* -*> (X PQ- w CO W K Z O O = fr j * O h co PC W 5 b .1 & UNIVERSALISM PARTIALISM IN A SERIES OF LECTURES DELIVERED Ilf NEWBURYPORT, MASS. BY WOODBURY M. FERNALD. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY B. B. MUBSEY, 77T Entered according to an act of Congress, in the year 1840, BY WOODBURY M. FERNALD, in the clerk's office of the district court of Massachusetts. PRINTED BY WILLIAM A. HALL & CO. PREFACE. IN submitting these lectures to the public, the author has proceeded upon the utilitarian principle. He would not have this volume considered a competitor with other and more voluminous works upon the same subject, which have recently made their appearance ; and he is happy in being enabled to inform the reader that he has not chanced to follow the same track of thought which has been marked out in the works referred to. In the publication of these lectures, he has complied with a request from the people who attended their delivery. The Universalists of Newbu* typort have been the means of placing this book before the public ; and I rejoice that Newburyport, the darkest town in the Com- monwealth, has issued forth something in the IV PREFACE. shape of a book, humble though it may be, which treats of the SALVATION OF THE WORLD. May it not be the greatest nor the last. Amen. TO PAfcTIALISTS. One word about the title which I have thought proper to prefix to this work. By the term partialism I mean no disrespect. Here I have consulted propriety and the fit- ness of things. We call ourselves Univer- salists because we believe in the ultimate, universal salvation of the world. In these lectures I have labored to present the claims of two opposite doctrines. You believe in but a partial salvation ; and what, therefore, for an argument of this kind, could I have chosen more appropriate to contrast with Uni- versalism ? I beg, therefore, that you will consider it no disrespect ; and, as long as you hold to what you now do, to be content with the fitting title we have chosen to indicate the contents of our book, Universalism AGAINST Partialism. Again, these lectures, remember, were de- livered under peculiar circumstances. With a sincere desire to elucidate and promote the truth, liberty was publicly advertised, and PREFACE. freely offered, at the close of each, for any, and especially clergymen, to controvert the sentiments promulgated. No clergyman ap- peared. Now it must have been for one of three reasons : either, first, that they had not sufficient confidence in their own partial sys- tems; or, second, that they feared that the more they stirred the matter, the worse it would be for them; or, third, that they could not stoop to such a defence of their theory. If they have not confidence in their partial systems, we advise them to cease preaching them : if they feared to stir the matter, we refer them to John xi. 48 : if they could not stoop to such a defence of their theory, we refer them to the conduct of St. Paul, who could " dispute " even " in the market daily with them that met with him, (Acts xvii. 17;) and also to the " awful responsibility " which, if their doctrine bo true, rests upon them, in suffering so many to be misled, when oppor- tunity was offered to undeceive them ; for the delivery of the lectures has made some con- verts, and the reading of them may make more. TO I'MVERSALISTS. In perusing the following lectures, you may not be struck with anything particularly IV PREFACE. shape of a book, humble though it may be, which treats of the SALVATION OF THE WORLD. May it not be the greatest nor the last. Amen. TO PAfcTJALISTS. One word about the title which I have thought proper to prefix to this work. By the term partialism I mean no disrespect. Here I have consulted propriety and the fit- ness of things. We call ourselves Univer- salists because we believe in the ultimate, universal salvation of the world. In these lectures I have labored to present the claims of two opposite doctrines. You believe in but a partial salvation ; and what, therefore, for an argument of this kind, could I have chosen more appropriate to contrast with Uni- versalism ? I beg, therefore, that you will consider it no disrespect ; and, as long as you hold to what you now do, to be content with the fitting title we have chosen to indicate the contents of our book, Universalism AGAINST Partialism. Again, these lectures, remember, were de- livered under peculiar circumstances. With a sincere desire to elucidate and promote the truth, liberty was publicly advertised, and PREFACE. r freely offered, at the close of each, for any, and especially clergymen, to controvert the sentiments promulgated. No clergyman ap- peared. Now it must have been for one of three reasons: either, first, that they had not sufficient confidence in their own partial sys- tems; or, second, that they feared that the more they stirred the matter, the worse it would be for them; or, third, that they could not stoop to such a defence of their theory. If they have not confidence in their partial systems, we advise them to cease preaching them : if they feared to stir the matter, we refer them to John xi. 48 : if they could not stoop to such a defence of their theory, we refer them to the conduct of St. Paul, who could " dispute " even " in the market daily with them that met with him, (Actsxvii. 17;) and also to the " awful responsibility " which, if their doctrine bo true, rests upon them, in suffering so many to be misled, when oppor- tunity was offered to undeceive them ; for the delivery of the lectures has made some con- verts, and the reading of them may make more. TO UNIVERSALISTS. In perusing the following lectures, you may not be struck with any thing particularly VI PREFACE. new. If we have presented old matters in a new light, or even decently well in an old light, we are contented. Our object has been, not to kindle any strange fire, but to hold the light to those who " walk in darkness, and dwell in the land of the shadow of death." Again, some apology is necessary for the appearance of about twenty pages, in the first and second lectures, which have been before published in a pamphlet. The reason is, as it was found necessary to present the same subjects again which had been reviewed in the pamphlet, and as the matter of the pam- phlet had not been read or delivered in this town, a transcript was made from it into two of the lectures. But the matter is but small, and the bare mention of it is sufficient. May the whole be instrumental in leading many to the truth, through Jesus Christ our Lord. W. M. F. Newburyport, Mass. 1840. CONTENTS. LECTURE I. USE of Human Renon, p. 13. Argument from the Wisdom of the Deity against the C*l\ ii.utic System, 18 Argument f ruin the tame Attribute against Arminianivm, 20. Free Agency in K.ternhy, ^ T Campbell, the celebrated Scotch Presbyterian, de- clares, " It is plain, that, in the Old Testament, the most profound silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceased their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery." Dr. Whitby, an eminent English Episcopalian, says of the word rendered hell in the Old Testament, "It is the place to which the good as well as the bad go ; not the place of punishment, but the grave, or place of death." Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist luminary, says, on Matt, xi, 23, " The word hell (the same as sheol in the Old Testament) conveys now an im- proper meaning of the original word, because hell is (now) only used to signify the place of the damned." Professor Stuart, of one of our own institutions at Andover, Mass, has given it as his opinion that there are but Jive texts in the Old Testament wherein the word hell occurs, which even teach future punishment ; and these, he says, do not determine its duration. What a concession is this from avowed and eminent defenders of the eternity of punishment ! What would common Christians think, those who have not the facilities of knowledge which these writers had, should they hear their faithful minis- ters declare a truth like this ? Now, is it right, can it be right, that thousands should be kept in ignorance of a fact so important, and so unfavora- ble to the theory in question ? Is it right that so 54 UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. many should remain in darkness, unaware of a truth admitted even by their own commentators, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament, especially that word hell, does not countenance the doctrine which is, time after time, and Sabbath after Sabbath, pressed upon them, as the stay and pillar of social order, morality, and virtue ? Verily the time has come when the people should mistrust their teachers, and search the Scriptures daily as the only guide to truth. Let earnest, careful, prayer- ful search take the place of mere submission to authority of men, and God will be honored, and his truth glorified among us. But, to keep the line of our discourse, we have seen, and we have seen that others opposed to us have seen, that the law of God, whether we re- gard the commands and threatenings before the deliverance at Sinai, or the whole of those laws given amidst thunderings and lightnings, and even the whole Old Testament itself, does not intimate the threatening of unceasing misery. But now I am aware that it may be said that such a revelation could not be expected, since the doctrine of a. future life was not revealed till Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. To this we reply, a future life was re- vealed, though perhaps in not so distinct a manner as Christ declared it to the world. A future state of being is recognized in many places in the Old Testament. Christ blamed the Sadducees for not UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 55 learning it from Moses at the bush. " Now that the dead are raised," says Jesus, " even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living." Again, we are informed that the dust returns to the earth as it was, but " the spirit unto God who gave it." This was revealed in Old Testament times. Also in many other places, where men are said to have " slept with their fathers," &c. there is recognized some vague idea of a future state, though not so definite arid distinct as is set forth in the gospel. If, then, a future life was revealed, why not the tremendous idea of unending torment shadowed forth ? Yea, even admitting all that this argument wants, that a future life was not revealed, still we are inclined to press the question, ivhy not, if endless punishment is true ? This, it is pretended, is the penalty of the law. The law was revealed ; why not this penalty ? Yea, why not blazed in characters of light through- out the Old Testament Scriptures, that all might have seen and known their danger ? Where was the kindness of God in not sounding the alarm ? Think you, my brethren ! millions and millions of creatures exposed by their Creator to torments in- expressible in their nature, and endless in their duration, and yet all as silent .as death about it for the space of three thousand, and, as some admit, four thousand four hundred years ; and 56 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. thousands and tens of thousands going down, per- haps, to welter in these torments ; and still no voice of warning, nothing at all from the Deity. Strange to conceive, his law was given in awful circumstances of terrific grandeur, but not a word about this penalty ; only temporal calamities, which, to the idea of endless sufferings, are as but a particle of flying dust to the boundless universe around us ! Why was this ? Can any one tell ? We are satisfied that, if this had been a truth, we should have heard, at least, something of it in connection with the law of God. But the law is silent, and our proposition is established. II. The very nature of the law renders it utterly impossible that such a penalty as endless misery should be annexed to it by a God of wisdom. What is the nature of the law ? What is the sum and substance of all the divine commands ? " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang [or depend] all the law and the prophets." Here, then, is the sum and sub- stance of the law. Whatever may be contained in all the various rules and directions relative to moral actions, it is all embodied in this, love to God and man. Here we have the subject simpli- fied exceedingly. Here, too, all sects are agreed* We have, then, got another starting place from which to proceed, in hopes of condemning the ob- jector in the thing which he alloweth. God, it UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 57 seems, has enacted a law that his creatures shall love him with all their hearts, and their neighbors as themselves. To this all men assent. But to this law he has annexed a penalty, it is said, of endless misery. But we wish to inquire, for what are penalties annexed to laws, if not to secure obedience to those laws ? You would marvel much at any human legislature who should enact laws, and attach such penalties as were not at all calculated to secure obedience. And you would marvel still more, should those penalties be rather calculated to prevent obedience, and perpet- uate hatred and rebellion. But how has God con- ducted, according to the system of jurisprudence in question? According to the doctrine of endless punishment, God has enacted a law of love, that his creatures shall love him with all their hearts, and love one another as themselves : to this he has annexed a penalty which, instead of securing his design in the obedience of that law, goes directly to defeat it, and perpetuate eternal disobedience and hatred ! For in that world of wo, it is affirmed, no love dwells, no reconciliation exists, but its wretched inhabitants are eternally employed in works of malice, hatred, and rebellion. Is it to be supposed that a God of wisdom would have thus conducted ? Make a law requiring obedience, attach a penalty which, instead of securing it, com- pels the disobedient to go on eternally disobeying ! My candid hearers, the law of God requires and 6 58 UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, will accept of nothing but obedience. Surely, it will not accept of disobedience as a substitute. But, says one, it is plain that the law of God must have some penalty, that some punishment must be inflicted for the disobedience of it. True ; but where is the wisdom of inflicting a punishment which, instead of securing the design of the law, goes directly to defeat it ? Suppose a similar case. Suppose a human legislature should enact a law for the prevention of theft, requiring the subjects of the government to be honest men. Now it is reasonable to suppose that the government would accept of nothing but honesty. But, contrary to this, a penalty is an- nexed to this law, which, inflicted, compels the thief to go on stealing all his life-time ! And this satisfies the government ! Notwithstanding the law requires honesty, it accepts perpetual dishon- esty instead ! In fact, the penalty is such that it compels the criminal to repeat his crimes, and makes obedience impossible. Now this, in sober truth, is precisely the way of the Creator, as represented by modern misnamed Orthodox divinity. He enacts a law requiring love, and accepts eternal hatred as a substitute. He requires obedience, yet the penalty compels to eternal disobedience. We had always thought that penalties were annexed to laws to make obedient subjects. But here is a case, and it arrogates the name of Orthodoxy, where the penalty of the law UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 59 of love to God insures eternal hatred to him ; where obedience is required, but the law is satisfied with eternal disobedience ! We consider our prop- osition abundantly established, that the very nature of the law renders it utterly impossible that such a penalty as endless misery should be an- nexed to it by a God of wisdom. But this conclusion is confirmed by a declaration of Jesus Christ, concerning the fulfilment of the law : " Think not," said he, " that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For, verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law TILL ALL BE FUL- FILLED." (Matt. v. 17, 18.) Who will oppose this declaration ? God will never accept disobedi- ence and hatred for obedience and love. If all the law is contained in love to God and man and it is, for on these two commands hang all the law and the prophets and if not one jot or tittle shall pass from this law till it all be fulfilled, evidently the time must come when it will be all fulfilled, all disobedience done away, all hatred destroyed, and love to God be universal ! How much more consistent is this beautiful harmony of sacred truth than the maze of confusion and ab- surdity which we have just examined ! Our propo- sition, then, is established and confirmed, and the conclusion thus far is, that the doctrine of endless punishment is nowhere found in connection with 60 imiVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. the law of God, and is, moreover, opposed to the very nature of the law. III. This doctrine, with its connections, denies the unchangedbleness of God. That God is un- changeable is also a truth admitted on every hand ; and here, again, we are all agreed in the outset. But look at this fact in connection with the divine goodness, as set forth by the 'advocates of endless wo. Endless punishment can be nothing less than the effect of endless wrath. Without endless wrath, or enmity, or hatred call it either name you please endless punishment could not be administered ; for, certainly, it cannot be pretended that complacency, or love, or friendship, would inflict such a misery. As, then, endless punish- ment is dependent on endless enmity, by showing that endless enmity denies the unchangeableness of God, we shall show that endless punishment does likewise ; for this latter is entirely dependent on the former. Now look throughout the world, and observe the effort, the exertion, the countless means put in operation to save mankind from the endless enmity of God, and ask yourselves what all this in reality is. Disguise it as much as you will, talk about saving free moral agents, doing the work of an evangelist, preaching the word of reconciliation, what, in reason's name, do we see, in reality, but one wide and presumptuous attempt to change the unchangeable God, to turn away his enmity, to obtain his favor, to convert him from an UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 61 enemy to a friend of man ? I have no doubt that I am addressing some Christians now who are accustomed to listen, week after week, to the ap- peals, the entreaties, and the exhortations of their ministers, who are laboring to subdue their stubborn hearts, and turn them from the ways of wickedness to virtue, and all this for the purpose of making God, who is now declared to be their enemy, their faithful and enduring friend. And is it not strange, passing strange, that the monstrosity of this attempt should never have been suggested to the mind ? To turn man from the ways of wickedness to wis- dom is a laudable work ; but to do this in hopes of changing the affections of the almighty and un- changeable One, to do it in hopes of averting his enmity and procuring his favor, to do it, in fact, and then to assure the deluded converts that the change is effected, that the wrath of the Almighty is turned to grace, that God, the immutable, has experienced as great, and, in truth, a greater con- version than the sinner, is a presumptuous and open defiance of the immutability of Jehovah. This argument, my Christian friends, is not only felt to be of some force with us, but it is felt by the rejectors of our doctrine; and, accordingly, they have resolved the matter into this : that God's unchangeableness in this respect consists in ever approving virtue and condemning sin ; and, accordingly, while the individual lives in sin, he may experience the enmity, and, when he turns fi* 62 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. from sin to virtue, he may then experience the friendship of God, without any change on the part of Deity ; for, from the beginning, he has ever been the enemy of sin and the friend of virtue. The Deity does not, then, hate and love the same ob- ject at different times, but the object becomes changed, which at first was sinful, and afterwards virtuous, first the sinner, and then the saint. This argument is composed partly of truth and partly of error. It is true that God's unchange- ableness consists in ever approving virtue and con- demning sin. But the conclusion does not follow that he may hate the sinner, and love the same in- dividual when turned to virtue, without manifesting any change. A discriminating mind will detect this distinction, a difference between sin and the sinner. God may hate sin, and still love the sinner. This may be, in the same way that a parent hates the wickedness of a disobedient child, but still loves the child. Now, when it is affirmed that God's unchangeableness consists in ever hating sin and loving virtue, we will agree in this. But, mind you, it is the sinner, not sin, who is repre- sented to experience the enmity of God. And when the sinner turns to virtue, it is not the virtue, but this same individual, who is then declared to be the friend of God. The Deity, then, does hate and love, according to this doctrine, the same ob- ject at different times. We hope this argument is understood, for it is UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 63 an important error which is here exposed. There is surely a distinction between sin and the person who sins. Now the doctrine of endless punish- ment declares that not only sin, but the person who sins, is an object of God's hatred. And, when the sinner turns to virtue, it is not the virtue alone, but this same person who sinned, who is now declared to be an object of God's unfailing love ; and all this without any change on the part of Deity. Thousands of preachers and exhorters are going forth into the world, not merely to induce people to give up their sin and to become virtuous, that thus they may escape a punishment and insure a reward, but they are inducing men to give up sin and become virtuous, that they may thereby change God's enmity to love ! Yea, they are trying, with Herculean power, to convert Jehovah from the deadly enemy to the enduring friend of man ! A mind with any reverence for its Maker ought to tremble at the blasphemy of the thought. And yet, strange to conceive, thousands and hundreds of thousands of Christians are assenting to this truth, and giving it their full and cordial support, as the truth of Him who is the same, yesterday, to-day, and forever ! Alas, for the blinding power of human creeds and educational prejudice ! We consider our third proposition fully established, that the doctrine of endless punishment, as com- monly held forth, denies the unchangeableness of God. 64 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PAHTIALISM. IV. This doctrine declares the inefficacy of the labors, sufferings, and death, and the everlasting disappointment and dissatisfaction of Jesus Christ. For what did Christ labor in the earth ? He had a work to do while here in the flesh. " My meat," says he, " is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." What was the will of him that sent him ? Jesus himself shall answer : " I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing." But how many were given to Christ ? " The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands." Then it seems that the work which Christ came to do was the will of God, and the will of God was, that of all which were given to Christ, he should lose nothing. This was the work for which Christ labored, suffered, and died. Indeed, it is now generally admitted that Christ died for all, according to the import of the Scriptures which declare that he " gave himself a ransom for all," and " tasted death for every man." But how inefficacious will his labors, sufferings, and death prove, if a considerable portion, or any for whom he died, are never to experience his salvation, but exist forever in misery and sin ! It is useless to say that men will not come unto him and be saved. This is the most trifling evasion. God saw the difficulties, if any, which would result UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 65 rom man's free agency ; and when he sent his Son die for the human race, these difficulties must lave been contemplated. And if, notwithstanding hese, his plan of salvation is to fail, what a reflec- ion upon his efficiency ! It would be singular, in- leed, should Christ fail in this benevolent under- aking, for he himself has reproved the folly of etting out in a work without first calculatiug the lifficulties attending it. " Which of you," he says, 1 intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first ind counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient o finish it ? Lest, haply, after he hath laid the bundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold t begin to mock him, saying, This man began to >uild, but was not able to finish. Or what king, [oing to make war against another king, sitteth not lown first and consulteth whether he is able, with en thousand, to meet him that cometh against him vith twenty* thousand." (Luke xiv. 28 31.) >urely he who delivered this instruction, and ad- ninistered this reproof, would never himself set ut in a work, the work of universal redemption, without first sitting down and calculating the lifficulties attending it, whether from free agency >r any thing else. And do you think, then, he vill not accomplish his work ? But the case of Christ, according to popular heology, was different from either of the former. ?he conduct of him was more unwise than a man vho should set out to build a tower, or a king who 66 T7NIVEHSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. should go to war against another king, without first looking at their situation and capacity. They might have some ground for beginning their work on uncertainties, some ground for expectation of aid from some human source or other ; and, ac- cordingly, they commence their work, although at first incompetent to finish it, not knowing but they may be competent from growing means. But look at the work of Jesus Christ. He undertook a work which, according to the common theory, he not only cannot finish, but which he kneiv, at the com- mencement, he could not ! But if he did not know, but only labored and desired, why reprove others for engaging in an enterprise without first counting the cost and difficulties ? And if he did not know, but only endeavored for the good of all, he must, according to the theory in question, be everlastingly disappointed and dissatisfied. For he labored, suffered, and died for all, and only a part are to reap any benefit from his mission. But what saith the Scriptures on this subject ? " He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satis- fied." (Isa. liii. 11.) Therefore, our fourth propo- sition is established, that the doctrine of endless punishment declares the inefficacy of the labors, sufferings, and death, and the everlasting disap- pointment and dissatisfaction of Jesus Christ. V. This doctrine, with its connections, attaches more importance to the works of men than to the grace of God. There is no one truth respecting UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 67 our salvation set forth with more clearness, than that it is " the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man should boast." This truth is repeated with such frequency and distinctness in the New Testa- ment, that not only ourselves, but all Christian sects, acknowledge it, and are free to confess that the doctrine of free grace is at least one item in the true Christian faith. But, notwithstanding these professions and pre- tensions, what do we perceive, in reality, in the theory of a partial salvation ? Evidently, that the works of men, the independent works of men, independent of the grace of God, are absolutely necesvsary to secure salvation. " But stop," says an objector ; " it must be palpably evident that, notwithstanding the free grace of God, something is requisite on our part ; for, although the sun shines as a free gift upon the lands of all, yet, without our labor, we should never secure the productions of the earth." We admit the justness of the comparison, but cannot admit the justness of the conclusion to which it aims. To be sure, the rays of the sun and the labor of men are both necessary to secure the harvest. And if man did not work, the harvest would not come to him. The harvest, therefore, is not so free a gift as that it will come forcibly upon us, whether we will or no. But it is a lame comparison, after all. Does not God, in the be- stowment of this gift, influence the will of the hus- 00 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. bandman to cooperate with his own ? To be sure he does. For, in the very promise that seedtime and harvest should not fail, God must have deter- mined to put in operation the causes which would infallibly secure it. One of these causes is the consenting will of man. God does not make man a passive recipient of a temporary harvest, neither will he make him a passive recipient of eternal salvation. His will will cooperate with the will of man, and man become a willing subject of Mes- siah's kingdom. But the system we oppose does not admit this- fact with reference to those who fail of God's sal- vation. No ; God leaves them to pursue their way to ruin. God did not leave the husbandman to neglect a preparation for the harvest. He stimu- lated his will, plied him with proper motives and inducements, and, by the want of daily bread, influenced him to labor for it. If you say that the man acted of his own accord, arid might not have so acted, we reply, he did act freely and of his own accord, but he had no control over the mo- tives which induced him. Again, make the very worst of this case ; suppose that some, in the mat- ter of a temporary harvest, through idleness and sloth, fail of it ; yet none can fail of that eternal harvest ; for here, according to the very doctrine in question, God's will is universal, and it is " God who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. ii. 13.) UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. 9 Thus, the sun will not only shine, the Sun of righteousness, upon the heart of man, but God will apply his motives, motives which will prove effectual in inducing us to embrace the offered good. Thus will his grace be free, and first in importance ; the powers of man will be called into action ; and salvation will be universal, according to the will of God. But the doctrine we oppose attaches more importance to the works of men ; for, while it admits, in words, the sovereign efficacy of the Almighty's grace, it denies that this grace will prove effectual in " creating us in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph, ii. 10.) In other words, it assumes the position that good works, or a regenerated character, is necessary to salvation; or, rather, that regeneration is itself salvation, when perfected ; arid, at the same time, it denies that the grace of God will prove efficient to " create " those good works, or to produce that regeneration. For countless thousands never will experience it. While, then, good works are neces- sary, of absolute importance, and must be per- formed, it denies that the grace of God will induce the creature to perform them. According to our proposition, it attaches more importance to the works of men than to the grace of God. VI. The doctrine of endless punishment is one that charity never can rejoice in. This may ap- 7 70 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. pear rather unconvincing of its falsity, if we do not consider in connection with it a declaration of the apostle : " Charity," says he, " rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." (1 Cor. xiii. 6.) Can, then, endless misery be any part of the truth ? Where is the charity that would rejoice in the prospective damnation of millions of God's rational offspring ? Indeed, it is when we reflect upon the fact that the charity of no man could wish it true, together with the fact that the joys of heaven must be diminished, if its blest inhabitants are knowing to the truth that millions of their race are suffering and writhing in torments inexpressi- ble, it is, I say, when we reflect upon these facts, that we are convinced of the absurdity of the doctrine in question. No mortal, except of the stamp of a Nero who, it is said, could dance at the music of the cries of those whom he doomed to a burning at the stake can look upon human suffering in this world without sympathizing with the sufferer, and sharing his woes. Are the inhab- itants of heaven to view unmoved, or to know of unmoved, the endless damnation of millions of their race, without any tenderness or sympathy, and without being deprived of a portion of their happiness ? Yea, are they to rejoice at this spec- tacle, with hallelujahs on their tongues, and shouts of amen to the damnation of their nearest relatives, as is sometimes affirmed ! Then charity, the greatest of the Christian virtues greater than UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 71 faith or hope will not exist in the city of our God ; but a hard-heartedness, and an unfeeling selfishness, and a cold, exclusive, inhuman, savage spirit, will pervade the celestial mansions, and, to a charitable heart, cast an air of repulsion over all its joys. We rest, then, in the conclusion that the doctrine of endless punishment is what charity never can rejoice in, therefore, is not a truth; for " charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." VII. This doctrine, with its connections, if true, is true for all mankind. It maintains that holiness is requisite in this life to escape it, that there is no change after death ; and now let us see where this will carry us. We have here nothing to say about a change of heart in this life, the work of sanctification being begun here, &c. &c. in order to show, with a semblance of propriety, that such may more likely be fitted for heaven than others in whom the work is not yet begun. Our simple remark is on the idea held out by this theory, that there is no change after death. Select the very- best individual you can find on earth, and ask him if he would be willing to carry his character with him for a whole eternity, among the holy and the perfect in the paradise above. No man, it is pre- sumed, is perfect here below ; none but what need some change, some mighty change, to fit them for the society of the blest above. And if there is no change, either at death or after, and all who are 72 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. not, on this earth, fitted for a perfect heaven, must be doomed to a wretched hell, then there is no alternative ; all mankind must go and wail away an eternity of damnation. It cannot be got over, that if, on this ground, the doctrine of endless pun- ishment is true, it is true for all mankind. VIII. The doctrine in question is of no good moral influence. Here let us not be misunderstood. I do not mean to say that those who believe this doctrine exhibit the fruits of no moral influence. We know that there are good, and there are bad, and there are indifferent, among all denominations. But what we mean to affirm is, that while a thou- sand other religious considerations the goodness of God, the love of Christ, the hope of heaven, the duty of man, the fear of temporal calamities and punishments, &c. &c. while these and other considerations may exert a good moral influence over the hearts of those who believe the popular doctrine, the consideration of an endless hell is comparatively of no good moral influence at all. All the good moral tendency, we apprehend, is from other considerations, such as we have named ; while the doctrine of endless punishment is among the least of the causes of moral improvement among men. It is, however, a common remark, that, if end- less punishment cannot prevent a man from sin- ning, nothing can. Surely, the idea is awful enough, most assuredly it is ; and there lies the UNIVERSALISM AGAINST difficulty : it is too awful. From it loses its power of alarm ; for it is altogether 4ee much for human credulity. The more tremendous you make this punishment appear, the more it exceeds human belief. Take any reasonable, re- flecting man, who is not so warped and blinded by a creed that the light cannot shine into his mind, and the more he reflects upon this subject, the more skeptical will he become. Indeed, there is already a skepticism on this subject, which but few comparatively are aware of. Hundreds and thou- sands of souls there are who inwardly reject this doctrine ; yet, through fear of " the Pharisees, they dare not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue ; for they love the praise of men more than the praise of God." This is, indeed, plain, but it is the language of plain truth. As we were saying, take any reasonable, unprejudiced man, and press this subject upon his mind ; urge it untiringly upon him ; go, talk to him about torment upon torment, and pang upon pang, wax- ing fiercer and fiercer as the ages of eternity roll round ; and, ten chances to one, he will tell you to go talk to the winds. But convince him of a rea- sonable punishment, one proportioned to the crime, and which would come with infallible cer- tainty upon him, and this would prove a rational and wholesome restraint upon his evil passions and propensities. This would excite a fear, whereas, 7* 74 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. the other, from its very terror, loses its power of alarm. Again, it should be remembered that it is the certainty, and not the severity, of punishment, which most effectually restrains from sin. Those who are familiar with our civil code will tell you that it is this certainty of which we speak, and not the magnitude of a penal evil, which holds out the most terror to the criminal. A penalty altogether monstrous, and disproportioned to the crime, will not be believed ; or, if it is, it is generally accom- panied with a pretty comfortable hope of escape. It is so, in countless instances, with the imaginary penalty of endless misery. To be sure, there is a dim, vague, distant idea ; but there is not a lively, well-settled, undoubting, realizing faith. And it is well there is not ; for humanity could not bear it. And it is a melancholy fact, that, in those few cases where the horrid idea is brought home in living power to the mind where the poor victims to its influence have been amazed and confounded with its terrors, and driven to the thought that there was no mercy for them, that they were the objects of God's wrath, and the devoted victims of his hot displeasure they have generally been whelmed in the maniac's gloom, and terminated their wretched lives by laying violent hands upon them- selves. For the actors and instruments in these wretched tragedies, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 75 But we must press again our subject. We have said, the idea of endless suffering is too awful. It exceeds human belief. Or, if there is a stupid, thoughtless, unrealizing faith in it, it is, at best, a faith which causes no comparative concern. One would think that a real, hearty, unwavering belief in the endless damnation of any of the species would be enough to make the believer " put on sackcloth and ashes, and go mourning about the streets." Christians, friends, what are we thinking about ? This whole congregation, this town's population, the inhabitants of this whole earth, ex- posed to a hell all fathomless and boundless ; where no reprieve is granted, where torture upon torture is inflicted, and measured out, and measured out, to rack the body and torment the soul ; and after the mighty roll of innumerable ages has passed away, the wretched sufferers are not one moment nearer their end than when they first commenced their horrid destiny : it is all to be gone over with again, and then again ; and there is no mitigation, and no end ; heavens ! if I believed this doctrine, the churches would tremble, or God would not allow me strength. Yea, let the believers, and especially the preachers, of this doctrine, clothe themselves in sackcloth, and, as the false prophet ran through the streets of Jerusalem, crying wo, wo, wo, to the inhabitants of the great city ; so let them lift up their voices, and tire not, crying wo, wo, wo, to the inhabitants of earth, whose eternal 76 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. destiny, for bliss or for torment, hangs upon a hair, which, cut away, they fall, and fall- forever. My candid friends, please keep your minds upon the subject, Is this doctrine believed ? Is it re- flected on ? Admit that it is. Admit, also, that, many times, the fear of hell may be of a restrain- ing influence ; that, by the fear of it, many acts of wickedness are prevented ; still we are inclined to press the question, what is such obedience good for ? For " he that feareth is not made perfect in love." A slave's obedience, and nothing more, is that which proceedeth from a fear of hell, We have said that a hundred other religious considerations, such as the goodness of God, the love of Christ, the hope of heaven, the suggestions of duty, and the fear of temporal punishments, the loss of reputation, the law of the land, and the penitentiary, operate upon the minds of men to keep them in the way of virtue, while the doctrine of endless punishment, even though believed, is comparatively of no good influence at all. Now it is the latter consideration, the fear of temporal punishments, the loss of reputation, the law of the land, &c. which, after all, is felt to be the most effectual in restraining the evil passions and pro- pensities of men. Believers in endless punish- ment may not be willing to admit this. But their actions admit it. For what are all the exertions to discourago sin and promote virtue in the earth ? Is it all because of endless punishment in a future UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 77 world ? Take a particular case. For what is all this stir in the moral world about temperance? And why are societies formed, and measures taken, to prevent the spread of intemperance in the land ? Suppose there are two reasons for this. And let us suppose all that weight of reason derived from the prospect of endless ruin for the drunkard placed in one scale, and all that derived from the wretchedness and misery which drunkenness pro- duces in the earth placed in another : do you not think that the scale filled with earthly reasons would weigh down with a tremendous force ? Is it not plain that the shame, and disgrace, and misery, which drunkenness pours upon the earth operate more powerfully to stimulate men to action in this great moral enterprise than any con- sideration of the miseries of another world ? Perhaps it will be said that the reason derived from the exposure of one soul to endless misery is greater than all earthly reasons put together. True ; but mind you, I spoke of those reasons which prompted men to action in this great enter- prise. And I say that the creed of endless ruin is forgotten in a great measure ; and when men look abroad upon the ruins, the wretchedness, and the woes, that drunkenness produces in the earth, it is more the prostration of intellect, the misery and poverty of families,, the worse than widowed wives, and the cries of the orphan and the outcast, which prompt to immediate action, than any consideration 78 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. of the miseries of eternity. Endless misery is for- gotten, cast in the shade where it should be, before the glowing hells that drunkenness lights up around our very dwellings, and over the face of the whole earth. Here, then, we see, that however unwilling men may be to admit it, it is nevertheless a truth, that temporal punishments and miseries, the law of the land, and the penitentiary, exert a more power- ful influence than the fear of future torments, in placing a restraint upon the evil propensities of men. The reason is, that the certainty and near- ness of punishment, rather than the severity of a distant evil, is what men want to feel, to act as a wholesome influence on their fears. And when we take into view the fact that endless punishment is so little believed, and when it is, that the obedi- ence it produces from a slavish fear is not worthy of the name of obedience, we consider our eighth proposition abundantly established, that the doctrine in question is of no good moral influence. But this will more plainly appear in the course of our sub- ject in a future lecture. IX. The doctrine of endless punishment is ex- pressly contradicted by the Holy Scriptures. With reference to this, we must consider the acknowl- edged difficulty of proving a negative. The Scrip- tures rather tell us what is true, than labor to explode what is not true. And we shall see, when we come to the affirmative side, or to the question, What saith the Scripture ? that partialism will be UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 79 swallowed up in universal truth. Nevertheless, there is one caution on the negative side of this subject which is worthy of particular attention. The Pharisees, it is well known, believed in the end- less punishment of human souls. Their doctrine was, that the souls of the wicked, at death, passed immediately into a state of never-ending torment. Yet our Saviour (Matt. xvi. 12) said to his dis- ciples, without any reservation, " Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees ! " a very singular cir- cumstance, if that one doctrine, which is magnified as the very pillar of morality in our day, was the truth of the Almighty. Why should Jesus caution against the doctrine of the Pharisees, so sweepingly and so unreservedly, if they held at least one of the most important, soul-saving truths ? They did, unquestionably, teach the doctrine of endless punishment, and yet our Saviour said, Beware ! And so say we. Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees ! For further proof on the negative side of this subject, we ask you to consider the following pas- sages ; and, as the Scriptures cannot be a contra- diction, let us beware, lest we through ignorance make them so, and dishonor the God who is above. In Psalm ciii. we read, "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not alway chide ; neither will he keep his anger forever." Whatever this passage originally referred to, what is it but a plain refuta- 80 UNIVERSAL1SM AGAINST PARTIALISM. tion of the endless enmity of God ? Again, In Psalm Ixxvii. " Will the Lord cast off forever ? and will he be favorable no more ? Is his mercy clean gone forever ? doth his promise fail forevermore ? Hath God forgotten to be gracious ? Hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies? And I said, This is my infirmity." This last sentence ought to be engraven on the heart. When I am told that the Creator will cast off forever, (says a benevo- lent writer,) that he will be favorable no more, that his mercy will be no longer exercised, but that his anger will flame with relentless fury throughout eternity, I will say to the person who addresses me, this is your infirmity. The mercy of God is repeatedly said to endure forever, but as for his anger, that " endureth but for a moment." These repeated declarations of the mercy and clemency of Jehovah cannot be true, if, throughout eternity, he refuses to be reconciled to his suffering creatures. But once more, and this shall suffice for the present, while it is remembered that the spirit of the passage is what chiefly arrests our attention. Read it, ye who talk of the ceaseless wrath of your Creator, and may it have a practical influence upon you. We quote it, without com- ment, from the 57th chapter of Isaiah. The mer- ciful Creator says to you, " I will not contend for- ever, neither will I be always wroth ; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTI ALISM. 81 We bring this subject to a close. Partialism is not the doctrine of the Bible. With perfect charity for those who entertain this theory, we have no hesitation in saying that the doctrine of endless punishment is, in the first place* averse to the whole nature of God. It is opposed to the wisdom, power, justice, knowledge, mercy, love, and truth of the Divine Being ; it is not found in connection with the law of God ; it is opposed to the very nature of the law ; it denies, with its connections, the unchangeableness of God ; it declares the in- efficacy of the labors, suffering, and death, and the everlasting disappointment and dissatisfaction, of Jesus Christ; it attaches more importance to the works of men than to the grace of God ; it is what charity never can rejoice in ; if true, with its connections, it must be true for all mankind ; it is of no good moral influence ; and it is expressly contradicted by the Holy Scriptures, We might bring a hundred other arguments, but this is enough* " Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting," wanting the approval of our reason, wanting the testimony of sacred writ, wanting every thing to make it consistent, and nothing to make it more inconsistent, absurd, and monstrous than it now stands out, stripped of its disguise, conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity* Let it " go down to the vile dust from whence it sprung ; " and let all the people say, Amen* 8 LECTURE III. ARGUMENT FOR THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SAL- VATION* *^' Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Isaiah xlL 21. WE come now to the opposite theory, to Universalism in distinction from Partialism, as the characteristic ultimatum of the divine government. In a former lecture we penned a few remarks on the subject of human reason. These were rather in justification of its use, in the science of theology, than on the manner of its application. We do not say that reason may be safely trusted with regard to every matter of divine revelation. We do not say there is no subject beyond the cognizance of human faculties, in the ways of that almighty Being with whom we have to do. Far be it. We admit that there are some things which, in our present and imperfect state, and perhaps in our future state of exaltation and perfection, we can never fully comprehend. We wish to treat this subject candidly. There is the mode or man- ner of the Deity's existence ; there is the idea of a cause uncaused ; there is an incomprehensible UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 83 eternity ; there is the origin of evil ; there is divine sovereignty with human accountability ; there may be other things which, to finite, mortal man, never can be fully comprehended, must be matters of faith rather than of understanding. But this does not terrify us. Give us but the truth ; make it man- ifest to our understandings as it can be that there must have been, and must be, a God, and we trouble not ourselves about the manner of his existence. Far less do we trouble ourselves be- cause we cannot comprehend him. This would be as unwise as to doubt our own mental being because we cannot comprehend the properties of mind. Indeed, man knows positively but wondrous little. He cannot comprehend himself, nor the properties of the smallest molecule of matter. It is almost literally true, " We nothing know, but what is marvellous ; Yet what is marvellous we can 't believe, So weak our reason, and so great our God." But, concerning the mysteries of Providence, or revelation, there is this distinction between things that we can and things that we cannot reason on conclusively. We shall point out this distinction as it relates to the economy of divine government only, as this is the subject with which we are now alone concerned. There is, then, a distinction between the means employed, and the ultimate end, in the dispensations of the Deity. To make 84 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. this plain, it is frequently said that we are incom- petent to reason on the justness or the wisdom of the endless misery of a portion of our race, because many things of an afflictive nature do occur, in the providence of God, which we find and own our- selves unable to account for. But we object to this reasoning, because it confounds two things which ever ought to be kept separate, means and ends. A thousand events daily occur, in the provi- dence of God, which we cannot comprehend the wisdom or the goodness of, just because they are the means only for the attainment of some end which we are wholly unacquainted with. Afflic- tions are sent upon us ; death enters our dwellings, and tears from us relatives and friends ; what we call accidents assail us* But what are ail these dispensations ? Are they only to afflict us, to cause us misery as an end ? or are they not rather a means to some end yet in the future, and of which we know not ? Undoubtedly the latter ; for we are assured by the plain reading of the word, that we are chastened " for our profit," We cannot reason, then, on these dispensations, in themselves considered, and come to any correct conclusion ; because they are to be considered as means to some end yet in the future. But suppose they were not so. Suppose, when you looked upon that sick man, pale and emaciated, stretched upon his couch, and exercised with pain, you should contemplate the suffering before you as an end, or UNIVERSAL-ISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 85 rather as an endless continuance of misery. Sup- pose you took him by the hand, and smoothed his marble brow, and looked upon his sunken eye, and tried to mitigate his pain, but could not say, " My friend, be of good cheer ; thy sufferings will soon be ended ; thou shalt either be restored to health, or these, thine earthly sufferings, will work out for thee a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." No, nothing like this. There you must behold him, but not to comfort or assuage. There you must contemplate his sufferings, but not his restoration or deliverance. No, his is a protracted illness. Month after month, and year after year, must wear away, and you must look upon that misery as an end, and not a means ; as a production of suffering for its own sake, and not as an affliction to be overruled for good. I ask you, suppose this was the case, could we not reason on it ? Might we not ? Consider all these dispensations as ends in the divine economy. Might we not reason on them ? Most assuredly, with all the safety in the world. We might then come to the conclusion that they were unjust, opposed to goodness, and of no possible benefit whatever. Now just apply this reasoning to the subject of our lectures. Endless punishment, or rather endless misery, (for endless punishment might be considered a contradiction in terms, punishment signifying correction, which it cannot be, if it is endless ; endless misery, then, more properly) is 8* 86 TJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. not a means, but an end, a final resting-place in the government of the Deity, or is so represented. Now we may safely reason on final ends, when we cannot reason upon the means employed to bring about those ends. In the one case, there is a long concatenation of causes and effects, the connection of which to the final end we are wholly ignorant of ; and in the other case, which is ours at present, we have nothing to do with causes of which we know nothing relating to their dependent effects ; but we have to do with final effects only, and upon which, as concerning their justice or goodness, human reason is abundantly competent to decide. We will, then, give in the admission that there are a thousand daily occurrences of Providence, the character of which we cannot reason on ; but the reason is, because their charac- ter is determined by the final events to which they lead. But in the idea of final ends, there is nothing, either before or after, to affect their char acter in the least ; and they are proper subjects of Jiuman reason. Now it avails nothing to call this doctrine of endless misery a mystery. There are, we admit, some mysteries of Providence ; but these are in the progressive measures of the divine government, not in the ends of it. How unsatisfying, then, is the course pursued by many, who, when being ques- tioned on this point of faith, affirm presumptuously that we cannot reason on it ! Why not reason on UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 87 it ? We can see precisely its character. There is nothing hefore it or after it to affect its charac- ter in the least. We have not got to wait to see whether it will result in good or not. There is the thing itself, drawn out from every thing else, its character, as good or evil, impressed upon it, and all we have got to do is to read it. I trust this subject is now plain enough. Listen, then, to the follies of those who would decline any discussion on the question of endless punishment, to borrow that phrase, when viewed as a final end in the government of the Almighty. They complain of inquisitiveness. They talk about carnal reason. They hush us up with the cry of mystery mystery ! They intimate a blas- phemous familiarity with the ways of the Deity ! They remind us of our duty of submission. Heav- ens ! and all about what ? Why, about a thing involved in nothing to perplex us of a most de- cided character in itself plain, palpable, standing out in bold relief from every thing else not a means to any end nothing before or after it to affect its character of a simple, uncompounded nature, an existence, in fact, in itself and alone, either one thing or the other ; and we are not com- petent, with our eyes wide open, to say what ! If this is not a bold, unprincipled presumption upon the powers of human intellect, then we know not what is. O, it is the weakness of the cause away with all this folly and pretension it is THE 88 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. WEAKNESS OF THE CAUSE the utterly indefen- sible nature of this doctrine of the church, which extorts this pretended modesty, and reserve, and child-like suhmission on this subject. Do you sup- pose, Christians, that if there were sufficient rea- sons, strong and sturdy, for the support of this sentiment, that its advocates would resort to such subterfuge to defend it ? Alas, no. They would be brought forth with all the hardihood and confi- dence of one deeply initiated into the ways of the Most High. They would be extolled and lauded to the skies as " reasons strong " and proofs de- fiatory. But now it is manifest, and it is useless to deny it, that, for the want of a sufficiency in the shape of argument to defend this dogma, resort must be had to the cry of mystery carnal rea- son inquisitive blasphemy. And a passage of scripture is always at hand for such an emer- gency " Great is the mystery of godliness " which is a sufficient and ever ready reply to all our questionings and to all our arguments. This may do for some, but it will not do for us. And to us there is nothing more evident than that a cause which needs such subterfuge to support it must be unreasonable and false. We are not of this make. We must call yet aloud, "Produce your cause ; bring forth your strong reasons." And if the advocates of this doctrine cannot sup- port their cause by reason and argument, we will engage to support ours, to " give an answer unto TTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 89 svery one that asketh a reason for the hope that is within MS." While on this subject, however, let us remember that a reverse of all the argument we have ad- vanced on the opposite side of this subject, will furnish argument for the theory of universal and 3fficient grace. The reader may have done this work himself. So that our present theme can be but a collection of some remaining reasons for the embrace of an opposite and more glorious theory. I. We begin with the proposition that the doc- trine of universal and eternal salvation is the only one under heaven but what insults our reason at the very first consideration of it. There are only three opinions, relative to a future final state, which have ever been received. These are, the anni- hilation of the wicked, and the eternal salvation and glory of the righteous; the endless punish- ment of the wicked, and the contrary ; and the universal holiness and happiness of Adam's wide- spread race. There are, I know, refinements and modifications of the system of endless punish- ments ; but these are the three distinctive opinions, and, in fact, the only opinions which can be re- ceived with reference to a final state. And this latter, we affirm, is the only doctrine presented to us but what insults our reason at the very first consideration of it. Nothing can be more puerile than the idea of annihilation. In the first place, it is open to all 90 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. the objections which have been before advanced in these lectures, founded on the design and fore- knowledge of the Deity. It is admitted on all hands, (except by the Calvinists, whose blasphe- mous theory we determined to pass into oblivion after a respectful notice in our first lecture,) that the design of the Deity was to impart immortal happiness to all his moral offspring. Now, neither free agency nor any thing else can be involved to oppose this design. Free agency did not exist before the creature who possesses it. Nothing existed on the part of man, and nothing but the arbitrary will of Deity on his part. And, with a design to bestow immortal blessedness upon all his creatures, he brings them into existence, KNOWING if it is possible to design against knowledge that his design will be frustrated, and he must be forever disappointed. In the next place, it is little short of blasphemy, viewed in the common apprehension of it. " The doctrine of annihilation," says a just and feeling writer, " supposes that by far the greater part of mankind were created by a benevolent and holy Being, whose prescience foresaw how they would act, to be vicious and die, to be raised from the dead, re-organized or re-created, to be miserable, and then to undergo a public execution, by which they would be forever blotted out of this creation, My brethren, if the fact be so, fix your minds upon it. You have often regarded with admiration that UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 91 curious effect of the divine power, the human body, the delicate structure of the eye and the ear, the nerves and brain, the veins and arteries, and the various organs of sensation, respiration, and mo- tion ; you have contemplated with devout wonder the faculties of the human mind ; you have ac- knowledged with grateful satisfaction that God is love, that every organ, that every power, both of body and mind, is an inlet to enjoyment, and that man was formed in the image of God, that he might be the object of his favor forever. Contem- plate the scene which is now to take place ; (that is, at the resurrection of the wicked.) What a process is going on through nature ! Myriads of those beings are to be raised from the dead that is, re-organized, re-formed, or re-created to be miserable in a greater or less degree, according to their degrees of guilt, arid at length to be finally destroyed ! " * And this is a work to be ascribed to the Deity ! With the idea of this doctrine in the mind, the words of Young have a pertinency and significancy of meaning which can be felt in no other associa- tion : " Why burst the barriers of my peaceful grave? Ah, cruel death, that would no longer save ! But grudged me e'en that narrow, dark abode, And cast me out into the wrath of God." * Estlin, quoted by Smith on " Divine Government," pp. 248, 249. 92 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PART1ALISM. But even this dishonorable sentiment is preferable to the doctrine of never-ceasing misery. This sentiment must take the lead of all absurdities and abominations. It is an unparalleled and monstrous conception ; even atheism itself, in theoretical absurdity, falling far below it. We must say, so far as theory is concerned, better deny the being of God, than admit his existence, and ascribe to him such an ungodly character. The impiety would not be so great. These are plain senti- ments ; but they are penned in " soberness and truth." We have said that reason is insulted on the very first consideration of it. For what does it behold ? The creeds, and opinions, and vague theories of the human mind have cast an obscurity over this subject ; and the clear mind is bewildered thus, or else it would take one thought, and spurn the doctrine forever away from it. Volumes have been written on the subjects of free agency, human depravity, rejection of the offer of salvation, &c. ; and hence the mind is clogged among the contem- plation of these things, and seldom gets so far back as to argue the character of the Deity, independent of the consideration of every one of them. But this step must be taken, if we would probe the subject to the very bottom. We must send our minds back before free agency existed, before man's wickedness was known, before he rejected the offer of salvation, yea, before all things per- taining to this world, when God alone existed in ITNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 93 his own self-sufficiency, wanting nothing to aug- ment his happiness, and there imagine him revolv- ing in his mind a plan for introducing millions on millions of intellectual, moral beings into an exist- ence which he KNOWS will prove an everlasting curse to them. Horrid thought ! Yet it will come. It will rise up from the workings of our better nature, to utter its secret thunder against a system so utterly appalling. And, I say, let it come. Silence not these forcible remonstrances of reason against what it cannot, no, never can, approve. As we stated in a former lecture, " no sin can be taken into the account ; for man had not existed. Nothing existed, and out of nothing the Deity pro- duced an endless curse" This is reason's first inference, in contemplation of the doctrine in ques- tion. The thought is simple, the process brief, and the argument irresistible, against the idea of unceasing misery. And as the same is true, in kind, with regard to annihilation, it is, then, true, that the doctrine of universal, final holiness and happiness is the only one under heaven which does not insult our reason at the very first consideration of it. It alone can supply the " feast of reason," and, I may add, "the flow of soul." II. The doctrine of the Universalist acknowledges no absolute evil, and declares that the universe shall ultimately embrace nothing but good. This truth, indeed, appears self-evident, if we admit the infi- nite goodness of the Deity. For, with this admis- Q 94 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PART1ALISM. sion, what has the Deity to do with evil as an end in the divine economy ? The idea is as absurd as to say that infinite goodness was limited, or that pure goodness consisted partly of evil. Some writer said, when writing on this subject, that he who doubted the existence of evil ought to have the jumping tooth-ache, or some painful disease. This, however, is mere pertness, and not argument. The tooth-ache and the disease itself may result in good, although we cannot give the how. At least, no one, in our present state of ignorance, can say positively that it does not. We confess it is a subject involved in much obscurity ; but there is much that we do know upon it. That natural evil results in good is demonstrable by every-day oc- currence. Who has not seen afflictions overruled for the benefit, and the very great benefit, of the sufferer ? Every house of suffering is a school of virtue. Besides, good is generally known by its opposite evil. But, while on this subject, I choose to give the opinions of others, rather than any of my own. And, of all the accounts I have ever seen on this subject, I have never met with one that embodied so much sound sense, and so many irrefragible positions, so much pithiness of remark, and so much eloquence withal, and all condensed in so brief a space, as that given by that most excellent writer, Soame Jenyns, in an old work on the Origin of Evil. A Universalist he was too. Read it, brother, and lay it to heart. " Most of UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 95 the grievances attendant upon human nature," he thinks, " may be comprehended under the follow- ing heads : poverty, labor, inquietudes of mind, pains of body, and death ; from none of which, we may venture to affirm, man could ever have been exempted so long as he continued to be man. God, indeed, might have made us quite other creatures, and placed us in a world quite other- wise constituted ; but then we had been no longer men ; and, whatever beings had occupied our sta- tions .in the universal system, they must have been liable to the same inconveniences. " Poverty, for example, is what all could not possibly have been exempted from, not only by reason of the fluctuating nature of human posses- sions, but because the world could not subsist with- out it; for, had all been rich, none could have submitted to the commands of another, or the drudgeries of life ; thence all governments must have been dissolved, arts neglected, and lands uncultivated, and so an universal penury have overwhelmed all, instead of now and then pinch- ing a few. Hence, by the by, appears the great excellence of charity, by which men are enabled, by a particular distribution of the blessings and enjoyments of life, on proper occasions, to prevent that poverty which, by a general one, Omnipotence itself could never have prevented ; so that, by en- forcing this duty, God, as it were, demands our assistance to promote universal happiness, and to 96 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. shut out misery at every door where it strives to intrude itself. " Labor, indeed, God might easily have excused us from, since at his command the earth would readily have poured forth all her treasures, without our inconsiderable assistance ; but, if the severest labor cannot sufficiently subdue the malignity of human nature, what plots and machinations, what wars, rapine, and devastation, what profligacy and licentiousness, must have been the consequences of universal idleness ! So that labor ought only to be looked upon as a task kindly imposed upon us by our indulgent Creator, necessary to preserve our health, our safety, and our innocence. " Inquietudes of mind cannot be prevented with- out first eradicating all our inclinations and pas- sions, the winds and tides that preserve the great ocean of human life from perpetual stagnation. So long as men have pursuits, they must have disappointments ; and whilst they have disappoint- ments, they must be disquieted ; whilst they are injured, they must be inflamed with anger; and whilst they see cruelties, they must be melted with pity ; whilst they perceive danger, they must be sensible to fear ; and whilst they behold beauty, they must be enslaved by love : nor can they be exempted from the various anxieties attendant on these various and turbulent passions. Yet, without them, we should be undoubtedly less happy and less safe ; for without anger we should not defend UNIVERSALISM AGAINST ^AVr^LjB^ '* ~ 97 fy^. \ C. * . ' 43 O -. ourselves ; and without pity we others ; without fear we should nor lives ; and without love they would not be we preserving. " Pains of body are, perhaps, but the necessary consequences of the union of material and spiritual essences ; for matter being by nature divisible, when endued with sensibility, must probably be affected by pains and pleasures, by its different modifications; wherefore, to have been freed from our sufferings, we must have been deprived of all our sensual enjoyments, a composition by which few, surely, would be gainers. Besides, the pains of our bodies are necessary, to make us continually mindful of their preservation ; for what numberless lives would be lost in every trifling pursuit, or flung away in ill-humor, was the piercing of a sword no more painful than the tickling of a feather ! " Death, the last and most dreadful of all evils, is so far from being one, that it is the infallible cure of all others. ' To die is landing on some silent shore, Where billows never beat, nor tempests roar : Ere well we feel the friendly stroke, 't is o'er.' For, abstracted from the sickness and suffering usually attending it, it is no more than the expi- ration of that term of life God was pleased to bestow upon us, without any claim or merit on our part. But, was it an evil ever so great, it could be remedied but by one much greater, 98 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. which is by living forever ; by which means our wickedness, unrestrained by the prospect of a future state, would grow so insupportable, our sufferings so intolerable by perseverance, and our pleasures so tiresome by repetition, that no being in the universe could be so completely miserable as a species of immortal men. We have no rea- son, therefore, to look upon death as an evil, or to fear it as a punishment, even without any supposi- tion of a future life ; but, if we consider it as a passage to a more perfect state, or a remove only in an eternal succession of still improving states for which we have the strongest reasons it will then appear a new favor from the divine munifi- cence ; and a man must be as absurd to repine at dying, as a traveller would be, who proposed to himself a delightful tour through various unknown countries, to lament that he cannot take up his residence at the first dirty inn which he baits at on the road. The instability of human life, or the hasty changes of its successive periods, of which we so frequently complain, are no more than the necessary progress of it to this necessary conclu- sion ; and at last death opens to us a new prospect, from which we shall probably look back upon the diversions and occupations of this world with the same contempt we do now upon our tops and hobby-horses, and with the same surprise that they could ever so much entertain or engage us." * * Origin of Evil, by Soame Jenyns, pp. 6471. . UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 99 We ask not the reader to adopt every idea in this extract, but we do ask him to consider it well, for it is worthy of it. These remarks, however, have a general refer- ence to natural evil. Speaking of moral evil, the same writer says : " And, to render these punish- ments consistent with goodness, they must not only be proportioned to their crimes, but also in some way necessary to universal good ; for no creatures can be called out of their primitive nothing by an all-wise and benevolent Creator, to be losers by their existence, or to be made miserable for no beneficial end, even by their own misbehavior : so that all future misery, as well as all present, must be subservient to happiness ; or otherwise in- finite power, joined with infinite goodness, would have prevented both vice and punishment." * That moral evil, and all moral evil, does result in good, and is not therefore properly evil, is ad- mitted, and even contended for, strange as it may seem, by believers in endless and terrible damna- tion. Jonathan Edwards thus writes upon the sub- ject : " God does not will sin as sin, or for the sake of any thing evil," but " for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the conse- quence." t Again, " What is aimed at [that is, in the permission of moral evil] is good, and good * Origin of Evil, by Soame Jenyns, p. 85. t Edwards on the Will, p. 343. 100 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. is the actual issue, in the final result of things." * Again, he quotes with approbation from Turnbull : " If the Author and Governor of all things be in- finitely perfect, then whatever is, is right ; of all possible systems he has chosen the lest ; and con- sequently there is no absolute evil in the uni- verse." t And yet there is, according to this author, a boundless, bottomless, endless pit of evil ! How moral evil results in good, is a question which we, in the present place, have not the time to answer, except that it tends to correct itself, by the pains which it inflicts. Admitting that moral evil was necessary in order to the more perceptible existence of moral virtue, and it may not only be seen to result in good, but that goodness itself de- pends upon it for its existence. How many times have folly and imprudence proved the foundation of future wisdom and prudence ! How many a notable act of wickedness has so wrought upon the mind, as to give rise to the successful resolution of future rectitude ! Every observer of the world must have noticed instances where base and profli- gate youth have, from the very evils of their de- pravity, determined on a future reformation, and become men of transcendental excellence and worth, far outstripping those who, from their youth, have pursued the even tenor of their way in a mediocrity of virtue. * Edwards on the Will, p. 347. t Ibid. p. 342. UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 101 We hope we shall never be accused of plagiarism, even if we do not give the quotation marks for the idea contained in the last sentence. We believe it belongs to Dr. Chalmers. We have looked for it an hour, and cannot find it ; and now, for the life of us, we cannot tell whether it belongs to the doctor, or whether it is any body's but our own. It got into our mind somehow, and we give it to the reader for what it is worth. But to compensate the doctor, if that should happen to be his, here is one which is his, and for which we refer to the volume and the page. Be it remembered, that we have said that moral evil results in good by an inherent tendency to correct and destroy itself. Be it also remembered, that Dr. Thomas Chalmers was an eminent defender of the endless perpetuity of sin. Yet, if we mistake not, we have caught him in glorious doubts of a God -dishonoring faith. Speaking of this tendency in vice to destroy itself, he says, " At all events, whatever reason there may be to fear that, in the future arrangements of nature and providence, both virtue and vice will be capable of immortality, we might gather from what passes under our eyes, in this rudimental and incipient stage of existence, that even with our present constitution, virtue alone is capable of a blissful immortality. For malice and falsehood carry with them the seeds of their own wretchedness, if not of their own destruction. [Why that if there ? ] Only grant the soul to be 102 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. imperishable ; and, if the character of the governor is to be gathered from the final issues of the gov- ernment over which he presides, it says much for the moral character of him who framed us ; that, unless there be an utter reversal of the nature which himself hath given, then, in respect to the power of conferring enjoyment, or of maintaining the soul in its healthiest and happiest mood, it is righteousness alone which endureth forever, and charity alone which never faileth." * We confess, there is a little evasive ambiguity in -this. The author talks about virtue alone being capable of a blissful immortality ; as though vice might be capable of a miserable one. He also says, unless there be an utter reversal of our whole nature, then, in respect to maintaining the soul in its healthiest and happiest mood, it is righteousness alone which endureth forever ; as though, in respect to keeping the soul in an unhealthy and unhappy state, vice too might endure forever. But then he is careful to state, " Whatever reason there may be to FEAR that both virtue and vice may be capable of immortality," as though it was fear alone, and not an undoubted belief. But why fear such a thing, when, in reference to the present state, he begs hard for the acknowledgement that vice carries in it the " seeds of its own destruc- tion" and that, " while benevolence, that great * Chalmers' Natural Theology, vol, i. pp. 378, 379. UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 103 conservative principle of being, has in it a principle conservative of itself, as well as its objects, the out- breakings of evil are but partial and TEMPORA- RY?"