UNIVERSALIS!! EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED, UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF A * - COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, * BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF MY REPLIES TO . MR. C. F. R. C D E M N SECTION L. The only apology which is demanded by the rule of propriety,^in sending forth into the reading world this Essay, is the ungenerous course of my opponents towards me, in their publication of a pamph¬ let, purporting to contain my replies to Mr. Shehane in a debate with him on the subject of Universalism. In this pamphlet my arguments are so abridged as to make them appear ridiculous, and to impose on me the necessity of publishing them myself. But for this necessity, I should not have troubled my friends with a book. With this brief introduction, I come to notice whatever may be of sufficient import¬ ance in Mr. Shehane's opening speech to demand refutation. In our correspondence, preparatory to a public meeting, I notified Mr. Shehane that it was my determination in the debate to submit the doctrines held and defended, by us on that day, to the common sense meaning of words, and not to the subtle ingenuity of mere argument. As my divine platform, I quoted to him, Isaiahviii; 20: "To the law and to the testimony, dec." On the day we met, after some preliminaries usual on such occasions, my opponent read out the above named text as the very thing for his purpose—a sort of heaven send. And after a considerable flourish of words, which I confess made a very unfavorable impression on my mind as to the chance of trying our doctrines by the "law and testimony," as cited. He com¬ menced by a puerile effort to prove that the rule or law of common sense as applied to Scripture interpretation, was the most unsafe rule in the world. This should not much surprise the reader. Whoever will listen to Mi*. Shehane defending his Universalian dogmas for three days, will readily allow, that his hope of making converts must be out of men of uncommon sense, as it will seem to them just as it did to me, that pure, simple, common sense, must revolt at hearing a 10 UNIVERSALISM holy God charged with such a lax and contradictory administration, as that which Universalists charge upon the High and Holy One. Neither Mr. Shehane nor any other of his creed will ever be willing to commit the destiny of Universalism as it connects with the per¬ sonal, positive existence of a Devil, the certainty of a future, fearful, judgment day, and of awful threatened punishment on the wicked after that day, to an easy, natural, and common sense interpretation of the plain words by which the Holy Ghost has declared these things with many others of a kindred character to the children of men. Hence the reason why Mr. Shehane was so anxious to kill off common sense as a sort of officious helper, who, while he had not the brains to do it, would nevertheless keep offering and urging the value and correctness of his decisions. He defines common sense to be, or perhaps rather confounds com¬ mon sense with the prejudices of education and sectarian expositors of the Word of God. Whereas the term common sense, when it is used understand- in gly, is of very different import. It is used to signify those safe conclusions to which men are brought by the commonly received opinions of right and wrong in things appertaining to the duties of justice and righteousness. In the matter of determining the truth or falsehood of a doctrine professedly drawn from the Bible, com¬ mon sense determines the meaning by several safe rules. First by the natural and unconstrained meaning of the terms used by the Author. As where Christ, in Johnv; 25—29., is speaking of the power given to him by the Father over Death; because he possessed a positive and independent life in himself, and therefore might and did exercise the prerogatives of this power over individuals, as in the ease of Lazarus and others, in advance of the general resurrection; and says, " Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." A common sense interpretation of this passage is, according to the natural use and general acceptation of the terms used by the Holy Ghost, that there will be a general resurrection of the just and unjust, before the administration in which we all, as probationers for an eternal destiny, are deeply concerned—and which administration, if it is not diverse from all other wise and righteous administrations, as it is to have no successor but is to put the final Executive Seal of appro¬ bation or disapprobation upon all its subjects, must distribute punish- EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 11 ments as well as rewards; unless, indeed, it could be rationally- proved, that what merited and received God's utmost denunciation this side of Hell itself, ceased to be a reason for denunciation as soon as the Agent died. Every man who intends to come up to the truth as it is, and abide the consequences of it, will admit, that many miserable sinners, whose ways and works God has condemned in no measured terms, have died in the same state of irreligion and crime. Common sense would say in all these cases that God's heavy threat- enings cannot be understood as made against sin, but against sinners. Sins, as such, have no intellectual or instrumental existence. They are in all cases chargeable upon intellectual and accountable instru¬ ments or agents. But in interpreting God's blessed Word, we must not only be governed by the plain and generally received meaning