depraved heart are leagued against her. Some have committed themselves ; and the pride of being thought consistent, prevents them from retracing their steps. Some are Gallios, who care nought about these things ; and whose indolence keeps them from feeling an interest on either side. In fine, some are blinded by the influence of prejudice, en- thusiasm, or passion ; and such cannot see the truth, shine it ever so refulgent. Such persons are not very promising can- didates for conviction. But a vindication and exposition of the truth may hope for a fair hearing, from all who are capable of judging, who feel an interest in the truth, and who are anxious to be guarded against error — from all those who are unprejudiced, and de- sirous of information, upon the all-important subjects of reli- gious truth and duty. This, we trust, forms a very numerous class in society. And upon all such, at least, we hope the following remarks may have a salutary influence. And as these are scattered over the whole of community, we may further indulge the hope, that, through the blessing of God, the knowledge and the influence of revealed truth may, tlons ; and besides their larger works, no less than 10,000 copies of these are constantly circulated through every state, section, and district of the country ! By these means, under the fascinating influence of their doc- trines, their converts, preachers, and societies, are rapidly increasing. Introductory Remarks. 9 through their agency, be extended to many of those by whom they are surrounded. Lest our numerous references in the margin should be thought pedantic, we remark, that we deem it the duly of every writer upon important or disputed points, to quote his authorities. Neglecting to do so, looks at least suspicious : it leads to the inference that the writer has no authorities to quote, or that he quotes at random, or that he is afraid of having his authorities examined, lest they should not bear him out in his assertions. Nothing indeed is to be supposed true, merely because it is believed \>y some learned men : and we are among the last in the world who would stand, hat 19 hand, bowing to authorities. The opinions of the learned are worth nothing, any further than they are supported by arguments and by facts. Still, it is always a satisfaction to know that we have great names on our side. We are ready to call in question every opinion that is not thus supported. And if any system of doctrine were sanctioned by the au- thority of the learned and good, for a long series of ages — like the fabled chain of fate, let down from Jupiter's throne to our earth — it might, on this account, with considerable propriety, be deemed indissoluble. Besides, quoting authori- ties is a directory to those who wish to read more largely upon the subject. Further, as religious truth is not systematically taught, but dispersedly contained in the Scriptures — as the whole truth upon any subject can never be learned, except by bringing together into one view every passage in the sacred volume Irelating to that subject — as the neglect of this is, next to the 'depravity of our nature, the most fruitful source of those {errors, sects, and heresies, with which the Church of God is , afflicted — and as very few Christians have the means of find- Xjing out in what part of God's word a passage is found, if the ^IplaceMhereJt is quoted be not designated — we have taken 'X care always to enable the reader to turn to the passage in the Bible, and see the connexion in which it stands, and the bearing which it has upon the subject under discussion. J-0 Introduciory Remarks . In fine, if the language that occurs in the ensuing rema rks is sometimes strong and startling, it is because we can find no other language that would do justice to the subjectr— that would adequately convey our ideas — that would exhibit the truth to the reader in all its force and all its dimensions. And though we extend to the motives and the consequent conduct of our fellow-creatures, every indulgence that the enlarged charity of the Gospel demands, we do not feel at liberty to hold any parley with error. We feel bound to give it no quarter : and we are anxious to exhibit it to every one, in all the deformity in whir.h it appears before heaven ; that it may excite in us an abhorrence, proportioned to the degree in which it stands arrayed against the pure truth, and the Ijenevolent purposes of a pure and holy God. A Christian should indeed neither do, say, nor write any thing, without a religious motive, and a sufficient reasorip We have endeavoured, therefore, to weigh every phrase and every sentence ; and while our reasons for what we have said are such as appear to us sufficient, our motives are such as, we trust, the Searcher of hearts will approve. REMARKS DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINE MODEIIZV UNZVB&SALZSl^. Whoever has heard an able and experrenced lawyer plead a bad cause, must have observed how, by wit and sophistry, he can make " the worse appear the better reason :" and how, by his eloquence and appeals to the passions, he can induce men to believe, or do, what, in the calmer moments of reflection, they would condemn. In general, not one out of twenty is capable, at the moment, to detect the sophistry of an able and experienced reasoner : and hence the muIti-> tudes who are incompetent to form an enlightened judgment, founded upon a comprehensive view of the subject, follow the opinion of the speaker last heard ; and veer about from side to side, as present feelings and arguments may move them. Hence the experience of mankind has laid it down as an in- valuable rule, that if we wish to come at truth, we must " hear " with both ears'''' before we decide. And that our judgment may be enlightened and unprejudiced, truth and justice, in our c0urts, are not left to be collected from the representa- tions of interested pleaders, who have a side or party to sup° port ; but a well informed and experienced judge is appointed to detect sophistry, to strip the subject of all that is irrelevant, to point out what laws, and facts, and arguments have a bear- ing upon it— and in fine, to present the whole matter before 12 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of the jury in its true colours, and with all its merits and de* merits. If the ignorance, the errors, the sophistry, and the per- verseness of men, render these precautions necessary in secu- lar matters^ how much more are they necessary in those mat- ters which involve our everlasting interests. If it would be unwise to judge precipitately, and from ex-parte statements, in the one case, it must be the extreme of folly in the other. If we ever act with caution, ought it not to be in receiving a system of religion which contradicts and subverts every system of religion the world has ever received? Before we embrace it, ought we not to know well what it is, and what may be said against it, as well as in its favour ? Let it not be said, I have all my life long heard the doc- trines of hell and damnation preached and defended : I have heard all that can be said in their favour ; and I wish there- fore now to hear what can be said against them. Thus some talk ; but they are certainly mistaken. These doctrines hav- ing been universally believed, ministers, almost always, speak of them as received truths, without undertaking to explain, to defend, or to answer objections to them. When, therefore, the truth of these doctrines is called in question, arguments and answers are required, that probably were never heard from the pulpit. The embassadors of Christ cannot, in con- science, turn their pulpits into an arena for controversy with all the hydra heresies that from year to year are bursting into life. And when fidelity to God and man leads them to notice them in their public discourses, there are a thousand minute and metaphysical points, sophistries, and objections, which, for obvious reasons, cannot be fully discussed. No one there- fore, who values religious truth as its importance demands, and who knows how necessary it is to be circumspect and impartial, can possibly persuade himself that he is fully com- petent to form an enlightened opinion, until the merits of the question have been amply stated and examined on both sides — until every argument has been contrasted with its appro- priate answer — and until every objection has received its specific reply. This indeed is not necessary for all Chris- Modern Universalism* 13 tians ; but it is necessary before any one can be justified in embracing a new doctrine, directly contrary to all that has ever before been taught or believed in the Christian world. Regarding this as both reasonable and just, we shall now present a summary view of that new system of religion, which has of late years been taught in England and in this country under the name of Universal Salvation, or Universal Resto- ration. This indeed can be done in very few words : for this new sect of Universalists was founded about fifty years ago, by a Mr. Relly, in England ; and while they differ ma- terially from each other on various other points, they all agree in this one — that there is no punishment for the wicked after death. Relly and his followers say, that Christ bore all the punishment due to sin and sinners both in this world and in the next — that sinners therefore are not punished for sin, even in this world — and that every individual of the whole human race will be saved hereafter, through the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of this doctrine a certain Univer- salist writer in this country observes — " Let any one preach " this system fully, and he would either be pitied as a ma- " niac, or prosecuted as a disturber of the public peace." The system embraced by other late Universalists differs however, very little from this. They deny that there is any punishment after death. They maintain, of course, that there neither is nor will be any such place as hell. They say, all the punishment which God threatens, and which the wicked suffer, is in this world ; and consists in bodily sufferings, in remorse of conscience, and in the punishments inflicted by the civil authority : and they believe that God will hereafter, out of his infinite goodness, take the vilest sinners and the greatest saints into the same heaven ; and bestow everlasting life and happiness upon every individual of the human race. These are their peculiar doctrines, by which they stand prominently distinguished from the rest of the world. In other respects, the system of Universalism lately preached here generally harmonizes with the views of the Unitarians : though it seems more fearless and adventurous in its reason- ings and its criticisms. The subordinate features of the sy?' 14 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of tem it may be well to state, hy may of information; that the reader may take a comprehensive view of the whole scheme. Be it then known, that the Universalist scheme rejects^ what the Christian Church has always received and revered as the peculiar^ distinguishing,, and most essential doctrines of the Gospel. This scheme denies the doctrine of the Tri- nity. It denies the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and degrades him to the rank of a mere prophet like Moses, and a mere man like ourselves. It denies the doctrine of the atonerrient; and declares, that it fears the justice no more than it does the mercy of God. As far as we have been able to learn, it denies the doctrines of the fall, the depravity of our nature, and the necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to enable us to serve God — as well as the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, and final salvation through his merits and mediation. In fine, it receives some, and re- jects other books of the New Testament — it denies the full inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and gives part of it, at least, no more authority than it does to the uninspired writ- ings of uninspired men — and it adopts that rationalizing prin- ciple of interpretation, which, when it meets with passages that contain something mysterious, explains away the meaning of them, until they signify no more than every body's reason can understand and approve. Such is, brief y^ what is taught and held by the new Univer- salists of the present day. On many of these points, how- ever, there may be a diversity of opinion : and as the system is still unfledged and in its infancy, it may undergo many important alterations before it is completely licked into shapCi and formally embodied in a creed or a confession of faith. One feature excepted, it approaches so near to Deism, that it is not to be wondered at that some Deists should have mistaken it for their own religion in disguise. Indeed, some of its advocates declare, that Deism approaches nearer to re- sealed truth than orthodox Christianity does. But be this as it may, we shall not enter into an examination of these minor points J but confine ourselves to the distinguishing doctrine of Modern Univtrsalism, 15 ihe sect — that " not a single individual of the human race *' will be punished after death." Before we enter upon this point, let it be distinctly re- membered, that nothing we say or have said, is to be under- stood as having a personal reference to any individual. We impeach not, we call not in question the motives of any Uni- versalist, or of any one who is favourably inclined towards that scheme. For all we know, they may be just as sincere, as faithful, and as " fully persuaded," as we are. Like Paul the persecutor, they may think and act as they do, '• igno- " rantly in unbelief." God forbid that we, who know not the heart, should undertake to judge them. They will stand or fall before their own Master, the heart-searching God, who alone can estimate motives ; and who alone knows what allowance to make for invincible or unavoidable ignorance, error, and prejudice. For those of them with whom we are acquainted, we have a very sincere personal regard ; nor could we say with propriety of any, that they are already established Universalists. Some appear inclined to that doc- trine, who will probably, after mature deliberation, abandon it as untenable. But whatever their opinions, we speak plainly and strongly — not because we love them less, but be- cause we love truth more. We respect their motives and persons ; for error we have no respect. Our concern is not with their motives, but with their doctrines — and of these doctrines we shall not hesitate to speak, as " becometh the " Gospel." If we may be permitted to use the translated language of the Apostle, these " damnable heresies" we shall pursue, until (if God enable us so to do) we have hunted them over the precipice, into the abyss from which they have emerged. And as this cause is thine, blessed Lord ! do thou teach my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Let thy Holy Spirit inspire, direct, and overrule my thoughts and my language. Carry thine own truth to the heart of every reader, with a conviction that cannot be withstood—and let not our sins be any further visited, nor the fair face of thy Zion be any further defiled, with a heresy that would disgrace the very religion of the heathens. 