* Now, if this is the case, then, as the doctor himself says, in the future state also, " Un- less there be an utter reversal of the principles of nature which God himself hath given," it must be, absolutely and exclusively, " righteousness alone which endureth forever, and charity alone which never faileth ! " And is there such an utter rever- sal ? Does the doctor himself contend for it ? He may, but that will not undo what he has here inti- mated. He has told us, in the first place, that he only fears it, while the present constitution of human nature is against it ; arid, in the next place, on page 404 of the same volume, he supposes that " the EXISTING CONSTITUTION of man, and his existing habits, shall be borne with him to the land of eternity ! " Well done, doctor. Now if thou hast not given us pretty good proof of the undoubt- ed character of thy faith in the endless perpetuity of sin, and pretty good proof how undemolishable it is, according to thine own showing, then we can- not hope that thy departed spirit will ever make a more successful attempt. We leave thee here. " Great men are not always wise," and boys some- times can see it. We must bring this subject to a conclusion. If * Natural Theology, vol. i. p. 378. 104 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. we see, in the present life, how many evils, both natural and moral, may and do result in good, and are not, therefore, absolute evils, then, with reference to a future state, the same may, and, by the perfections of God, must, hold true, to his glory, and the good of a glorious and entire uni- verse. What a foul blot would it be upon that universe, a final state of absolute and unmixed evil ! What in vice and irreligion more shocking and abhorrent ! On the contrary, what in religion more beautiful than the whole amplitude of the moral universe regenerated into purity and bliss ! Amen, my soul, adore that God, who, to adopt the philosophic language of the poet, * * " Beholding, in the sacred light Of his essential reason, all the shapes Of swift contingence, all successive ties Of action, propagated through the sum Of possible existence he at once, Down the long series of eventful time, So fixed the dates of being so disposed, To every living soul of every kind, The field of motion, and the hour of rest, That all conspired to his supreme design, To UNIVERSAL GOOD ! " III. The doctrine of universal and eternal holi- ness and happiness harmonizes all the attributes of God. We shall not here enter into a lengthy argument. It was shown, in our first lecture, that the opposite doctrine was opposed to all the divine UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 105 attributes ; and in that argument we received the opposite impression that the doctrine we now ad- vocate harmonized them all. It allows to the Deity goodness to suggest, wisdom to devise, knowledge to know or see, and power to execute, the complete success of a plan for the salvation and redemption of all created intelligences. And, of course, truth, mercy, and love, must coincide with it. But what we now allude to more particularly, hy harmonizing the divine attributes, is the justice and mercy of the Deity, which, hy popular theolo- gy, are so strangely and discordantly at variance. Those who advocate the final undoing of the wicked have no hesitation in admitting that the mercy of God would, in itself considered, extend salvation to the entire race of man ; and it is only justice that must forever prevent an accomplish- ment so infinitely desirable. We have, now, an idea to present here which we never saw sug- gested before, but which weighs very much in our mind, against the conclusion which the rejectors of our doctrine would draw, even admitting their premises true, viz. that justice, against mercy, demands the endless condemnation of the sinner. Consider, then, that mercy wants to save, justice wants to damn. These are both essential and infinite attributes of Deity. Now what is to be done ? These Christians say, let justice be exe- cuted. But why so ? Why so, any more than to 10 106 TTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PAHTIALISM. let mercy be extended ? Both are infinite attri- butes ; both, therefore, have infinite desires. And why should one yield to another ? If justice is executed, then mercy will go unsatisfied, and vice versa. The idea I have is this : both being in- finite attributes, and both, therefore, having infinite desires, if these desires are crossed, one demanding one thing, and another longing for its opposite, then, for all I can see, there can be no action at all. Neither justice can be executed, nor mercy extended. Neither salvation nor damnation can be effected. And hence we are driven to this absurd conclusion, that the Deity must remain in an eternal indecision, and neither one thing nor the other can be done. I know this conclusion is absurd, but it is one to which we are absolutely driven from absurd and inconsistent premises ; viz. that mercy wants to save, and justice wants to damn. It will avail nothing here, to free from this difficulty, to say that justice must damn, but that it ivould save if it could. For, in the first place, this would set justice itself at eternal oppo- sition, the same as the two attributes are ; and nothing in this case could be done, unless justice, divided against itself, should half unite with the whole of mercy * and so the world be saved in spite of it ! In the second place > we can say the same of mercy, that it must save, were it not for justice ; surely it must. " Ah ! " says the ob- jector, " it must, were it not for justice. Our case UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 107 is stronger, then. Justice must damn alone; it must, despite of mercy ; it must, of right." We tell you, then, that mercy must save alone ; it must, despite of justice; it must, of EIGHT. And if right is the principle which invests justice with such absolute demands, surely, the demands of mercy are equally urgent, for it is infinitely right that mercy should be extended when suffering of such intensity exists. Here, then, we have driven you to the point. Here are two infinite musts, then, so to speak, as well as two infinite desires. And we challenge any man to prove that infinite justice has any greater claim of evil than infinite mercy has of good. Both have infinite desires and in- finite claims. Now it is a principle in philosophy, that equal forces neutralize each other. And if two infinite desires, or claims, are opposed to each other, they are neutralized, and neither can act at all. So much for this opinion of two discordant attributes of God. Instead of proving what its advocates want to prove that justice must be ex- cuted, to the sacrifice of mercy it proves that neither justice nor mercy can act, that neither salvation nor damnation can be administered, and that, consequently, the Deity must remain in an eternal indecision, halting " between two opinions."!' How impiously absurd ! But the doctrine which we espouse avoids this inconsistency. It maintains that justice of itself justice, as much as mercy demands the good, and 108 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PART1ALISM. only the good, of all the subjects of its adminis- tration. " We know of no God who is just to the sacrifice of his mercy, or merciful to the sacrifice of his justice. The God we worship is at once 4 a just God and a Saviour.' " Goodness and justice are the same in purpose. Goodness requires as much punishment for sin as justice. They do in- deed differ in their manifestations, and so pass by a different name. But if that is justice which pun- ishes for the good of a moral being, so also is it goodness. And the punishment which justice in- flicts is the greatest blessing which, under existing circumstances, could possibly be bestowed. " Jus- tice, then, is so far from being incompatible with goodness, that it is the highest goodness, directed by the most perfect wisdom." We repeat the proposition, that this doctrine harmonizes ail the attributes of God. IV. This theory also renders all the commands of God consistent. The sum of all the divine commands is embraced in this : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart ; and thy neighbor as thyself." These commands are im- perative on all mankind. But commands, to be imperative, must be consistent. They must be in accordance with our moral nature, and what we can rationally obey. But the doctrine of endless punishment, founded on the endless enmity of God, renders them utterly inconsistent, and what we cannot rationally obey. God is represented to be UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 109 filled with hatred to the habitual violaters of his law ; yet, notwithstanding, a command is obligatory on these transgressors to love the Lord their God with all their hearts. We would not cavil upon unimportant points, but here is a point of the ut- most importance to be noticed. What in reality is it but an absurd and inconsistent command to love hatred 1 There could not be a more direct con- tradiction. I know it is said that all have sufficient reason to love the Creator, for his daily blessings are scattered with a rich profusion on the vilest of the vile. But that is not the point in the argument. It is not these blessings which we are commanded to love, but God who gives them. And if, not- withstanding these blessings, he glows with un- bounded hatred towards even the boldest trans- gressors, how can that portion of mankind be con- sistently called upon to love him ? They could not, manifestly, love such a being, unless they could love hatred. And this is a direct contradic- tion both in ideas and terms. Indeed, it is not pretended that any now love a being who is filled with hatred to them, for that very circumstance of their love is considered proof enough that God loves them. But how, in the name of reason, could they first love him while yet he was filled with hatred ? It was not God who changed first, according to this doctrine. He remained in hatred (he might have had the love of benevolence, but still it was such a love as would 110 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. damn them through eternity ; and no man could love that; he remained in hatred, then,) until they loved him. Consequently they had to love him while in hatred ; that is, had to love hatred in order to get him to love them ! We are sickened with the absurdities of this doctrine. It is plain to reason itself that the command is thus as incon- sistent as it can be. But, again, with reference to the second com- mand love to our neighbor, and even to our enemies what shocking inconsistency is here! Why love our enemies, if God does not love his ? The command is, " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you," &c. ; and the reason is given, "That ye may be the children of your Father in heaven," whose goodness is alike impar- tially extended to " the evil and the good, the just and the unjust." Now this is reasonable. We may consistently be called upon to love our ene- mies if God loves his, and is " kind even to the evil and unthankful." But look at the opposite doctrine. By this we are required to love our enemies while God hates them. How, then, can we imitate God ? Indeed, I am disposed to press the conclusion that, if God hates his enemies, we ought also to hate ours. For " shall mortal man be more just than God ? " But, with a God of love instead of hatred, the commands are all con- sistent. We can love our neighbors, and even our enemies, if God has this affection for them ; UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. Ill whereas the opposite doctrine is crowded with practical no less than with theoretical absurdities, V. The doctrine of universal salvation recog- nizes the parental relationship of God to all his moral offspring. This truth is indeed recognized by another sect in Christendom, whose members strongly insist upon it, but we must tell them many of them * that they do, nevertheless, deny the necessary consequences which result from such a truth, by representing the principles upon which the Creator governs as utterly inconsistent with a father's character. The character of a father is too well known to be ascribed to a being who in- flicts an endless evil upon any of his children. The principle would dishonor an earthly father, and it is infinitely dishonorable to God. In maintaining our sentiments, however, on the moral government of God, we have frequently been accused of laboring under a great error ; that of bringing down the character of the incom- prehensible God to a comparison with an earthly father, a frail, weak worm of the dust. And what presumption is this ! says one ; for, are not God's ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts ? " As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts." All this we readily admit. But this is a very unfortunate allusion for the objector. Did not Christ institute the same comparison ? " If a son 112 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone ? or, if he ask a fish, will he, for a fish, give him a serpent ? or, if he shall ask an egg, will he, for an egg, offer him a scorpion ? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ? " Here the same comparison is insti- tuted, and the imperfection, too, of the earthly father expressly alluded to : " If ye, then, BEING EVIL,'' &c. ; which circumstance, instead of destroy- ing the propriety of the comparison, the Saviour makes use of to strengthen it, by arguing, that, if an earthly father, a frail, weak worm of the dust, as the objector says, is ever willing to give good gifts unto his children, BIUCH MORE shall a God of infinite perfection govern his children upon the pure principles of parental love. After such an example by Christ himself, w r hy should we be objected to for instituting the same comparison, on the untenable ground that God's ways are higher than our ways ? For this very circumstance is a reason why we should expect hirn to be governed by the same principles of paternal kindness as those which actuate an earthly father ; being infinitely above in goodness, accord- ing to the testimony of Christ himself. And from the quotation we have made we learn this instruc- tive lesson, that, until the heart of an earthly parent can become so steeled to the impressions UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 113 of humanity as to offer a stone to his children when they ask for bread, we may expect God, the great Parent of the universe, to conduct himself in a manner which best comports with a Father's love. We know his ways are higher than our ways ; but, let us ask, are they so much worse ? Are they not infinitely better ? But, says one, does God sustain the relationship of Father to all mankind ? Are we not plainly told that some are the children of the devil, and the lusts of their father they will do ? Yes ; but is there a man or a woman, who is not a proper sub- ject of derision, who supposes that any human being is really a child of an evil spirit, related to him by a tie of consanguinity ? But if this is not the meaning of the passage, what is ? Plainly, that some men are characteristically the children of Satan, or the adversary. The reason is assigned why they were the children of the devil, because they were subservient to his evil desires. While, then, some men are characteristically the children of the adversary, all men are the children of God by creation, and it is this act of giving leing to a creature that creates the relationship of Father. " Have we not all one Father ? " says the prophet. " Hath not one God created us? " Again, he is styled the "Father of the spirits of all flesh;" and the apostle says there is " one God and Father of all ; " and, in that ever memorable prayer of 114 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. our Lord, all men are taught to address their Cre- ator by the endearing name of Father. But it Is contended that sin destroys the relation- ship. This is a sound position indeed ! Sin de- stroy 4he relationship ! Let us ask, does virtue constitute the relationship ? No, nothing but the act of creation. The child is related to the father before either obedience or disobedience exists. As, then, obedience does not constitute the relation- ship, it is absurd to say that disobedience can destroy it. Be it now remembered that they were wicked Jews to whom the language was addressed, " Ye are of your father, the devil," Now, to wicked Jews, also, is the language, " Turn, O backsliding children, for I am married unto you," And, again, *' Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken : I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." Thus the Creator addresses the backsliding and rebellious objects of his care by the endearing name of children. Sin, then, does not destroy the relationship. But it is still insisted that those are called chil- dren in a special manner who have imbibed the spirit of the gospel. " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." We have no objection to this, nor do we see how it can form any rational objection against the conclusion we aim to establish. For, if God is the Father of UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 115 mankind by creation, and has declared his govern- ment as conducted on the principles of that pater- nity, this is the strongest sense in which he can be our Father, and the very government which must disprove the doctrine we oppose. We may be the children of God in a special manner, by imbibing his spirit, and " following after him as dear chil- dren ;" but, still, God is our Father before that, and it is with reference to this relationship that he will be honored by our conduct towards him, and by his dealings with us. We rejoice, then, in the liberty of our faith to recognize in God the great Father and Protector of the whole human family* Amen and Amen. This truth we deem established. Now, there is a question put concerning this truth, which we will make use of with reference to our present subject. Saith the Lord, by the prophet Malachi, " If, then, I be a Father, where is mine honor ? *' And in- deed this question may be brought triumphantly against any doctrine which does not limit the chas- tisements of God, and cause them to result in good. David has well described the principle of parental government : " If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments ; then will I visit their transgressions with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving- kindness will I NOT UTTERLY take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail" (Psalm Ixxxix. 116 UNJVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 30 33.) Consider this declaration of the principle of divine .punishment, this principle of every good earthly father, of punishing for profit and correc- tion, to bring good ultimately out of it, with what is ascribed to God, the Father of the human fami- ly. According to this theory, the sentiment of David is utterly reversed. According to popular theology, God says, " If my children transgress my laws, and walk not in my judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep not my command- ments ; then will I not only visit their transgres- sions with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes, but my loving-kindness will I utterly take from them, and inflict upon them unprofitable and unimagina- ble torment, so long as I exist ! " This is a candid exposition of our prevailing theology. Might not the Creator well exclaim, " If, then, I be a Father, where is mine honor ? " And where is it ? Not in Calvinism ; for that is most tyrannical and ex- clusive. Not in Arminianism ; for that is most cruel and unjust. Where, then, shall we find it > but in that UNIVERSAL system of grace and good- will which declares the parental relationship to all God's moral offspring, that the most severe chastisements of Jehovah are but the sterner ex- pressions of his love, and that, upon this benevo- lent principle, every rebel in the universe will be dealt with for all his transgressions of the law ? We do affirm that there is a beauty and a justness in this view of the divine government, which no UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 11? other system has, and that this alone, the excellent and efficient paternity of the Almighty, recom- mends the system in question to the hearts and consciences of all men. VI. The doctrine of universal salvation is con- genial with all holy desires. There may be more in this than most people are apt to imagine. Did you ever reflect upon the fact, that the doctrine we approve approves itself to all ? The hope of a final reign of universal purity and blessedness 1 seems to be a plant of almost natural growth in the breast of every human being. We say, in every human feeing, became, whenever and where- ever a human mind is found free from the shackles' of barbarism, ignorance, infidelity; and atheism, - : which can dare to send forth an inquiry? and lift the curtain that veils the mysteries of another world, there will arise the conjecture, whether^ some benignant Providence hath not secured the final blessedness of the congregated universe; And more than this : even where the influence of early instilled and carefully cultivated principles has checked the manifestation of this truth in the creeds and confessions of mankind, -^whete the omnipotence of education has an irresistible force in fashioning the mind, and keeping it from enter- taining such a thought, even here, and among a: people who not only reject, but bitterly oppose it, is the " word nigh unto them, even in their hearts and in their mouths ; and that is the word of faitfe 118 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. which we preach." It is exhibited in the wishes, the desires, the hopes of all Christians, of whatever faith, and is uttered in the prayers of every philan- thropist, poured forth warm and fervently, against creeds, against faith, for the salvation of universal humanity. Surely, the God of all truth would never have implanted aspirations so universal in the minds of men, did they not leap from the heart to the recognition of the same truth which gave them birth. And, whatever may be made, said, or inferred, from this fact, we deem it an important testimony to the truth as it stands out from the pages of God's revelation. It is not the law writ- ten in the heart, but it is the testimony, and re- sponded to by every evidence in nature, and by every utterance of the God of nature. Our hearts suggest, nature promises, and the word of God declares, that " Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things ; to whom be glory forever." But we have mentioned the prayers of individu- als. And it is a singular and touching fact, that the earnest invocations which ascend to the throne of thrones, imploring the Deity to accomplish the salvation of the world, should rise from faithless hearts, so warm, so fervently. Whatever may be meant by that affirmation of the apostle on another subject "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" however much may be embodied here, we can but view these faithless prayers as the offerings of hearts most strangely at variance with the warm petition. We do not mean to say that, with an UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 119 enlightened view of the system of our faith, they would not wish it true ; but we have reference to that undoubting disbelief of the granting of what is asked for, insomuch that, if you tell the petitioner it will be granted, he will enter into a spirited argument against it ! Can these be the prayers of faith ? We would not question the sincerity or the piety of our Christian brethren ; but we think they " greatly err." Does it not look like a spe- cies of mockery, to put forth to the Deity a fervent prayer, which we as heartily believe will never be answered that it cannot consistently be answered and that a faith which is congenial with the answer is radically and scripturally wrong ? Upon this very subject, the apostle hath instructed us, that we offer prayers for the salvation of "all men, without doubting." (1 Tim. ii. 1 8.) Upon which Dr. Clarke says "reasonings" are referred to " Such as are often felt by distressed peni- tents and timid believers ; faith, hope, and unbelief appearing to hold a disputation and controversy in their own bosoms ; in the issue of which unbelief ordinarily triumphs." * The doctor could not, if he had tried, represented more aptly the case of such Christians, or the apparent impiety of such prayers. It is granted by all that we should pray in submission to the will of God, nothing doubting but his purpose will be accomplished, and the objects of such prayers be granted. Now the * Clarke on this passage. 120 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIAL ISM. apostle hath signified to us. ithe will of God, which, v even though it be admitted to be the will of desire merely, is the salvation of all men. And he has exhorted us ; to pray for it " without doubting." But, if there exist " reasonings, faith, hope, and unbelief," entering into a sort of " controversy " and ^ .disputation " in the bosom of the petitioner, where even " unbelief ordinarily triumphs," what character shall we ascribe to such prayers, or what to the faith in such direct hostility against them ? They are certainly not the prayers of " faith, nothing wavering," even if, not being " of faith," they are not " sin." And, when we look at the subject in the strongest light, ~r- when we look out upon assembled multitudes who congregate to min- gle the incense of their prayers for the salvation of Adam's wide-spread race, and those, too, who, if you tell them afterwards that there is every reason in the world to believe their prayers will be an- swered, they will then turn about and resent it, or get into a passion with you,- we cannot think that such prayers are acceptable offerings to the Most pigh ; or, if they are, the faith that contradicts, fhem must be singularly false. We, thank God ! can perform a .consistent duty, in praying for the human race ; nothing doubting that God will bestow a favor so consistent with his will, and so in accordance with all holy desires. Our proposition, then, has an importance with it which gives it the character of strong evidence for tjue truth of a theory which can alone support it. UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 121 The doctrine we advocate is congenial with all holy desires. We can preach Universalism, and pray Universalism, and say amen in faith ; where as, the theory of Partialism must strangely contra- dict the prayers of faithless hearts, and exist in jarring dissonance with the holiest aspirations of the soul. We rest, then, thus far, in the following conclu- sions : that the doctrine of universal and eternal holiness and happiness is the only one which does not insult our reason on the very first consideration of it ; that it excludes all absolute evil, and main- tains that the universe shall ultimately embrace nothing but good ; that it harmonizes all the attri- butes of God ; that it renders all the commands of God consistent ; that it recognizes the parental relationship of God to all his moral offspring ; and that it is congenial with all holy desires. These are some of the "strong reasons" which we " bring forth " in support of our " cause," and which cannot be brought forth by any other system of divinity. For these reasons, we prize and honor it, and count it worthy of our reverence and faith. It will stand upon a rational basis, and does not ask us to renounce our reason, or to shrink from an investigation of its claims. It had, we trust, its origin in Eternal Reason itself, and its consumma- tion unto all will be " the feast of reason, and the flow of soul." 11* - LECTURE IV. FOR THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SAL- VATION, CONTINUED. What saith the Scripture? Romans iv. 3. IN considering the merits of the doctrine of uni- versal salvation, it has frequently been declared that, notwithstanding the appearance of reason in many of the arguments put forth in defence of it ? it is, nevertheless, felt to be repugnant to the line of Scripture testimony in reference to this momen- tous question. Hence, the reasons which are urged in its behalf are pronounced unworthy of trust, and the controversy is then put upon scrip- tural ground, where, it is said, Universalism meets no response but that of a continued line of conr demnation. In accounting, however, for a large share of this felt repugnancy, we shall ascribe it at once to the force of tradition, and the hold of edu- cation on the mind. Men have been instructed from their infancy, and their instructers from their infancy, back through many generations ; and a religious opinion, thus nourished and supported, has struck its roots to the very depths of the human UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 123 heart, and become, in fact, a part of that heart itself. Is it any wonder that such sentiments re- tain their hold as they do ? The wonder an.d the praise should be ? that the force of truth is* so om- nipotent to dislodge these opinions from the soul. The final undoing and endless punishment of the wicked has so long been received implicitly as the truth of God's declaration, that many who peruse the matter of their Bibles take this point as a key of interpretation, to unlock the meaning of those Scriptures, which, without this aid, would remain to them in a shadow of obscurity. And these passages, many of them ? are of the plainest and most simple character. So great is the hold of fireside opinions. No one, I presume, will dis- pute the fact, that almost every threatening of a general character, on the pages of the Scriptures, is carried, by many, far from its context and con- nection, away into a future world, for application and improvement. Even those of a most unques- tionable temporal and earthly nature, where th.e context and all the circumstances show that they must be confined to a state of flesh and blood, are, pn the wing of swift imagination, transported to . the world of spirits. Nothing could exceed the wildness of such a course. While the whole Old Testament is, by some of the most eminent de- fenders of the eternity of punishment, given up as affording no proof at all of it, how many less-inr formed Christians are there who find no difficulty 124 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTI AXISM. in selecting from these Scriptures hundreds of texts in support of this most questionable sentiment ! But enough : there are, evidently, two sides to the subject of the present controversy. Be it ours to present the scriptural ground-work of a doctrine so glorious and infinitely desirable as that of the universal and complete salvation of the human species. And if we succeed in establishing this side of the question, of course, the opposite doc- trine falls, as a necessary consequence, from its supposed foundation in the Bible. Nevertheless, we shall, in the sequel, offer some general remarks upon the numerous passages brought forth in de- fence of the opposing theory. I. We begin with a notice of the first gospel promise mentioned in the Bible. It relates to the Saviour's conquest over sin : " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen. iii. 15.) This is the language of the Lord to the serpent. The sense of the passage is this : enmity shall exist between the serpent, or sin, and the seed of the woman, which is Christ. Christ shall bruise the serpent's head. Here is an allusion to the ancient custom of killing serpents. The blow was given upon the head. To bruise a serpent's head is to destroy it. Christ, therefore, shall destroy sin. This agrees with another passage, where we find the same fact recorded : " Forasmuch, then, as the UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 125 children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same ; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." (Heh. ii. 14.) Again, the works of the devil are to be destroyed. " For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1 John iii. 8.) This testimony is conclusive. The ser- pent's head shall be bruised, the works of the devil destroyed, and the devil himself annihilated. This is the testimony of Moses, John, and Paul. The conquest over sin shall be universal and complete. II. We pass to a brief notice of the promises to the ancient patriarchs. These are, indeed, familiar ; but our object is to convince, rather than confirm. The sum of the promises is this : a declaration of the Lord to Abraham, renewed unto Isaac, and .confirmed unto Jacob, that in their seed " all the nations and families of the earth should be blessed." (Gen. xii. 3 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 14.) These promises are also spoken of by Peter on this wise : " And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." (Acts iii. 25.) That this language conveys the idea of universality can- not be successfully disputed, insomuch as no indi- vidual can be found who belongs not to some nation, family, or kindred. And, indeed, partial- ists themselves are constrained to admit the univer- sality of this language. On Genesis xxviii. 14, Clarke remarks, " Not only all thy race, but all 126 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. the other families or tribes of mankind, which have not proceeded from the Abrahamic family, shall be blessed ; for Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death FOR EVERY MAN." And on Gen- esis xii. 3, he remarks, " In the Messiah shall all the families of the earth be blessed ; for he shall taste death for every man ; his gospel shall be preached throughout the world ; and innumerable blessings be derived on ALL MANKIND, through his death and intercession." What kind of blessings, doctor ? These promises, then, are universal. But there are now two considerations which are urged against the use which we would make of them ; one is, that they are not gospel promises, but only promises of temporal blessings ; another is, that al- though they may be gospel promises, yet they are conditional, and may not be realized in a universal fulfilment. With regard to the first of these objections, it is sufficient to remark, that the apostle calls them gospel promises. Alluding to them, he says, " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. iii. 8.) This is suffi- cient. Paul calls them gospel promises, and also promises of justification through faith. There is, then, nothing temporal in them. But it is again affirmed that, admitting them to be gospel promises, nevertheless, they are condi- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 127 tional, depending on our faith, and may not have a fulfilment that is universal. Our answer is, first, there is nothing in the promises themselves that is conditional. The lan- guage is positive and absolute. The Lord says, " I WILL, and thou SHALT." In the next place, we observe, these promises are either unconditional, or else God's veracity is impeached. To say that faith is any part of the condition is the veriest absurdity. For the promise is the very thing to be believed. As such, it must be absolutely true before we believe it, else we are required to believe a falsehood, or something which is not true till we believe it ! God himself has declared to us the impiety of imputing to him such conduct. " He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar ; be- cause he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his Son." (1 John v. 10, 11.) In this passage, believers and unbelievers are called upon to believe the record that God gave of his Son. What is the record ? " This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life." And " he that believeth not " this record, " hath made God a liar." But how so, if the unbeliever hath not this life made sure for him before he believes ? The very fact that unbe- lievers are required to believe that they have eter- 128 UNIVERSAL1SM AGAINST PARTIALISM, nal life proves that they have it infallibly in store for them, whether they believe it or not ; because, if they thus have it, they make God a liar by dis- believing it ; but, if they do not have it, I do not see how they could make him a liar if they did dis- believe it, for they would disbelieve no truth. It is precisely so with the promises. We are called upon to believe them. They must, there- fore, be true before we believe, and faith cannot be the condition. I am willing to grant that, without faith, we cannot enjoy the promises ; but this does not prove that they are false, or not true till we believe them. They ARE true, and our disbelief cannot affect their verity. And they which believe " are blessed with faithful Abraham." But " What if some did not believe ? Shall their unbelief make the faith [or faithfulness] of God without ef- fect ? God forbid : yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 3, 4.) But, again, the apostle hath distinctly declared^ in so many words, that the divine promises are not conditional. " But as God is true, our word to- ward you was not yea and nay. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me, and Sylvanus, and Timotheusy was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him, amen, unto the glory of God by us." (2 Cor. i. 18 20.) That is, they are absolute, infallibly certain. But the doctrine we are examining is in UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 129 evident hostility to this emphatic testimony. It affirms that the divine promises, if believed, will be yea; and if disbelieved, will be nay. And, therefore, instead of the apostle's doctrine, that they are all yea and amen, it contends that they are both yea and nay, according to the belief or unbelief of men. And, in fact, the system goes still further. It approaches the deistical ground, that God's promises are neither one thing nor the other, neither yea nor nay, until they are believed or disbelieved by man ! ! So much, then, for the affirmed conditionality of the promises. Indeed, we are willing to acknowl- edge that man is* not a passive instrument in the' hands of God ; that God's promises will not be ful- filled upon his head, with man in a posture of un- willingness or ignorance ; that a certain condition of the mind is requisite for the experiencing of God's salvation ; but if this be called a conditional salvation, it is a condition which is sure of a true performance ; for God, after all, is the ultimate and directing cause, and in this sense it may be said that " we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God haih before or- dained that we should walk in them." III. In defence of universal salvation may now be presented other passages of various and special import. We do not, indeed, agree in the applica- tion of many passages which have been made use of in proof of the universality of the salvation of 12 130 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. the gospel ; for we are of opinion that there are sufficient Scriptures, and those sufficiently explicit and direct, to justify, and even to encourage, a departure from many doubtful texts which have usually been resorted to in this great controversy. One text of a direct and unequivocal bearing is better than a hundred which, from some little cir- cumstance in its phraseology or context, an oppo- nent may make an uningenuous use of, to slur and weaken the whole character of evidence employed upon the subject. In the exposition of this subject, we may not fol- low the order of the Scriptures with so much ad- vantage as the order of theology. In other words, we may not, with so much success, follow the arrangement of the books and chapters of the Bible, as the arrangement of divine Providence in accomplishing the salvation of the world. We may not be enabled to do this, so far as Scripture testimony is concerned, but in a very brief manner ; but this, at any rate, should be done first, as far as may be, before we adduce promiscuous Scriptures in attestation of the truth. God, then, in the first place, willed the salvation of the world. " God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii. 4.) Is this a will of desire or of purpose ? I answer, it makes no difference which it may be, as it regards the accomplishment there- of. We have been sickened long enough with the UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 181 crude idea that, with reference to the ends of the divine government, God's will of desire and will of purpose may be different, and even hostile to each other. It does not comport with sound sense or sound theology, to say that what God desires, as an end in the divine economy, he does not purpose to effect. Can we say, then, that he purposes what he does not desire ? With as much propriety as we can the former. We may rest assured, my brethren, that what God desires, as the result of his government, he will verily see that it is accom- plished. But we contend that it is not a will of desire merely, but a will of purpose, and is so expressed by the apostle : " God WILL HAVE all men to be saved." Besides, the testimony of the same apos- tle is, " Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath PURPOSED in himself, that in the dispensa- tion of the fulness of times, he might gather to- gether in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." (Eph. i. 9, 10.) It is, then, the desire and the purpose of Jehovah to gather together in one all things in Christ. It is also further stated, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, BEING PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. i. 11.) Nothing could be stronger 132 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. evidence of the will and purpose of God to effect the salvation of the world. Now, in the next place, what God willed and purposed, he sent his Son to accomplish. The be- loved apostle says, " We have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (I John iv. 14.) In the next place, what God willed and purposed, and sent his Son to accomplish, Jesus, in accord- ance with the mission he received, faithfully un- dertook. He ''gave himself a ransom for all," " tasted death for every man," and is ** the propi- tiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John ii. 2.) In the next place, what God willed and purposed, and sent his Son to accomplish, and Jesus in ac- cordance therewith undertook, shall be fully con- summated. The great apostle speaks of the con- summation in terms of perspicuity and force : " Then cometh the END, when he shall have de- livered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. * * * And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may le all in all." (1 Cor. xv. 2428.) Observe, here, UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 133 that all enemies are not to be subdued by being imprisoned for eternity, or by placing tbe rebellious spirits where no further harm can result to the interests of Christ's kingdom. No, this is not the subjection of Christ. A slave or rebel may be thus subdued ; chains may hang upon his body, while still the mind may burn with vengeance, and he be only outwardly subdued. This is not the subjection of Christ. And if you will look at the passage last quoted, you will find that the text warrants the conclusion that all enemies are to be subdued by having their enmity destroyed, and becoming willing subjects of the King of saints. Nay, the passage presents us with the fact, that these enemies are to become subject unto Christ in the same way that he is subject unto God. Ob- serve, " He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet ; and when all things shall be sub- dued unto him, tfon shall the SON ALSO HIMSELF le subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be ALL IN ALL." God can never be all in all, in a spiritual sense, until all are subjected unto Christ AS he is to God, which, in fact, the Spirit testifies. Another testimony with regard to the consum- mation of God's will arid purpose, for which Christ was sent, and for which he labored, may be found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. At the conclusion of the eleventh chapter, after tracing the succes- sive stages of God's providence in the system of 12* 134 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. election, he makes it issue in the salvation of all the Jews, and all the Gentile world, and concludes the universal theme with the following universal lan- guage : " For God hath concluded them all in un* belief, [both Jews and Gentiles,] that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past rinding out ! For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again ? For of him, and through him, and TO HIM ARE ALL THINGS ; to. wlwm be glory forever. Amen." From the whole, there could not be a more con? nected and conclusive argument for the salvation of the world presented to the human mind. It is infallibly established, that God, in the plenitude of his goodness, first willed the salvation of the world ; that this will is a will of determinate purpose ; that he then sent his Son to execute this purpose ; that Jesus accordingly undertook the work ; and that, finally, the will, and purpose, and work, shall be consummated, in the subjugation of all mankind to the Messiah's spiritual reign, as he is to be sub- jected to the Father, who shall then be all in all, to whom be glory forever. IV. We may now leave the order of theology, and introduce other promiscuous Scriptures, con- firmatory of the same great truth. And, in the first UNIVERSALISM AGAINST place, the Saviour himself hath d\ sality of the accomplishment of " And I," says he, " if I be lifted up : will draw all men unto me." (John xii. ! insomuch as the only condition was fulfilled on which the accomplishment of this truth depended, as the Saviour was lifted, like the serpent in the wilderness, so must he draw, influence, or attract all men unto him. And this agrees with another testimony which is written, " The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. * # * All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." (John iii. 35; vi. 37.) The next passage we shall introduce is in the fifth of Romans. " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemna- tion ; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." It is evidently the apostle's idea here, that the free gift unto justification is as extensive as was the judgment to condemnation. And how exten- sive are they ? Both are universal. As all men are condemned by the offence of one, " EVEN so " are the same all men justified by the other. If it is said that the free gift was only offered by these means, but that many will not accept the offer, we reply, that such is not the doubtful character of the apostle's language. Besides, we have before proved that all must become willing subjects to 136 UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. Christ, even as he is to be subjected to the Father, But the apostle's language is emphatic : " THE FREE GIFT CAME UPON ALL MEN," not, WCtS offered to. Look also at the next verse : " For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners ; so by the obedience of one SHALL many be made righteous." How extensive is the signification of the term many here ? How many were made sin- ners ? All. " So by the obedience of one," then, " SHALL ALL," or the same number, " be made righteous." And this agrees with the former verse. To be made righteous is the same as to obtain justification unto life. And the free gift came upon all men for this justification. And the apostle continues, " Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound ; but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." This is a very singular expression, if, in millions of instances, sin is to abound over grace, and the triumph of sin be perpetual where grace can never operate. The doctrine of unpardonable sin, and the idea of " sin- ning away the day of grace," are both repulsed by this gracious testimony ; for grace must abound over sin, or this testimony is effectually repudiated. But the next verse confirms and establishes the whole. " That as sin hath reigned unto death," [that is, universally,'] EVEN so might grace reign, [universally,] through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." There is nothing in this last verse which an objector can cavil on, TJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 137 except it be the term might. He may say that it is decidedly potential, and implies possibility, power, ivill, and this is all. We direct him, then, to the 19th verse of this chapter, which has already been considered, where the indicative SHALL de- clares the veritable fact that all shall find righteous- ness by Christ. Besides, we ask him to consider this whole subject, to take in all the connection, and say whether terms so absolutely universal, and so variously diversified, upon so glorious a subject, can possibly be reconciled with the limitation of God's blessings through Christ, upon the lapsed of Adam's race. We are satisfied that they cannot. In confirmation of the views here expressed, I cannot refrain from introducing an extract from Clarke's works, showing that not only Universalists, but Partialists, have felt the force of the apostle's language here, and have fairly stumbled on the truth unconsciously, (at least, so it appears,) in utter contradiction to their creeds. We give it, at any rate, as an ample comment on the text. " As extensively, as deeply, as universally as sin, whether implying the act of transgression, or the impure principle from which the act proceeds, or both, hath reigned ; even so, as extensively, deeply, and universally might grace reign, [here is the potential,] filling the whole earth, and per- vading, purifying, and refining the whole soul, through righteousness, through this doctrine of free salvation, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our 138 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. Lord. Thus we find that the salvation from sin here is [here is the indicative] as extensive and complete as the guilt and contamination of sin : death is conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and SIN TOTALLY DESTROYED. Here is glorying, to him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us kings and priests to God and his Father, be glory and dominion, forever and ever, amen! Halle- lujah ! The Lord God omnipotent reigneth ! Amen, and amen." Here is the force of truth ; and the glory of truth. Who could think that such an exposition of this Scripture, and such an excla- mation, would proceed from a partialist believer in the endless perpetuity of sin and misery ? Yet so it is, that truth, v/hich is powerful, will sometimes apparently make men forget their creeds, and exult in the salvation of the world. Passing over the remnant of this Epistle, we come to the Epistle to the Corinthians. Part of the testimony we have already noticed ; but there is still another passage which, with its connection, asserts the universality of final blessedness : " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. xv. 22.) If the word in the first instance conveys the idea of universality, so also must it in the second. To be made alive in Christ is to be raised to a state of immortality, in opposi- tion to the mortality of those who die in Adam. But is this all ? Is it only to be raised to immor- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PART1ALISM. 139 tality ? We say, that it is to be raised to immor- tality and glory. For the apostle goes on to state the order of the resurrection, (order of time,) and in the three orders which he mentions Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming, then the end, when all enemies shall be subdued unto him, that God may be all in all in these three orders or successions, all mankind are not only included in the resurrection of immor- tality, but in the resurrection of glory ; for, as before shown, they are to be subjected unto Christ AS he is to the Father ! And, further, no man has ever yet shown, or ever can show, that in this ac- count of the resurrection of immortality, there is any limitation in number, even to the 42d verse, where we are instructed that, " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in dishonor ; it is raised in glory." And, further yet, (to the 49th verse,) " As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heaven- ly." And so on till verse 51 : " We shall all be changed," and " Death," (verse 54,) to every son and daughter of Adam, " is swallowed up in vic- tory," and the apostle renders thanks for all, through Jesus Christ our Lord. I say, no man has ever yet shown, or can show, that there is any limitation in numbers, from the all that die in Adam, to the number who shall be raised in glory and bear the image of the heavenly. No, the chapter is a glorious one the best one in 140 imiVERSALISM AGAINST PAKTIALISM. the Bible and which alone would render the Bible a Universalist look. " The ultimate and universal prevalence of immortality, virtue, and happiness is thus plainly disclosed, and asserted with all the energy and dignity worthy of the exalted theme." Let any person look it over and see if we are not correct. It avails nothing to say that this Epistle was addressed to " the church of God." We know this : still, in that Epistle, the apostle speaks of mankind at large, and asserts, most plainly, their resurrection to immortality and glory. We pass to notice further testimony in the Epistle to the Philippians. Speaking of Jesus, the apostle says, " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,* to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. ii. 911.) The expression, " things in earth, and things in heaven," is allowed by the best Orthodox commen- tators to be a periphrasis for the universe. The language is absolutely universal. And if all are to bow the knee, and confess Christ to the FatherV glory, what must be this state of things ? But an objection is frequently urged. This has been affirmed to have relation to the simple supremacy of Christ, when all shall indeed be constrained ta acknowledge him, but not all as subjects of his- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 141 spiritual kingdom. In other words, all may bow the knee, but then, with some, it will be too late for repentance ; and all may confess him Lord, but not as happy subjects of his reign, for the day of grace to some will be forever past. In short, this, to many, will not be a willing and delighted,, but rather a forced subjection, and compulsory bowing in shrinking terror before the King of kings, O ye simple, how long will ye love simplicity ? Does the apostle say aught of this ? Does he inti- mate that a part are to bow in one way, and a part in another ? No, nothing of the kind. The apostle makes no distinction, and why should any thus pervert his meaning to favor what he does not teach ? Let us ask, does not the very act of bowing signify voluntary homage ? And if the bowing is forced and extorted, must not the con- fessing be so likewise ? Surely it must be. But the apostle avers that every tongue shall confess to the glory of God the Father. And can it be any thing to the Father's glory for his children to con- fess him in a forced, involuntary manner ? Why, then, present us with such strained and unnatural interpretations ? Is it to favor a sinking cause ? The apostle distinctly says that " No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.' 1 (1 Cor.xii. 3.) And can it be in a forced, involun- tary, shrinking manner, when done by the sweet influences of the Holy Spirit ? " Whoso readeth, let him understand." Professor Stuart, of the 13 142 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. Andover Seminary, says, " What can be meant by things in heaven, that is, beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant ? " And we may echo back the question, what can be meant, if this be not ? The apostle, in his letter to the Colossians, as- sures us, however, that this must be the meaning, for he uses the same periphrastic phrase for the universe, viz. things in earth and things in heaven, and uses it with reference to their reconciliation. " For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell ; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile [not, then, to force and compel] all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." (Col. i. 19, 20.) This was the good pleasure of the Father, to be accomplished through " faith grounded and settled " in Jesus Christ his Son ; and God himself hath declared to us, " My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. xlvi. 10.) There is yet another passage, which is the last that we shall notice, recorded in Paul's letter to Timo- thy. There it is expressly recorded that God is the Saviour of all men. The apostle declares, " For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." (1 Tim. iv. 10.) This passage is direct and con- clusive. It might not be, were it not for the latter UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 143 clause of it ; but, as it is, the very thing which is generally supposed to weaken it for our purpose, just strengthens the argument for the salvation of the world. In the first place, however, let us remark upon the construction which is put upon this text by the limitarian disciple. He would declare that the text in question only expresses a willingness with God to be the universal Saviour, but that those only can be absolutely saved who exercise the faith required. I charge you to observe and remember that the text has not this idea in it It does not read, "God, who is willing to be the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." No, this is far from the style of the apostle's language. His language is positive and absolute. " GOD is THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN." The present tense of the verb may require of us to substitute the future, as God who will be the Saviour of all men ; but it does not authorize us to destroy the absoluteness of the language, and, with a change of tense, to effect a change of mood, as, God would be the Saviour of all men. By no means can we take this liberty. God is the Saviour of all men in the same sense that Christ was declared to be the Saviour of the world, even be- fore many who now are, had become the subjects of his kingdom. Although, then, the subject re- quires a change of tense, I repeat, it does not re- 144 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. quire, but rather forbids, a change of mood which would destroy the absoluteness of the declaration. But it is objected, again, that God is declared to be especially the Saviour of those that believe. But this destroys not the strength of the passage as applied to our purpose. Because the apostle stated first that God was the Saviour of all men, and then afterwards added, especially of those that believe, must we make him contradict the une- quivocal statement which he made at first ? The whole text must evidently harmonize. But the worst of the limitarian interpretation is yet to be exposed. Instead of the inspired reading of the text, " God is the Saviour of all men, es~ pecially of those that believe," the partialist inter- preter would have it, " God is the Saviour of no man except those that believe ! " Should we not tremble for such utter perversions of the sacred text ? Is not this a desperate effort to bend the Scriptures to sustain a groundless theory ? But what will be done, says the objector, with the special nature of the text's latter clause ? Does it not weaken the argument therefrom for the uni- versality of God's salvation, We answer, instead of weakening the argument, it just strengthens it. Observe, if God was not the actual Saviour of aZZ, he could not be the special Saviour of any ! How could he ? Would it not be the veriest nonsense to talk of a special salvation if there were no com,- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 145 mon one ? Suppose I should say, I will preach to all the congregation, but especially to the church. Would you be justified in reporting abroad that I was going to preach only to the church ? Or sup- pose I should exhort you to the practice of all the Christian virtues, but especially charity. Would you understand me to say omit all but charity? You see, then, that the qualifying adverb especially , in connection with the universal aZZ, instead of weakening, only strengthens the supposition that absolutely all is meant. For, were it not so, there would be no propriety at all in the use of the quali- fying adverb especially. But we prefer, after all, to have the apostle the interpreter of his own language. It is manifestly a just rule of interpretation to allow, in a connec- tion of similar character, the same meaning to a person's language in one place, as is evidently sig- nified by the same language in another. Now this same apostle thus writes to the Galatians : " As we have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." (Gal. vi. 10.) But, accord- ing to the law of many interpreters with reference to the passage in Timothy, we are here to under- stand the apostle as exhorting his Christian breth- ren to do good to no man, except the household of faith ! Again, this same apostle writes to Timo- thy, " The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, 13* 146 UNIVERSALISM: AGAINST PARTIALISM, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. iv. 13.) Now this apostle would have hardly conceived his direction obeyed, had Timothy brought only the parchments, and left the cloak and the books, In like manner, we contend that his meaning is abused, when we make him say, with similar Ian* guage, that God is the Saviour of no man, except those that believe. He must be, evidently, the actual Saviour of all, or else he cannot be the special Saviour of any. Any other interpretation would make the apostle to utter unmeaning, unin- telligible words. Our argument, therefore, from this passage, is strengthened by the very phrase^ ology which is usually supposed to weaken it* God is, absolutely and truly, the " Saviour of all men ; " and let all the people say, Amen. But what is this special salvation to believers ? We answer, it is the rest, and ptace, and holy joy, which, even in this life, is consequent upon faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. " We which have be- lieved, do enter into rest." (Heb. iv. 3.) "Now the God of hope fill you with all peace and joy in believing." (Rom. xv. 13,) " Believing, ye re- joice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter i. 8.) This is the special blessing and salvation of believers. " We are saved by hope" also. (Rom. viii. 24.) We are saved from tor- menting doubts and fears, We are saved from despair, and the otherwise almost insupportable load of the troubles and adversities of life, While, UNIVEKSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 147 to the poor unbeliever and rejector of the gospel, these comforts never come ; and he must pass through life a hopeless wanderer, shrouded in the gloom of dark and cheerless infidelity. Such per- sons are not saved ; have not the special salvation, but are condemned. " For," says the Saviour, " he that believeth not is coridemned already." (John iii. 18.) And, again, "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him " in the present time, and so long as he continues in his unbelief." (John iii. 36.) This may suffice for an exposition of the last quoted text, in proof of a full and complete salva- tion. And no other view of God's salvation, per- mit me to remark, can possibly be reconciled with that emphatic language. We rejoice in the sim- plicity of the truth (and may it be ours to prac- tise according to it, and secure its special benefits !) that God is the Saviour of all men, but especial* ly of those that believe. We will " trust in the living God," who thus manifests himself to us, even though, as did the apostle, "we therefore both labor and suffer reproach." We thus conclude the affirmative testimony on the question of the " world's salvation." We have given, perhaps, but a small part of what might be given; but we have aimed to present a few un- doubted passages, and to trust the argument from them. We are quite willing to rest the subject upon what, we have called the theology of the 148 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. question, in distinction from any further scriptural array. That is a pillar immovable ; and that alone is a pillar of everlasting truth. Nay, we could do with the very PURPOSE of the Almighty ; but when we see that purpose put in execution when we see Jesus sent of the Father, and coming to accom- plish his unalterable will and when we see the END described, the grand consummation of the divine government emphatically declared to em- brace the whole in a resurrection of immortality and glory, we are more than doubly assured that this is Christianity this is truth. V. But now, says the reader, are there not other Scriptures, of equal strength, belonging to the op- posite side of this great controversy ? Our reply is, first, that the Scriptures cannot be a contradic- tion. (We are not reasoning with infidels.) If that is truth which we have quoted in such abun- dance, it must at once be manifest that no other passage, however strong or highly figurative, can be consistently interpreted to contradict that which is established. There are, indeed, other Scriptures which are brought forth to establish the opposite theory, and we have now a few general remarks to offer upon them. It cannot be expected that our remarks should be more than general, for there are upwards of one hundred and thirty pas- sages made use of to establish the appalling doc- trine of endless and unutterable torment. For an examination of the whole of them, I refer the read- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 149 er to a work recently published, entitled the " UNI- VERSALIST'S GUIDE, by TfwmasWhittemore" Our remarks must be general. It is a source of satisfaction, then, to know that Universalists are not the only persons who have given these passages an application to temporary punishments. On the contrary, limitarians them- selves, and even eminent commentators and critics in their ranks, have given almost all these Scrip- tures the application which Universalists also are constrained to adopt The passages which are usually considered proof-texts of the doctrine of endless misery, are generally such as contain the terms hell, judgment, damnation, perdition, &c, and the phrases everlasting punishment, second death, unquenchable fire, everlasting destruction, day of judgment, &c. Now, every one of these terms and phrases, and almost every other pas- sage, both in the Old and New Testaments, which is made use of in our day to establish the revolting doctrine of endless torment, have been, by the most respectable Orthodox authority, applied to scenes of the present life. For confirmation of this fact, and a faithful transcript from these writers on these passages, see " Paige's Selections from eminent Commentators, who have believed in Punishment after Death ; wherein they have agreed with Universalists in their Interpretation of Scriptures relating to Punishment ; " a work, by the way, of invaluable worth. The fact we have 150 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. staled shows the unwarrantable confidence which is placed in these terms arid phrases, as proof of endless punishment. Or, at least, it shows that there is nothing novel in the Universal ist's view of these passages, and that we were not guided by prejudice alone, or an overweening anxiety to twist and bend these Scriptures for the support of a fa- vorite system. No ; the most respectable Ortho- dox commentators, with all their prejudices and creed against it, have done this work for us. You will all understand what I have affirmed. I do not say that any one, or two, or three commen- tators, have thus interpreted the passages referred to, but among them all they have done the busi- ness ; they have shown that almost every text which is usually quoted to prove this doctrine, does not prove it, but relates to temporal calamities al- together. This shows that Universalists are not the only persons who have thus interpreted these " terrible " passages. It shows that truth is felt, even with the opposite and powerful influence of human creeds and human prejudice ; and that the doctrine of endless punishment, instead of having, as is generally supposed, "hundreds" of unequiv- ocal texts to support it, has only a few, a precious few, which all its advocates can agree on as teach- ing it to man ! This is a fact which but few, very few of its believers are aware of. They frequent- ly accuse Universalists of disagreement among themselves, but little thinking that, in the ranks of UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 151 their own commentators, so little agreement exists with regard to the proof-texts of their distinguished doctrine, scarcely imagining that among them all they have rejected almost every text which is usually supposed to reveal this blighting, withering doctrine to the world. Universalists are far more agreed than this, and are ready, at any time, to present an array of scriptural evidence, unitedly and firm, and, to them, invincible to all attack. But this one fact, relative to the almost universal destruction of proof by the public defenders of the eternity of hell torments, on scriptural ground, too, goes an amazing way towards countenancing, as eternal truth, the doctrine of the universal redemp- tion and sanctification of the world. It ought to be looked upon with seriousness, with reverence, and holy joy. True, they were men who have thus tes- tified. But what, in reality, do we see in it ? Men, eminent for learning and biblical research, strong in the faith of the endless condemnation of the wick- ed, sitting down, with care and prayer, to comment on the book of God's revelation, for the benefit of honest inquirers after the way, the truth, and the life ; and holding forth such truth upon almost every passage which relates to punishment, against creeds, against faith, against prejudice, at the risk even of considered eternal interests, where con- science alone, and honest conviction of the truth, could prompt them so to understand God's word ! We hail it as a signal testimony to the truth of our 152 ITNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. most holy faith ; a testimony given by men who- would be the first to oppose it, but who have testi- fied in all honesty and faithfulness. We repeat,, no one man has done it, but among them all, they have accomplished the work : they have added their almost unbroken testimony to the truth of the Universalist's interpretation of the word. Let this fact be remembered, and let this suffice for this division of the subject. We bring this lecture to a close. We trust that we have shown that the comprehensive question, " What saith the Scripture ? " may be answered much in favor of a theology which honors God and preserves the dignity of man. We have presented, in the four lectures which have already been de- livered, a comprehensive view of both sides of the question, both partialism and universal grace. Yet our labors are not finished. It remains to notice the several objections which are usually urged against the universal system, and to point out its good moral tendency, to divest it of all that false and deceptive imagery which the men of the world have ever thrown around it. These subjects will furnish the matter of our two next lectures, when, I trust, the doctrine of a world's salvation will meet, in many an honest heart, the response, w Lord, I believe ; help thou mine unbelief." LECTURE V. A REFUTATION OF THE POPULAR OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall an- swer for myself this day before thee, touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews. Acts xxvi. 2. SUCH was the language of St. Paul before a mixed company at Cesarea, addressed especially to a Roman king, in reference to certain charges brought against him by the Jews. What these charges were, may be gathered from the chapter containing his address to the king. They may be generally included in the following specifications. He held to the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead ; that Jesus was the true Messiah ; and that he should be salvation to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. These things were very obnoxious in the sight of the bigoted and unbelieving Jews ; and, though matters of good faith to Paul, and of well-grounded difference of opinion, yet, " for these causes, the Jews caught him in the temple, and went about to kill him." We need not state the bitter and unprincipled opposition which this 14 154 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. illustrious servant of God met from this perverse and faithless generation, and from the Gentiles also ; suffice it to say, in his own significant lan- guage, he " both labored and suffered reproach, for trusting in the living God, who was the Saviour of all men." An opposition and a spirit of a similar character have lived and reigned in every age, from the time of the gospel's promulgation in the earth. Perse- cution, abuse, and misrepresentation, instead of Christian expostulation, respectful treatment, and candid exposition, have been resorted to as refuges of power when sound reasoning and Scriptural testimony fail. It is employed at the present day, in a most signal manner, by those who have not the ability or the honesty to come to a manly discussion of the question, upon the decision of which rests the destinies of the world. But we do not complain of opposition; we. would rather court it. What we complain of is, the character of that opposition, and the perversity of that spirit which would stifle all rnanly investigation, and em- ploy uncharitable abuse, low satire, personal in- vective and ridicule, on a subject so serious as that involving infinite and eternal interests. Our cause is advanced by manly opposition, by free investi- gation, by a fair and candid discussion of its claims. And those who have generally taken part on the opposite side of this controversy ap- pear to know this ; and hence there have been no tTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 155 means, however dishonorable and deceptive, which have not been resorted to, and turned into a carnal and offensive weapon. We would by no means include all who have warred against the sentiment in question, in this dishonorable charge ; for we speak of the general character of that warfare which has been waged against the theology of a free redemption and sanctification of the world. A few have quitted themselves in a manly and a Christian manner ; but the majority, and nearly all, have brought disgrace upon themselves and their profession. In. the first place, there is a mortify- ing ignorance of the system they attempt to over- throw ; in the second place, an unchristian bitter- ness of spirit against every thing that comes not within their views of theoretical Christianity. These remarks have been called forth as suited to the subject and the occasion. The general character of the objections brought forward against the doctrine of a free and complete salvation, evinces not only an ignorance of the system against which the objections are directed, but a severity and acrimony of temper altogether unsuited to a mind deeply imbued with the spirit of the gospel, Not that we would require that fastidiousness which revolts at a full and hearty expression ; but only that candor, and fairness, and decency, which would better become men who claim all the piety and all the religion in the world, and who may be as frail and fallible as even ourselves. 156 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. But it is time to notice the objections which are urged against the system in question. And here be it remarked, that we need not expect any thing so very formidable as one might be supposed to imagine, when we are told of the utter and palpa- ble absurdity of all our views and principles. There is an impression that that thing, Universal- ism, is a creature of such entire deformity, that " to be hated, needs but to be seen ; " that it is so utterly destitute of consistency and truth, that time and labor are lost in the consideration of its claims. What we designed to say was, that, if it really is such a moral monster, it would be a very easy thing to bring it, as such, forth to the public gaze ; that, if it be, in reality, such a compound of error and absurdity, the arguments which are urged against it might be supposed to be singular- ly formidable ; and that our answers thereto might be imagined to be specimens of the severest metaphysics ; where all the sophistry and all the ingenuity that could possibly be mastered would be brought forth to give the argument a character of deep perplexity. But I put the congregation on the expectancy beforehand, that no such knotty reasonings need be looked for ; for the reason that the objections to be noticed we do not con- sider so absolutely terrifying ; and, formidable as they may be, and undoubtedly are deemed, yet, to our minds, they are not of this discouraging character; and therefore your minds will not be UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, 157 taxed with any such deep and intellectual abstrac- tion. Indeed, the objections, many of them, are of a character so crude and lax, that one can some- times hardly come to a patient consideration of them ; or at least, without submitting first to a slackening of all his mental energies, can he sit down patiently to the work of refutation. We will not promise to bring forth every objec- tion from high and low, which has ever been urged against the theory of universal deliverance from sin and sorrow ; for that would be to scan an endless field of folly and perversity, and, by a tedious line of illustration, to concentrate an argu- ment of great comparative strength, for that entire depravity for which our Christian brethren contend. Be it ours, at the present time, to notice, with all due respect, the strongest and most popular objec- tions which are urged against the doctrine in question. These objections, considered worthy of notice at the present time, are, in number, ten : I. The theory in question is denounced as the doctrine of the devil ; as having been the invention of Satan, who, it is said, first preached it to the woman in the garden of Eden, when he said in his deception, " Ye shall not surely die." II. It is denounced as a species of infidelity ; a denial of some of the fundamental parts of the Christian revelation. III. It is objected to as being a new doctrine ; I A.