of the terms used, but also by the object to be made clear, by the whole scope of the Sacred Writer's plan of argumentation or illustration. Of the necessity of this rule, common sense will find abundant proof in 1st Cor. xv; 22. This passage "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," was used by the Apostle in proof of the general resurrection, and to predicate of these words universal, is as silly, as it would be to declare it of the words, "For we must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ;" both passages mean precisely the same thing, in so far as the one great fact is concerned. The passage in Cor. xv; 22, is a part of a long argumentation upon the question of the final value of the Christians faith as authorized by his doctrines—shewing that its vitality and its final value, depended upon the truth of Christ's resurrection, as the first fruit of the grave, by a resurrection proper, and final. For St. Luke must have intended, in Acts xii; 34, to have been specifically doctrinal, when speaking of Christ, he says, "now no more to return to corruption.'''' Lazarus and others whom Christ restored to life, although raised to life had no resurrection body given, and consequently died afterwards, and re¬ turned to corruption. But Christ ascended to his native Heaven, and with his glorified body; a sample of which he exhibited to three of his disciples on the mount of his memorable transfiguration; and ever liveth to make intercession for us. The Apostle more definitely, and I must say most decidedly proves the real and only doctrinal object he had in view, in the verses from 12 to 18 in this chapter; ending his powerful argument upon connectional value of faith with the truth of Christ's resurrection, with the words, "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." How perished? Why by 12 UNIVERSALIS^! the truth of that soul chilling doctrine propagated by infidel France— " that death is an eternal sleep." For says St. Paul, "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ arisen—and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." It will be seen by reference to the 12th verse, that the Apostle is pro¬ ceeding on the ground of the unquestionable truth of Christ's resur¬ rection, and that if Christ had really risen from the dead in the true resurrection sense, no more to return to corruption, then was the doc¬ trine' that there was no resurrection of the dead false. In his further and beautiful elaboration of the doctrine of the resurrection, he says-: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead," and explains his theme and asserts his doctrine by the lan¬ guage of the next verse; "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," or have a resurrection. "The first Adam was made a living soul, the second Adam, was made a quickening spirit." And in the 51st verse, Paul says, "Behold I shew you a mys¬ tery : we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised." After all this, must not every unprejudiced mind see that the text in question is a part of an inspired argument in proof of the doc¬ trine of the resurrection, and not in proof of universal salvation. Now then if in attempting to prove a doctrine by the Holy Scrip¬ tures, Mr. Shehane, or any body else, puts into the text any thing which the Holy Ghost did not put in it, every conclusion drawn from it on account of this extraneous data, is doctrinallv, and therefore may be fatally false. I ask Mr. Shehane, and all his folks, if he or they would risk their reputation for having common sense, on an attempt to prove, that the salvation of all men follows logically and necessarily from the fact of the resurrection of all men. If it does not, then any attempt to maintain Universalism from the text, " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," is nothing more, nor less, than suspicious sophistry. I am the more particular, and even elaborate, on this question of the common sense rule of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, because I fearlessly assert, that Universalism cannot live under its honest devel¬ opments of divine truth, on the one side, and its easy and natural detection and exposure of sophistry on the other. Common sense, as it is used by men of sense in this country, is a term of similar, if not of the same import, with the term common law in England. This doubtless means a system of jurisprudence founded EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 13 on those views of justice which everywhere challenge and receive the verdict of approval, not upon the testimony of witnesses, nor the arguments of counsel, nor even the decree of the Court, but by the determination of a universal consciousness. It was to this heaven sanctioned tribunal, that St. f^aul refers in 2d Cor. iv; 2, whefre he says : " But having renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God." Herein it will be seen, that the manifestation of the truth is made dependant upon the renunciation of the hidden things of dishonesty—upon an undisguised appearance—■ an open, and an honest handling of the Word of God, so as to lay its simple unsophisticated meaning, as open, and as accessible to every one, as possible—so as to leave every hearer satisfied that your fear was not, that you would not convert the hearers to your opinion ; but that by words you might darken counsel, or by argument mystify the Word so that its simple divine import might be veiled, rather than cleared. Such honesty and simplicity in ministers, will corn- mend itself to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Common sense I define to be, that general amount of reason and pure intellect by which the generality of men and women can safely and suffi¬ ciently understand the Scriptures, to enable them to believe, do, and teach the doctrines, duties and precepts of the Bible, with the appro¬ val of the common intellect and conscience of good people. It would really seem, as if a sort of average conscience, and under¬ standing, was indispensable to the comfort and safety of society.