16 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine oj Lastly, let it be observed, that, in arguing with the Univer- salist, we consider him as a believer in divine revelation, and in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures — because all who have heretofore written in favour of this scheme, have pro- fessed themselves believers— because, if they do not believe these things, they are infidels, and with them we do not here enter into controversy—and because the great danger of Universalism lies in its wearing the garb of Christianity, and pleading in its favour the sanctions of our holy religion. Strip it of these assumed and Imposing advantages, and it loses the only passport it has to notice, and would soon sink into merited contempt. Now, many ignorant unstable souls swallow this gilded pill, to their own undoing. Having made these introductory remarks, we proceed now to our proposed subject. The new Universalist scheme teaches, that there is no punishment for the wicked after death; but that the vilest sinners take their seats in the same heaven, and are admitted to the same everlasting blessedness, with the holiest saints. Fornicators, adulterers, thieves, liars, drunkards, and murderers — ^the vilest of the vile, and the most abominable of miscreants — of all whom the Apostle ex- pressly declares, that " they have no inheritance in the king- *' dom ofGod^''^ — all these, according to the Universalist, are to sit down together with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of our heavenly Father — and heaven is to be equally the receptacle for the pious and the impious, for the lovers of God and the haters of God — heaven is to be equally the re- ceptacle for Judas that betrayed Christ, and for John that loved him to the death 5 for Abel who died in faith, and for Cain his murderer. In that same holy place, where Apostles and martyrs reap the reward of their holiness, debauchees, and cut-throats, and the enemies of God, arehkewise to have their blessed portion : and Servin, who died in a brothel, with a bottle in his hand, cursing his Maker, is to dwell in the same pure and holy mansions, and be engaged in the same pure and holy employment, with Noah, Daniel and Job, Peter, James and John. a 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 J Gal. v. 19, 20, 21 ; and Eph. v. 5. Modern Universalism, 17 Now this is so outrageous an absurdity, that it would be Imnecessary to say any thing about it, did not ignorance and depravity on the one hand, and sophistry, together with un- wearied zeal, on the other, render every such error danger- ous to the faith and morals of the great mass of community; who, like the unthinking herd, follow a kw distinguished leaders, and go, not where reason and truth, but where pre- judice and inclination, the love of indulgence and the strength of their excitements, may carry them. In order then to put the unwary on their guard, and to sa- tisfy those who wish to hear with both ears before they judge, we proceed to remark, that we feel compelled to reject and condemn the above mentioned doctrine. 1st. Because of its exceedingly immoral and disorganizing tendency. If this doctrine be believed, and carried out into its natural consequences upon human character and conduct, what security can we have for i\ie peace and prosperity of so- ciety — what security can we have for our property, our chastity, or our lives ? If it is believed, men will inevitably act under its influence : and it is well, therefore, that its flagrant absurdity and impiety tend to shield community, in some measure, from its deleterious effects. For in all ages, even under the high and awful sanctions of everlasting rewards and punishments, it has been extremely diffictdt to restrain the passions of men from breaking out into every species of enormity — and that, not because they did not believe those sanctions, (for in the Christian world, at least, the great mass of society have al- ways implicitly believed them,) but because the nature of man is so depraved, and his passions so impetuous, that nothing short of such sanctions can form an adequate restraint. When men have become truly religious, " the love of Christ will " constrain" them to live a holy life : but previously to that, nothing short of the fear of punishment in a future as well as the present world, can keep the great mass of mankind from the worst vices and crimes. To do away all fear of future punishment, therefore, is to roeaken the obligation and the binding force of all laws, and to remove the only paramount restraints by which families, communities, and nations, are 3 18 Remarks on ike distinguishing Doctrine of kept in any tolerable state of peace, order, and happiness— ii k taking away the 07ily effectual check to the wicked inclina- tions, the voluptuous propensities, and the malicious passions of our nature; and subjecting the lives, the liberties, the pro- perty, and the innocence of the well disposed members of community, to the depredations, the insults, and the violence of those who are unprincipled, and who " have not the feay " of God before their eyes." If the most abandoned sinners as well as the greatest saints go to heaven when they die, what is there to prevent the e'xistence or the gratification of pride, avarice, envy, angers hatred, and malice ? What is there to prevent lustful, re- vengeful, and impious thoughts, desires, intentions, and pas- sions ? What is there to prevent any one of those numerous sins, of which men may be guilty in the secret chambers of their own hearts P What is there to prevent any other crime, provided it can be perpetrated in secret; and thus escape the vigilance of m^en, and the punitive retributions of human laws ? What under heaven is there to prevent the enormous crimes of perjury and blasphemy, and suicide and murder ? The greatest security that society has for life, liberty, chas- tity, property^ and happines'S, is found in the obligations cf an oath. But this security h founded upon the universal persua- sio7ii that God will punish the blasphemous sin of perjury in a future state, since it is so injurious to the welfare of society, since it is a high-handed offence against the great God, and since it very frequently escapes detection and punishment in this life. If then blasphemers, perjured wretches, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, meet with no punish- ment after death, but go straight to heaven, the very founda- tions of society are undermined, and the very bonds that hold society together are dissolved ; and were this doctrine to be- come universal, no laws however severe, no executive how- ever vigilant, could preserve the human race from the most accumulated sufferings, from the most unexampled confusion, and finally, from utter extinction in this world. All the horrors and enormities of the French revolution would soon be ex- hibited over again — and we should live in perpetual dread of Modern UniversalUm* 19 having our sisters and daughters polluted, and ourselves as- sassinated, if we dared, either in public or private, to stir tongue or hand in their defence. For what is to prevent these enormities ? May not all say, Let us eat, drink, and be merry — let us enjoy ourselves at all haz^irds ? If we are overtaken, and in danger of severe punishment from reian, let us -cut our throats and go to heaven 1 Besides, since we live in a world of sorrow and suffering, iii which all share more or less largely — since a very large portion of the human race are always found groaning under poverty, sickness, disease, or some other affliction — and since, sooner or later, this is the lot of almost every individual : sup- pose all were ftdli/ persuaded o( the Universahst doctrine, what could hinder those who were in a state of suffering, from com- mitting .luicide, and taking a short cut to heaven ! In num- berless instances, what could prevent a destitute, afflicted father of a family from murdering himself, after, in the pleni- tude of his mercy, he Irad murdered his wife and children ! Would it not be natural for all the clrlldren of penury and sorrow to reason thus ? Why should I continue here in a state of suffering, when I can be relieved at once of all my troubles ? The good and gracious God has no punishment for me, except in this world ; and heaven is a slate of endless and inconceivable happiness, into which, after I leave this Kfe, I shall ere long be admitted. Am I not then most unrea' -sonabie and foolish, if I continue here in suffering, when 1 can, in a moment, terminate my sufferings and go to heaven ? Am I not cruel to my own family, if I refuse to deliver them out of their sorrows, though I have it in my power? Let those who love misery better than happiness, stay here in this world as long as they please. As this is the only hell -vie are to suffer, 1 think it madness to remain. I prefer stepping out of time into eternity, in order to get from hell to heaven; and I do most earnestly advise every human being, the first mo- ment they get into any serious difficulties, to put an easy end instantly to all their troubles, by taking opium enough to put themselves so soundly to sleep, as never to wake again in this world. 20 Remarks on the distinguishing Doclri?ie of As surely as it is natural for us to desire happiness and dread suffering, so surely the above reasoning is natural and C07isistent in the moulh of a Universalist. And this exhibits such a view of this new^ doctrine of Universalism as may well make the heart sicken at its absurdity, and cause us to stand aghast with horror, at the awfully destructive consequences to which it leads. Let it not be said that we have overcharged the picture. It is impossible to overcharge it, with pen or pencil ; for the imagination even cannot adequately conceive of all the enor- mities and horrors which this Universalist doctrine has a ten- dency to produce. Doctrines of such deep-toned horror can- not too soon, or with too much indignation, be consigned to universal infamy and execration. Let this not be called declamation. It is, at most, the de- clamatory earnestness of indignant truth and insulted religion. In such a cause, coldness would be treason. Let it not be said that remorse of conscience, and the other punishments which follow vice and crime in this world, are sufficient to restrain men from wickedness, or lead them to virtue. Fear of future punishment is, with the wicked, the chief ingredient in remorse of conscience. Remove this fear altogether, and their consciences will be easy enough. Be- sides which, the wicked may make this, and every other pu- nishment in this life, as light and short as they please, by an immediate and voluntary death : and if death is a certain change from hell to heaven, he must be a fool that would hesitate. Moreover, suppose a Universalist should go about the country and say to liars, thieves, murderers, profligates, and the vilest sinners of all descriptions, O all ye, my dear bro- thers and sisters, who are travelling on to the same heavenly kingdom with myself, hear these "glad tidings of great joy'' which God has sent me to preach to you. He is exceedingly good and gracious, not willing that any should perish. He has sent his well beloved Son into the world, to teach us that the whole world, through his mercy, shall be saved; and he has commissioned me to bring you this glorious news. No Modern Universctlism. 21 matter how wicked and abandoned you may be, yon are ne- vertheless his well beloved children. And though there are certain evils which we all must suffer in this world, yet this is but the common lot of the righteous and the wicked. And as God out of his benevolence wishes you to be happy, I come to fulfil the purposes of his benevolence, and to make your consciences easy. Some of you are horribly afraid of future punishment, and of the suflferings of hell. These are all bugbears of human invention : there is no truth in them. Set your hearts therefore at rest. As God wishes you to be happy, the more easy you can make yourselves, the better for you, and the more agreeable to his merciful intentions. I call upon all of you therefore, however profligate you may be, to rejoice in him whose mercy is over all his works. Be not afraid : you, as well as the greatest saints, shall go to heaven after death. Should a Universalist preacher use this language, is it not perfectly consistent with his principles? Would those go much further, who, like Voltaire, should say, " to enjoy our- " selves is to serve God ; for uur inclinations and propensitie-i '■^ are so many distinct indications of the will of God?^^^ Would this not be completely opening the flood-gates of licentiousness, to deluge the world with abominations and crimes ? And does this new system of Universalism, then, differ much from Relly's system ? of which a Universalist writer observes in substance — " The man who should preach " such a doctrine fully, would either be pitied as a maniac, " or prosecuted as a disturber of the public peace." Let the experiment be made. Let the doctrine of the Universalist be fully preached, in all its bearings, to your slaves, to the ignorant and lower classes of society, and to those who are leading ungodly lives ; and woful experience will soon teach you whether it is calculated to make men better or worse. Indeed, we need not be at a loss to know its effects, from the remarks that have already been made by some, who drank in the UniversaHst poison that has lately ^ Leland on the Advantages, &c. vol. ii. p. 2, chap. 6. 22 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of been mixed with the droppings of a neighbouring sanctuary : and if Universalism is to be preached over the whole of our country, the devil, who has heretofore been in the habit of *' going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he might de- " vour," may in future save himself that trouble, since the Universalist doctrine is calculated to do that work most effec- tually. The Universalist scheme does indeed inculcate the ordi- nary duties of morality, and some of the ordinary duties of religion : but it takes away the sanctions by which God cn- forces those duties ; and thus renders its preaching of none effect. In vain do we leach the wicked to " do justice, love " mercy, and walk humbly with God," if we rob them of the only inducements that can secure obedience to this precept. If they are not compelled to it by irresistible grace, what shall cause them to deny themselves, to take up the cross, and to lead a godly life f Conscience ? Multitudes have no conscience— the conscience of multitudes is seared and inac- tive—the disbeHef of future punishment leaves the conscience of the unawakened sinner altogether powerless — and wherever conscience does strike its scorpion sting into the bosom, sui- cide can instantly extract it, and hush its loudest clamours into peace. What then shall induce the wicked to renounce their guilty pleasures, and practise the self-denying religion of the Gospel ? Do men restrain and deny themselves be- cause this yields them pleasure ? Our Saviour's argument for self-denial is founded upon the certainty of future punish- ment. He says, it is better to pluck out the right eye and cut off the right hand, than to have the whole body cast into hell. But if there be no hell after death, and men are rc- wardedfor committing suicide and murder^ by being delivered out of all trouble and admitted to perfect happiness, where is the force of our Saviour's reasoning — where is man's in- ducement to be virtuous ? Let it not be said that gratitude to God for his love and ifiercy will constrain sinners to be religious. This is true of saints and angels ; but it is futile to expect it from the xm- godly. It is enough for them, that the mercy which saves Modern Universalism* 23 them from hell, will likewise, at death, deliver them from all sin : and they would be very unwise to give themselves any further trouble about it. As long as affection and gratitude cannot keep children, and servants, and subjects, and de- fendants obedient, it is against all reason and experience to say that men will, by this means alone, be led to embrace a self-denying religion and obey God. The Universahst then can find no refuge from the charge of acting the part of an incendiary^ by preaching a doctrine that is calculated to throw society into combustion, to destroy the very foundations of civil order, and to let out the very life-blood of virtue and religion — unless he makes virtue its own reward, and can prove that men will become religious merely for the sake of that happiness which religion affords its possessor in this world. But where is the libertine that ever became chaste for the mere pleasure of chastity — or the drunkard who reformed purely to enjoy the pleasure of temperance ? How many worldlings can be found, who aban- doned their beloved