* 158 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTI ALISM. an innovation upon the established doctrines of the church. IV. It is affirmed to be the production of a one- sided view of the Bible ; as an hypothesis built upon the promises of God, to the neglect of his most awful threatenings. V. It is said to involve an absolute denial of the justice of Jehovah. VI. It is declared to be the result of an unprinci- .pled perversion of the Scriptures. VII. It is a doctrine said to be particularly pleasing to the carnal mind. VIII. It is also affirmed to be " too good to be true." IX. It is said to be built upon a denial of the free -agency of man. X. It is, finally, said to be a doctrine which will do very well to live by, but will not do to die by. Add to this, that it is also denounced as a device most ruinous to the souls of men, being of a terri- ble, demoralizing influence ; which objection, from its importance and prominency, we have reserved for a separate discourse ; and we have here, I .think, a very candid statement of the principal objections brought against us by " those of the contrary part." The honest, dignified, and intellectual opponent may find it hard to suppress a smile, despite of the seriousness of the subject. And if he can patiently listen to us while we come down to answer these TJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 159 charges, we will endeavor, in the spirit of Paul before Agrippa, to count ourselves happy, because we shall answer for ourselves, at this time, touch- ing all the things whereof we are accused of the multitude. I. The doctrine, then, in the first place, is de- nounced as the invention of Satan, who preached it, originally, to Eve in the garden of Eden. This is, indeed, a charge of some magnitude ; and it would be singularly mortifying, as well as singu- larly absurd, could we truly trace the doctrine of a world's salvation back to the enemy of all right- eousness as its source and origin in the earth. But, before we notice the absurdity which such a supposition involves, it were well to ascertain the truth of this accusation, by looking at the sermon which the devil preached on this occasion. God, it seems, had been warning Adam of the fearful consequences of transgression in partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and solemnly declared that of this he should not eat ; " For in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This, be it recollected, was the truth of God. It was inevitable, and not to be despised. Death, certain and unavoidable, should take place upon Adam, on the very day of transgression. Now this is precisely what Universalists preach. They hold forth death to the transgressor, from which there can be no escape. And this punishment, as in the case of Adam, in the first transgression, is. 160 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. to a great degree, immediate in its operations : it is true now as it was when Adam sinned, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," Be it remembered, that this was not natural or physical death ; neither was it eternal death, which phrase does not occur in the Bible. It was not natural death which took place on that day ; for Adam lived many hundred years after that, and begat many sons and daughters. And of course, if it was not natural, it could not be eternal death ; for that, if true, cannot take place till after the body has yielded to the fell destroyer. It must, then, have been moral or spiritual death ; for this, in fact, is the only death that could take place, ac- cording to the other history of Adam, upon the day of his transgression. He died on that day, according to the plain and unescapable threatening of the Lord. He died to innocence, to virtue, and to so much of happiness as was the consequence of the violated law. And this agrees precisely with the representations of moral death given by the Old Testament writers, by Christ, and his apostles. Wisdom is styled life. " She is a tree of life" says the wise man, " to them that lay hold upon her ; and happy is every one that retaineth her." (Prov. iii. 18.) Again, " Whoso findeth me, find- eth life." (Prov. viii. 35.) Again, " In the way of righteousness is life, and [on the other hand] in the pathway thereof there is no death" (Prov. xii. 28.) Jesus also himself says, " If a man keep UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTI ALISM. 161 my saying, he shall never see death" (John viii. 51.) This, evidently, cannot mean natural death; and it is altogether gratuitous to say that it means eternal death. But it signifies that spiritual death, which, if a man helieve and obey the gospel, will never be his portion in the world. Jesus is styled " the bread of life." And, again, " The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life ; v that is, they quicken and invigorate all the inner man. The apostle also assures us that " To be carnally minded is death." (Rom viii. 6.) Death is not said here to succeed carnal-minded- ness as a punishment, though this may be a truth asserted in other places ; but the very state of car- nal-mindedness is itself a state of death, of moral torpor and misery. John says, " He that loveth not his brother dbideth in death" (1 John iii. 14) in the present time. In precise accordance with this, the same apostle says, " We know that we have passed [already passed] from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John iii. 14.) This testimony is sufficient, from the Old Testa- ment and the New, to show that death, as the term frequently occurs in the Bible, is a depraved moral condition in the present life ; a death, as the apos- tle significantly expresses it, a " death in tres- passes and sins." Now this is the death which Adam was threat- ened with, and of which he died, on the day he tasted of the forbidden fruit. The history of his 162 UN1VERSALI-SM AGAINST PART1ALISM. after life shows that it could be no other ; and the Scriptures, as we have seen, are in full accordance with this exposition of the subject. This is the death God preached to Adam, and this is the death in which Universalists believe. But die devil contradicted God. " The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." Now this is not our doctrine. We believe no such thing- Do we not invariably .contend for a death, a punishment in the day of transgression ? Why, then, charge us with preaching the devil's doctrine, who so plainly contradicted this threaten- ing of the Lord, and tliis prominent and distinguish- ing tenet in the Universalist's faith? God said, *' In .the day lliou eatest tliereof*, thou shalt surely die-" This is what we believe- This is the faith of Universalists. The devil said,, " Ye shall not SURELY die-" We reject his .testimony as false and dangerous to rnen. But, seeing this doctrine is not ours, it were worth a while to inquire whose doctrine it is- Who has espoused this sentiment of Satan, and who is guilty of the charge ? My brethren, did you ever hear sentiments like these : that sin was a pleasant thing in life ^ that many fascinations and many delights abound in the paths of wicked- ness ; that it is even true, that punishments are not inflicted upon many transgressors who revel in iniquity, and they riot in an intoxication of bliss, an the direst depravity, while judgment is delayed, UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTI ALISM^ and they are permitted to enjoy their sinftrl pleas- ures, and do not surely and inevitably suffer ? Did you ever hear a worse form of doctrine ? Did you ever hear it contended for earnestly, that sin might be reveled in, and its votaries go triumphing on, from day to day, and from year to year, escaping the penalties of justice, with a high hand and an> outstretched arm, and, by a timely repentance, even escape the retributions of eternity, and sit down among the company of the celestial, thus? clearing aZZ, or nearly all, the judgments of the Lawgiver, and going forever unwhipped of justice? In short, did you ever hear it virtually and substan- tially declared that the sinner does not surely die in life, to the full extent and meaning of the law, and does not surely die in eternity, but may even escape that threatening evil ? If you have, then you need not be at a loss to discover the practical adoption of the devil's doctrine, and please lay the charge at the door of the guilty, We would not, certainly,, thus shift the charge upon our accusers, did it not furnish an instance of most righteous retort, and signal mistaking of the innocent for the guilty. It is they who preach the devil's doctrine, they who " put far away the evil day," and steadfastly maintain that in the day thou sinnest, thou shalt not surely die ! But, again for we wish to place this subject in a clear light, and do it ample justice it may now be seen that there is an evident absurdity in styling 164 tJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. Universalism the devil's doctrine. This doctrine teaches the destruction of the devil and all his works ! Is it supposable, that, if the devil should set out to invent a doctrine to suit him, he would frame one that taught his own destruction ? that he would prophesy his own downfall and his own conquest ? Would he not rather frame a system of divinity, or of diabolism, which would perpetuate his own reign, and assert his own triumph ? If we may suppose the devil possessed of that cunning and device which is usually ascribed to him, he would undoubtedly, were he to invent a system, maintain the empire of his own dominion, and never be guilty of introducing any conqueror who should overrule and destroy him and his works. I leave it again, therefore, to the audience, to say which would prove most likely to be the doctrine of the devil ; that which involves his own destruc- tion, and asserts that one mightier than he shall " finish sin, make an end of transgression, and bring in everlasting righteousness," or that which erects his kingdom which is to endure forever, and peoples it with many millions of souls, the fruit of his successful enterprise. I speak as unto wise men : judge ye what I say. The devil is declared to be " the enemy of all righteousness." We may rest assured, then, that if he be possessed of the least particle of cunning or malignity, he never would have framed such a righteous system as the former; but unholiness, blasphemy, and misery, T7NIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 165 would be his delight, and the characteristics of his kingdom. Again, it should be recollected, " Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to deso- lation ; and every city or house divided against it- self shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, [which is the case if our doctrine be his,] he is divided against himself ; how shall then his king- dom stand ? " You will at once perceive that the charge of advocating the devil's doctrine can be brought against any denomination of Christians under heaven with vastly more propriety than it can against Universalists. For how could Satan, unless he has become vastly changed in character, made more holy and less powerful, consistently advocate a doctrine which asserts his own destruc- tion, divides him against himself, and makes it out that Jae, who is the enemy of all righteousness, has planned a system of universal holiness and happi- ness ! O, consistency, thou art a jewel. Once more, and we will have done with the subject. In order to guess , (for this is the best we can do, seeing there will be a difference of opinion on it,) in order to guess, then, which or what wou Id be the devil's theory, were he to invent a sy stem and palm it off as truth, let us take to imac fining what sort of sentiment he would delight in. Those who profess to be best acquainted with him might, perhaps all partiality for him aside d o the work better than we can ; but we will try, and this for the elucidation of the truth. Here, 15 166 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. then, is a devil, possessed of wisdom, power, and malignity, to a terrible degree; and now let us imagine what sort of system he would invent, if he wished, according to the character usually ascribed to him, to carry on as much deception and work as much evil as he could. His first object would be to prevent obedience to God's great commands, which enjoin love and loyalty to him, and love to mankind universally. For this purpose, he would cunningly devise the most malignant falsehoods to blacken and reproach his character; he would represent him as cruel, partial, and vindictive ; asking his creatures to love him, when, in fact, he had either created and determined them for endless sufferings, or else pretended to be kind by offering enjoyment, when, in fact, he knew they never could obtain it. He would also represent the duties God requires as exceedingly irksome and difficult of performance, causing great surrenders of enjoyment ; and the path of obedience would be represented as clogged with tribulation, and over- spread with gloom. And, at the same time, if they did not walk therein, they would be threatened with cruelties unimaginable and of endless dura- tion. Vice, on the other hand, would be repre- sented pleasant and agreeable ; while, at the same time, this would be forbidden on pain of the penal- ties aforesaid. To complete the shocking cari- ^ature of God's character, the devil would tell them that they were by nature utterly incapable of UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 167 thinking one good thought, or performing one good action, and constituted with an irresistible propen- sity to evil, and that continually ; that they could do nothing of themselves to better their condition ; and yet, that God would do nothing, until they sought out the good work themselves ! Thus might the devil teach and preach, and, very likely, he would succeed in discouraging many, and driv- ing others to despair and suicide, and frightening the rest into a profession of his doctrine, as a very acceptable, though perfectly unintelligible, refuge for the salvation of their souls. Having accomplished so much, the next thing to be done would be to prevent obedience to the great social command, love to universal humanity. In order to accomplish his devilish design here, he would begin by slandering, at wholesale, human nature. He would very probably assert broadly, the utter corruption and malignity of the human character ; thus representing them not only un- worthy of love, but in a light in which it would be irgpossible to exercise a particle of true affection for them. This done, he would then probably tell them make them believe it if he could that God himself was their enemy ; that he cherished an infinite and unreconcilable hate for them, or a greater part of them ; and then leave them to guess at the reasonableness of God's command. Then, if the devil could succeed in destroying love for God and man, he would next naturally 168 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. begin to assert his own supremacy, though in a way in which his subjects should not suspect his enmity to them. But in his system would be in- cluded his triumphant reign in the regions of guilt, and darkness, and despair ; his eternal and tyran- nical dominion over a great proportion, all he could get away from the kingdom of the Redeemer. Thus would lie maintain the consistency of not predicting his own destruction, and his diabolical system would he complete, except in the case of offering rewards and punishments : the rewards he would probably place far off in the distance, so that they might lose all good effect ; and the pun- ishments, the evil day, would also be put far away, in order thereby more effectually to carry on his deception, and flood the world with immorality and crime. This would be the devils doctrine, at least as well as I could fancy it, and I would not claim the merit of entire fancy ; and I now give up for some one better skilled in diabolical devices. We have spent much more time upon this objec- tion than its weight and soundness really deserve, for the reason that this is the first, the uppermost with many minds, that is urged against the system of universal and efficient grace. It pretends to trace the system back to its origin, to the father of lies ; and if we have done any thing to repel it, may it result to the honor and advancement of the truth. I beg the hearer to remember that the n L. i- o i UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 169 devil's teaching was, In the day thou eatest there- of, thou shalt not surely die, which is exactly the reverse of our system of punishment ; that the popular system is in precise accordance with the devil's promise of delay ; that, moreover, the charge to us of teaching Satan's theory involves the ab- surdity of his making it a fundamental part in his system to insist upon his own destruction, with all that appertains to him ; also, of dividing him against himself, and making it out that he who is the enemy of all righteousness has shown himself mightily in favor with a pure and spotless system of universal holiness and joy ! ! Remember these, with the other particulars with regard to what probably would be the devil's theory, were he to invent one and palm it off as truth ; and then we will conclude this portion of our subject with the caution, that " those who live in glass houses should not throw stones ! " II. Another objection against the system of truth we advocate is, that it is a species of infidelity, a denial of some of the fundamental parts of the Christian revelation. This objection is of such a nature that we need spend but little time upon its claims. It is usually given forth in a style of bitter and uncharitable, not to say dishonest, perversity of heart, for this reason, candid hearer : those who ,make use of it as a weapon against us, know that we have no sympathy for infidelity ; that we cordially reject its cold and faithless spirit; and 15* 170 TTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. that there is no principle we more studiously ad- here to, in the support of our doctrines, than, What saith the Scriptures ? We may be in error in our interpretation of the Scriptures, and so may our accusers ; but that we reject the Scriptures, that we secretly or openly countenance the principle of un- belief in any of the matter of their testimony, this is a charge which comes with an ill grace from those with whom it is as far from their house to ours as it is from ours to theirs. And it is upon this principle that we may with as much propriety bring the charge of infidelity against them, for not believing as -we honestly do, as they bring it against us. But we have no disposition so to do. Both may be mistaken in their views of Christian- ity ; but, be it remembered, both honestly receive the Bible as the rule and directory of faith. And what aggravates the charge when brought against us is, that those who bring it know that we are not atheists, nor deists, nor skeptics, in any of what we conceive to be the essentials or minutia? of the Christian revelation. They know it; and hence they must settle the matter with their own con- :sciences, when they bring the heavy charge of in- fidelity against us. We acknowledge that we may l>e mistaken ; that we are not infallible ; and we .ask and expect, in modesty, the same acknowledg- ment from them. But that we disbelieve or explain ;away any one point which we think the Bible >teaches, is a charge as unjust and uncharitable as ttNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 171 it is false. We shall not allow them to point out and dictate to us what the Bible does teach, any more than they would allow us to point out and dictate to them. In fact, this charge of infidelity from one Christian sect to another resolves itself, finally, into the assumed infallibility of the princi- ples and doctrines of either sect which first brings the charge ; so that every individual member thereof may at once assume the prerogative and dignity of the pope of Rome, and haughtily issue forth his bulls and edicts, and charges of heresy, infidelity, or apostasy, against every other indi- vidual who may, as honestly as he, hold to a dif- ferent form of doctrine from his own. We hearti- ly abominate the practice, prevailing as it does between the different sects in Christendom ; and can but look upon it as a weak and unreasonable attempt to cast reproach upon an honest body of Christians who verily " believe, and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world ; " moreover, who believe in the complete success of this mission, staggering not at the prom- ises through unbelief. This leads us, in the second place, to remark, that it is not generally against the matter of uni- versal salvation that the charge of infidel senti- ments is brought, but against Universalism as a system involving other points of doctrine. The remarks already offered, however, apply to every article of our faith, and render the charge unjust 172 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. and false. We remark, now, that, so far as the matter of salvation is concerned, instead of being infidels, we believe too much, rather than not enough, for our brethren of the " contrary part." We believe too much ; this is the difficulty ; this is the occasion of their reproach. Their faith is narrow and contracted ; ours, broad and universal. Infidelity lurks not in this portion of the Universal- isfs faith. We feel it full and strong, rising and expanding, like Peter's vision of the sheet, knit at the four corners of the universe and let down to earth. " Blessed are the people who know the joyful sound : they walk in the light of thy counte- nance, O Lord." The Saviour to us is the Saviour of the world- Salvation to us is deliverance from universal sin, and ignorance, and imperfection. With the eye of faith we see " death conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally destroyed." God save us from any doubt or skepticism here. Let the shield of faith be per- fect and entire, protecting us against every in- sidious attack. Let the helmet of salvation shield our heads from the blow of the battle-axe that can- not cleave. Let faith be universal, and hope be full, till faith and hope are realized on high, and " The anthem long and loud shall swell, Our Saviour hath done all things well." We remark, in the third place, that so far is Universalism from infidelity, that it has saved num? UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 173 lers from the black and turbid waters of unbelief, and given them a faith to go on their way rejoic- ing. Friends, brethren, consider this truth. Many are the minds that can testify to this, that, had it not been for a system of benevolence and ration- ality, they would have wandered in the way of darkness unto death. Unsatisfied with the doc- trines of the church, which to them appeared un- reasonable and unworthy of belief, and still be- lieving the Bible to countenance these doctrines, they have closed up their Bibles, and become infidels outright. Infidelity, to them, appeared more reasonable than the appalling and unintelli- gible doctrines of the church. The doctrine of the Trinity they could not assent to; total depravity they felt to contradict and dishonor the noblest and most obvious principles of human nature ; vicarious atonement they felt to be unjust and appalling; imputed righteousness or guilt, they felt to be im- possible ; and endless torments they rejected as an unparalleled abomination. They thought these doctrines sanctioned by the Bible ; they turned from their Bibles to the fairer works of nature, and rejoiced and triumphed in their unbelief. But the Spirit of God again moved upon the waters ; they resolved to be free from the bias of human creeds ; they again turned the eye of earnestness upon the pages of the Bible, and there, from the fountain- head of inspiration, they drank, and lived again. They became convinced that the Bible favored not 174 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. these time -venerated doctrines ; that it spoke a different language ; and God put a new song into their mouth, the song of praise unto our God, of redemption and salvation to the ends of the earth. This is no ideal picture ; but the truth, as thou- sands could attest, who have experienced the workings of error and truth upon their minds. And no wonder that many have been driven to in- fidelity by the utterly irrational and appalling doc- trines of the church. Convince me that the Bible favors one of these doctrines, and you destroy the harmony between faith and reason, and cast the shadow of deformity upon ^all its pages. Not that my faith is grounded upon reason and not upon the Bible ; but that heretofore, the Bible, has appeared to me a reasonable book ; but that then, it would be utterly repulsive and shocking to behold. I rejoice in a reasonable faith. I would not adopt, to the full extent, the couplet of the poet : " Bow down, sense and reason: Faith only reigns here." And, strange as it may appear, it is the opinion of many enlightened and sagacious observers, that the doctrines of the Trinity, total depravity, vicari- ous atonement, imputed guilt and righteousness, and endless torments, have made more infidels than all the infidel writers the world ever pro- duced. I, for one, believe this truth. And I not only believe, but I know, that the doctrine of uni- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 175 versal salvation from sin and suffering has saved thousands of infidels, who, without this light, would have gone down to their graves in hideous dark- ness. These thousands are now rejoicing believers in a nobler system of divine truth ; the grave to them has lost its power ; light immortal has beamed out from beyond it ; they have become convinced, by careful study, that the Bible is a dif- ferent book ; and they can now sing, " Glory to God in the highest ; on earth, peace and good- will to men." God grant that converts may be multi- plied, till the objection that Universalism is a species of infidelity may stand refuted by the testimony of thousands more, who shall rise up and bless the day when a system so rational and glorious poured a flood of heavenly daylight in upon their understandings, and struck off from their minds the degrading shackles of infidelity and sin. III. It is again objected, that Universalism is a new doctrine, an innovation upon the established doctrines of the church. In the first place, the objector himself shall answer this objection. He has just told us that it is, at least, about six thousand years since the devil preached it in the garden of Eden ! How, then, can he now turn right about and call it a new doctrine ? He should be care- ful, else one falsehood will destroy another as fast as ingenuity invents. It is paying a better com- pliment to Universalism than can be paid to Ortho- 176 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. doxy if, indeed, it may to either be considered a compliment to say that it is six thousand years old, But we do not crave the compliment of such anti- quity as this. We go for the proposition that it is as old as Christianity, and we put our brother of the opposite faith upon the task of proving that his system is even thus venerable. We speak now of the teachings of Christ and his apostles. To be sober about it, this is not the first time the cry of innovation has been raised. When a cer- tain itinerant preacher arrived in the city of Athens* there was great concern lest the established reli- gion should be overthrown. "And some said, What will this babbler say ? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods ; be- cause he preached unto them Jesus and the resur- rection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we kngw what this new doctrine whereof thou speakest is ? " (Acts xvii. 18, 19.) And after the preacher had declared to them the God they ignorantly worshipped, who was Lord of all, and Father of all, &c. some mocked, as at the present day, at a doctrine which they did not understand ; while a few only of the multitude clave unto him and believed. When Martin Luther thundered against the errors and corruptions of the Catholic Church, the popes undoubtedly cried innovation. Luther held forth his " new doctrine," and brandished it most successfully against them. UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 177 So, when John Murray published abroad in this country the doctrine of a world's salvation, the multitude cried, innovation ! heresy ! Unquestiona- bly it was new to them, who were born in darkness, brought up in darkness, and instructed in darkness. The light appears very new to a blind man who has just received his sight. Old things, we are assured, will one day pass away, and all things be- come new. This shall be at the time when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying ; neither shall there be any more pain ; for the former things shall have passed away. To come more directly to the subject, to the charge of preaching a new doctrine, let us observe how utterly without foundation this accusation is. We know that the doctrine of a partial salvation has prevailed most extensively for many centuries in the Christian era ; but this furnishes no argu- ment for its truth ; besides, it cannot be shown, by an appeal to history, that the doctrine of universal salvation did not prevail with it in every age of Christianity ; or that the doctrine of endless tor- ments was published at all, as a Christian doctrine, in the first and early ages of the church. On the contrary, it can be shown, by a concurrent line of history, that Universalism has prevailed in every age from the time of the apostles ; and that the doctrine of endless torments was not known, as a Christian doctrine mark the expression was not known> so far as we have any account, until the 16 178 UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. commencement of the third century of the Chris- tian church. It was then taught by Tertullian of the Latin church ; and, from all you can find in the history of past antiquity, he is the first Chris- tian writer who ever asserted that the torments of the damned would be equal, in duration, with the happiness of the blest. Believer in endless misery, reflect upon this truth. Ye who denounce Univer- salists as innovators, as the publishers of a new doctrine, come and learn wisdom and humility. Two hundred years had passed from the establish- ment of Christianity, and till that time, if the voice of history may be credited, no Christian writer ever taught your doctrine of endless sin and wo. More than this, what is called the Epistle of Barnabas, an allegorical and mystical work, written about the year 131, is the first Christian writing extant, after the sacred Scriptures, in which we find the word everlasting or eternal, applied to human suffering. " But whether he thought it endless, cannot be determined ; as the word ever- lasting or eternal was used by the ancients to denote indefinite rather than interminable dura- tion." * Tertullian, then, for aught that appears to the contrary, must claim the honor, or rather the dis- honor, of first teaching as a Christian truth the ap- palling and tremendous error of endless torments * Ancient History of Universalism, p. 37. UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 179 for God's rational offspring. This was about the year 200. Verily, it had no part or lot in the matter of the gospel ; that good old doctrine proclaimed two hundred years before, by the angel from heaven to the shepherds on the plain ! Compare the spirit of Tertullian with the spirit of Jesus Christ. The latter wept over the prospective calamities of Jeru- salem, horrible, yet temporal and ending. " He beheld the city and wept over it," evil and iniqui- tous as it was. Tertullian exclaimed, in the true spirit of his doctrine, " How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many kings, worshipped as gods in heaven, together with Jove himself, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness ! So many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer flames than ever kindled against Christians ;* so many sage philosophers blushing in raging fire, with their scholars whom they persuaded to despise God, and to disbelieve the resurrection ; and so many poets shuddering before the tribunal, not of Radaman- thus, not of Minos, 'but of the disbelieved Christ ! Then shall we hear the tragedians more tuneful under their own sufferings ; then shall we see the players far more sprightly amidst the flames ; the charioteer all red-hot in his burning car ; and the wrestlers hurled, not upon the accustomed list, but on a plain of fire." * * Ancient History of Universalism, p. 81. 180 UNIVEUSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. Compare the spirit of Tertullian with the spirit of Jesus Christ! The latter wept, the former laughed, at the spectacle of human misery ! Surely, among all the early fathers, there was none whose spirit better accorded than Tertullian's with this cruel and antichristian doctrine of end- less torment. He dwelt upon it with a relish that savored of the imaginary hell he taught. To him might well be awarded the distinction of intro- ducing this doctrine to the Christian church ! With regard, now, to the doctrine of universal salvation, so far from being a new doctrine, it can be distinctly traced, from century to century, back to the first and second centuries of the Christian era, and proved to be the faith of many of the Christian fathers, among whom were Clemens Alexandrinus in the second, and Origen in the third century ; and, in fact, prevailed extensively in the third and fourth centuries, and, for aught that appears to the contrary, was accounted the true Christian faith. It was not an object of perse- cution : though other doctrines, and even opposite ones, prevailed at the same time, yet no unhappy contests or dissensions were created in consequence thereof. One fact should be specially noted and remembered. This doctrine was never publicly condemned till by the fifth general council, in the year 553. It revived at the period of the Refor- mation, and, since that time, has been advocated by many able and fearless minds, and believed by UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 181 many more timid and fearful, who have dreaded the sacrifice of popular esteem which an open avowal of their faith would at once demand of them to make. In Switzerland, in Germany, in Scotland, and in England, it has found its advo- cates, among whom we might mention Lavater, Everhard, Stilling, Douglass, T. Southwood Smith, Bishop Newton, Hartley, Priestly, Belsham, and many others. At the present time, it finds its most extensive reception in England, Germany, and the United States ; the numbers in our own country amounting to upwards of seven hundred thousand ; and this, it must be observed, is the growth of about seventy years. It was a " new doctrine," it might have been considered such to the people of this country one hundred years ago, or even seventy ; but, from its rapid increase, it bids fair to arrive at a good old age ; and God grant that the light may roll onward, till the whole earth is flooded with his glory ! It is not a new doctrine ; it is old as Christianity. Yea, it claims a higher antiquity : it was published in the garden of Eden ; not by Satan, but by him who said the seed of the woman should " bruise the serpent's head." There was the great conquest over sin predicted. Yet the patriarchs caught clearer glimpses of it. It was -contained in the promise to Abraham to bless all the nations of the earth in Christ. Christ taught it when he said, " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men 16* 182 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. unto me." The apostle taught it when he said God would " have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." It has lived through every century of the Christian church ; it triumphs at the present day ; and it will be con- summated only in eternity, when all of every nation, kindred, and tongue, shall strike the chords that sweep o'er angel lyres, "Unto him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, to him be glory and dominion forever." IV. Another objection is, that Universalism is the production of a one-sided view of the Bible, an hypothesis built upon the promises of God, to the neglect of his most awful threaten ings. To this let us answer, that we profess to believe the whole Scriptures, and that those Scriptures present to us a connected and harmonious system of divine grace. The nature of the charge, therefore, seems to carry with it a large measure of its refutation. We are not possessed of such narrow discernment as to believe phrenologically speaking with one side of our marvellousness, that the Bible teaches truth when it says, u God will have all men to be saved ; " and with the other side of that organ, that he has threatened endless banishment from him. The promises and the threatenings, to our minds, come from the same Jehovah ; and that Jehovah "is not a man, that he should lie ; nor the son of man, that he should repent. Hath he said, and shall he not do it ? or hath he spoken, and UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 183 shall he not make it good ? " Evidently, if we build upon the promises, to the neglect of the threatenings, we are guilty of this inconsistency, of believing that God may keep his word in one case, and not in the other ! And is this the charge against us? For the honor of our common sagaci- ty, we beseech our brethren not to bring it again. Do not think us quite so far gone ! We are not so blind to our own interests as this. If God has threatened, verily, we believe he will execute it to the uttermost. And why should we wish to believe otherwise, and run the risk of the fulfilment of his word, perhaps tremendously., wpon our presumptu- ous heads? Besides, if God may not l>e expected to execute his threatening*, what better security have we that he will fulfil his promises ? We beseech you, in all earnestness, never to impute this weakness to us again. But it is said that we neglect the threatenings, neglect the study of them ; that we love to dwell upon the promises, but cannot bear to contemplate the threatenings. In reply, the objection must mean either one thing or the other, either that we disbelieve what appears to us the plain threat- enings of endless wrath, or that we believe them, but hate to dwell upon them. The first would constitute us infidels, which we have shown we are not ; the second would constitute us fools. Now, we do profess to have good common sense. And if so, why do we wish to run the tremendous 184 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. risk of hoping God may not prove true to his word ? In reply to the charge that we neglect to study the threatenings of God's word, we hope we may be excused if we indulge in a little egotism. We suppose that it is from this ground that the charge comes, of a one-sided view of the subject. Now we do believe that there is no sect in Christendom who has made the study of God's threatenings so distinct and thorough a work as these same Uni- versalists. Start not, hearer, for it is a truth. We have been compelled to this, from the very opposi- tion we have had to encounter from scriptural as well as anti-scriptural opponents. We have been assailed with passages of Scripture, times without number, which has only had the effect to turn our attention, in a special manner, to the careful and labored consideration of them ; and we think that, in this matter, we stand equipped .and ready to wield the sword of the Spirit in , a contest. We abhor boasting; but the objection calls for a candid statement of facts. So careful have we been in the consideration of those passages which speak of punishment, and especially those usually applied to a future state of , existence, that a complaint is fre- quently entered against us in a scornful way, that w are always harping upon this character of texts. Nay, it is said of our preaching, in taunt- ing simplicity, that we have " too much Scripture ! " Thank God that it is so ! that he has put into our UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 185 hands a faithful record of his truth, and it is ours to read it understandingly, and rejoice in the tilings which It opens to us. May we always have a " Thus saith the Lord" for every point of doctrine we advance, and we'll give up the creeds and catechisms, and count them blind leaders of the blind. If men had ahvays confined themselves to holy writ, if they had not taken doctrine upon authority of tradition, and naked, unsupported as- sertion of ministers and others, the world would have been better off, wiser and sounder in the faith, and more united in the things pertaining to their peace. We glory in the charge of being *' too scriptural," A Christian, especially in this age of error and delusion, cannot be too scriptural, He ought to have line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little, of God's word ; and, in the language of the learned Bishop Horsley, " he will not be liable to be misled, either by the refined arguments or the false asser- tions of those who would engraft their own opin- ions on the oracles of God," Then, " the whole compass of abstruse philosophy and recondite his- tory shall furnish no argument with which the perverse will of man shall be able to shake this LEARNED Christian's faith." We repeat, we have been compelled to a careful study of the threatenings, from the very opposition which, from this quarter, we have been called to encounter. We have given them our particular 186 