— Without this, what a Babel would this world present ? For instance, take a large cotton mill, with its numerous operatives, and its vari¬ ous machinery. Let there be no settled meaning as to what every particular word and name meant, from the fixedness of which might be obtained a knowledge suited to practical interests, and from which might be derived an understanding which could become common to all—and what a mass of confusion it would be. But with this knowledge common to all the operatives, which would be the com¬ mon sense of the company. If any dispute about the results of labor should arise, disputes predicated of new views, of old words—which to adopt—would lead to the revisal of the long established meaning of words and the appearing of new meanings to said words. How in such an emergency ought the parties concerned, to settle the dispute. By the common sense meaning of the terms. And more especially should they do this, if by the admission of new meanings 14 UNIVERSALIS^! to old terms, the parties had to suffer the utter loss of the imagined cotton mill, unless these new notions should all prove true. This is the awful issue to which every Universalist exposes his soul. He aban¬ dons what will be found to be the natural, easy and common sense view of words, to shuffle off his horror of future hell torments—adopts- new ones—rallys all his reason to aid him—loads all his understand¬ ing up to its most reluctant endurance, and after all is left to the painful conviction, that if the old-fashioned common sense meaning of lan¬ guage should be adhered to—that then, and in that case, after having walked in the light of his own fire, and in the sparks which he had kindled—he was to have thus, at the hands of his God,, "tolie down in sorrow," Isaiah 1; II. These, and such like emotions, I doubt not, haunt many, perhaps all the Universalists in Georgia. They cannot find the quiet common to other professed Christians, for the good reason—that while consistent, Orthodox Christians, are perfectly satisfied with the ground of their faith and hope, and troubled only about their own impurities—Universalists are troubled only in reference to the ground of their faith and hope. They stand upon the ground of flimsy assumption, as I will further demonstrate. Still further to illustrate the importance of the common sense mode of interpreting Scripture, I beg the reader's careful attention to the history of the rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke. If this ac¬ count be the history of facts already completed, it must be a fearful history for a Universalist to dispose of to his own or his friends entire satisfaction. And if it be considered as of parabolic character it loosens the pinching shoe but little. In the first form, it would be the declaration of what had already happened. In the second, of what might happen. A parable founded by our blessed Lord, and based only upon mere idealities, drawing its strength from fabulated speeches, would indeed be an act of most perplexing difficulty. But this he never did. In all his parables there were leading ideas intended to be the exponents of important facts, or doctrines, or even of both. Make this account a parable, and the leading ideas are, that from the depths of poverty, the good die and go to heaven; and that from plenty and splendor, the wicked die and go to hell. Take away from the account, if it is parabolical, these leading ideas, and you make it futile; leave the idea in it, and deny that there will be in the next world any corresponding facts, and, you make it baseless, contemptible hyperbole. Let it be history, the record of facts, and how stands the case? "Why it is more undeniably against Universalism. What are the EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 15 leading facts related in the narrative? They are as follows : That the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. Abraham's bosom is used for heaven, in conformity with a Jewish notion. That the rich man died, and was buried, and that lie lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments. Now if the simple and pleas¬ ing story of Lazarus, and his death, and conveyance to heaven, is to be received in conformity with the most easy, natural and com¬ mon sense meaning of his true words, will my opponent tell me why the record of the rich man, in regard to his death, burial and his lifting up his eyes in hell, being in torments, should not be inter¬ preted according to the same simple rule. The difficulty in the case is, and really to a Universalist it is a very serious one, that if the passage is interpreted according to the natural, common sense meaning of words, it declares there is a hell beyond the grave very different and distinct from it—a liell of fearful torments, and that the rich man lefted up his eyes in it, being tormented—and that, if we follow the simple thread of the narrative, he was left there, without a drop of water to cool his tongue, or the slightest hope of future relief. In a word, that