idol solely for the present gratification that arises from an opposite course — and how many can we think would probably be converted to God, if they had no- thing else to persuade them but the comfort which will prO' iably flow from it in this world? Future rewards and punish- ments have been found suflScient to control the motives and actions of sinful men ; but none are found who are virtuous purely for virtue^s sake, and who lay themselves under the self-denying restraints of religion merely for the satisfaction which this yields in the present hfe, without any regard to the next. The preceding views we corroborate, by the followingyac/^, and passages of Scripture. The UnJversalist scheme asserts, that vice and sin, of every description, meet always, in every instance, without one single exception, with all the punishment that God has ever threaten- e^^with all the punishment that the welfare of society re- quires—and with a// the punishment that impartial distributivs justice demands. And this scheme further asserts, of courscj that exemption from this punishment, ajnd the positive sati^fao 24 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of lions consequent upon virtue and piety, are never-failing con- sequences of a holy life — and that this constitutes, in every individualinstance, the prescnf reward of religious obedience. Now this is directly cojitrary to both fact and Scripture, It is contrary to fact. That virtue is not, in this world, its own reward, nor vice its own punisher, in any uniform or consistent degree, is manifest from daily observation. Are there not numerous instances every where, of unjust, crueJ, licentious, and ungodly persons, who live in health, pleasure^ and prosperity all their days ; and who even pass into eter- nity zuithout any remorse of conscience, and by a short and easy death. ^ And are there not, on the other hand, multitudes of the most virtuous and pious, whose life is one incessant struggle with misfortune — who are set as affliction's mark — and who, through poverty, disease, sickness, and numerous other calamities, notwithstanding their holiness, are subjected to a lingering life of martyrdom ? These facts are so notori- ous and manifest, that they are the subject of common and every-day remark : and those who deny them therefore, de- serve no more to be reasoned with, than those who, like Hume, deny the existence of the sun in the heavens. These facts too have been noticed in all ages of the world. The ancient stoic philosophers, who maintained stoutly that virtue was its own reward in this life, confessed that these facts furnished an insuperable objection to their reasonings : and the word of God is upon this point so explicit, that it should silence at once all further opposition. Let us quote a few passages. Wherefore, says the prophet, doth the way of the wicked prosper ? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very treach- erously ?■= — Says Job : The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure. Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power ? Their seed is established in their sight. Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them. They take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice. They spend their days in s Jer. xii. 1. Modern Vniverscilism. 25 wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.*^ — Says the psaUnist: My steps had well nigh slipped, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they are not in trouble as other men — they prosper in the world — and there are no bands in their death. Verily then / have cleansed my heart and washed my hands in innocency in vain. For all the day long have / been plagued and chastened every morning.'' — Thus far the Scriptures. If then the wicked often live long, prosper, enjoy them- selves, and die easy — while the righteous, like David, are often plagued and chastened from day to day — it is not true that sin is always fully punished in this world ; and that ho- liness is, of course, always rewarded with an exemption from that punishment. It follows therefore, that the Universalist doctrine is, in this point, contrary both to fact and to Scrip- ture j and therefore a false doctrine. But if wickedness is not so punished in this life as to deler men from the commission of it — and if holiness is not so re- warded as to ensure its practice — then the Universalist scheme offers nothing that can induce us to be virtuous, and nothing that can deter us from a course of sin : and this doctrine, therefore, stands fully chargeable with all the grossly immo- ral tendencies and shocking consequences above described. If this doctrine is preached, embraced, and followed, there is nothing to restrain men from all that licentiousness, and all those crimes, to which their passions naturally lead them. We have no security for our virtue, our property, our liberty, our happiness, or our lives. Nothing can preserve the peace, order, and prosperity of society, from the baneful and ruinous effects of such a licentious and demoralizing scheme of reli- gion. And the enormous crimes of perjury, suicide, and murder, will multiply upon us from day to day, and cover the fair face of society with the mantle of mourning, and the pall of death ! These conclusions, which are legitimately drawn from the preceding arguments, we now further support by facts, and passages of Scripture. ^ Job •sii. 6; and xxi- ^ Psa. IxxiJi, 4 26 Remarks oit ihe distinguishing Doctrine of That the wdlbeing of society cannot possibly be promoted and preserved without the doctrine and the expectation of future rewards and punishments, is a truth of which mankind have been convinced by the experience of every age. All the celebrated legislators of antiquity laid this doctrine at the foundation of their laws and their governments. And though same of the philosophers theorized themselves into dangerous systems of infidelity, the philosophers generally, and magis- trates and legislators always, explicitly maintained that the fear of future punishment was necessary for the welfare of society. Atheists and Materialists even, and freethinkers of dififerent kinds, who disbelieved a future state, or denied that it was known before the preaching of the Gospel, have nevertheless admitted this necessity, and pretend that magistrates and le- gislators invented this doctrine, because, without it, govern- ment could not be upheld^ nor wicked men sufficiently re- strained. The truth of this opinion is further confirmed by the effects, which this doctrine of the Universalist has already, in differ- ent ages, produced upon those who embraced it. For the doctrine that there will be no future punishment, is by no means new. The Sadducees, among the Jews, held this tenet : and the licentiousness of their lives furnished both a reason for their believing so, and a practical comment upon the im= moral tendency of their creed. The sect of the Epicureans, among the ancient heathens, maintained this opinion. But Epicureanism, in process of time, became only a name for every thing abandoned and licentious. The founder and first propagators of this system were highly extolled for their mo- rality; and Epicurus, like the Universalists of the present day, endeavoured so to explain his system as to guard against perversion and licentiousness. But all in vain. Depriving men of the wholesome restraints which the fear of future punishment imposes upon their conduct, is like depriving a vessel at sea of its rudder. They will readily yield to every breeze of inclination, and be carried about by every gust of passion. The Epicureans, through the natural influence of their doctrines, became so disorderly and abandoned, that Modern UnivcrsaUsm, 27 the public authorities actually expelled Ihem from several cities and republics ; and decreed them to be the pests of the youth, and a nuisance to society.*" This leading doctrine of the Universalists, that there will be no punishment after death, is likewise held by a large por- tion of the Hindoos,^ and by a numerous and learned sect among the Chinese. That sect do most strenuously iiicukate the duties of morality, and yet every species of injustice and licentiousness prevails among them. A learned Chinese re- marked, that the multitude among them was not encouraged to practise virtue, because they had nothing to fear in another world; and he therefore commended a certain other sect for preaching up heaven and hell.'* The ancient Stoics too excluded from their system the fear of God and of future punishment ; maintaining that virtue is its own reward, and that the wicked are punished in propor- tion to their sins in this world. But eminent and admired as this sect was, for the excellency and dignity of their moral precepts, they -could not resist the strong tendency which their system had to licentiousness ; and as is the practice with ike above-mentioned sect in China, multitudes among them committed suicide, that they might escape out of the evils of the present, into the happiness of a future world. The Indian philosophers, and many of our modern infidels, have advo- cated suicide upon precisely the same principles.^ It app€ars then from these facts, that the leading doctrine of the Universalist has long ago been maintained, both among Jews and heathens — that those who maintained this doctrine have generally been unprincipled and licentious — and that all the shocking consequences we have ascribed to it, have at all times flowed from it, to such an extent even as to cause the magistrates to banish those ancient Universalists from their dominions, and brand them as pests and nuisances in society. And lest it should be supposed that this doctrine is not liable to such abuse in the Christian world, we would refer you to f Leland's Advantage and Necessity, &c. vol. ii. part 2, chap. 6. s Rees' Cyclop, art- Shaster. ^ Leland, vol. il. part 3, chap. 3. * Leland, part 2. 28 Remarks on the clislmguishing Doctrine of the tenets and history of the Simonians, Gnostics, and Nico- laitans — sects of Christian heretics, who began to appear be- fore the dealh of the Apostle John, and who subsisted, under different names, for several centuries afterwards. These maintained that simple faith in Christ, and knowledge of the Gospel, were the only things necessary to salvation ; and that those who possessed these requisites had nothing to fear here- after. Believing therefore, as the Rellyan system of Univer- salism teaches, that Christ had, without any other conditions to be performed on their part, purchased everlasting salvation for all such, they gave themselves up to every species of wicked' 7iess and profligacy J These facts then prove to a demonstration^ that a system of religion, which abolishes the principle of fear and the doc- trine of future punishment, only delivers its professors over to the most unbounded licentiousness ; and verities the cha- racter of the " madman who scatters firebrands, arrows, and " death'"' among mankind. And can such a system of religion, then, present a single claim to our regard ? Must it not, at first view, be condemned as one of the most dangerous and execrable of heresies ? Will it not carry a moral pestilence and desolation wherever it takes its march ? And had we not better let loose upon our fellow-creatures, in a tenfold degree, all the physical evils to which flesh is heir, than to countenance or to propagate a doctrine that carries in its train consequences, the mere thought of which is enough to chill the blood, and make the heart to shudder !* J Mosheim's Hist. vol. i. King on the Creed, and any orthodox commen» tator on Rev. ii, 2 Pet. ii. and Jude; but particularly Whitby, Hammond, Poole, and Macknigbt. ^ Prov. xxvi. 18. • The old and the new Universalism differ as much as day and night ; since the one denies all punishment after death, and the other teaches that all the wicked will be punished hereafter in proportion to their sins. But still even the old Universalism is chargeable with a licentious tendency ; and the preceding objections, therefore, lie, though not with equal, yet with great force, against the old Univcrsalist doctrine. For tlie wicked not only mca/, but will naturally be led to reason tlius: " I feel an uncon- " querable propensity to my sinful practices. They yield me great grati- Modern Universalism, 29 The facts and arguments already adduced under our first head, are sufficient to prove that the distinguishing doctrine of Universalism cannot possibly be true, but must necessarily be false. But we think it proper, nevertheless, to support the unanswerable deductions of reason, upon this last point, by the paramount authority of Holy Scriptures. We observe then, that a doctrine which naturally leads to irreligion and licentiousness, cannot possibly be the doctrine of Scripture. Because the main purpose for which the whole of Scripture has been given, is to bring men over from sin to holiness. All its precepts, all its promises, and all its threaten- ings have but one object in view, and that is to reclaim men from the error of their ways, to serve the living God. All the ordinances, all the institutions, and all the duties of religion, both in public and in private, aim at promoting godliness. Even the very miracles that have been wrought, the prophe- cies that have been delivered, the distinguished blessings that have been vouchsafed, and the judgments that have been in- flicted from age to age upon the Church, have all been de» signed to discountenance irreligion, and promote the cause of virtue and piety. Nay, all ministers, like Paul, are sent to " turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of " ficatlon. I cannot therefore consent to give them up, and subject myself *' to the self-denying duties and restraints of the Gospel. Our heavenly «' Father is merciful — nay, ' God is love.* I throw myself, therefore, upon " his boundless compassion. He cannot but pity his weak, tempted, and *• erring creature. Were future punishn»ent to be endless, I should indeed *• not reason thus. But it comes from a Father, whose bowels yearn with ** compassion over his children — it will some time or other have an end — ** and after that, I shall be happy for ever and ever in the kingdom of " heaven. So that, let me act as I please, / shall after all be saved, and *• have an etermty of happiness to enjoy, as well as the holiest of Christians." This reasoning is perfectly natural and consistent in those who believe, like some of the ancient heathen, that the wicked will be cast into the fires of hell till they are burnt white, after which they will be taken to heaven. And we submit it to the reader, whether this doctrine of purga- tory, whether held by heathens or Roman Catholics, Unitarians or Univer- salists, does not in a great measure set men loose from the salutary re- straints of the fear of future punishments, tend to make them easy in their sins, and therefor? thus far deserve the charge ofbein^ a Ucentioua doctrine. 30 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of " Satan to serve the living God'" — the " word'"' or " truth''' of God is expressly, by our Saviour, declared to be the great means of our sanctijlcation,"^ the means which God uses for the express purpose of making us holy — the influences of the Holy Spirit are given to " cause''^ us " to walk in the way of " God's commandments, " to " enlighten, to convince of sin, *' to change our hearts, and sanclifif us to obedience''''^ — and the Lord Jesus Christ shed his blood for us, " that he might re- " deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a pecu- " liar people, zealous of good works."" Accordingly we are told that the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the souIp —that the Gospel is that truth which is according to godliness, and in order to produce godliness Matt. xvi. 27". c Ezek. xviii. 30. piety : and if, while discussing this subject, we use not every means of warning the unwary against, end deter- ring the wicked from a doctrine of such deep-toned horror, we fear lest Almighty God should regard us as a partaker in the guilt of those who leave their fellow-creatures to perish in error, and for •' lack of knowledge." At every turn, therefore, God willing, we would put our heel upon tii^ viper, and crush him to death. 