UNIVERSAL1SM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. and candid attention. We have had no wish to be deceived ourselves, nor to be the instruments of deception unto others. We have not' taken a one- sided, but a broad-sided view of the matter ; and we think that from this charge we may very hon- estly and very fairly plead not guilty. We do, indeed, dwell upon the promises ; these, to us, are the sheet anchors of our faith. We cannot give them up ; they are exceeding great and precious promises ; and it is a happy consideration that the law is not against them. God stand by us with his promises, and God enable us to know his threaten- in gs ; and we'll yet trust the issue with him, and rejoice in full, broad, glorious, gospel Universal- ism ! V, This doctrine is also objected to as involving an absolute denial of the justice of Jehovah. In noticing this objection here, we shall endeavor to be brief, because the same subject, in previous lectures, has been called up and discussed. In the first place, Universalism teaches that " every transgression shall receive a just recompense of reward." But, as the views of divine justice are different, it is proper to ask, in the next place, what there is in cleansing a fellow-being from his sins that is unjust. Now this individual example will illustrate the whole spirit of Universalism ; for it teaches that every sinner in the universe shall, after receiving an adequate punishment for his transgressions, be cleansed from all iniquity, and UN I VERBALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 187 be made holy by the blood of the Lamb. We press the question, What is there in destroying sin, in turning men from guilt to innocence, from cor- ruption to purity, that is unjust ? Would it not be rather unjust to continue them in guilt and pollution when they might be cleansed and purified, and advanced in excellence and glory ? It appears to us that, if there is injustice any where, it is in put- ting a moral being into a state where he is com- pelled to sin, and which makes obedience and reformation impossible. Doubtless God will con- sult his glory, which, I suppose, must harmonize with his justice, in the final issues of his govern- ment. Now it is written, in the third chapter of Romans, " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." The question we have to ask is, if rneri in this world come so far short of the glory of God by sinning against him, can they ever QC/ 8 * come up to it by being placed in a state where they will be compelled to sin, and blaspheme him forever ? Answer this, ye who talk of damning moral beings to the glory of God. Now, if the justice of God is consistent with his glory, the ques- tion is settled : universal salvation from sin and suffering does not deny, but is essential to, the justice of the almighty Being. But it is said that justice demands the endless condemnation of the sinner. I reply, this objection comes too late. It has already been proved that justice demands no punishment which is incon- 188 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PART1ALISM, sistent with the highest good and glory of the universe. Again, is there any mercy in the infliction of endless punishment ? All must answer, no. Now it is written, in the sixty-second Psalm, " Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy ; for thou renderest to every man according to his work." Here it is assigned as a reason why God is merciful, because he executeth justice, or rendereth to every man according to his work. Now, inasmuch as it is no reason why God is merciful, because he executeth unmerciful, endless torment, the execution of such a punishment can furnish no reason ivhy he is just, but a contrary one. The doctrine of universal salvation, then, does not involve a denial, but is one of the strongest affirmatives, of the justice of the Almighty. Again, it was clearly proved in our first lecture that sin is a finite evil. To that lecture I again refer. Consequently, it is not universal salvation, but endless punishment, (one of the infinities,) which denies the justice of God. Again, justice and mercy are not opposed to each other. They both harmonize, else we rob God of his perfection. Consequently, if mercy desires the reformation of an offender, so does justice, else it is outraged and converted to revenge. It is not our doctrine, therefore, but the contrary one, which denies the justice of God. Once more : if it be possible, in all the annals of UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 189 history, and tyrants wading through seas of blood, to find a case of injustice, that is injustice which demands endless and unutterable torment for the sins of seventy years. It is not only injustice, but injustice beyond all conception, measure, and bound. To the other arguments in these lectures I refer, for a further examination and conclusion of the subject. VL Another objection against this doctrine is 5 that it is the result of an unprincipled perversion of the Scriptures. A word to the wise is sufficient. In the first place, I refer to my fourth lecture on this subject. In the next place, I ask if, in this accusation, it be meant to include the charge of manufacturing Scripture. We confess we have no disposition to be irksome ; but we ask the congre- gation if they will turn to their Bibles, to the chap- ters and verses of the following passages : " No self-murderer shall have eternal life. If ye die in your sins, where God and Christ are, ye can never come. As the tree falls, so it lieth ; as death leaves us, so judgment will find us. God, out of Christ, is a consuming fire* The wages of sin is eternal death. As it is appointed unto all men once to die, and after this the judgment." To these passages we might add the phrases, " End- less wo, endless misery," &c. If the hearer will turn to his Bible, and to the chapters and verses of these respective Scriptures, we shall then feel in a livelier mood to talk to him about perversion, &c. 17 190 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, We declare we had father have the charge of & perverter than a manufacturer of Scripture. We repeat the caution, that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Among all the charges that have ever been brought against us, we do not recollect of ever having to encounter the heavy one alluded to. Other people have done this work for us. We have* had Universalist Bibles, and sermons, and prayers, and other matters furnished for us, wherein Scripture has been put in a form supposed more suitable for us, but we do not know that we have ever been accused of doing these things ourselves. We have always deemed the Bible in a right shape now ; at least, we have al- ways made use of it as it is ; and the fruits of our conquest prove abundantly that it need not be sub- tracted from,, or added to, to give us, more effectu- ally than we now have it, the vantage ground against crur enemies. To- notice seriously the charge of unprincipled perversion would^ as in a former case, be to no- tice a charge like the following : that we have framed a system in our minds to suit our own fancy, or our conceptions of the divine government ; and have then, despite of the plain reading of the word, run the tremendous risk f infinite conse- quences. We repeat, we are not so blind to our own interests as this. Men- do not generally place themselves and all that appertains to them in such amazing jeopardy.- TTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM- 191 But it iaay be said we do it ignarantly. Then the congregation must decide- I refer to my fourth lecture, wherein the Scriptures were largely and liberally appealed to ; and we urge the more atten- tive examination of our views of Scripture, re- specting which, among .our accusers, there exists such an unpardonable ignorance. It is true^ the majority of our adversaries know not wluit we do with certain important portions of the Bible*. They are ignorant of but one side of a view which has been taken of these passages, and, in that igno- rance, they express the greatest astonishment that any one could think differently from what to them appears the only true teaching of the word. These things we know from long experience ; and we have no hesitancy in speaking.. They are, for the most part, utterly ignorant of what they call per- version ! We advise them to examine our views of these matters. Be more noble than those in Thessalonica, and search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so. Prove all things; hold fast that which seemeth to thee good. Look upon ministers as fallible men. Consider how the popes erred, who claimed infallibility. Consider the changes in your own ranks ; how reputed ortho- doxy now is amazingly different from what it was a few years since ; how, if preached now as it was then, it would meet with extermination and repulse. Add to all this the consideration that, long ago, men of learning and eminence, of the Orthodox 192 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. party, have given almost every passage in the Bible which speaks of punishment an application to the present life. These men were not preju- diced against the doctrine we oppose. Their prejudices were all in favor of a popular and com- mon interpretation, and their own doctrine would have been sustained and interested by it ; but con- science and honesty, united with their learning, compelled them to explain these Scriptures as Universalists ever have explained them. Will you bring the charge of wilful or ignorant perversion against them ? Undoubtedly some would contend for the latter; but every man must be his own judge ; and, if honestly in error, no doubt God will approve the sincerity of his heart. I leave this charge of perversion, to notice the next in order, which is, VII. That Universalism is particularly pleasing to the carnal mind. In reply to this frequently put and scornful objection, let us first ask if those who bring it really know what they assert. We are confident they do not, for it would involve them in many mortifying inconsistencies ; and we have more charity for them, therefore, than to believe they really know what this objection conveys. For the objection is in reality an assertion from a Christian's mouth, that the desires of God, of Christ, of holy angels, of the saints in glory and the saints on earth, AND the desires of the carnal mind, are in perfect unison with one another ! a proposition UNI VERSA LiSM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 193 too shocking, almost, to contemplate. For is it not true, is it not the candid and ready confession of the majority of believers in endless punishment, that God desires, and wills, and it would be his pleasure to effect, the salvation of the world ? Certainly, this is contended for. To this end we frequently hear ministers of the gospel warn their impenitent hearers of the dangers of transgression, at the same time reminding them, for their encour- agement, that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. And, to strengthen their arguments, they will fre- quently quote from Ezekiel, " Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die ? saith tho Lord God ; and not that he should return from his ways and live ? I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth ; wherefore turri yourselves, and live ye." That it is indeed the pleasure of God that all might be saved, might be established from the Scriptures ; but it is frankly admitted by our opponents, and we are therefore saved the trouble. And, of course, if it is the pleasure of God, it is also of Christ, if these two are one in desire. Now, that it is the pleasure of the holy angels, may be estab- lished from the following : - When the birth of the Saviour was announced to the shepherds of Bethle- hem, in the language, " Fear not, for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people" suddenly there was with the angel " a multitude of the heavenly host praising God," 17* 194 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. and adding the response, " Glory to God in the highest," &c. It was, then, emphatically the pleasure of the holy angels that this Saviour might prove successful. So, also, is it the pleasure of the saints in heaven. For we read, " There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance." So, also, is it the pleasure of the saints on earth. For they are all laboring, and praying fervently, for the salvation of the world. Now, then, the conclusion is if the objection under consideration is a just one that the desires and pleasure of God, of Christ, of the holy angels, of the saints in heaven, and the saints on earth, are all in perfect unison and agreement with the desires and pleasures of the carnal mind ! The carnal mind, then, is something very different from what we have always conceived it to be ; or else all heaven must bear the impression of carnality. Is there a Christian who ought not to be ashamed to say that what is pleasing to the carnal mind is also pleasing to God and heaven ? The difficulty lies here. Many people know not what they oppose. When they think of Uni- versalism, they think of something inexpressibly odious. They have but one confused and mortify- ing idea of it ; that is, that we " preach all men into heaven, good and bad together." Thus endeth all their knowledge of the system. A carnal mind, to be sure, might dwell on such a prospect, with all UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 195 the rapture of an unregenerate soul. It would be worthy of the contemplation of an aspirant for the debauched heaven of Mohammed. But this is not our doctrine. And can you tell me if there is any thing pleasing to the carnal mind, or agreeable with it, in the prospect of unspotted holiness and spiritual joy ? Is there any thing pleasing to carnality in the contemplation of carnality de- stroyed ? of a universal washing of the regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost ? If there is, then it is a worthy pleasure ; and carnality itself is not total in the man. Again, in order to answer the objection effectual- ly, let us seek a knowledge of the tendency of carnal mind. " The carnal mind," then, the Scrip- tures assure us, " is enmity against God." Enmity against God, then, against his government, his will, his law, is the characteristic of the carnal mind ; " For it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It must be destroyed. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that what- ever is in accordance with his government, his will and law, the carnal mind must be particularly op- posed to. For here it would manifest its enmity, in unrighteous opposition to his will and pleasure, Is it, then, the system of Universalism, with which the carnal mind is particularly pleased ? This system teaches that the law of God, which is all comprehended in love to God and man universal, shall eventually be all fulfilled; that all disobe- 196 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. dience shall be done away, and love to God be universal. But the carnal mind is enmity to the law of God ! Evidently, then, it cannot be par- ticularly pleased with the system of Universalism, which is not in opposition with the law, but de- pends, for its very existence, upon the law's wide and universal fulfilment. No ; the carnal mind is opposed, is at enmity with this ; and we may rest assured, that a system so in entire accordance with the government, will, pleasure, and law of God, would never be pleasing to the carnal mind, which is at utter enmity with the whole of it. But what would the carnal mind be pleased with ? If we may indulge in a little further re- flection, guided by the declared characteristic of the carnal mind, that it is enmity against God, we may say that it would be pleased with any thing that was in opposition with the will arid law of God. Now, to be brief, endless damnation is ac- knowledged by its own advocates to be contrary to the will and pleasure of God. Consequently, end- less damnation is a doctrine of the carnal mind ! a doctrine pleasing to devils and fiends, incarnate ; but not pleasing to God, angels, or holy men. Endless damnation is contrary to the law of God. For the law of God require? love, and love univer- sal, for its obedience. But the doctrine in question perpetuates eternal hatred and rebellion, and makes obedience to the law impossible. Conse- quently, endless damnation is at enmity with the UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 197 law, is enmity against God, and is therefore a production of the carnal mind ! These things are plain ; but they are matters of plain truth. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. But perhaps it will be said that what is meant by Universalisrn being pleasing to the carnal mind is, that the prospect of a final and universal deliver- ance from punishment is a thing thus pleasing to carnality. But this is only a part of our doctrine. Our system teaches not only a universal de- liverance from punishment, after every sin is blotted out, and all justice executed, but also teaches an advancement unto unspotted holiness and purity. The whole system must be taken in connection, if we would fairly raise an objection against it. And if this prospect of purity is pleas- ing to the carnal mind, I say, it is a worthy and honorable kind of pleasure, and proves that car- nality itself is not absolutely total in the man ! VIII. We pass t6 a consideration of the next objection. It is the paltry idea that this doctrine is "too good to be true." Truth, then, depends upon badness, or upon a low state of goodness. And if this is the case, then we know of no doctrine that would hit nearer to the truth than that of end- less torments. It would be difficult to conceive of one worse than this. We believe that, if there is a devil, and if he has a doctrine, this must be the one. We defy any man to invent one more worthy of the devil. The only way to make it perfect, 198 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. and every way worthy of the devil, is to make damnation universal. But do, I beseech you, look this objection in the face. Can any thing be too good to emanate from the fountain of infinite and everlasting goodness ? Can any thing be too good for the Father of all mercies ? Ah ! this objection is the exclamation of those who " trust " not " in the mercy of God forever." It is the evidence of a mind filled with despair and tormenting doubts, which has been shrouded in the gloom of a false theology. How many are there who have long contemplated their Creator as one terrible in power, and awful in the infliction of evil ; who have lost the confidence of children, or, what is worse, perhaps never had it, but, from their youth, have looked upward to the throne of an august Monarch, or a ruling Sove- reign, but have never perceived the kind and ever- faithful Father ! Such Christians, such creatures, I pity from my heart. I know something of their bitterness, for I have drank at the same fountain, and been instructed in the same ways. Saurin did most truly exclaim, " I find in the thought a mortal poison, diffusing itself into every period of my life, making society tiresome, nour- ishment insipid, pleasure disgustful, and life itself a cruel bitter. I cease to wonder that the fear of hell hath made some melancholy, and others mad." Too good to be true ! And have ye lost the tfNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 199 relish for goodness ? have ye fallen in love with evil ? have ye forsaken God, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out to yourselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water ? Have ye gone after other gods ? Have ye bowed down the knee to the image of Baal ? I protest against the degrading fear that can tremble to 'ascribe goodness unto God. There is good in the universe. There is good, infinite good, in the plan of redemption and salvation. There is good out of evil, order out of confusion. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. God is love, and he hateth not any crea- ture he has made. God is good, and his goodness endureth continually. " Let us abundantly utter the memory of his great goodness, and sing of his righteousness. All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord, a-nd thy saints shall bless thee. The Lord is good to all, and his mercy endureth forever." If our doctrine is too good to be true, we rejoice, not in the absurdity of the accusation, but in the character of a grand theology which called it forth. It is too good not to be true. Your doctrine, friend, let me tell thee^ is too bad to be true, too bad to be ascribed to God ; and may he, in mercy, put thee in a better way. IX. This system is said to be built upon a denial of the free agency of man. This objection may be answered very briefly. We took special care, in the outset of this series of lectures, to anticipate all objections foudedr on, or growing out of, the 200 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. free agency of man. We showed, clearly, that we were freed from the mazes of this intricate question ; that free agency and endless punishment were not necessarily connected ; that one might be true without the other; and that we, therefore, passed along in our argument, leaving the dear sentiment of free moral agency in an undisturbed repose. It must be manifest to all, that, because man is a free agent, he is not, of necessity, exposed to an endless curse. The penalty of the law may, in perfect consistency therewith, be annihilation, or limited punishment terminated by a restoration to holiness and happiness, or any imaginary evil which God may be pleased to inflict. All we con- tend for in the present argument is, that free agency and endless punishment are no more neces- sarily connected than Calvin's theology with the north pole. This must be apparent to every one. Now, if free agency and endless punishment are not, of necessity, connected, how does universal salvation involve of necessity, a denial of this agency? It does not ; and, if they were connected, it even then would not. To be plain, it is not only contended by many theologians that God, in the great plan of his economy and government, de- termined unchangeably that man should be a free, moral agent, but it is also contended that he must set before him infinite joy and endless wo. Nov/ we may, for the argument, admit the truth of these propositions. And how far will the argument UNIVERSALISM AGAINST carry us ? May not free agent^ saved ? Can they not be saved i period of time, in the whole outstretching nity, when a free agent might not turn and live"?- The argument, you see, is resolved into a mere supposition that they may not be saved. And now, against that, we will set the supposition that they may ! But we prefer to rest the argument on scriptural ground. In Psalm ex. 3 it is written, " Thy peo- * pie shall be willing in the day of thy power." Here is a reference to the gospel day. The day of God's power is the day of Christ's power. And it is declared that .the people shall be willing, shall come with a willing mind and heart, with a readiness to receive the blessing, however perverse and opposed they may have been. And if one may, all may ; and the will of man may be in harmony with his salvation. Nothing is more tri- fling, therefore, than to say that universal salvation is built upon a denial of the free agency of man. If he is free, it is not impossible that he may be saved ; whereas it would be if he was not. X. The tenth and last objection we shall notice is, that this doctrine will do very well to live by, but will not do to die by. This is frequently the last exclamation, given with a sigh, when argument fails and controversy ends. It will do to live by, but will not do to die by. This is an objection of some weight ; for if the doctrine will not support 18 202 ITNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. us in the dying hour, it cannot be the all-sustaining truth of God. In answer to it, we would thank the objector, in the first place, for the acknowledgment that it does so well to live by. It is a comforting, salutary, holy doctrine. It is all-sufficient to live by. " But it will not do to die by." In order$ now, to ascertain its virtue here, and its comparative worth in reference to its opposite, we must imagine ourselves stretched upon the dying couch. Having gone through a life, perhaps, of much turmoil and trouble, we have approached the closing scene. Our friends, our family if we have any are around us. We bid them good-ly with a faith all holy in the universal victory of Christ, or else all trembling with horrid apprehensions of ever-accu- mulating misery. Look on this picture, and on that; Here is a faithful believer in a world's sal- vation rejoicing with his family and friends in the hour of dissolving nature, in the prospect of death vanquished, sin finished, and God all in all ; and his eye kindles while the spirit flutters from its shattered tenement, and death has no power over him. He leaves them for a little while, when they shall meet again in realms of universal blessedness, when there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain ; for the former things will have passed away. He commits his family to the care of the universal Fa- ther,says/arez0eZZ,and life's feverish dream is o'er.- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 203 Here is another, a believer in another doc- trine. He sees a heaven, but he may not attain to it ; it is but a partial heaven : and even if he should, he sees a hell, glowing and yawning, may be, for some of that precious group around him. O, that double death ! that poison of death's peace ! that trembling apprehension for the fate of some one dearer than life ! Farewell ! I may meet thee in heaven ; thou mayest perish from me forever ! I forbear. This is no imaginary picture. If there is any doctrine fitted to die by, it is that which whispers, peace, be still. But it is said this doctrine will not abide by us in the hour of death. It is now too late to bring this assertion. Thousands of death-beds have tes- tified its falsity. Many have been the triumphs, and glorious the victories, over death, which we have witnessed, which our eyes have seen, and our ears have heard. Scarcely a week passes but brings us some new tidings of the victories of this faith, this hope. It is the only faith that can satisfy, that can give fulness of joy, in death's approaching hour. No doubt, many die happy in the contrary faith ; but, if they have hearts, if they have sympathies, there must be, when looking out even upon the .little world of their own interests, an aching void which nothing else can fill. God grant that, when my head is pillowed on the bed of death, I may have this faith, this joy, this tri- umph! 204 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. But it is said that many renounce it on their death-beds. This charge is unsupported. At- tempts are frequently made, by designing individu- als, to shake the faith in that affecting hour ; but they have generally been repulsed, and compelled to be the spectators of a triumphant exit. We think we may be safe in stating that no intelligent believer in the great salvation, who has been left to the full exercise of his reasoning faculties, whose mind has not been strangely prostrate with his body, has renounced his faith worth worlds to him in death's approaching hour. Shall we state a contrary truth ? It is, then, prominently true, that many, who, in health and prosperity, have expected to gain heaven by their works, their piety and faith, have, when brought to the last closing scene, expressed their only hope in the mercy of God. They have then been made to feel the frailty of all things else, and they have rejoiced alone in the goodness of the Creator. Yea, more than this : instances are on record, where those who have, in activity and health, assented to the doctrine of endless and unutterable torments, have, on their death-beds, when tottering, as it were, on the verge of the grave, exchanged a system so gloomy, and revolting, and dishonorable to God, for a strong, and rejoicing, and triumphant faith in the final blessedness of the congregated universe. I am happy to state the occurrence of a case of this kind, which happened but a few weeks UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 205 since. It showed the power of a wide and univer- sal faith to sustain the spirit when sinking under death. It was another and a glorious refutation of the charge that the system we advocate will not stand by us in the last sad scene. It has not only stood by, but, blessed be God, it has come to sus- tain the soul in death, when, through a whole life, the subjects have been left to grope in the darkness of an inglorious faith. " Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ." And now, my brethren, I bring this subject to a close. I think myself happy, because I have an- swered for myself this night, before thee, touching many of the things whereof we are accused. But one other charge remains ; that is, the heavy charge qf licentiousness, which flies upon the wings of the wind. From its importance and prominency, and the zeal with which it is hurled as an offensive weapon against the faitfi in God's unbounded love, we have reserved it for the last and closing lecture of the series. From the labors of the present one, we hesitate not to say that the charges are false which are alleged against us ; and, in the language of an apostle on a like occa- sion, " neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse us." 18* LECTURE VI. COMPARATIVE ILLUSTRATION OF THE MORAL TEN- DENCY OF THE SYSTEM OF UNIVERSAL GRACE. If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner 1 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come'? Romans iii. 7, 8. IT is the object of this discourse to refute the slanderous accusation of licentiousness, which was omitted in the consideration of the charges brought forward in our last lecture, and reserved for a particular and separate discussion. We shall not only act the part of the defensive, but, by a com- parison of tbe two opposite theories, illustrate the preference of one over the other. This charge, we have said, flies upon the wings of the wind. It is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, with the generality of those who would oppose and destroy what it has been the object of these lectures to establish. It will fre- quently survive the serious charge, with the con- sideration of which we closed our former lecture ; and, while many triumphant deaths have extorted UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 207 the acknowledgment of the frailty and falsity of that, the many well-ordered lives will not command a like honorable acknowledgment for this : but the virtue of the heart, instead of being placed to the homage of the faith that nourished it, will be very circumspectly looked upon as a most fortunate preservation from the errors of the head ; while, at the same time, it is very generously and compli- mentally handed over to the imperceptible influ- ence of other sentiments, among which, it is said, the man had been so lucky as to breathe and live ! But our motto is, " Honor to whom honor is due. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit ; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt ; for the tree is known by its fruit." We must beg to be excused from adopting a judgment so very impartial ; for this is not our method of appropri- ating either honors or virtue. To approach the subject, let us briefly descant upon the meaning of the text. In the chapter immediately preceding the one from which our text is selected, the apostle sets forth in a strong light the presumed self-sufficiency and wickedness of the Jewish people. Then, in the next chapter, notwithstanding all their wickedness and unbelief, the apostle supposes a Jew to ask for the subject is treated in the form of dialogue " What if some did not believe ? Shall their unbelief make the 208 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. faith [or faithfulness] of God without effect ? " That is, as Dr. Clarke very judiciously remarks, -T-" If some of the Jewish nation have abused their privileges, and acted contrary to their obligations, shall their wickedness annul the PROMISE which God made to Abraham, that he would, by an ever- lasting (or age lasting) covenant, be a God to him and to his seed after him ? Shall God, therefore, by stripping the Jews of their peculiar honor, as you intimate he will, falsify his promise to the nation, because some of the Jews are bad men ? " To all which the apostle replies, " God forbid : yea, let God be true, and every man a liar." Now, in contemplation of this striking fact, that no unbelief or unrighteousness in man could in the least degree annul or render of none effect the faithful promise of God, the Jew very honestly rejoins, " But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? " He sup- posed that if no possible wickedness could at all weaken the promise of God to them, their unrighte- ousness might serve to commend or illustrate his great mercy in keeping and fulfilling that promise which he made to their fathers, that " the more wicked they became, the more God's faithfulness to his ancient promise is to be admired." And in this he was indeed correct ; but the conclusion he came to from this fact was entirely erroneous, Fpr, continued he, this being the case, is not Gpd UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 209 unjust in taking vengeance ? Why should we be punished for what serves so to enhance God's faithfulness and glory ? Admitting this, is not God unjust in punishing ? But what saith the apostle ? " God forbid ; for then how shall God judge the world ? " Although the wickedness and unbelief of men may thus ultimately redound to the glory of God, by making his faithfulness and mercy more manifest, yet, if he should not punish or take vengeance on the sinner, how could God judge the world ? All distinction between right and wrong would be at once confounded. We are now in a fairer way to understand the text. The apostle there, after his plain manner of speaking, calls the unbelief and unrighteousness of the Jews a lie. " If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Lt us do evil that good may come ? " This was the conclusion he came to. If the truth of God, or the faithfulness of God, in keeping his promise to our fathers is, through our lie, or unfaithfulness, made far more glorious than it otherwise would have been, why, then, should we be judged as sinners ? Why should we be blamed and punished as sinners for that which would redound so much to the glory of God ? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, 210 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. and as some jaffirm that we say,) Let us do evil that gopd may come ? " Seeing this ground is assumed, why not in all cases do wickedly, since God, by freely pardoning, can so glorify bis own grace,'" Here, then, we have the precise idea of the text. But this was a most impious sentiment, and had been unjustly laid to the charge of the apostles, who taught the doctrine of a free salvation without the merit of good works. The doctrine of the apostle was, " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," or would be much more manifest. This doctrine of free grace abounding over all sin and destroying it, is what gave rise to the slander and calurnny mentioned in the text, which appears, at that time, to have gained a con- siderable ground. A-n opinion had prevailed, that, as the free, unmerited grace of God through Christ was, in the estimation of a few, sure to abound over all manner of sin, tljen all manner of sin might not only be committed with impunity, but that the more evil a person did, the jnore the grace of God would abound to him in the redemption of that evil, and they could not see the propriety of abstaining from it ! They went even further than this. They even said, u Let us do evil, that good may come." But this was so manifest a perver- sion of the truth, and withal so slanderous to the characters of the teachers of that doctrine, that a TTNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 21 1 just punishment was pronounced upon the propa- gators of the slander "Whose damnation was just." * To come down from the apostle's time, could there be a more similar, more apt, more well- chosen case, to represent the state of feeling and character of opposition to the doctrine of a free and full redemption at the present day ? Is there not precisely the same calumny heaped upon the doctrine now, and upon its honest advocates ? As we stated at the commencement, it is one of the first, with many the first and the last objection, that the theory of a world's salvation by the grace of God prostrates every barrier to the commission of evil, and permits the perpetration of the blackest crimes with impunity. The system represents the infinite goodness of God, infinite in duration and embrace ; declares that no evil, no absolute and unmixed evil, can find a lodging in the universe ; and even maintains that sin itself shall ultimately merge in good, for it shall be drowned in abound- ing, glorifying grace. Then it is exclaimed, in the spirit and blindness of the ignorant Jew, Why, then, am I judged a sinner ? What should restrain me from evil ? It is also slanderously reported, and some affirm that we say, Let us da evil ; for what should restrain us from rushing on from Iniquity to iniquity ? Go, blind stranger, unto what * See Clarke on the whole of this subject. 