he wqs assured by Abraham that lie was on the nether side of an impassable gulph; or, in other words, that his ruin was inexorable. * All this is doubtless intended to be looked upon, and to be believed in, as a narration of facts, divinely reported to us. It cannot, therefore, make the slightest change in the main design of this appalling story, that there should be mixed up with the account, much that belongs to the poetic imagery of an oriental literature. The objects of a revelation from God to man, could never have been safely carried out, if it had been left to battle with the wild uncertainties of poetic composition. But being of historic character, in its leading miracles, judgments, mercies, and facts, although all these may be found simplified by parables, beauti¬ fied by poetry, or imaged, as they sometimes are, by eveiy kind of figure known to our language—still, opinion and faith must rest upon its narrative character. But to the difficulty which this method would lead Universalism into. Let this account of the rich man, mean what it says, and then there has been a human sou1 sent to hell after death—punished after death—left in punishment, without hope -of ever being released.— Then also is there punishment connected with the divine administra¬ tion, that is not disciplinary merely. But punishment which is abso¬ lute and final. Punishment inflicted by God iri vindication of his essential holiness and law* maintaining justice. 1G UNIVERSALIS?! All these, modern Universalis'ts utterly deny. They deny that thei c is any endless hell after death. They deny that the soiil is punished after death. They say all punishment inflicted by God, on account of sin, is disciplinary and purgatorial. Or, what perhaps Mr. Shehane and his brethren might like better, it is a penal tariff", which the governor of the province has laid upon all those, who, notwithstand¬ ing he has decreed heaven to them any how, whether they are good, bad or indifferent here—"will still do wickedly—he therefore takes out of their enjoyments by measured instalments, enough to satisfy his law. Whether the principle of this divine retribution is advalorance or horizontal, Mr. S. did not inform us. The reader, if he pleases, will pardon this small digression—if digression he regards it—and will patiently accompany me in the further examination of the account of the rich man and Lazarus.— Of the rich man, it is said, that he died, was buried, and lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments. All this bears only the mar Its of a simple tale of truth, which can admit of neither argumentation, nor diminution on the natural import of its terms, without falsification or corruption. Every clear-headed and sound-minded reader, will agree with me, that this remark is true of every simple unvarnished narrative of facts, where the narrator designed that every word in his story should carry its meaning upon its face, so that no natural mistake could be made as to his design. Of no passage in the Gospels can it be said, with more propriety, than of this, "Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable." John xvi and 16. The Savior said to his disciples, "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me." These words were Veiled. The disciples asked for their true import. The Savior con¬ tinued to lift the veil by other terms which he himself, in the 25th verse, calls proverbs. But in the 28th, he says: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." His disciples said unto him, "Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverbs." Which was as much as if they said, We knew the other words—"A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shaft see me"—were words of vast importance, but their meaning was dubitable. One exposition might have said one thing, others different things. But now on hear¬ ing thee say, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father," we are satis¬ fied. You have removed the veil. But how was it removed 1 By dropping the proverbial form of speech, and speaking plainly. EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 17 Let vis then illustrate our subject a little by the light of tlris passage. It may be laid down as a most valuable discernment in the text of any work which is to be used as a text book, whether legal, medical or religious, especially so in regard to the Bible, whether the text belongs properly to what is declarative in its object, or only to the suggestive. If to the latter there is room, often natural room, for the exercise of opinion; and opinions widely different may be honestly entertained. But if the text belongs naturally and necessarily in the nature and use of words to the declarative style ; then, isevery reader and expounder shut up to the necessity of adopting and teaching the doctrine, whatever it may be which is taught by the author.