36 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of Some have been found, in different ages, who denied future punishment; but exceptions, as all admit, prove the general ride. The mass of mankind, in all ages and among all na- tions, have believed in a future state of rewards and punish- ments. From the earliest ages of the world concerning which we have any account, this has been the traditionary faith of our species. The most ancient writers, after the most care- ful research, assure us that this was, among all nations, the common popular belief embraced by the ignorant as well as the learned — they trace it up to time immemorial, without assigning it any human origin — they inform us it was never doubted, except by some abandoned wretches, who ivished it to be false ; and by some philosophers, who speculated them- selves out of the belief of this doctrine — who transmitted their creed to their disciples, and who confessed that, in de- nying the doctrine of future punishment, they went contrary to the universal consent of all nations, and to the common, traditionary, immemorial faith of all ages/ All the roorld then stands arrayed against this new doctrine of the Universalist, Every sect in the Christian Church would reject it with abhorrence — even all the Universalists of the old school, from Origen down to Chauncey, Winchester, and Scarlet : for they believe as firmly in the propriety, justice^ and necessity of temporary punishment after death, as the Christian Church generally believes in the propriety, justice, and necessity of eternal punishment. In this point too, with the exception of the ancient Sadducees, the Jewish Church has in all ages agreed with the Christian. The Mahomme- dans hold the same doctrine ; and all the heathen nations, of modern as well as of ancient times. Nay, with few excep- tions, all the Deiils in Christendom will condemn the distin- guishing doctrine of the Universalist : for it is as much against their creed as against ours. Now it is a rule universally admitted by all who believe in divine revelation, that a doctrine, embraced among all na- tions, by all men, and at all times, must necessarily be a true ff Leland's Advantage and Necessity, Stillingfleet'a Origines, Bryant's Mythology, and Works of G. S. Faber. Modern Universalixm, 37 doctrine. * This rule is just as conclusive againsf tlie Univer- salist doctrine, as against the reveries of Hume, when he de- nies the evidence of our senses : and it therefore proves that a helief in future rewards and punishments is the true belief. Had this belief only been found in modern, and not in ancient times — or among learned, and not among barbarous nations— or in certain sections of the globe, and not in all countries ; it might have been ascribed to chance, caprice, prudence, state policy, or priestcraft : but now, since it has been uni- versal—since no ancient nation was ever found where it did not prevail, and no time can be tixed upon when it was not every where the common belief — and since the most ancient writers can give no other account of it, than that it was handed down from time immemoria' — its existence cannot possibly be accounted for in any other way, than by admitting the truth of the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. For the argument stands thus : That which has been be- lieved by all, every where, and at all times, must necessarily either be the dictate of reason and common sense, and the re- sult of every one's experience ; or else it must be the conse- quence of a divine revelation^ made to our first parents or to Noah, and through them handed down to all the nations of the earth. In no other -way can we possibly account for the universal belief in fuXure rewards and punishments. Upon every other supposition, that belief is an effect without a suf- ficient cause ; and those who admit an effect without an ade- quate cause, admit what is absurd both in religion and philo- sophy. How then will the Universalist account for this uni- versal belief? Is it the consequence of revelations made to man in the first ages of the world ? Then he admits that God has revealed the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, and that his own doctrine is contrary to God's revealed will ! Or have all mankind believed it, because the reason and com- mon sense of every individual teaches him to believe it? Then the doctrine of the Universalist is contrary to the rea- son and common sense of all mankind— and then, if Universal- ism be true, God has made all men so, as naturally to lead •'hem into the belief of a lie ! Here are the two horns of a 3S Remarks on the. distinguishing Doctrine of dilemma ; and the Universalist may hang himself upon which^ ever he pleases. Here it is necessary to observe, that some Universalists deny that the Jews had any knowledge of a future state before the time of our Saviour ; and others, admitting that they had some knowledge of a future life, of course deny either that they believed in future punishment, or else, if they did, main- tain that that belief was horrowed from the heathen. To this we answer— 1st. The main question is not, whether God revealed the doctrine of future rewards and punishments to the Old Tes- tament Church. For even if — which we by no means grant — ■ even if the Jews had no knowledge of it, it is enough for our purpose if this doctrine is revealed in the New Testament. 2d!y. Since, as has been abundantly proved by Leland, Stillingfleet. and others, all the rest of the ancient world had the knowledge of a future life, it would be strange indeed if the Jews alone, Godh own people, were an exception ! And since all the rest believed in future rewards and punishments, can we suppose that the Jews had no such belief? How is this either probable or possible ? For, 3dly. The foregoing argument, to prove the doctrine of future punishment from the universal belief of it, should con- vince us that the Jews and Israelites could not be ignorant of it. For it is manifest from reason, from experience, and from the positive testimony of the most ancient writers, that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was not disco- vered by human reason, nor invented by human policy— that it is not a doctrine which reason and common sense would teach every man — and that its universal reception, therefore, in the earliest ages of the world, must necessarily be owing to its having been revealed from heaven, transmitted from father to son, and from generation to generation, and thus spread, hy natural inheritance and tradition, wherever the descend- ants of Adam and of Noah were scattered abroad. In this case, it is as certain that the ancient Church of Judah and Israel believed in future punishment, as that any of the other Modern Univtrsalism, 33 nations believed it ; for it was one article of their universal traditionary faith. ' 4thly. That the Jews actually did believe this doctrine in the time of our Saviour — that they had then believed it from time immemorial — and that they, as well as the Gentiles, ascribed this doctrine originally to divine revelation— is mani- fest not only from the works already quoted, but also from the writings of Philo and Josephus, two distinguished Jews — is manifest from the apocryphal books bound up with some of our Bibles — and is manifest from the Targums, or com- mentaries of Onkelos, Jonathan, and others, upon the various books of the Old Testament. Most of these works wer© written before or during the time of our Saviour, and they prove that Jews and Gentiles had but one belief on the sub- ject of future rewards and punishments. These facts are so notorious^ that we shall not slay to make any quotations to prove them ; especially since the most distinguished of our American Universalist writers admits them to be true. 5thly. The Jews and Israelites were the descendants of Abraham. Abraham was a Chaldean. He and his posterity sojourned for many hundred years among the Phenicians and Egyptians ; and all these three ancient nations believed in future punishment. The ancient mysteries are traced up to a very remote antiquity among these and many other nations, and the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was one of the doctrines taught in those mysteries,^ The Brachmans, Persians, Arabians, and Sabeans, are generally believed to have been the descendants of Abraham ; and they all be- lieved in future punishment. It is therefore highly probable that Abraham and all his posterity, the Israelites and the Jews, agreed with all the rest of the world, and held, in all ages, the doctrine of a future state of retribution. 6thly. As no facts can be brought to prove it, so no rea- sons whatever can be given to make it probable, that the an- cient Jews and Israelites did not believe as the rest of man» kind on this subject. All that Universalists pretend to shoie Warburton's Dirine Legation. 40 Remarks on the distinguithing Doctrine of is, that the doctrine of future punishment is not revealed and *taught in the Old Testament. But if we even grant this, it does not prove that this doctrine was not revealed, or not be- lieved, under the Old Testament. It may have been revealed, without having been recorded in the Old Testament. It may- have been revealed in paradise, universally believed after- wards, and therefore taken for granted by the sacred histo- rian, as a universally admitted truth ; in the same way as the being of God is taken for granted in the very first chapter of Genesis. Under this aspect, the one subject has nothing to do with the other : the one is a question about a doctrine said to be revealed in the Old Testament, and the other is a question about a historical fact relating to the opinions of the ancient people of God. Grant the Universalist, therefore, all that he contends for on this pointy and our argument still stands in full force to prove the fact, that the ancient Jews and Israelites did, in all ages, hold the doctrine of future punishment. The Universalist has not brought, and cannot bring, one single fact or argument to render the contrary even in the slightest degree probable. Our former conclusion, therefore, still stands uninvalidated and unanswerable — the Universalist doctrine is against the belief and against the reason, of all mankind ; and it there- fore cannot be true. We say against the belief of all man' kind, without one single national exception. For though some Universalists maintain that the ancient Israelites were an exception, they have not brought one single argument or fact to make that assertion probable ; and we have, on the contrary, adduced several arguments and facts, any one of which is enough to make it probable, and all of which, taken together, make it morally certain, that the Old Testament Church, in all ages, believed in the doctrine of future re- wards and punishments ; and derived the belief of that doc- trine, not from the heathens around them, but from Abraham their founder, and originally from divine revelation. This argument in favour of future punishment is drawn from reason and the light of nature, independently of the Scriptures. The Universalist cannot admit that the doctrine Modern Universalism, 41 of future punishment was revealed to our first parents, and transmitted by a traditionary inheritance to the rest of man- kind, as we fully believe, and as the above remarks, we think, prove : its universal belief, therefore, as it could not spring from chance or state policy, must, upon his principles, be ascribed to the reason and common sense of all men, in all ages. And if this be so, to deny this doctrine, is contrary to the reason and common sense of all mankind. And if the Deist is unreasonable in refusing to believe in divine revela- tions, since all nations have believed in them — if the Atheist is absurd in denying the existence of God, contrary to the universal belief of mankind — if the disciples of Berkely and Hume are absurd in denying what reason and common sense teach every body, the real existence of the objects around us— then, for the same reason, the Universalist is unreason- able and absurd in denying the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. But, lastly, we believe that the doctrine of a future state was revealed to our first parents ; and we ask, therefore, what should we naturally infer from analogy, and from the nature of the case ; and what does the Old Testament teach on the subject of a future life? Is it probable that God gave man existence, without ever acquainting him with his des- tiny ? Did he design man for a future state of being, and still leave him ignorant of it f Did he create man immortal^ and still leave him without the knowledge or belief of another life? Is it possible that the Father of mercies should thus treat his intelligent offspring? Is not his mercy over all his works ? Does he not real/y desire us to be holy and happy, both here and hereafter ? Must not the knowledge of a future state have been eminently calculated to promote both these tnds? Was not this knowledge just as necessary immediately after the fall, as it was 1800 years ago ? Can any reason in the world be given why God should leave man destitute of information so highly important ? Is it not inconsistent with the attributes of his character, and with his unform conduct towards his intelligent creatures ? Is there not then, at first- view, a presumption in favour of the opinion, that he com- n 42 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of municated to our first parents the knowledge of a fatiire life ; and must not very good reasons be given, before we can be authorized to believe the cbntrary ? Ca7i we believe the con- trary without impeaching the goodness of God ? And if the iiature of the case forbids the supposition, that our good and gracious God left our ferst parents and their posterity as ignorant as brutes upon the subject of a future life ; does not analog)/ likewise forbid us to suppose, that they were left to grope m more than heathenish darkness P We learn from the Old Testament, directly or indirect'y? that God, from the veri/ beginning, communicated to mankind every species of moral and religious knowledge that could be of service to them ; and appointed all those various means and ordinances by which this knowledge might best be pre- served and rendered useful. For this purpose, both before and after the fall, both before and after the flood, he appeared to them, and instructed them — sometimes in a human or an- gelic shape — sometimes by dreams, visions, or a voice from heaven — sometimes by invisible though powerful communi- cations to the hearts and minds of his prophets — ^and gene- rally by revelations made from the bright cloud or pillar of fire, which appears, from the very creation, to have been the ordinary symbol of Jehovah's presence, and the ordinary me- dium through which he conversed with men, and gave an- swers to their inquiries. And the knowledge thus acquired he caused to be preserved, by frequently, and in different places, repeating these revelations, and adding to their im- pressiveness by the miracles and wonders that from time to time were dieplayed- Accordingly we learn from the books of Moses, that our first parents and their posterity were made acquainted with the overruling providence, the existence and perfections of God, and with what they must do in order to please him. From the very beginning, the Sabbath was instituted — sacri- fices and first-fruits were required — the distinction of clean and unclean beasts existed — and the head of every family acted as the priest of God. Indeed the whole moral law of the ten commandments^ and many of the ceremonial distinc- ^ ^ Modern Universalism* 43 tions, solemnly and publicly ordained at Sinai, appear only to have been the republication of what had been known ever since the creation ; God thinking proper to repeat these in- structions amid all those awful solemnities, because the know- ledge of them was mixed with error, or nearly lost ; and like- wise for the purpose of giving them more impressiveness and force. Hence also, Abel is said to have offered sacrifice *' in "faith^''^^ Noah was a " preacher of righteousness,''^' and the wicked v/ere punished with heavy judgments, which God would not have done, had they not been acquainted with his will. Indeed the most ancient heathen writers, with one con- ent, declare that the knowledge and the institutions of reli- ^ gion came at first from God, and were afterwards handed down by tradition to the varioxis nations of the earths If, then, God took so much pains to make known and pre- serve ail the moral and religious knowledge that might be ne- [cessary for their /knowledgej and their happiness, can we > think it probable tha"^ lie'would studiously conceal from them the knowledge of a future state— the very doctrine that would give most efficacy to the other means ? Is this not, on the contrary, extremely improbable ; and does not analogy, then l.ead us to infer, that God made known to our first parents the doctrine of a future life ? This very probable inference, we trust, will appear a cer- tain and revealed truth, from the following additional consi- derations. Under the patriarchal dispensation, Enoch was translated to heaven, without tasting death ^ and under the law, Elijah was likewise carried up alive to heiiven in a whirlwind and a chariot of fire. And as the translation of Enoch was no doubt public, and commonly known, in order that the faith of the righteous might be confirmed, and their piety encouraged, by this visible proof of a stale of happiness hereafter for the righteous ; so the schools of the prophets, and multitudes of others, knew beforehand that God would * Heb. xi. i 2 Pet. il. 5. J See Allix's Deflections ; Witseus on the Covenants, books 1 and 4; and X-eland's Advantage and Necessity, chap. i. part 1 ; and chap. ii. part 2. 