212 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. thou canst not see, but may yet know ; go, learn wisdom from the first principles of Christ. He will instruct thee in a better motive, and tell thee of a better and more honorable service. The subject now opened to the hearer may be treated of in the order best fitted to accomplish the object of our labors. I wish the hearer to remem- ber that the subject of the text illustrates the nature of the system whose moral influence we would represent and feel. It represents the abounding goodness of God over all the wickedness of man, which is but commended or illustrated by it. It recognizes, in principle, the great and important truth that Universalists ever have insisted on, that God is good, and in his government there is no evil. Moral evil shall result in good. Punishment is a means for the attainment of good. In short, good, good alone, is the happy ultimatum to which all things tend. In view of a system so inexpressi- bly glorious and grand, it is frequently queried, in the spirit of the unsanctified and blinded Jew, Why not do evil, then, that good may come ? or where is the restraining influence to prevent the com- mission of sin ? It is our object to answer this question. And, in the first place, be it observed, that to do evil that good may come is impossible. The very phraseology contains a contradiction in itself. The design of the actor gives the moral color to the act. To do evil that good may come must proceed UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 213 from a good design. The moment that it is done for good, it is not evil. To do evil that good may come is, therefore, to do good. The phrase con- tradicts itself. If it be objected to this reasoning, that although it may be good in the actor, seeing that he had good intentions, yet it may, through his ignorance of causes, be evil in its more immediate effects, we acknowlege the justness of this view of the subject ; and hence the unlawfulness of doing evil that good may come. It may, and is, in this respect, a commission of evil on our part. But I need not dwell upon the abstrusities of the subject. May not a person sin, says one, may he not do wickedly, and this with great impunity, if he has the deluded conviction of all-abounding, univer- sal grace and good ? This he may do. This is coming to the subject. And our whole question is which is the foundation of this discourse why not? Why not, my Christian brethren, as it is slanderously reported of us, do all manner of evil, seeing the grace of God is sure to abound over it ? I. We answer this question, in the first place, by an illustration from comparison. Here is a man subjected to some natural infirmities of the flesh. Yet his case is not absolutely fatal, and nothing but what may be cured effectually, by proper treatment and prescription. And he takes encouragement from this fact, from a knowledge of this truth. Now, will he continue in this sickness, 19 214 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. for a length of time, and refuse to take the medi- cine, because he knows he shall one day recover, that the physician will restore him ? Take yet another case. Here is a well man. Now will he make himself sick because he knows, or thmks he knows, that he can and shall recover ? Will he rush into danger, will he undergo the pains of disease, for the purpose of testing the efficacy of the' medicine ? Now take yet another. Here is a sin-sick souh Will he continue in his sickness, in his spiritual infirmities, or will he foolishly rush into sin, be- cause he knows he shall one day be restored ? Will he endure the pangs of transgression, because he knows transgression will be finished, and ever- lasting righteousness brought in ? Will he take encouragement from a knowledge or a faith in- this truth, to continue in moral pollution*, because the great Physician shall one day make him whole ? Fie, fie, on the cobweb reasonings of the doctors of divinity against what they know not and under- stand not. Sin is a moral disease ; and it racks the soul with many moral torments. It is so repre- sented in the Scriptures. Tell me, then, ye who love simplicity, if ye will endure the pains for the sake of submitting to the remedy ; r if ye will de-' stroy your moral health for the sake of reinstating it again-; if ye will make yourselves miserable, and poor, and wretched, for the all-mortifying reason that ye will one day be rich, and comforta- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 215 ble, and perfect. No, my fellow-sinner, you will now guard against iniquity as a pest and poison to your soul. You will nqw submit to the remedy, and delay not till the disease has reached a fearful and more threatening crisis. You will now learn wisdom and instruction, for now is the accepted time, and now the day of your salvation. Do not evil, then, because of abounding good. Sin not because of abounding grace. God forbid ; but grant that you may be dead to sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Perhaps it will be said that this, after all, is .a sophistical view of the subject ; that, withput the fear of endless punishment, men will sin, in 3pite pf all the pains annexed to the disease. AVe re- ply, first, that the sinner is actuated by the motive pf obtaining happiness when he ventures to trans- gress. Now, until .any on,e will undertake, and that successfully, to show that, even in this world, s,in yields more happiness than virtue, till then, I say, our representation will remain, not a sophis- tical, but a true one ; and the system we advocate has the advantage, even on the score of wholesome and restraining fear. For the fear of any evil which would overbalance the good of a contem- plated act, no matter how much, is a sufficient preventive of that act ; for no man will go counter to his own interest. And as the evil we hold out is near at hand, and not rendered ineffectual from 216 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. its uncertainty and distance, and possibility of escape after all, I say our system has the advan- tage, even on the score of terror. But this will more plainly appear as we proceed. In the next place, we reply, that, if the fear of endless punishment alone secures the man's obe- dience, his obedience is " good for nothing ; " for he is only deterred from sin by a hatred of its con- sequencesi which is consistent with as great a love for sin as before ! II. We now pass to the second division of our subject. Why not do evil in assurance of abound- ing grace ? We answer, the grace of God does not prevent his justice. " Shall we sin," says the apostle, " because we are not under the law, but under grace ? God forbid. He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong that he hath done ; and there is no respect of persons." It ought always to be remembered that Universalists do not dis- card the principle of fear which, like faith, worketh by love, a filial fear of God our Father, who pun- ishes for good. These chastisements we own and fear. It ought always to be remembered that Universalists can avail themselves of the " terrors of the law," and they are the only sect of Chris- tians who provide no possible way of escape. They know nothing of averting the penalty by the substitution of another sufferer instead ; or by the convenient work of popular repentance. They UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. are free to declare, by them alone " the violated law speaks out its thunders ; " and by them alone " the gospel whispers peace." And must we point again to the terrors of the evil way ? Must we resume the task, and tell the sinner of his dangers ? Look through, sinner, look through that external covering, into that seat of unholy passions. Behold the tumult and the uproar of those inferior faculties, while conscience sits as the outraged sovereign of the inner man. Look at her ! She may have been despised and trampled on, but still she announces the supremacy of her inviolable claims. Conscience, though de- prived of her rights, still continues to assert them. " She may have fallen from her dominion, yet still she wears the badges of, a fallen sovereign, having the acknowledged right of authority, though the. power of enforcement has been wrested away from her. She may be outraged in all her preroga^ tives by the lawless appetites of our nature ; but not without the accompanying sense within of an outrage and a wrong having been inflicted, and a reclaiming voice from thence which causes itself to be heard, and which remonstrates against it." * And it is this loud remonstrance that speaks the daggers to the guilty soul. No matter what the crime may be, it must kindle up with it the damning consciousness of guilt. And the fires of a^ * Chalmers' Natural Theology, vol. i. p. 315. 218 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. guilty conscience, once kindled, will burn while memory lasts, and justice fan the flame. All vivid will it live in the bosom of the sinner ; or, if it sleeps betimes, it is only to arouse with a new and increased energy, to inflict the contrast of a heavier pang. Take any of the numerous sons of vice, and follow him up in the workings of his busy mind, and you will find this lesson fulfilled upon him. Take the thief. He " fears each bush an officer," and trembles at the flitting spectres of a frighted fancy. Conscious that others will not trust him, he scarcely trusts himself, and, worthless thing, quivers in perpetual fear. Take the liar. He may not pass with the open reputation of a liar, but he will be a poor, miserable reflector upon his own littleness. The nobleness of stern integrity can never be about him ; and, in the moments of his busy memory, he will recoil, in shame, from the moral likeness of himself which will come up before him. Or turn to the slanderer. If he does not bear the indignation of community, he must reflect how vile he is ; and, in the moments, too, of his retirement, his miseries will rush upon him in view of the ruin he has wrought. The spectacles of injured innocence will yet rise up and plead their cause before him. The murderer, too, must share the general condemnation. He may flee the retributions of the civil law, but another hand will arrest him, and another tribunal will condemn. UNI VERBALISM AGAINST PARTFALISM. 219 Upon his soul is stamped the graven image of his murdered brother, crying for vengeance of his blood. That image will go with him by day and by night; ghastly and threatening will it look upon him. But I forbear. Need I dwell upon the horrors of a stricken conscience ? It is known and felt by all. But conscience may become seared. But then, when this happens, the deeds of virtue lose their relish, and this insensibility to all good, this negative punishment, is an evil quite as deplorable as absolute remorse. Indeed, when the conscience is gone, all is gone. The deeds of virtue meet not their reward, and stupified iniquity stalks abroad in utter desolation. Beware, then, beware of a con- science seared. You may not feel that lively compunction of guilt, but you will emphatically be poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked. But I need not dwell upon a stricken conscience. The system of theology we espouse bids you look abroad upon the vast gfobe, and read a lesson of continual and ever- varied justice. Sin and misery, you find, go hand in hand. This is not theory, but fact. I would that I could dwell upon it, but I have other matters to present. In the drunkard's portion, in the gambler's fate, in riot, and de- bauchery, and every evil work, you behold the bitter ingredients of misery. The earth responds to the truth of it, and heaven has declared its judg- ments upon the heads of all who boast of their 220 TJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, iniquity. This is the Universalist's faith, and this is one reason why we may nqt sin in assurance pf abounding grace. It is because the grace of God does not prevent the execution of his justice. Another reason, which we shall barely mention, is, that a practice of all the opposite virtues secures that inward peace and outward joy which exalts, and elevates the man. Reverse the argument thus far, and we then have a double reason for walking in the way of wisdom, which is peace. But I must leave these considerations, as the, apostle urged the leaving of the first principles of Christ, to go on to perfection. We can make use. of the principle of fear, but we know that this is not the most powerful incentive to obedience, No ; it may be the beginning of wisdom, but it is not the end of it. Another principle presents it- self; and another reason why we may not sin in assurance of abounding grace, or do evil t}iat good may cpme, is found in the nature of that grace and good itself. In other words', the Universalist's view of the divine goodness, as perceived in nature and in grace, presents the most powerful motive in the universe for securing obedience to the divine com- mands. To present this subject clearly, let us look again at the nature of the charge which is under consideration, which is urged against the purity of our faith. It is that it is a licentious theory ; that it cuts off all moral restraint ; that, in fact, it saps the very foundation of true morality UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 221 and social order, and, should it universally prevail, would completely prostrate the cause of religion and virtue in the earth. We are not under any apprehensions that the objection may be stated too strongly ; for the stronger you make it, the stronger you give us the argument against it. This, then, is the objection ; and now we are prepared to meet and to destroy it. There are two questions concerning this subject, and only two, which, when they are answered, will cover the whole ground, and settle forever the question in dispute : I. What is true morality ; or, if you please, true practical religion, the sum and substance of all our duty ? II. What are the means or measures best adapt- ed to produce it ? I. First, then, what is true morality true prac- tical religion the sum and substance of all our duty ? " Hear, O Israel ! The Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely, this : Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." What! none other com- mandment greater than these ! No ; " On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets," all that it and they have said with 222 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. regard to the duty of roan; and, permit me to say, all that can be said, in truth, on this mornentous subject. I fi f x and rest upon this truth. I wish to dwell upon it briefly, but long enough to realize its im- portance and its wide-embracing principle. Let us have a sure and safe starting-place in the outset of this argument, that we may see it in all its clearness, and be prepared at least with one weap- on, to repel the slanderous accusatipn against the hQliness of our faith. I would have it understood what true morality and pure obedience consists in. For this is of vital importance to our argument in the outset ; because, if we do not know the source arid substance of all true obedience, in vain do we argue the licentiousness of any sentiment. We affirm, and that on inspired authority, that it is nothing more nor less than simple love to God and man. And when we say that this comprehends the sum and substance of all our duty, we mean-: what undoubtedly the Saviour of the world meant that, if these two commands are obeyed, all others, all the detail and circumstantial pf moral duty, follow on as a matter of necessary course, perfecting the whole man, and causing him not only to run, but to run with delight, in the way of all the commandments of God. Having made the affirmation, we are now pre- pared tp prove it by a very brief recurrence to the philosophy and nature of mental operation. TJNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 223 1. With regard to : the duties which we owe to God. Is it agreeable to what we know of the play of human feeling, to suppose that any person, uftder the influence of a supreme and ardent affec- tion for his Maker, would be prompted to rebellion-, irreverence, or ingratitude against him ? The very question carries with it a moral contradiction. Affection and rebellion cannot exist at the same time, and towards the same object. I speak not of a partial reverence and affection for the God of heaven. I speak of a full and supreme attach- ment ; and I say, with such a feeling, disobedient in any form cannot coexist. I have your assent, and I therefore dismiss the subject. 2. But it is with regard to the second command- ment, the duties which we owe to our fellow-men, that the cry of licentiousness is particularly raised against our sentiments. " No endless hell ! All to be saved ! " Then, in a spirit truly mortifying; it is said, " Let us lie, steal, cheat, murder ' T but stop ! What can effectually prevent all this out- breaking ? Suppose a man should happen to love his neighbor as himself, or to the fall extent im- plied by this command ; do you think he would cheat, rob, or murder him ? Do we not see that it is here, here in these two great corresponding affections, that an effectual check is placed at once upon all manner of iniquity ? Only get a man under the influence of these two great affections, and he is more secure than he would be were hor 224 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. inclosed in walls of brass. He may break through prison walls to repeat his depredations ; but I defy him to break through the strength of genuine love to injure any man. I conclude this part of the subject ; and I think I have your full assent, that true morality true practical religion the sum and substance of all our duty, is simple love to God and man. So saith the Scriptures ; and so in truth it is. There is, absolutely, no duty, moral, social, political, or religious, but what would flow spontaneously from such a full and free affection. Now, II. What are the means or measures best adapt- ed to produce it ? 1. With regard to the love of God. Tell me, Christians, what is best adapted to promote love to the Creator. Speak, now, out of the honesty of your hearts. Is it, O, is it the doctrine of his endless wrath and hatred ? I propose this ques- tion, because those who accuse Universalists of undermining the foundation of all true obedience, assign as the all-sufficient reason, that we hold not up the fear of endless punishment; which is the effect of enmity and hatred. But these same Christians seem to forget that what they call true obedience is all comprehended in, and flows from, simple love to God and man. I wish this point to be remembered. And now I do not ask if the threat of endless wo can ever make us outwardly comply with many requisitions, when the heart is UN1VERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 225 not in the service. I do not ask if it can ever make us fear God. But I ask, simply, if it can ever make us love God. Is it possible, by the threat of unmingled and abiding hatred, to produce unmingled and abiding love ? Alas for the day when a point so simple is, by the corruptions of a false theology, made necessary to be argued in this nineteenth century of Christian light ! Tell me not of the love of benevolence, in dis-* tinction from complacency, which is exercised for all. Call not on the sinner to love the Lord his God, for the reason, merely, that benevolence is cherished for him, though complacency is not. In the name of reason, I ask, would you call upon a creature to love a benevolence that would damn him through the ages of eternity ? Do not make such abuse of words. It is enmity, it is boundless wrath, it is utter extinction of all love, you preach to mortal men ; and thus you are trying to gain upon the heart's affections ! To return to our former reasonings, love is the same in principle, wherever that divine influence operates in the universe of God. Now does it tend, in its operations on the earth, to diminish our love, and to kindle up our hatred, towards a fel- low-being who looks with grace and benignity upon us ? Now does not the same reasoning hold good when carried up to him who is our Creator ? Carry it up, I say. Tell us, if by proclaiming his 20 226 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. love to the children of men, by successfully la- boring to convince them of their heavenly Father's goodness, by the deep-settled assurance and the immovable confidence in the strength and infinity of that undying affection of our Creator, do we, O, do we kindle up the fires of pure hatred, to defile the altar of the human heart? Are we, then, undermining the foundations of all true obedience ? If so, Christians, what are they doing, who, in this great work of promoting love to God, are declaring and depicting, in all the colors of mortal eloquence, his everlasting hatred ? 2. What means are best adapted to produce obedience to the second command, a genuine, brotherly affection for the children of humanity ? The question, in part, is answered by the remarks already offered. He who loves his Maker most will have the most affection for his fellow-men. He who delights most in the Creator will delight most in the objects of his creation. If the doctrine of God's hatred, enmity, or wrath call it either name you please will not produce love to him, neither will it to the creatures he has formed. Besides, this doctrine expressly teaches that all men are not the children of God, that some are the children of the devil, (see our third lecture,) lumps of depravity, the objects of God's wrath, and the devoted victims of his hot displeasure. How, then, can it produce a fraternal and free affection TINIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 227 for all mankind ? When will it ? When the sun emits darkness ; when the stream runs higher and purer than the fountain. Mind you, I have not said that no believer in this doctrine is in possession of this love. All I have said is, that it is not this doctrine which pro- duces it. It proceeds, as we shall show hereafter, from a better ingredient in these same Christians' faith. Having arrived thus far in the stage of our argu- ment, we may anticipate , an objection. We may be accused of misrepresenting the subject. We have dwelt upon the threat of endless punishment, as the effect of endless enmity and hatred, and remarked upon the feebleness of this in exciting men to love their Maker and their fellow-men. But it may be said we have omitted the other half of this great gospel influence, the promise of endless and unutterable joy as a reward, as well as the threatening of unceasing misery. Both these influences, we are reminded, must be brought to bear upon the sinner. In reply, we would say, we are willing to take both these influences denying to them, however, the appellation of gospel influences and build our argument conjointly upon them. And here we are furnished with a splendid opportunity of observing the futility of these popular measures to induce men to love God and one another, according 228 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. to the two commandments. There are two ways in which the case may be made out. 1. Be it observed, that this, unutterable, endless joy, which is affirmed to be the reward of the righteous who have forsaken their sins, is repre- sented as the effect of the love of their Creator, (complacency, 1 suppose !) which, by their love, is reciprocated by him. This is really delightful ! We had always thought, the apostle had the right of the matter, when he said, " We love him be- cause he first loved us." But the beautiful theory in question would reverse the matter, and make it out that God loves us because wejirst loved him ! or that he hates us while we hate him, and begins to turn when we turn, and stops just where our love determines him ! ! This is really paying small regard to the unchangeable attributes of God, though it may be quite a felicitous way to induce men to govern the affections of the Almighty Ruler. But our object is, not so much to show the ab- surdity of the theory, as the inefficiency of its practical influence in inducing obedience to the great commandment. Suppose, indeed, it were the fact, that God love's us when we Jove him, and not before. Then it would follow, that, while alienated from him in rebellion, we are the objects of the Almighty's hatred. And this is precisely what is preached to us. Now it is in such a con- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 229 dition a state of sin and hatred on our part that we are called upon to love G0d. Evidently, then, the influence of God's love cannot be brought to bear upon such persons ; for, according to the very doctrine which makes the appeal, God has no love for them until they love him. That is, none but the love of benevolence, so called, which would damn them through eternity ! While in sin and hatred themselves, then, how are they to be brought to love their Maker? His love cannot influence them, for he does not love them yet. Where, then, is the mighty influence of the other half of this theory, which we were accused of keeping out of sight ? The fact is this : There is no other half of the theory, until the practical part of the matter is first performed by man ! There is nothing but God's dreadful and overwhelming hatred to induce him to love God ; and we ask you again, my friends, if this can do the gracious work. I wish you to understand that the promise of God's love, when man begins to love him say nothing of the inconsistency of the matter is not sufficient. There, according to this doctrine, ex- ists the Almighty ; filled with hatred to the hating sinner ; and now, how is it possible for the sinner to love a Being who cherishes such unbounded hate for him, even though the love of that Being should afterward be the reward ? The thing is to get him to love that hateful Being first ! 20* 230 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. 2. The ulter futility and folly of these popular measures to induce obedience may now be seen in another light. My brethren, what is the nature of love ? Is it any thing that can be forced, or ex- torted by any thing but a perception of loveliness in the object loved ? This is an exceedingly sim- ple question, but the state of popular opinion ren- ders it necessary that it should be put. Many people seem to think that men can be driven or induced to love their Maker, by motives or con- siderations apart from his moral loveliness or beauty. I care not which you take, whether the threatening of punishment, or the promise of re- ward. The thing to be accomplished is, to create in man the exercise of love. And I say, it is a moral impossibility to accomplish this, either by promises or threatenings. And the impossibility looks greater and more hopeless, when the sinner whom God hates is called upon to exercise this love. Would this threatened punishment, or prom- ised reward, have any influence in changing the nature of the object to be loved ? We conclude, therefore, that the popular measures for inducing men to love their Creator, or their fellow-men, are not only utterly vain and futile, but betray the grossest ignorance of some of the simplest opera- tions of the human mind. There is no way by which our partialist breth- ren can escape from this conclusion, but by denying outright that they ever attempt to make UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 231 men love their Maker and their fellow-men by holding out this threat of endless punishment. If they take this ground, then they must acknowledge one or the other of two things : either that, when the threat in question is put in requisition, they try to produce a different kind of obedience from what God requires, and only flows from love ; or that the threat in question is altogether unavailing for the purpose. They may choose which horn of the dilemma they please. If they take the former, they must tell us, candidly, that they are not laboring to promote the will of God in the earth, by securing the obedience which his law requires : if they take the latter, they must acknowledge that the doctrine in question, if true, is " good for ilothing," and that they are " wearying for very vanity." Choose which they please, they must choose one. " But stop," says the hearer, " it cannot be that so many are mistaken, that the mighty energies of ' infinite joy and endless wo,' which have so long been put in requisition, are so entirely una- vailable in producing love and obedience. They must do something." Yes, my brethren, this is true. They do something. They produce both love and obedience. They drive men into many outward conformities, keep men in the practice of many virtues which they might not follow were it not for that fear ; which obedience is both unac- ceptable, and consistent with great love for sin ; and 232 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. they produce much love for that reward held out for their attainment, which serves only to alienate the heart from the only proper object of its affec- tions. Ah ! here is the secret and end of the matter. Here the concealed abomination puts out its cloven foot. Too many Christians, it is feared, love the idea of a reward of endless happiness, and the idea of escape from endless torments, more than they do their Maker. And it is such love, and such obedience, which the doctrine of endless rewards and punishments is eminently adapted to produce. These truths, we know, break open the secrets of many hearts ; but it is our business to dissect the human heart ; and nowhere can the moral dissecting knife be applied with more suc- cess than in reference to the motives which prompt to human duty. From the whole of this subject, as thus far de- veloped, we may see clearly the following truths : that love to God and love to man is the sum and substance of all our duty ; that, consequently, it is not the doctrine of God's love that is under- mining all morality and religion ; but (mark, now,) the opposite doctrine. the doctrine of God's hatred, so far as the first and second commands are con- cerned, is actually undermining, or effectually pre- venting, the obedience of mankind ! Christians of all denominations, let us not now be misunderstood ! God forbid that I should affirm that no believers in this doctrine do love their UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 233 Maker and their fellow-men. We affirm no such thing. What we say is, and that in truth which cannot be gainsayed, that it is not this doctrine which induces them to love God or man. No ; I despise the thought. It is a mental and moral im- possibility and absurdity. THE LOVE OF CHRIST is the prevailing theme, ever with those who " limit the Holy One of Israel." The abhorrent features of their faith are not realized in their exaltations for redeeming love. And it is love, after all, which creates in them any compliance with the two great commands. The simple idea of endless torments never did, and never caw, produce one spark of love to the Creator or the creatures he has formed. On the contrary, so far as this idea is realized, so far as it becomes operative in the human mind, among the moral sentiments, it must harden the heart, and diminish that love for God and man which otherwise would be called into natural and healthy exercise. This it must do, from the very make and constitution of humanity. Away, then, with the idea that the doctrine of God's unbounded and all-powerful grace is inju- rious to the cause of public morals ! So far as the opposite doctrine affects a moral action related to the two commandments, it does indisputably pre- vent the obedience of mankind. As a last resort, it may be said that the fear of the Lord in this light is the beginning of wisdom : it may arouse the sinner to conviction of his guilt ; 234 TTNIVERSAL1SM AGAINST PARTIAL1SM. and, after that, there may be presented the more powerful influence of love. Reply, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom ; but not the fear of the devil , or of endless punishment. The premises are thus destroyed on which this reason- ing is founded. Besides, it is very questionable whether love is not the best motive to begin with. A filial fear, fear of offending God, Universalists acknowledge. This is consistent with love. A slavish fear of endless torment is not. A filial fear may be the beginning of wisdom. Such a fear is very nearly allied to love itself. It is the fear of a parent who never punishes but in love, and for the attainment of a good and holy end. In short, a filial fear of God, God's hatred of sin and undying love for the sinner, these are the enginery of our moral power, by which the stubborn foe must bow, and the increase of a pure obedience rise. How lucid, then, is the conclusion to which this subject leads us ! Tell us no more of the licen- tiousness of our faith. Settle the question, first, what true obedience consists in. See that it is comprehended in, and flows from, two great cor- responding affections ; and then ask, what is best adapted to produce it ? We may be in error ; we claim not infallibility ; we may have an erroneous theory, and so may our antagonists. But that we have a licentious one, one calculated to promote iniquity, to cut off all moral restraint, to diminish, in short, our love to God and love to man, on UNIVERSALISM AGAINST which all true obedience is foundeS cusation which we KNOW to be false," 1 harmless at our feet, and rebounds with teiiloTi vengeance against those systems of wrath and hatred which the wisdom of this world hath in- vented. We have not quite finished the subject. Bear with me a little while, and I will now proceed to the last consideration. We now leave theory and proceed to fact. Beautiful in theory, it may and has been said, is the doctrine of God's love for the reformation of the world ; but theorizing and actual experiment might clash in sorrowful destruction. In short, it has been asserted in a tone of confi- dence, that the mild ministrations of benignity and kindness may do for the more peaceable, refined, and cultivated, and the less criminal of mankind ; but that there are certain hardened and abandoned villains whom nothing but horrible terror will sub- due. These, it is said, need the appalling and the fearful, and the prospect of the most .soul-quivering calamities. And so, in precise accordance there- with, the measures have been put in requisition. Those who think thus of human nature have acted up to their belief. And the pulpit, instead of a vehicle of gospel grace, has been converted to a citadel of Sinai, to hurl its thunders, and dart its lightnings from afar. The eloquence of these ambassadors is that of terror and alarm. The godlike messages of love have lost their efficiency 236 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. with them, at least in appearance. They must resort to some more effectual method. The earth- quake, the thunderbolt and storm, these are the enginery of their moral power, and the instruments to strike and subdue the heart. Now we are not going to deny that there are " hardened villains," or sturdy, stout-hearted crimi- nals. But it is a question with us, after all, whether they can be softened by the terrible meas- ures proposed. We deny it outright ; and if you have ever seen these measures resorted to and put in operation, you must yourselves have become convinced that such have mistaken the nature of man. Human nature is the same, the world over. There are various aspects of it, under various cir- cumstances, but there is yet a universal principle in the heart that will not yield at brutish treatment, but may still, with proper means, be turned and wrought upon at will. But we were to leave theory and proceed to fact. And, out of the numerous cases illustrative of our subject, we hardly know where to make the selec- tion at first. Scriptural examples you are all familiar with ; yet I would not leave the Holy Volume, to present, entirely, cases of profane occurrence. What but the kindness of Joseph brought tears of contrition and of gratitude from the eyes of that rebellious band of brethren ? Re- verse the circumstances. Imagine Joseph, on that melting occasion, to have acted the revengeful TTNJVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 237 tyrant, to have assumed and maintained the repel- ling rigor of unforgiving hatred. Think you his brethren would have " wept upon his neck ? " Ay, they might have wept, but they would have been the tears of congealed impenitence and fear. Else, perchance, they would have been over- whelmed with terror, and fled, in unreconcilia- tion, away. Here is one instance, then, where the all-subduing power of kindness kindness even against unbrotherly treachery and wickedness took a gracious and a quick effect. What would hatred have done, what would revenge and retali- ation have done, in the case which now has formed one of the most affecting and memorable stories of sacred history ? Take another case in the history of Saul and David. Whoever will read the history referred to, will not hesitate to allow that the malice pf Saul against David was of the most inveterate and de- termined kind. He sought his death, and was bent upon it ; and what, my hearers, saved him from the murderous plot ? Was it the omnipotence of terror ? 'T was a higher power than this. When David had secreted himself in a cave for security, with his followers with him, Saul accidentally en- tered, and placed himself, unwittingly, in the power of his enemy. The men of David perceived the condition of the king, and apparently exulted in the opportunity of destroying him. But did David avail himself of the opportune occasion? 238 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. He remained silent till Saul rose up to go away ; then he called upon him in surprise, " My lord the king! behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee into mine hand in the, cave ; and some bade me kill thee ; but mine eye spared thee. Moreover, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand ; for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, (which he did privily,) and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand ; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The Lord judge be- tween me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee ; but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness pro- ceedeth from the wicked ; but mine hand shall not be upon thee. And it came to pass when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David ? And Saul lifted up his voice and wept ! " Behold the power of kindness even against your hard-hearted ones ! " And Saul said to David,, Thou art more righteous than I ; for thou hast re- warded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil. And thou hast showed this . day how that thou hast dealt well with me ; forasmuch as, when the Lord had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For if a man rind his enemy,, will he let him go well away ? Wherefore, the Lord reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day." (1 Sam. xxiv.) UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 239 What but kindness, Christians, could have done this ? What other power could have softened the hardness of his heart, and destroyed his murderous design, and called forth from his mouth the prayers of good for David ? Here was one of your hard- hearted villain, if you please to call him. Yet what but kindness would have thus miraculously wrought upon him ? Can ye say, then, that there are some whom nothing but horrible terror will subdue ? Rest assured, my brethren, that human nature is the same even in the hearts of the most desperate and cruel. There is, O, there is yet a latent spark which can be wrought upon by the demonstrations of tenderness, which no wicked- ness can vitiate, and no depravity extinguish. To turn from the Bible to other testimony, to other facts, in support of our subject, it is enough, perhaps, if I barely mention the talismanic name of Howard. What did he do ? He travelled all over England, Ireland, and Scotland, and a consid- erable part of the continent of Europe, illustrating and establishing the truth of our theory, soften- ing the asperities of revenge, converting obdu- rateness into penitency, resistance into compliance, vice into virtue, the worst and most inveterate of criminals and hopeless desperadoes into gentle, manageable, obedient subjects, by the simple yet all-powerful application of kindness ; and this, too, where cruel treatment, stripes, and lashes your modern, " evangelical" coercive measures only 240 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. kindled up a still stouter defiance than ever. Go to the savages, if you want to talk of this ; but tell it not in Gath, nor publish it in Askelon. Take another case. I refer to the admirable Oberlin. A native of Strasburg, on the borders of France and Germany, of great characteristic and native benevolence of heart, his only ambition was to be useful to mankind. For this purpose, he undertook to civilize and moralize a half- barbarous race. He worked among the rudest materials, and amid the most formidable difficulties, both of a physical and moral nature. He attempted to fer- tilize the country where the soil was hard and uncongenial, the whole territory mountainous and barren, and the inhabitants, as before intimated, of a moral likeness to the natural aspect around. The place he thus selected for his operations was about twenty miles from the city of Strasburg, the place of his nativity and education. It was almost excluded from the rest of the world ; but here this man of usefulness went, and formed the design of making the " desert blossom as the rose." He was the minister of a parish church ; and, from the very character of his office, we might not im- agine him to have gone with carnal weapons to subdue the barbarism, and civilize and Christianize the place. No ; but he went with the all-conquer- ing weapons of love and good-will. He met with resistance, and even combinations of enmity against him. But he gradually became successful, im- UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 241 proved the country, established infant schools, instructed in the arts, worked with the natives, and, as a pastor and teacher, achieved the noblest triumphs over the vices and habits of the people. We repeat, it was his godlike love and kindness, united with his perseverance, that wrought all these wonders, and earned for him a name and a praise in the annals of the world's benefactors. Remem- ber, these were not the refined and cultivated, among whom he exercised his love, but a half bar- barous race who fell before its all-subduing power. He, too, I am happy in stating, was a Universalist in faith and practice. Take yet another case. I refer to the well known history of Penn. He worked with these same instruments among the savages. Here were the most stern, and terrible, and ferocious passions. And they were all conquered by love. When he came to this country, he came with the resolute purpose of putting into practical operation the god- like rule of " overcoming evil with good." And he found it eminently successful. He had no arms, no weapons of blood, no coat of mail. And yet he went among the savages, disarmed them, defeated them, with nothing under heaven but courage, and good-will, and kindness unto all. These were his arms ; and they were all bright and gleaming from the armory above. At this late day, the name of Penn, the very name of him, will cause the toma- hawk to drop, and the hatchet to be buried in the 242 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. earth. Where, then, are your uncultivated, unre- fined, and hardened specimens of human nature, whom nothing but horrible , terror will subdue ? 