44 Remarks an the distinguishing Doctrine of take Elijah to heaven."^ Does not this prove they had the knowledge of a future state of happiness for the righteous? Again ; Job speaks with the utmost confidence of the re- surrection and a future hfe. " I know that my Redeemer " liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the " earth : and though after my skin worms destroy this body, " yet in my flesh shall I see God."' The psalmist is equally clear and positive. " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell " (sheol) ; thou wilt show me the path of life. In thy pre- *' sence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures " for evermore.""" — " Thou shalt quicken me again, and bring ^ " me up again from the depths of the earth." Solomon also ; says," " Who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth vpward,^, " and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward ? Then- ^j^ " shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit*^- " shall return unto God who gave it."° \ ''^ff^ Again ; " I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and^ "the God of Jacob." Thus spake God to the Israelites.''^ And from this our Saviour proves a future life ; for, says he, " God is not the God o/" the dead, but of the living. ''^'^ The Saviour^s reasoning, I suppose, will be admitted to be conclu- sive. But the following should set this point at rest for ever. The Apostle, in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, expli- citly declares, that the patriarchs, and other pious persons, looked forward to happiness in another world. Though stran- gers and pilgrims, they were contented, because '' they looked " for a city which hath foundations; whose builder and maker •*' is God."—" They all died in faith, not having received " the promises, but having seen them afar off; and were per- " suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they " were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. They that say " such things, declare plainly that they seek a better country, " eve7i a heavenly,'^''* *< 2 Kings il. 1 Job xix. 25. m Psa. svi, n Eccles. ill. 21 ; and xii. 7, o See Christ. Obs. vol. six. numb. 8 ; and vol. xxiv. — Review of Faber on the Dispensations. p Matt. xxii. 32. • That a future life, and the existence of souls separated from the body, In another world, were two articles in the popular belief or religion of all Modlern Universahsm, 45 There is more evidence to be brought on this point here- after ; but what has been said is enough to prove, to every unprejudiced mind, that mankind, from the very beginning, had the knowledge of a future state of existence. Reason makes this probable, and revelation makes this certain. This proves, then, that the universal belief of mankind in a future state of existence, owes its origin to what God revealed to our first parents and their descendants. But we have already proved, that though they all believed in a future hfe, yet they all believed that the righteous only would be happy, but that the wicked would be punished. And as these two subjects na- turally and necessarily go together, zue are obliged to infer, that not only the doctrine of a future life, but also the doc- trine of future rewards and punishments, were made known to otir first parents, and through their posterity handed down to all the rest of mankind. But if the doctrine of future punish- ment was originally revealed from heaven, then it must ne- cessarily be true ; and then likewise the doctrine of the Uni- versalist must necessarily be unscriptural and false. 3dly. All believers in divine revelation are bound to reject and condemn the leading doctrine of the Universalist, be- cause that doctrine is a primitive heresy revived — a heresy which the primitive Church unanimously condemned : and if it was condemned as a heresy by the primitive Church, it is equally to be condemned as heretical by Christians of the present day, nations, long before the days of Moses, is manifest also from these facts. From the earliest ages, among all nations, it was the practice, in cases of difficulty or importance, to go for advice and information to their sorcer- ers, wizards, and necromancers : and one of the means which these univer. sally pretended to use, in order to discover things lost, bring to light things hidden, or foretel things to come, was, by calling up the ghosts of the dead, ajid consulting -with departed spirits. That this was the common practice in the time of Moses, is clear from one of his laws, which forbids them ever to have among them one who consults the dead. This law Saul vio- lated, when he went to consult the witch of Endor ; and her story is aa irrefragable proof of what the common belief was in the time of Samuel.— See Campbell's Preliminary Dissert., Dissert. 6, p. 2. 46 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of Now the Universalist teaches, that as we shall not be saved hereafter in consequence of our good works, so neither shall we be punished hereafter in consequence of any sins, how- ever great and numerous, which we commit in this life. But as all mankind are justified through God's mercy, revealed to us by the Lord Jesus Christ ; so through that mercy all man- kind shall be delivered from all punishment in another world, and admitted into everlasting happiness. This is, except in one feature, precisely the doctrine of the Simonians, Gnostics, and Nicolaitans — her-etics who began to appear while some of the Apostles were still alive ; as we have already had occasion to state. These heretics had not the hardihood to teach that all mankind would be saved from hell 5 but that all toho hud come to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel would he saved^ whether their lives were virtuous or vicious. But though they promised future happiness in- discriminately, not to all Jews and heathens, but only to those who professed Christianity, still they and their doctrines were loudly and peremptorily condemned by the Apostles, and all the rest of the Christian world, without exception — and con- demned, because they were unreasonable, unscriptural, and licentious in their tendency^ And if these ancient Antinomian heretics were so loudly and universally condemned for hold- ing the doctrine of the Universalist in so restricted and mo- derate a sense, what would those early defejiders of the faith have said of the broad, unblushing, and monstrous doctrine of the new Universalism, which mingles light and darkness, Christ and Belial, heaven and hell, all togettier into one pro- miscuous assemblage ! Well indeed might Tertullian exclaim, when remarking upon the immoral tendency of so impious and detestable a heresy, '* H«ar this, all ye sinners ^ and t/e " who are not so yet, that ye may be so. Such a kind God is " found, who is neither ojffended, nor angry, nor revengelh — " who hath no fire burning in hell,* nor gnashing of teeth in * It is somewhat remarkable, that as the Universalist cays there is no hell but in this world, so the above-mentioned heretics said, " the body is *• the onlt/ hell of the soul, and from that hell death delivers us.'*— King oa the Creed ; art. Descent into Hell. Modern Universalism, 47 "utter darkness. He is altogether good; he prohibits sia " in words only. It is at your pleasure whether ye will " obey him or no ; for he doth not desire to be feared by " you." ments, so it was impossible that the primitive Christians who succeeded them, should err on this point. The Apostle John lived until the close of the first century. As long as the Apo!*t!es lived, the spirit of inspiration continued, and the Church was furnished with numerous miraculous gifts. And beside the Apostles and Disciples, numerous other teachers were inspired ; so that the Church in every city^ had its in- spired and heaven directed instrirctors. In this way all the Churches, planted and watered by the Apostles and other inspired teachers during the first century, were guarded against error, and furnished with the whole truth as it is in Jesus. Nay, the Church had all these advantages during the whole of the second century after Christ, down to the time of Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200.s And after the (rue doctrine was fully revealed in the inspired writings — after it had been universally taught and embraced throughout Christendom— it would naturally continue to be taught, and believed, and spread abroad, and transmitted from father to son, from generation to generation, and from country to country: so that the whole Christian world, upon all im- portant points^ would have but one faith, and one practice ; and those who differed from this one apostolic and universal faith and practice, would necessarily be condemned as here- tics, who were guilty of essential errors. If then the doctrine of future punishnStent be false, our 9 See Reeves' Apologies. Modern Universalism, 61 Saviour and the Apostles must have taught their hearers that it was false. If those inspired teachers taught all Christians that there is no future punishment, thign all the primitive Christians who were tauglit by inspired teachers, and who lived in the ages imroediately succeeding them, must have held the true doctrine on this subject. If they all denied future punishment, we may be assured that the first Churches were taught so by the Apostles themselves ; but if they ali believed in the doctrine of future punishment, it is a demon- stration that this is the doctrine of Scripture and of the Apostles. For the argument stands thus : — Our Saviour and the Apos- tles either taught the doctrine of future punishment, or they taught that there is no future punishment. If they preached the former, it is necessarily a true doctrine. If they did not preach it, but taught, on the contrary, that there is no future punishment, then the first Christians, taught by them, must necessarily have denied the doctrine of future punishment. What then is the fad? What was the belief of the primitive Christians upon this subject? It was impossible that they should be mistaken upon so essential a point; and if they did not believe the doctrine of the Universalist, that doctrine must necessarily be false, ][ they universally believed the doctrine of future punishment, that doctrine must necessarily be true. Now the fact is, as we have already stated, that some held a doctrine similar to the leading doctrine of the new Univer- salist ; and they were universally condemned as heretics and apostates from the true religion. And it is farther a fact, that cannot be controverted, that, from the times of the Apostles until about 60 years ago, this new doctrine of the Universalist was never heard of. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen his pupil, familiar with, and enamoured of the philosophy of Plato, borrowed from that distinguished heathen, the idea that the punishment of the wicked hereafter would have an end — which is the opinion of the old Universalist. But even this notion, as well as some other of their philosophic speculations, ^as tondemned ^ and the visionary and monstrous doctrine of 52 Remarks on the distinguiskiyig Doctrine of no punishment for any of the kicked after death, but indiscrimi- nate admission to heaven for all mankind, has so much of the quintessence of abajjrdity and impiety, that for 1700 years none were found adventurous and extravagant enough to espouse and publish it to the world — nor did it ever dare to show its head abroad until the pantheistical Theologues of Germany had, under the name of philosophical Christianity, set all reason and common sense at open defiance. Even the heretics of primitive times had more consistency than to blend heaven and hell together, or to mix apostates and devils with angels and saints in the kingdom of God. They opened heaven to both the righteous and the wicked ; not of the heathen, but only of the Christian world. Further, the doctrine of the Universalist, as far as it was taught by some heretics, was not only condemned by the primitive Christians, but the contrary doctrine of endless future punishment, was universally taught and held throughout the whole Christian world, from the very birth of Christianity. If this is a fact, it clearly shows that it is utterly impossible that the. doctrine of the Universalist should be true. And that this is a fact none will deny who know any thing of the matter. But as multitudes who are well disposed err for want of information — as ignorance, prejudice, and sectarian bigotry, are always blind — as many will admit nothing that is not proved by a detail of arguments and facts submitted to their own judgment — and as the present point is of vital importance — we proceed to quote from the fathers some passages to prove that they taught the doctrine of endless future punishment, St. Barnabas was the companion of Paul, the disciple of our Saviour, and probably one of the seventy whom he chose. In an epistle written after the year A. D. 70, he says, " Let us " strive to the utmost to keep God's commandments. For he " wi]] judge the world without respect of persons ; and every " one shall receive according to his zcorks. If a man be good, " his righteousness will go before him; {{wicked, the reward '' of his wickedness shall follow him. Let us take heed, there- " fore, lest we be shut out of the kingdom of the Lord .•" for Modern Universalkm* 53 '" after the resurrection he will judge the world,^^ " The " children of iniquity shall not be saved." " They shall be " destroyed by fire ^ because they have not repented of their " sins." " But the righteous shall possess the world to come ; " and they shall be distinguished from the unrighteous by their " happiness.''' St. Clement, the fellow labourer of the Apostle Paul, and subsequently Bishop of Rome, has left two short epistles that have come down to our times. In these he says in substance, that the Lord will hereafter raise up to eternal life those who religiously serve him ; and that if we do not fear God and lay aside our loicked zvorks, we cannot be delivered from the wrath to come in a future world. He therefore exhorts the Corinthians to strive with all earnestness, that they may be found in the number of those who wait for Christ's coming to judgment ; that fe?