'Tis false. It contradicts the spirit of the holy word, and doubts the very power by which God through Christ will overcome the world. Look yet further down in the scale of moral abasement. I refer to criminals inmates of the prison those whose natural passions have been nurtured and trained in the school of vice, and where the facilities of intellectual attainment have been turned to unholy use, and added to the terrible momentum which they have acquired in their on- ward course to ruin. There was a time when these hardened sons of iniquity were deemed al- together unmanageable by any other power than chains, and bolts, and bars, with the most unrelent- ing and unflinching rigor of severity. But, now, experiment has taught a different truth. Facts added to facts have proved that criminals are yet men ; that they have hearts like other men ; that they are not hopelessly and totally depraved ; that they are sensible to the humane offices of kindness, and that this,- in fact, is the only power by which they can be brought in subjection to authority. It is said of Captain Pillsbury, of the Connecticut state's prison, that " his moral power over the guilty is so remarkable, that prison breakers who can be con- fined nowhere else, are sent to him to be charmed into staying their time out. One," says the author UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 243 of the Retrospect of Western Travel, "was a gigantic personage, the terror of the country, who had plunged deeper and deeper into crime, for seventeen years. Captain Pillsbury told him, when he came, that he hoped he would not repeat the attempts to escape he had made elsewhere. ' It will be best,' said he, ' that you and I should treat each other as well as we can. I will make you as comfortable as I possibly can, and I shall be anxious to be your friend ; and I hope you will not get me into difficulty on your account. There is a cell intended for solitary confinement, but we have never used it, and I should be very sorry ever to have to turn the key upon any body in it. You may range the place as freely as I do ; if you trust me, I shall trust you.' The man was sulky, and for weeks showed only very gradual symptoms of softening under Captain Pillsbury's cheerful confidence. At length, information was given to the captian of this man's intention to break the prison. The captain called him and taxed him with it ; the man preserved a gloomy silence. He was told that it was now necessary for him to be locked up in the solitary cell, and desired him to follow the captain, who went first, carrying a lamp in one hand, and the key in the other. In the narrowest part of the passage, the captain, who is a light, small man, turned round and looked in the face of the stout criminal. c Now,' said he, ' I ask whether you have treated me as I deserved ? I 244 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. have done every thing that I could to make you comfortable ; I have trusted you, and you have never given me the least confidence in return, and have even planned to get me into difficulty. Is this kind ? And yet I cannot bear to. lock you up. If I had the least sign that you cared for me ' * * The man burst into tears. ' Sir,' said he, ' I have been a devil these seventeen years, but you treat me like a manS ' Come, let us go back,' said the captain. The convict had the free range of the prison as before. From this hour he began to open his heart to the captain, and cheerfully ful- filled the whole time of his imprisonment, confiding to his friend, as they arose, all impulses to violate his trust, and all facilities for doing so which he imagined he saw. " Another case was of a criminal of the same character, who went so far as to make an actual attempt. He fell and hurt his ankle very much. The captain had him brought in and laid on his bed, and had the ankle attended to, every one being forbidden to speak a word of reproach to the sufferer. The man was sullen, and would not say whether the bandage of his ankle gave him pain or not. This was done in the night, and every one retired when this was done. But the captain could not sleep. He was distressed at the attempt, and thought he could not have fully done his duty to any man who would make it. He was afraid the man was in great pain. He arose and went UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. 245 with a lamp to the cell. The prisoner's face was turned to the wall, and his eyes closed, but the traces of suffering were not to be mistaken. The captain loosened and replaced the bandage, and went for his own pillow to rest the limb upon, the man neither speaking nor moving all the time. Just as he was shutting the door, the prisoner started up and called him back. ' Stop, sir. Was it ail to see after my ankle that you got up ? ' ' Yes, it was. I could not sleep for thinking of you.' ' And yet you never said a word of the way I have used you.' c I do feel hurt with you ; but I do not want to call you unkind while you are suf- fering as you now are.' The man was in an agony of shame arid grief. All he could ask was to be trusted again when he should recover. He was freely trusted, and gave his generous friend no more anxiety on his behalf." I might multiply similar cases, but I forbear. Those we have cited speak a language of their own. Where are your hardened villains whom nothing but horrible terror will subdue ? Where are they ? And yet this love and this kindness are hardly worth the mention compared with that of God. And this is the infinite love we preach. Is it licentious ? Is it dangerous to public morals ? Is it undermining the foundations of religion ? If so, we must put the question, What are they doing, who are pursuing exactly a contrary course ? Shame on the man who, in ignorance, hurls this 246 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. charge against the truth he does not know, but may yet feel ! Suppose one of our modern ministers of wrath and condemnation had gone to these convicts in the prison. Here he would have met with his hardened villains, who, according to his theory, need some mightier power than that we preach. And he might have roused his eloquence by an appeal to the thunderbolt and storm. He would have uncapped the mouth of hell, and as its fabled horrors rose before them, would have bid them fear, and tremble, and obey. But would he have succeeded ? No ! not theory, but facts, speak in a tone of thunder, no ! Then they are false minis- ters of unprofitable suffering. They may be honest, but truth will have it that they have mis- taken God, and mistaken the nature of man. Horrible terror will not subdue. It may restrain, but it cannot subdue ; at least, not in the sub- jection of Christ. It is neither the beginning of wisdom nor the end of it. It is neither the gospel nor the law. It may have a driving influence, but it never yet constrained one soul to duty or to God. It cannot be that it is the truth of heaven. Truth is not so absolutely worthless. Nor is it fitted for the abandoned of the earth. The insane and luna- tic will reject it. For the power of kindness, and that alone, has been found effectual in hospitals of the mind, to turn the almost unearthly rebellion of the maniac into obedience, gentleness, and joy. Who i$ this power of terror fitted for, this threat UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM, 247 of never-ceasing misery ? Fitted for the fabulous monsters of a heathen world, for whom alone it is ail worthy ; fitted for an imagination girt about with darkness, and rioting in fabled pits of endle&s wo. It never saved, but has made its maniacs. It never softened, but has hardened many hearts. It never caused, but has prevented, obedience to the great commands of love. True, there are many worthy who assent to it ; but they are not made so by the theory in question. We may safely turn the charge upon them which they have brought to us. The fear of hell has made " some melancholy, and others mad ; " it has driven men to many per- formances of virtue, but it has not touched their hearts with love. It is therefore good for nothing, even should 'it be admitted true ; for the very obe- dience which would be necessary to escape it cannot be promoted by it ! But it is not true. And time is rapidly testifying that its kingdom is num- bered, and it must pass away. To conclude, these are the enginery of our moral power : a filial fear of God OUT Father, and the Father of mankind ; God's hatred of sin, but intense love for the sinner. Do not charge with licentiousness these godlike motives to obedience : they are all-powerful when felt, and none can sin with their full influence on him. I bring these lectures to a close, I have spoken pointedly and plainly. If they shall be the means of loosening one soul from the holds of error, of turn- 248 UNIVERSALISM AGAINST PARTIALISM. ing one to truth and the faithful practice of its teachings, I shall be more than abundantly reward- ed. May God grant that many may come, from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. And not till the universe is purified of evil, or the last lost soul returns in holiness to God, will Christ our Lord be satisfied, and the victory over sin complete. APPENDIX. [In anticipation of some objections which may be urged against the doctrine which we have labored to illustrate and establish, and which have not been noticed in the foregoing lectures, and for the presentation of some other facts for the consideration of the limitarian, I have thought proper ta append the following.] I.. " If the doctrine of universal salvation is true, there can le no use in preaching it" I must confess that this objection is bo.th flat and stale ; but as it is not so much our object to condemn folly, as to enlighten it, we must give it a passing notice. It is frequently the last objection given by an opponent, after having been driven the rounds in argument, and refuted, point after point. He will then look you wisely in the face, with a " Well, friend, if your doctrine is true, there is no use in preaching that 's clear ; for if all men are to be saved, unconditionally, what 's the use of preaching? " And then he takes his leave of you* 22 250 APPENDIX. unless, perchance, he is stopped a little as we stop him now, to reason with him, and to state, 1. That this is no objection to the truth of the doctrine, but only against its utility. Arid this is the reason why we did not notice it in our discourse upon the objections to the doctrine itself. Let this be remembered first, and, 2. The objection destroys itself. It is based upon the supposition that the doctrine may be TRUE. If it is true, that is reason enough for preaching it. Would the objector have us preach a falsehood, even though it might appear of some utility? No indeed. If, then, our doctrine is true, that is the very reason why we should preach it. 3. The objection also supposes that the only use of preaching is to save men from an endless hell. And this, in fact, is the great object of all limita- rian preaching. Now, if there were no other sal- vation than this, and all mankind were to be uncon- ditionally saved from this, then, we confess, there would be no use in our preaching. We might then institute the following argument : there is no other salvation than deliverance from an endless hell ; all mankind must experience this salvation ; therefore, there is no use in our preaching to save them. But suppose there happened to be another salva- tion. Suppose that Christ received the " name of Jesus, because he should save his people from their sins ; " suppose that he was " sent to bless us, APPENDIX. 251 in turning away every one of us from our iniqui- ties ; " suppose it was to " open our eyes, and to turn us from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that we might receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith." There would then, manifestly, be an appearance of wisdom in the preaching of the cross, and in bringing home to men's business and bosoms matters worthy of their grave attention. , Now this happens to be the case. We perceive that men are in the way of sin, of darkness, and of unbelief. We preach to open their eyes, and turn them to the light. We fear no endless hell, but we recognize a high and glorious salvation, one which, we apprehend, fully justifies the use of the term, notwithstanding all the felt unmeaningness which, in our use of it, is felt by many to hang around it. It is, emphatically, to SAVE MANKIND that we preach the sentiments of our faith. And the Saviour himself came " to seek and to save those who were lost," not those who should be lost. We view the world, or a -great part of it, in a lost condition. They are lost to truth, they are lost to virtue, they are lost to faith and hope, they are lost to happiness, they are lost from their Father's house, they are lost, wofully lost, but not forever; and it is by the " foolishness of preaching " that we expect to save them. In the world's eye it is foolishness, but to those who have tasted of the 252 APPENDIX. good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, the gospel we preach is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, to the salvation of every true believer. Go, my friends, and, contrast our condition with the condition of the heathen^ if you want to know the utility of preaching, abstracted from the power of an endless hell. See them sunk in the grossest degradation, idolatry, sensuality, and ignorance ; " without natural affection, implacable, unmerci- ful," and living in darkness that may almost be felt. Contrast their uncivilized and degraded state with the condition of those who have received the light and knowledge of God in the gospel of his Son, and say then, we Beseech you, apart from all consideration of exposure to an endless hell, whether a great and special salvation hath not vis- ited us. This is the salvation we preach. We seek to save men from ignorance, ignorance of God and his government ; from sin and its bitter consequences ; from unbelief, and sorrow, and all the evils attendant upon mortal and imperfect man, which the gospel can alteviate or remove away forever. If our doctrine is true then, there is some use in preaching it. We preach to make men letter. And as to the power of our faith to do this, 1 refer to the closing lecture of the series, which, perhaps, the reader has just perused. We aim to inspire the virtuous will, the holy resolution, and to impel the crea- APPENDIX. 253 ture to worship his Creator from thankfulness of heart. And is it foolishness in the eye of God ? Is it vain and useless unto man ? It may be fool- ishness to some, but they should not forget that, in days long past, when the world in wisdom towered high in its own estimation, " it pleased God, by the FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING, to save them that be- lieve." And may not the same salvation go forth now ? Yes, and it will go forth, till the world is delivered from its folly, till all obstacles are moved out of the way, -*- till u every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low ; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." Again, we must now tell the objector that one very great use in preaching our faith is, to save mankind from the degrading and dishonorable con- ceptions which they have formed of Him who is the Father of all mercies. They have dishonored God by the ascription of a character that would disgrace the veriest tyrant upon earth. They have cast a cloud of blackness over all his government. There is not one of them who, if he had the power, would not do letter, infinitely better, for man- kind than they allow their God will do. Thus they exalt their own benevolence above that of the Almighty, and impiously revile his character with blasphemies too horrible to utter. This is plain, but it is absolutely true. I do not say they do it 22* 254 APPENDIX. intentionally ; but they do it in ignorance of his adorable nature. And if I wanted to reproach my God, and to conjure up the foulest imaginable im- piety, I would not, with horrid oaths, deny him ; but I would say, in daring coolness, that he would inflict upon his helpless creatures, who owe their being to him, unintermitted and interminable tor- merit. This I would do ; and I should have no doubt that I had done the worst I could do. I know I am plain, and I mean to be plain on a subject of this nature : I would say it, did I die while my pen quivered in my hand. Now, my friend, it is to save mankind from such dishonorable views of God that we preach our sentiments. And we will preach them till knowl- edge runs to and fro, and his name is glorified throughout the earth. We have now one question to ask concerning the morals of this theory, and shall then dismiss the subject. Would those who bring the objection we are noticing be willing to acknowledge that, were it not for saving men from an endless hell, all their preaching and all they could preach would be foolishness ? Then ENDLESS DAMNATION is the sum total of their wisdom ! And, without this, they could not lift a finger to point to God, to Christ crucified, to virtue, or to happiness ! And we believe this is not a great ways from the truth of the matter ! II. " Universalism BIAY prove false. We there- APPENDIX. 255 fore will not embrace it; for, if we did, we should give up two chances for one. If our doctrine proves false, yours will take us in ; but if yours should happen to prove false, you have no security. We have two chances, and we will keep upon the safest side." So, friend, you are determined to disbelieve, in spite of evidence. You will not investigate, you will not " examine yourself wheth- er you be in the faith," for fear you may be found not in it ! that is, for fear you shall feel compelled, by evidence, to embrace a doctrine which, though truer, might not be so safe ! This is wisdom this is principle this is noble ! Is not the side of truth unquestionably the safe side ? Examine, then ; and if you be convinced of error, renounce it immediately, and rest assured there is nothing safer than the truth. But it may prove false. What then ? Are you any more in danger by being honestly and consci- entiously in error, by believing a doctrine which you cannot help believing, from the force of evi- dence, and rejecting one which you were obliged to reject, on account of its manifest absurdity? Rest assured, if there is any absolute sin here, it is in striving to countenance and keep in favor with a doctrine which your understanding rejected, and your very soul abhorred. I repeat, if there is any sin here, and danger on that account, it is not in rejecting a doctrine which you felt obliged to reject, but rather in striving to favor one which 256 APPENDIX. you could not find sufficient evidence to sustain, for the miserable consideration that it might be more safe. Remember this. But let us see if it really would be more safe, or if you would have one more chance by believing in the opposite doctrine. What does this doctrine teach ? That, from all past eternity, God has elected some to everlasting life, and reprobated others to everlasting death ; that those thus elected and reprobated are made so, as the Confession of Faith says, " without any foresight of faith or good works, or any other thing in the creature as condi- tions or causes moving him thereto ; " and that the number " thus predestinated and foreordained is so certain, that it cannot be either increased or dimin- ished." What a glorious CHANCE here is ! If this doctrine be true, and the main salvation is deliver- ance from an endless hell, it is certainly foolish to preach it. What think, friend, of two chances here. You might as well be a Universalist as not, if this is true, and despite of every danger. The fact is, there is no chance about it ; for it is all absolute and "particular" "predestination" and " design," " without any foresight of faith or good works." So, Universalist or Partialist, if you are one of the elect, you will be saved ; and if not, you will be damned, in spite of faith. But, says the reader, this is an old-fashioned doctrine, and universally abandoned now. I beg the reader's pardon ; I have heard it preached APPENDIX- 257 myself, within three months, from a pulpit in this town this veritable Newburyport. Remember that. It was preached to more than two thousand people. But we are willing to take the objector on the other ground, to admit that our eternal destiny is placed at our own disposal. And what then? Can faith save ye ? Or can honest, conscientious opinion, made up from careful examination of the Bible, and the use of all the helps within your aid, can such honesty and sincerity damn you through the ages of eternity ? I pity the man who is so far lost in bigotry as this. But if faith cannot save ye, can works ? Admit that they can. Admit that a good character is requisite for the attainment of salvation ; or, rather, that a good character is salvation itself. And what then ? Does the doctrine of endless damnation afford two chances here ? I trow not. So far as the first and second commands are concerned, we have already proved it " good for nothing ; " yea, worse than useless. I refer to the closing lecture of the series, where it has been amply demonstrated that the system of universal grace is all-sufficient in moral power ; and it only needs to be reduced to practice, to keep the believer in the way of all the commandments of God. On the contrary, reduce partialism to practice, imitate its God of cruelty, enact the scenes on earth that God, it is said, will enact in eternity, and crime and cruelty would 258 APPENDIX. overspread the earth. We do not say that such is the character of the believers in this doctrine gen- erally : we rejoice that it is not reduced to actual, universal practice. But we do say that such has been its tendency ; that the bloody inquisition, and other enormities, owe their origin to the doctrine of endless torment ; and, in every case, so far as it becomes operative in inducing a moral action re- lated to the two commandments, it does prevent obedience, harden the heart, create antipathy to God, arid destroy a Christian sympathy for man. These are facts which cannot be controverted. So far as chance is concerned, then, whether by faith or works, or both, the substantial, enlightened, practical believer in the universality and efficiency of God's grace and love is still upon the safest side. I pray that he may remain there ; and "not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, give glory." III. It is objected to the system of our theology, to that part of it which relates to punishment, that it destroys the Christian doctrine of forgiveness, by teaching a full and complete punishment for every sin. This objection is founded on one grand theological mistake. You cannot point to a single passage in the Bible which speaks of for- giveness of punishment. In Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, the character of God is proclaimed in this way : " The Lord God, merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and that will by no APPENDIX. 259 means clear the guilty " Here we find that sin may be forgiven, that is, blotted out, or remitted, while their punishment they could not flee from. Again, in Psalm xcix. 8, " Thou wast a God who forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions" Here, also, we learn that God could forgive their sins, that is, cleanse them from iniquity, at the same time that he took vengeance for them. Also in Isaiah xl. 1,2, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath received of the Lortfs hand double for all her sins." Here is an em- phatic testimony, that sin may be adequately pun- ished, and yet forgiven too. After the punishment is inflicted, the sin may be forgiven, If we should ask some Christians how this could be, they would ridicule the idea. The reason would be, they would be all the time thinking of forgiveness of punishment. And the forgiveness which our Christian clergy preach is generally represented, and generally understood, to be the forgiveness or remission of hell torments. But the Bible knows nothing about such a doctrine. It never teaches the forgiveness or remission of punishment for sins committed. It is the forgiveness of sins ; by which is understood, the blotting out, or cleansing from, after due justice is administered. You see, then, that our system of theology does not destroy 260 APPENDIX. the Christian doctrine of forgiveness, but maintains it. It only destroys the gross error of forgiveness of punishment. " He that doeth wrong shall re- ceive for the wrong which he hath done ; and there is no respect of persons." (CoL iii. 25.) In human governments there is indeed such a ihing as the power of pardon, pardon of punish- ment. But this is owing to the imperfection of the government. Mistakes frequently occur with hu- man judges, with regard to the degree of guilt which a criminal is involved in, arid also with regard to the question of guilty or not guilty. And, under such circumstances, a pardon is granted, by which the punishment is remitted. But no such mistakes occur in the government of God, He readeth the secrets of the heart. He is intimately acquainted with all the facts in the case, can insti- tute no punishment but what is just to be adminis- tered ; and, under such a government, why should the punishment be remitted for a sin committed against full light and knowledge ? Such forgive- ness would be manifestly unjust. And God has never declared it to us. He is the gracious forgiver of our sins ; and sin may be forgiven, after the just punishment is administered ; that is, " remembered no more against us." Universalists, then, so far from destroying, are the only Christians who maintain, the Christian doctrine of forgiveness ; for every other sect perpetuates the sin through all eternity. APPENDIX. 261 IV. It is objected, also, that our system renders unavailing the act of repentance. It does not. It only declares that repentance will not absolve from the punishment of sins committed. But if repent- ance cannot save us from the just punishment of our sins, it may be asked, of what avail is it ? In answer to this question, let it be observed how strangely perverted men's judgments are upon this subject, by a blind adherance to a favorite creed. Repentance has so long been represented as an exercise of the mind which will free us from the punishment of sins committed, which other- wise would have been inflicted, that it is deemed of no use at all if it cannot have this effect* What a blindness to all plain consequences is this ! By your permission, I will illustrate this subject by an apt, though homely comparison, A man in trade, then, makes a bad bargain. He repents of it. Now of what use is his repentance ? Does it help him out of his present difficulty ? Does it enable him to escape from the loss he has sus- tained ? No. He has got to suffer the evil of his own imprudence, and there is no help for him* Of what use, then, is his repentance ? Why, it will learn him to look out better next time. That is the use of it. Just so, we apprehend, are the good consequences of gospel repentance. It never will atone for what is past. If an individual sins, he has got to suffer for it the whole penalty of the law. There is no remedy for him* You, then, 23 262 APPENDIX. who hold to endless punishment, beware ! He may repent in dust and ashes, but this will never satisfy justice for the sin he has committed. Why should it? He committed the sin against a full knowledge of the wrong. He knew the law ; he knew he should violate it if he thus conducted ; still, he hesitates not ; he goes deliberately at work, and dares an open transgression. Under these circumstances, why should he go unpunished ? Why should his repentance afterwards clear him from a wilful violation of a known law of God ? You may talk about sorrow, and contrition, but this is nothing to the purpose. He had neither sorrow nor contrition when he ventured to rebel. With daring impiety, with a full knowledge of the law and its requirements, he goes about, despite of it all, and hardily lifts his hand against the almighty Ruler, in defiance of him ! Now, afterward, let him sorrow and repent ; but this cannot atone for high-handed crime against full light and knowledge. And we may depend upon it, that God, " who will by no means clear the guilty," will never let us off upon such easy terms as popular repentance. This sweeping expression, u no means," includes, or rather excludes, repentance and every thing else. Let it not be said that Christ has borne the in- finite penalty for us ; and that, therefore, God can now free us by repentance and faith. For, not- withstanding this, the penalty, we are told, must be APPENDIX. 263 inflicted upon MS, but repentance will clear us! The argument, then, holds good against the whole system of popular penalty, repentance, and for- giveness. But what, then, is the use of repenting ? Is it of no use ? Most assuredly it is. It is just as use- ful and necessary as the repentance of that man who made a bad bargain. It will learn us better for the future. This is the true use of repentance. It never can atone for what is past, but it will pre- vent future transgression, and consequent punish- ment for those future sins ; for, if we no more trans- gress, we shall, of course, no more be punished. The punishment of sin is called the wages of it. " The wages of sin is death." The term wages comes from a word which signified the daily pay of a Roman soldier. Death, then, (not eternal death, which phrase is not in the Bible,) is the pay, the wages of sin. It is hardly earned in the labor of iniquity. Now the great Lawgiver never had the character of refusing to pay laborers their wages. No : " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord." We may repent, and this will save us from future transgression and consequent punish- ment ; but surely, by the act of our repentance, God will not prove so absolutely unjust as to with- hold the hard earned wages of his subjects. We might wish to be excused from receiving such pay, but we should never have engaged to labor for it. The great Lawgiver must fulfil his part, and 264 APPENDIX. render unto every one his due, Universalists, then, do not deny the necessity of repentance : they only deny one of its supposed, but erroneous and unjust, consequences. V. It is furthermore said, that we deny the necessity of the new birth. We do not. We only deny that our eternal destiny hereafter is to depend upon our characters here. A more monstrous idea could not be conceived, upon the subject of our salvation. We believe in God, " who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began." (2 Tim. i. 9.) We believe, also, that " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." And none shall say " Lo here ! or lo there ! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." It is u not meat and drink ; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," APPENDIX. 265 FACTS FOR LIMITARIANS. I. IT is a singular fact that St. Paul, from all that appears in the whole history of his thirty years* preaching, did not once use the term hell to a soli- tary individual, saint or sinner. To be sure, he made use of certain other expressions which are usually considered, in our day, as relating to end- less punishment ; but if hell, as commonly under- stood, is the place of punishment, it is a singular and wonderful fact that Paul the apostle, and the chiefest of all the apostles, never once uttered it to an individual ! Query. What would be thought of a minister in our day, who should preach thirty years, and never once threaten his impenitent hearers with the punishment of hell ? Answer me that. What would be thought of him ? II. It is also a singular fact that self-styled " Orthodoxy " is not now what it was fifty years ago. Then it was absolute and particular election and reprobation : now it is, quite generally, the offer of salvation unto all mankind. Then it was infant damnation: now it is, quite generally, salvation for infants by the death of Christ. Then it was original, innate, as well as total depravity : now it is getting to be infant purity until the age of accountability. Then it was a hell of literal, ele- 266 APPENDIX. mentary fire : now it is a hell of conscience. Then it was one in a thousand saved : now it is by many, one in a thousand damned. Query : if this improvement goes on for fifty years hence, as fast as it has for fifty years past, how near will " Or- thodoxy " be to destruction then ? III. It is another singular fact, with the mention of which we shall close our work, that all that is wanted to exterminate the doctrine of endless tor- ment from the church is to preach it faithfully. " What ! " says the reader, " do you mean to bring the charge of unfaithfulness against the whole body of the preachers of this faith ? " We mean no more than just what truth compels us to affirm. We would not, certainly, thus represent the character of this whole ministry, had we' not a sufficient reason ; nor do we mean to say aught against their piety. But they know very well that, from motives which they know well enough how to appreciate, they are absolutely afraid to preach their doctrine fully and faithfully to a dying world. Start not, reader, for it is a solemn fact. You will now suspend all judgment upon the seeming bold- ness of this accusation, till the subject is placed in its true light before you. Think, in the first place, of the abomination which these men preach. What imagination can conceive it ? We have attempted to describe something of its horrors and enormities in the course of our lectures, but all attempts at de- APPENDIX. 267 scription only show the utter poverty of language. I shall therefore now pass it over in silence, as something too horrid to conceive, too dreadful to relate, and too tremendous to reflect upon. Yet, if it is a truth, with what power ought it to be pre- sented to the sinner's mind! And yet let us notice the reserve, and the delicacy, and the false refinement which seems to think hell a word " too harsh for ears polite." To be sure, all its public advocates are not of this retiring character. But if the abomination in question is true, what else should a Christian minister dwell upon ? If we do indeed allow him time for the inculcation and enforcement of other doctrines and precepts, yet " hell arid damnation " should be the all-engrossing theme, ENDLESS damnation and ENDLESS incon- ceivable wrath. But what is the case ? We do indeed hear them occasionally uttering the threat- enings of " undying pains " of " everlasting wo " of " endless misery." We hear them talk, in coolness, of that " sad world," where " hope never comes, that comes to all." We hear of " groans " and " tears " and " never-dying pangs ; " and, sometimes, a spirit more daring than the rest will attempt a minute and brief de- scription of the torments which await the wicked. But, in the name of justice and humanity, I ask, what is all this compared with what might and ought to be given, if true, and still fall infinitely short of the reality ? I once heard a minister of 268 APPENDIX. the gospel (?) assign a reason why this doctrine was not more faithfully portrayed to perishing sinners, in accordance with its tremendous nature. " Be- cause," said he to his flock, "it is as unpleasant to the speaker as to the hearer." Indeed ! A faith- ful servant this! What! a minister of the gos- pel consult his own personal pleasure, and the pleasure of his hearers too, rather than their safety, when exposed to such a doom ? No, no, this is not the reason. The reason is, the common sense and moral convictions of the people will not hear it ! That is the reason, and the preachers of this doctrine KNOW it ; and, to keep themselves in station, and keep alive the dreadful doctrine, they are obliged to cover it up, to soften it down, to be cautious about offending, offending men by proclaiming the most important truth of God ! They are obliged to be reserved, to keep cool, to preach but a little of what is deemed a soul- saving truth ! Brother preacher, is not this a fact ? Can you put your hand upon your heart, and say it is not a fact? But we tell you, if it is true, preach it. There is only one thing for you to do, preach it. Mind not the pleasure of your hear- ers, when their endless destiny is at stake. Preach your doctrine. If it is true, it is tremendously true ; and you had better preach it. Be faithful, and tire not in the work. Take up the subject from Sabbath to Sabbath, sound it dreadfully around, bring it to bear upon the congregation APPENDIX. 269 with all the powers and terrors of mortal eloquence, make them quail and tremble before it, suffer them not to sleep with the whole battery of endless damnation discharged upon their heads, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, sound the alarm ! wo ! misery ! lamentation ! horror ! shrink not from duty, let it come, be not a man-pleaser, shun not to " declare the whole counsel of God, " preach, O preach, from the dawning to the dying light, until the truth is felt, and stout hearts begin to shake with fear, and cry out in good earnest, ** What shall I do to be saved ? " You dare not preach thus faithfully ! Your con- gregations would not bear it ; and, ere long, you would have nothing left but empty seats and bare walls to e<$ho back the dolorous cry of boundless, fathomless, and endless wo. You know this to be a truth. '" You cannot deny it ! And now to the public I appeal, if that can be a truth which owes its very existence to a reserve in its advocates in the promulgation of it. Can that be a truth which, if preached boldly, faithfully and fully, as it ought to be preached, if true, would bring destruction to itself? Can that be truth which would need no opposition, but would, by faithful proclamation, ere long die a natural death, and be buried in oblivion's grave ? No ! none can pretend it. And it is for those who preach such sentiments to reflect well upon their ways. j But it may be said that " humanity would not 24 270 APPENDIX. bear such a portrayal of misery : it would sink under it." Yes, it would sink under it. And this confession affords us the following argument. De- duct from endless punishment a sufficiency of horror which would leave a remainder that humanity might bear to be threatened with, which must leave the punishment limited, and of wholesome restraint, and then you will have the Universalisfs principle for effecting moral reformation in the world. This would be a punishment that might be preached with faithfulness and good effect. So, this confes- sion of the limitarian explodes his doctrine and establishes ours ! But it is manifest and with this conclusion I leave the subject to the reader's mind that all that is wanted to exterminate the doctrine of endless torment from the church is to preach it faithfully. Then would it fall, and great would be the fall thereof: the heavens would rejoice, and the earth be glad. Amen. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY BERKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in demand may be renewed if application is made before expiration of loan period. 8 1S23 t3488l