/ so doing, they may receive the reward he has promisee? to those that seek him, and act agreeably to his will. If we would be saved and receive eternal life, we must repent while we are in this world, and observe the commandments of the Lord. For we shall be raised up and brought to judg- ment hereafter, when God will reward every one according to his works. Those that have been righteous shall enter into his kingdom and receive the promises ; but those that have not served him shall be miserable. And he says expressly, " If we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest ; if we disobey " his commands, nothing shall deliver us from eternal punish- " ment." " How can we hope to enter into the kingdom of " God, unless we shall be found to have done what is holy " and just?" Ignatius was made Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle John. A few years after the death of St. John, he wrote the epistles that have come down to our times, and in them he says, " Let us either 50 fear the wrath to come, or^o love the grace " of Christ, that it turn not to our condemnation, but that we " may live in holiness according to the truth, and that we may " be found in Christ Jesus unto eternal life." " Life and " death are set before us ; and the faithful and the unbelievers 54 Remarks on the. distinguishing Doctrine of ** shall each go to their proper place.^^ " Be not deceived ; " those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of " God/^ " He that by his wicked doctrine corrupts the faith. " of God, shall die — he shall depart into unquenchable fire.'^ Polycarp was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John ; and in his epistle, written about A. D. 1 16, a few years after St. John's death, speaking of Christ, he says, " Who shall " come to be the judge of quick and dead — whose blood God *' shall require of them that believe not in him. But he that " raised up Christ, shall raise us up likewise to glory, if we " walk according to his commandments, and abstain from all " unrighteousness." '' For neither fornicators, nor effeminate »* &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God." " Let us then serve " him in fear and reverence, as the prophets who foretold the " coming of our Lord taught us." " For we must all stand " before the judgment-seat of Christ, and every one shall give " an account of himself." " And whoever perverts the oracles " of the Lord, and says there shall be no judgment, is the first " born of Soian.^^ The above Polycarp suffered martyrdom about the year A. D. 147 : and the Church of Smyrna, in giving an account of that martyrdom, says of martyrs in general : — " Supported " by the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of the " world — by the sufferings of an hour, redeeming themselves " from everlasting punishment. Even the fire of these bar- " barous executioners, seemed cold to them, whilst they hoped " thereby to escape that fire which is eternal and shall never " be extinguished.^^ And one of Polycarp's answers to the Proconsul was : — " Thou threatenest me with fire which burns " for an hour, and so is extinguished ; but knowest not the ''^ fire of the future judgment, and of that eternal punishment^ " which is reserved for the ungodly. ^''^^ Some time before the death of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, a distinguished heathen philosopher, having been converted to tSee the preceding quotations in Archbishop Wake's translation of the ^poBtolic Fathers. Modern Universalism* 55 Christianity, and being at Rome during a time of severe per- secution, wrote an apology in defence of the persecuted Christians. He calls himself a " disciple of the Apostles ;" and says to the emperor, the senate, u.r>d the people of Rome : — " To lay before you, in short, what we expect, and what we " have learned from Christ, and what we teach the world, " take it as follows : — Plato and we are both alike agreed as " to a future judgment, but differ about the judges; Rhada- " manthus and Minos are his judges, Christ ours. And more- " over we say, that the souls of the wicked being reunited to " the same bodies, shall be consigned over to eternal torments^ " and not as Plato will have it, to the period of a thousand " years only ; but if you will afBrm this to be incredible or " impossible, there is no help, but you must fall from error to " error, till the day of judgment convinces you we are in the «' right." *' We are the greatest promoters of peace, because " we teach that every one is stepping forward into everlasting ** misery or happiness, according to his works; and if all mea " were once fully possessed with a notion of these things, who " would make the bold adventure to embrace the pleasures " of sin for a season, with his eyes upon eternal fire at the " end of the enjoyment ? Who would not strive all he could " to check himself upon the brink of ruin, and to adorn his " mind with such virtue, as might give him admission to the " good things of God, and secure him from everlasting ven- " geance ?" Again, " But since all departed souls continue " in sensation, and everlasting fire is treasured up for the " unrighteous, let me advise you to look well about you, and " lay these things seriously to heart." Again, " When we " teach a general conflagration, what do we teach more than " the sloicks ? When we assert departed souls to be in a " state of sensibility, and the wicked to be in torments, but " the good free from pain and in a blissful condition, we assert " no more than your poets and philosophers." Again, " We " teach that such only shall be crowned with a blessed im- *' mortality, who have imitated God in virtue, and those who " have lived wickedly, and not repented to the amendment 56 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of " of their lives, we believe shall be punished in fire everlast- " ing."" He says also,* in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the Universalist, that it is a ^^fundamental truth taught by the " prophets of the Old Testament, that there shall be punish- " ments and rewards hereafter, rendered to every man ac- " cording to the merits of his works." Ireneus flourished about 40 years after Justin Martyr, He was the scholar of the above mentioned Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John. He was the great scourge of all the heretics of his day, whose errors and blasphemies he exposed and refuted. Speaking of a creed which, among other things, taught the doctrine of future rewards and pun- ishments, he asserts what Tertullian a few years after him likewise asserted, that " the Church dispersed throughout the " whole world, had received this faith from the Apostles and " their disciples.''^ He asserts of a certain heretical notion — " Christ Jesus shall judge the Valentinians for it, when he " shall come to judge the world." Again, " He shall come " to be the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of " those who are judged ; sending into eternal fire the corrup- " ters of the truth, and the despisers of his coming." Again, " He shall come from heaven to render a righteous judgment " unto all ; he shall send into everlasting fire evil spirits, and " the angels which are fallen and apostatized, and all impious, " unrif^hteous, ungodly, and blasphemous men ; but on the " righteous, holy, and obedient observers of his command- " ments, he shall confer life, immortality, and everlasting '' glory ."'^ A few years after Ireneus, about A. D. 200, wrote Tertul- lian. In his apology for Christians he says : — " To the ob- " servers of his laws, God has destined rewards ; and when " he comes to judgment at the last day, having raised all the " dead, that have been dead from the beginning of the world, " and restored to every man his body, and summoned the <' whole world before him, to examine and render to all ac- " See Reeves' Apologies. ^ King on the Creed. Mqdern Vniversalism. 57 ^' cording to their works, he will recompense his true wor- " shippers with life eternal, but will sentence the wicked " into perpetual running streams of fire everlasting." i\gain — " We who know we must account to God ; who have a *' prospect of that eternal punishment he has in store for the " transgressors of his laws ; and v Joha iii, vi. viii. and x. Modern Universalism, 65 J— »it will say, that all these passages may possibly mean to threaten nothing more than temporary punishment in this life^ and because it deems this possible or probable, it will, if we may judge from its past conduct, with palpable and schoolboy inconsistency go on exultingly. as though it had proved its own side of the question : just as the ostrich feels itself safe from its pursuers, though it has concealed only its head. But is a thing to be believed merely because it is possible, or be- cause some visionary thinks it probable ? Suppose, in order to meet palpable absurdity with palpable absurdity, we should say, it is possible the moon may be made of green cheese. Is this any reason why we should believe it to be so made ? Would you call this good logic f* Such a thing may possibly be true, therefore I believe it to be true. Hume, and the German Pantheists, Atheists, sceptics, and visionaries of every description, have always thought their own views and inter- pretations probable. Does this prove they are so ? But the argument from possibilities upon which Universal- ism chiejiy rests, we shall notice presently : and of all the interpretations which it gives to the numerous scripture pas- sages we shall adduce in these remarks, we assert unhesitat- ingly and peremptorily — it is impossible they should be true, 1st. Because it is impossible that our preceding arguments should be answered ; and if not answered, our interpretation must be the true one. 2d. Because it is a fact, proved by the writings of both Jews and Christians, that they univer- sally understood the passages we quote, in the sense we attach to them ; and we have already proved, that upon a point of such magnitude it was impossible the}' should err, and misunderstand the Scriptures. And lastly, Because, if they did err and misunderstand, it was impossible that our Saviour, the Apostles, and all the other inspired teachers, should not only deliberately suffer them to remain in this error, but should speak in such a way as to teach (hem this error, and confirm them in it. For they used the very lan- guage which both Jews and Gentiles used, when teaciiing the doctrine of future punishment; and it necessarily follows, therefore, that the Saviour, Apostles, and inspired teacheza 9 G6 Remar/cs on the dlslingnishine: Doctrine of intended to teach this doctrine. It is impossible, therefore, that this doctrine should be false — it is impossible that our interpretation of Scripture passages relating to this subject, should be erroneous— and impossible that the UniversaUst doctrine should be true. 2dly. Pardon, salvation, and eternal life, are promised on condition of repentance ; and those who do not repent are threatened with endless ruin. Thus God addresses the Israe- lites : — Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgres- sions ; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.^ In the same style the Saviour addressed the Jews : — Except ye repent, ye shall all perish."^ Thus also the Apostles preached : — Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.' And St. Paul declares in his speech before Agrippa :™ that God sent him to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, in order that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and an in- herilance among those who are sanctified through faith in Christ. And he declares further, that for this very purpose, iie taught both Jews and Gentiles, that they must repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. St. Peter also says," that God is long-suffering towards sinners, because be is not willing that any shou\d perish ; but that all should come to repentance : and St. Paul declares," that the impeni- tent treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath —that day when God shall judge the secrets of men accord- ing to the Gospel. If these things be so, how can those who die impenitent possibly be saved hereafter? 3dly. Pardon, salvation, and eternal life, are promised on condition of our being converted or turned from the love and practice of sin, to the love and practice of holiness : while on the other hand, Scripture declares, that those who are not converted, shall die, not the first, but the second death; and therefore be shut out of the kingdom of heaven. Hear its vv^ords : — Except ye be converted, ye shall not enter the i Ezek svUi. 30. ^ Luke xiii. 3. • Acts iii. 19. ^ Acts xsvi n 2 Pet. iii. 9. «> Rom. ii. 5, 8tc Modern Universalism, 67 kingdom of heaven. p This people's heart is waxed gross, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Let the wicked for- sake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts ; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him 5 and abundantly pardon. If thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, he shall die in his iniquity : and when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he sball die in his sins, and his righteous- ness shall not be remembered. But if thou warn the righte- ous, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live. Again — if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live ; if not, he shall surely die. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if the wicked turn from all his sins, he shall surely live ; he shall not die, he shall save his soul alive. As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, saith the Lord ; wherefore, turn yourselves and live ye — Turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israeli* Here God declares that he cannot pardon, or have mercy upon sinners, unless they turn or are converted. How then can they be saved without conversion ? Here God declares that all the ungodly shall die. This cannot mean that they shall die a natural death, because the righteous as well as the wicked must die this death. Nor can it mean that they shall die spiritually, for being wicked, they are already spiritually dead ; and the punishment here threatened is something future — they shall die, sometime hereafter. Besides, this death of the wicked is put in contrast with the life of the righteous ; and as the life of the righteous necessarily means eternal life and happiness in another world, death must neces- sarily mean the reverse of this, viz. eternal death. What else then can death mean, but that future punishment which takes place after the dissolution of soul and body — which the Apostle calls the second death,'^ a death that comes after the first death — which he says, consists in being cast into the lake P Matt, xviii. 3 ; xiil. 15 j Mark iv. 12; l3a. Iv. '''. a Rev. ii.xx.sxi.xsii. 68 Remarks on the distinguishing Doclrine of which burneth with fire and brimstone — and by which the Jews, in our Saviour's time, always understood endless future punishment. In fine, as God here speaks of individuals, and declares that the soul of the sinner shall die, and the soul of the righteous shall be saved alive, what can it possibly mean, but eternal life and salvation in the one case, and eternal death and damnation in the other ? 4thly. Eternal salvation is promised on condition of obedi- ence to God's commandments ; while the disobedient are threatened with exclusion from heaven and happiness. Hear the Scripture proof of this: — Cursed is everyone that con- tinueth not in all things, written in the book of the law, to do them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law, shall be justified before God. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life. If a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death. Christ is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. When the Lord Jesus shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe, he shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, to take vengeance with flaming fire, on them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel."^ If then, the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear ? And if the preceding declarations be true, what becomes of the doctrine of the Universalist? 5thly. Heaven and eternal happiness are promised on con- dition of holiness, while the ungodly are cut off from all hope beyond the grave. Hear the Scripture proof of this also: — Follow after holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. When ye were the servants of sin, what fruit had ye in those things of which ye are now ashamed ? for the end of those things is death. But now, being made/ree from sin, Gal. Hi. 10 ; Matt, vii.22; six. 17; Rom. ii. 13; Rev. xxii. 14; John v'lii. 51 ; Ileb. V. 9 ; 5? Thess. i. Modern Universalism, 69 and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness ; and the end, everlasting life. For the zoages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Be not deceived; God is not mocked : — whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die : but if )^e through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. The wicked is driven away in his wickedness : but the righteous hath hope- in his death.^ Now if7?07ie can see God without holiness — if the end of sin is death, and the end of holiness everlasting life — and none but the righteous have hope in death, is not the doctrine of the Univcrsalist unscriptural and false ? It appears then from the preceding passages, that eternal life and happiness are promised upon the conditions of our believing, repenting of our sins, turning to God with all our hearts, obeying his commandments, and leading a holy life — and it appears further, that those who do not perform these conditions, have no hope beyond the grave ; but are cut off from the heavenly inheritance — the wrath of God abideth upon them— and they incur eternal death. But the Univcr- salist doctrine contradicts all this. For it denies that there are any conditions of salvation ; and declares that all shall be saved and enjoy eternal life, whether they beheve, repent, obey, and are holy, or not: Universalism then does directly contradict the Scriptures ; and it is therefore impossible that it should be true — it must necessarily be false. The following miscellaneous passages and remarks will render the preceding reasoning still more unanswerably conclusive. Our Saviour, speaking of Judas, declares,' that it would have been better for him if he had never been born. If this is true, Universalism is false. For if all men are to be fof • Heb. xii. 14 ; Rom, vi. 20 ; Gal. vi. 7; Rom. viii. 13 ; Prov. xiv. 32. ' Mark xiv. 21. 70 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of ever happy in heaven, it never can be true of any man, that it would have been better for him never to have been born. Even upon the principle of the old Universalism, this cannot be true. For however long the punishment of the wicked, there is an eternity of happiness coming after it. And as a man would be thought a fool, who should say he would rather not have been born, than to suffer one hourh pain during a whole life of uninterrupted happiness ; so, for the sake of the eternity of perfect happiness that is to follow, every reflecting being would be willing to undergo a temporary punishment in an- other life. And, whether willing or not, it could with truth he said of no man, that he had better never been born. Again our blessed Saviour says" — He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost never hath forgiveness ; but is exposed to eternal damnation. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. — How then are such persons to be saved — without forgiveness ? This cannot be. For the Universalist admits, what the Scripture also declares, that Christ saves men from their sins — not in their sins. But those who die without forgiveness, die in cheir sins. How then can they be saved ? 1 am not ignorant of the manner in which the new Univer- salism attempts to get rid of this difficulty. It says our Savi- our's declaration, that this sin shall not be forgiven in this world or in the next, means only, that it shall not be forgiven either in this age or the next ; i. e. neither under the Jewish nor Christian dispensation : and eternal damnation means only aionian, or age-lasting damnation, and expires of course at death. Now upon this we would briefly remark : It is a uni- versally received rule of interpretation, that if there are differ- ent laws relating to one and the same subject, and if the meaning of any of these laws be doubtful on account of am- biguous terms or phrases, that law which is plain and unequi- vocal, must be taken to explain those that are dubious, and admit of different senses. Now it is admitted by the Univer- »> Mark iii. 29} Matt. xii. 31 ; Luke xii. 10. Modern Universalism, 71 salist, that the word age-lasting (eternal) does sometimes mean endless duration ; and it is admitted, that the phrases, in this world and the world to come, do sometimes mean, what these words literally signify — in time and in eternity. As then therms is a dispute about the meaning of these words — as their mean- ing, by the Universalist himself, is admitted to be doubtful— these words and passages mu?t be se.t aside, as neutrals-' — as proving nothing on either side ; and we must find out the meaning of the law from those passages that are plain, and admit but one interpretation ; according to that universally re- ceived rule of interpretation : Doubtful passages must be ex- plained by those that are clear and unambiguous. These words, we admit then, /or the present, are no proof for us, because they are sometimes used in a different sense from that in which we understand them : neither are they any proof in favour of the Universalist, because they are some- times used in a sense different from what he puts upon them. Laying these aside then, let us turn to other passages. Now upon this point there are the following plain and un- equivocal passages. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. Again — He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. This language is plain, unambiguous, and unqualified. It admits of but one meaning, and that is this : the sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable. Those who commit it, therefore, will conti- nue under the displeasure of God, and can never be admitted to a state of happiness after death. For if they ever are ad- mitted to a state of happiness, their sins must be pardoned. But if they are ever pardoned, the above-mentioned declara- tion of our Saviour is false. This, however, is impossible ; and it is therefore likewise impossible that the Universalist interpretation of this passage should be correct. We might adduce many other arguments, that would lead us to the same conclusion. But we do not think it necessary to add more than the following remarks. The Universalist interpretation cannot be supported, except upon a principle that sets at defiance all the ordinary rules of grammar, criti- cism, and interpretation— a principle that must, upon all gub- 72 Remarlcs on the, distinguishing Doctrine 6/ iects, lead to endless errors and other evil consequences — and a principle at variance with the common sense and common practice of mankind. For the above rule of interpretation is followed by all, upon all subjects, and in ascertaining the meaning of all compositions, and all laws, both divine and human. To go contrary therefore to this principle, is to go contrary to all reason and common sense. /\gain — Our blessed Saviour was asked, Lord, are there few that be saved ? and he replied, Strive to enter in at the strait gate ; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction ; and jnany there be which go in there- at : because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life ; and few there be that find it. He further observed — Many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able : and to their entreaties God will answer, Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnash- ino- of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you your- selves thrust out." Now the salvation here spoken of, must mean salvation in a future world. The nature of both the question and answer prove this. For when could the Jews of our Saviour's time possiblu see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets^ in the kingdom of heaven, except after death}' But if our Sa- viour here speaks of salvation in heaven after death, then it is manifest that there are multitudes who will not be saved; but will be thrust out of heaven, and in a state of suffering. And then it is equally manifest that the doctrine of the Uni- versalist must necessarily be false. A^ain ; the psalmist declaresy that he was staggered by the prosperity of the wicked, and the sufferings of the righteous. For the wicked often prosper — have more than heart coidd ■zoish — are not in trouble as other men— -and have no bands in Iheir death — that is, die without much pain ; while the righte- ous often suffer much, both in life and death. This the psalm- ist says he could not understand, until he went into the sanc- * Matt, v!i. 13; Luke xiii. 23. y Psa. Ixsiii- Modern Unive,rsalism, T3 tuary where God's ministers instructed the people ; and until he understood the end of the wicked. There he learned that God would cast them down into destruction ; and that all who were far from him would perish. But that, on the other hand, he would guide the righteous here with his counsel, and afterwards receive them to glory, and be their portion for ever. F'rom all this it is manifest that David's difficulties were removed by the assurance of a future state of retribution, where the wicked, though prosperous here, would be pu- nished according to their sins ; and where the righteous, though sufferers here, would be made for ever happy. This is evident from the whole structure and design of the psalm. It is evident also from his teaching us that his difficulties were removed when he understood the e7id of the wicked, because then God cast them into destruction, and they perished. Now* the end of the wicked, when they perished or were destroyed, when the righteous were rewarded, and a clear distinction was made between the righteous and the wicked, must either mean at the time of their death, or afterwards. But it cannot possibly be at the time of their death, because the difficulty and doubt of the psalmist arose from this circumstance, that the wicked often suffered less than the righteous during life, and that even their deaths were comparatively easy. The end of the wicked, then, must necessarily mean their condi- tion after death. But if, as the psalmist says, they Sire de- stroyed and perish after death, and this is their punishment by which they are distinguished from the righteous, then it necessarily follows that the wicked are punished after death ; and it follows with an equal necessity, that the doctrine of the Universalist is unscriptural and false. Lastly, this is still more conclusively manifest from the con' irast here drawn between the righteous and the wicked. The righteous draw near to God — the wicked go far from him : the righteous are guided by his right hand and his counsel — the wicked are governed according to their wicked inclina- tions. God is good to such as are of a clean heart. Kay, he is good also to the wickedf both in life and in death. For it ia 10 74 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of in the time of their end^ or during their condition in another life, that he chiefly makes the distinction between them. Then he casts the wicked down into destruction, and receives the righteous to glory — then the wicked perish, and God be- comes the portion of the righteous for ever. Could a future state of reward for the righteous, and pu- nishment for the wicked, have been more clearly set forth than it is in this seventy third psalm ? Lan any thing further be necessary to prove that the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments was received as a revealed and well established truth in the time of David, 1000 years before the time of our Saviour? And ought not this single psalm to shut the mouth of the Universalist for ever ? Finally, the blessings of religion, here and hereafter^ are uniformly held forth in connexion with some of the character' istic marks of holiness. Its promises and its precepts most generally go together ; and the privileges of the children of God arc suspended upon the performance of certain duties. But Universalism is \n pointed opposition to this ; for it admits of no conditions with respect to the blessings of another life. God says, Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life.^ Universalism says, O no J you are blessed whether you do his comnandments or not ; and even if you live and die in disobedience, you have a right to eternal life in the heavenly city. — God says, Seek ye me, an^ your soul shall live.a Universalism says, your soul shall live whether ye seek God or not — The psalmist says, The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlast- ing upon them that fear him,^ That is a mistake, says the Universalist ; for the mercy of God is upon us from everlast- ing to everlasting, whether we fear him or not. — Our Saviour says, Blessed are the poor in spirit ; for their'' s is the king- dom of heaven. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness ; for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful ; for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure t Rev, xxii. 14. a Amos v. 4; Psa. Ixix. 32. * Psa. citi. 17- Modern Universalism. 15 in heart J for they shall see God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness^ sake ^ for their'' s is the king- dom of heaven ; and great is their reward in heaven.*^ In all this our Saviour is mistaken, sajs the Universalist. For hea- ven is ours, whether we are righteous or not — poor in spirit or not. We shall be filled too, whether we hunger and thirst after righteousness or not — we shall obtain mercy, whether we are merciful or not — and we shall see God in heaven, whether we are pure in heart or not. — If thou wouldat enter into life, says our Saviour, keep the commandments/ We shall enter into life, says the Universalist, whether ^^e keep the commandments or not. — Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to com* says St. Paul.® So has ungodliness too, says the Universalist The Lord hath promised a crown of life to Ihem that love him, says St. James,f and he has also prepared for them a kingdom. Yes, says the Universalist, and he hath promised it likewise to those that hate him ; and for them too be has preparexi his heavenly kingdom. — To him that overcome tk will I grant to sit with me in my throne, says Christ.^ Ah, that is a mistake, says the Universalist: we shall be with Christ hereafter, whe- ther we overcome the world, the devil, and the flesh, or not. — Our blessed Saviour declares:'' He that hearelh my words^ and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come inb» condemnation. These eofldltions are not true, says the Universalist. We have everlasting life — we shall not come into condemnation, even if we do not believe and obey the word of God. — God declares by his prophet, and the Apostle repeats,' that the just skaU live by faith ; and that believers who do not draw back, believe to the saving of their souL For the Gospel is the power of God unto salva- tion, to every one that believeth^ But if any draw back, God will have no pleasure in them — nay, they draw back unto per- dition» Not so, says the Universalist : we shall escape per- dition— we shall please God — we shall hve and be saved for c M»tt. V. d Matt. xix. 17. '^ 1 Tim. iv. 8. f James i. 12. sRev. iii. 21. h John v. 24- ' Hab. ii.4; Rom. i, 17; Heb.x- "P 76 Remarks on the dislmguishing Doctrine of ever, though we draw back from the faith, though we be un- just, nay, though we be unbehevers. — In fine, Scripture says, Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. Except ye repent, ye shall all perish — iniquity will be your ruin. He that confesselh and forsakelh his sins shall find mercy. The Universalist says, our sins shall be blotted out whether w^e repent or not — none of the wicked shall perish. All of them shall find mercy, whether they confess and for- sake their sins or not. It is not true that iniquity will be the ruin of any one human being I ! And is not Universalism, then, as much opposed to the word of God as darkness is to light? If the word of God be true, must not Universalism necessarily be false ? And is it not one of the most barefaced, impudent, and heaven-daring systems of heresy and blasphemy that the heart of man ever conceived, or the tongue of man ever uttered ? As the words life and death are important, and of frequent occurrence in the preceding passages, it is proper to inquire somewhat more particularly into their meaning. We assert, then, that from the very beginning of the world, these words, besides natural life and death, were understood also to mean eternal life and death — that is, the word life was familiarly used, to signify eternal life and happiness hereafter ^ and the word death loas familiarly used, to signify eternal death, or eternal punishment, and exclusion from heaven and happiness in the world to come. When a law is enacted by any authority, and disobedience to it is threatened with punishment, it is absolutely necessary that the language of the law should be understood by those for whom it is intended. For such a law is always given as an in- ducement to the performance of duty ; but, with such an im- perfect creature as man, the inducement is in exact propor- tion to the amount of good promised to obedience, and the amount of evil threatened against disobedience. If the sub- ject of the law has no knowledge of the good or evil, it is the game as though there were no law ; for it is a law without a Modern XJniversalism* 77 sanction — which, with moral agents, is an absurdity in terms. In this case, disobedience can be no sin; for where there is no law, there is no sin — since sin is the transgression of the law : and in this case too, should the lawgiver punish disobe- dience, he is guilty of shocking injustice, tyranny, and cruelty. When God, therefore, placed our first parents in paradise, ii necessarily follows that he must have fully acquainted them with the entire consequence both of obedience and of disobe- dience. This knowledge was necessary to make them com- plete moral agents. God could not withhold it, if he wished them to continue innocent and happy. If he had withheld it, He, and not they, would have been the frst author of sin. But he did not withhold it ; for our first parents were created after the image of God: and that image, as the Apostle in- forms us, consisted, not merely in righteousness and true ho- liness, but also in knozoledgej Now when we are told of the tree of life, by eating of which they were to live for ever^ — and when we read,* that if they disobeyed, and ate of the forbidden fruit, they should surely die — we must necessarily infer likewise, that God explained to them the meaning of the words die and live for ever. What then is the meaning of the word die ? As it is opposed to everlasting life, it is reasonable to infer tliat it means ever- lasting death; the meaning of which must at least be, the de- struction of life and happiness, and their destruction for ever. Tor as death is the direct opposite of life, and as it was, in un- qualified terms, threatened as a punishment, there could be no reason in the world for believing that this punishment would ever have an end. And as our first parents, in their condition of innocency, could have no idea of eternal life, but that of eternal existence in a state of holy obedience and consequent happiness ; so they could have no other idea of death, than as consisting at the least in the loss of holiness, happiness, and existence, if not in something worse. Now this inference, which reason sanctions, i Col. lii. 10 ; and Eph. iv- 24. ^ Gen. iii. 22. » Gen. ii. 17. 78 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of the Apostle proves to be true." He says, By one man's of- fence, viz. that of Adam, death was brought upon all men — judgment came upon all men, unto condemnation — all were bi/ nature children of wrath, having no hope. But through God's mercy in Christ, all shall be made aUve again at the resurrection — the gift of God, through Christ, is eternal life. In fine, our Saviour is represented as delivering us out of a state of wrath — bringing us into a stale of hope— destroying death — bestowing upon us immortality — and purchasing for us eternal life and happiness. But if God, out of his infinite mercy in Christ, has destroyed death} that is, has restored man to a state of life and immortality; then, in our natural state, without God^s mercy in Christ, death would have been endless, and never would have been destroyed ; or in other words, we never could have been restored to a state of life and immortality : and if the death incurred by the fall were endless, then endless punishment — (no matter whether it con- sisted in annihilatfon or in positive suffering, about which we do not here inquire) — endless punishment was the punish- ment which, through the fall, was brought upon the whole human race. Again ; if God, out of his infinite mercy in Christ, restores us to a state of hope, and gives us eternal life and happiness ; then it is manifest that the state of death into which we were brought by the fall, was a hopeless state ; and a state of endless death ; for otherwise it would not be true, that by nature we were without hope-^it would not be true, that eternal life was given through Christ, How can those be without hope, who are the sure heirs of everlasting life and happiness ? How can eternal life be given through Christ, if mankind were all the heirs of eternal life before Christ, and independently of him ? But if by nature, and in consequence of the fall, we are children of wrath, and heirs of endless death ; and if immortal life and happiness were given through the mediation and atonement of Christ ; then the death threatened to our first parents is necessarily endless w Rom. V. and vi. ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Eph. ii. See Macknight on the Epistles. Modern Universalism, 79 death, and endless exclusion from heaven and happiness. And if nothing short of this can he the punishment threatened, then, from what we have already said, it follows, that God both threatened the disobedience of our first parents with endless punishment, and told them what the nature of that punishment would be, both in this life and the next — both with respect to themselves and with respect to their posterity. For loithout this knotuledge they could not possibly be in a fair state of trial. The preceding argument appears to us conclusive and un- answerable ; and it proves that the doctrine of endless future punishment was revealed to our first parents— it proves that the word life, from the very beginning, meant a state of end- less existence in holiness and happiness — and that the word death, from the very beginning, was revealed to mean, at the least, a state of endless punishment and exclusion from heave?!, and happiness — it proves that eternal life and happiness were promised on the condition of holy obedience*; and that eternal death and punishment were threatened to the disobedient- it proves that, from the very creation, everlasting salvation was promised upon certain conditions ; and that those who did not 'perform these conditions, had nothing to expect but ever- lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord — and it proves that the doctrine of a future state of rewards and pu- nishments was fully revealed and known under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. Some have denied this last ar- ticle ; and have wondered that the doctrine of a future life, so important to the morals and the happiness of man, should have been so obscurely revealed and known before the time of our Saviour. The foregoing argument will show that this wonder is misplaced ; and that it arises from not adverting to the full and original signification of the primitive atid ele- mentary words, life and death. These words were indeed used to signify natural life and death: but from Genesis to Revelations, natural death is, through the original compre- hensive meaning of the word, familiarly associated with eter- 80 Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of nal death or eternal punishment. And whenever this deatfa, therefore, was threatened as a punishment, either under the patriarchal or Mosaic dispensation, this word death would as naturally remind them of endless future punishment, as though this doctrine had been taught in these express words. The preceding argument, too, is equally conclusive against the leading doctrine of both the old and the new Universalist, Thej both maintain that eternal life and happiness will be the portion of all mankind, either immediately after death, or else subsequently to a temporary punishment after death. But this cannot be true, if the preceding argument be true ; for the punishment of the wicked is endless. Those also leach a false doctrine, who teach that the Old Testament Church did not believe in future punishment, or that it did not believe in endless future punishment. The preceding argument too confirms our previous reasoning from the light of nature. We proved from reason and history, that all mankind have, from the beginning of the world, believed in a future state of re- ward and punishment. This same truth we have now like- wise proved from Scripture, We have thus confirmed our reasonings by revelation, and traced the universal belief oj mankind up to its source in those divine communications that were made to our frst parents. But perhaps it may be asked, If endless future puni^ment was threatened to, and beHeved in by the wicked, ever since the creation and fall, how happens it that mankind, from the beginning, believed likewise in future hfe and happiness ? We answer ; There is as much reason to believe that God would reveal the one as the other. He actually did reveal it, in the promise made immediately after the fall, that the seed of the zooman should bruise the serpent^ s%ead. For this pro- mise was manifestlj', among other purposes, given for the purpose of instruction and comfort. But it could yield nei- ther, unless they understood it. And that they did understand God here to promise a Deliverer, who should overcome the devil, abolish death, and restore mankind to the immortality Modern Universalism, 81 fcrfeited by the fall, is manifest from reason, from universal consent, and from Scripture." Why should sacrifices be insti- tuted immediately after the fall,** except as types of that great Deliverer who was then promised, whose blood was to cleanse from all sin, and who was to restore to man his forfeited pri- vileges — and who can suppose that God would institute sacri- fices, without explaining to man their signification ? The ac- ceptance of AbeFs offering, who offered in faith, and the rejection of Cain's ; and hkewise the declaration to Cain — If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin (or, as it ought probably to be rendered, a sin offering) lieth at the door ; both prove that they knew how to please God, and how they might secure his favour. But that they had the knowledge of a future life, we have already jDroz>ec? elsewhere — and we have likewise proved, that from the beginning to the end of the Bible, future life and happiness are promised upon the condition of holy obedience to God's commandments ; while death, that is, eternal punishr ment and exclusion from heaven, are uniformly threatened against all those who do not thus obey. It follows, therefore, from what we have said on this point, that whenever God said. Obey and you shall live — disobey and you dieP — he was always understood to promise eternal happiness, and threaten eternal punishment after death. In this sense both the Jewish and Christian Church understood these passages. Upon this subject it was impossible they should universally have erred. And it follows, therefore, that the Universalist doctrine, which denies all this, cannot possibly be true, but must necessarily be unscriptural and false. Should the Universalist here say. We admit that God threatened, and that man would have suffered endless punish* ment, if it halfll not been for his mercy displayed through Christ ; but we believe that through this mercy in Christ, all mankind shall be saved ; because God expressly declares, n See Faber on the Dispensations. o See Magee on the Atonement. P Gen. ii. 17; Lev. xviii. 5; Prov. vii. 2; Ezek. xviii. and xxxiii; Heb- il4; Si. John v, 24; Rom. vui. 6; Col. ii. ami in. n gS' Remarks on the distinguishing Doctrine of that, by Christ all shall be made alive. He tasted death for every man. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. On this we observe first, You admit theu, that the Univer- galist is in error^ when he asserts that God never threatened any punishment after death — and that be is in error, when he says, we have no more to fear from the justice than from the mercy of God, You admit then that endless future punish- ment has from the beginning been threatened against impeni- tent sinners ; but maintain that it is, after all, a mere bugbear, because God's mercy in Christ delivers the wicked as well as the righteous from all punishment after death. And you maititain,^ that though God uses the same language, both in the Old and New Testament — language in which he threatens endless future punishment to the wicked, yet God will break his word, contradict himself, and even be guilty of false swearing, in order to save the wicked ! All these conse- quences flow from your admission and your doctrine. But these consequences cannot possibly be true, and therefore your doctrine cannot be true, H. We have already shown from reason, from histdry, and from revelation, that the doctrine of the Universalist cannot possibly be true : but we may add here the following argu- ment: — St. John in the Revelations says,^ He that over- cometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. On such, (viz. the souls of martyrs,) the second death hath no power. Death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire,. The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all bars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. There shall in no wise *i Rev< ii. XX.xxi. and ssli. Modern Universaltsnio $8 enter into it — (viz, the new heaven and new earth — the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city, where God, and the Lamb, and their faithful servants, reign in bliss fcwr ever and ever) — there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that ^Jefileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a liej but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. He that is un- just, let him be unjust still 5 and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Behold, 1 come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man as his work shall be. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may lutve a right to the tree cf life^ and may enter in, through the gates, into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and juaketh a lie. St. John here speaks of what is to take place after the first death — rafter the resurrection — and indeed in the day of judg- ment. He mentions two descriptions of character — those who overcome sin, who keep God's commandments, who are holy and faithful unto death, and whose names are written in the book of life— and those on the other hand, who are unholy and whose names are not written in the book of life. To these two different descriptions of character he assigns two