— We must not put words into his text, other than those used by himself, nor a different meaning into those used from that which is most natural and obvious. For .if an author intends to lay his meaning open to all, and knows the words in the language which will best do it, he will adopt the use of those terms. This plain rule applied to our blessed Lord, in the case under consideration, will make the Universalian interpretation of much said by him, look dark, and dubious. It seems as if all communications intended to impart knowledge—I would say, simple practical knowledge, must of neces¬ sity, be either suggestive, or declarative. -How else can an Author expect to benefit his pupil in the deportment of practical life, but by suggestion or declaration. He must either wake up the mind upon matters unthought of before, which may lead to useful discoveries, or else, he must declare to him facts, principles or doctrines important to his faith and practice, known before only to their author, and now revealed to the dependant as a fact, or principle, or doctrine by decla¬ ration. And thus made known, not because intended for speculation, but for practice. Not to have a meaning given to them, but to give forth their own meaning on the authority of their author. Thus we see why it was the disciples were left in doubt and in difficulty, by the words " a little while and ye shall not see me, and again a little while and ye shall see me." But when he said, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world, and go to the Father," they understood him as declaring, that he was in heaven with the Father before his incarnation, and that after it, he would return again to his native heaven. As Mr. Shehane avowed himself, and also avowed as much for all Universalists—that he was a Unitarian in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ—I will trouble him to reconcile these words of Christ, with his subsidiary creed, that of Universalism. 2 18 UNTVERSALISM Here Christ said in plain terms, " I came forth from the Father." These words sufficiently testify the eternal affiliation. He proceeded and came forth from the Father, is a chosen mode of declaring the eternity and equality of the Son with the Father. If he thus pro¬ ceeded from the Father, he proceeded as a Son of the same nature and dignity—for although God might make man and impart to him the most wonderful moral and mental gifts—so that St. Luke might in running back his geneological line, when he reached Adam, say " which was the Son of Godstill in looking after the chain of attributes ascribed by the Creator to man, and^ those ascribed by the Father to the Son. It cannot fail to arrest the attention of every observing mind, that the Scriptures guard with the most pertinacious care against any ascription of Divine power and prerogative to man, while they at the same time profusely ascribe to Christ every attri¬ bute and work of God., If Christ came forth from the Father, as declared in the text, then he existed as the Son of the Father,, before his actual incarnation, which justifies the memorable words, " Great is the mystery of godliness." God was manifested in the flesh.. The real, eternal divinity was seen in the world clothed in flesh. For, if in the person of Christ, God was seen in the flesh, really and truly, then was the essential divinity present. And as there is no older nor younger in the divi¬ nity, none greater nor less, no superior or inferior; then must every impersonation of the Deity, be equal in dignity, glory, power and eternity.. The eternal affiliation of Christ, is deduced from such Scriptures- and made clear by such source, as to satisfy a reasonable mind, that however incompetent reason and intellect might have been to have projected such a remedial agency as that disclosed through Christ, yet both can be as well satisfied of the practicability and suitability of the divine scheme as of any moral truth, revealed as an article of faith. If Universalism and Unitarianism affiliate so naturally and kindly with each other, that when you see a Universalist you see a Unitarian, and when you see a Unitarian you see a Universalist, does it not look a little suspicious at least, especially when it is remem¬ bered that Unitarianism is classed with old-fashioned Deism ; or, in other words, it is Deism modified. To my mind their geneological line is short, clear and easily traced. I shall therefore consider Mr. Shehane at least as denying the true Deityship of Christ, until he rescues himself from his infidel hue, by a satisfactory explanation of his position. I think Unitarianism was the flag he sailed under, until EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 19 he found that it was less objectionable to the common mind to denounce hell, than it,was to denounce the Godhead of Christ.. If I am mistaken it will give me great pleasure to confess my error, as soon as he shall declare himself a firm believer in the divine equality of the Son with the Father. We will now resume the consideration of the rich man again, and the application of our common sense rule to it. . The words of Christ are as follows: "The rich man also died and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." A Universalist will seek to evade the force of this awful story, by a sort of dernier reliance upon the word adea instead of the word gehenna in the original. By the way, it is a little amusing to look on the zig-zag path of one of these liberals, as he toils on with his budget of assumptions, and wars it with common sense as he goes.. For instance, if in the original we have gehenna, why then, it is hades. But if in the original we have adea, frequently rendered hell by the translators, why then, it is the grave. It is a mighty bad sign, when a disputant has so much fault to find with the present version. But to the main question. What though it should be true—at least in appearance—that there should be a little mangling of the terms in the original, from which we get grave, hades and hell. How are we to determine doctrinally, the true meaning, and right place of these terms ; except it is by the safe use of common sense 1 And it may be well, as we pass over this ground, to remark, that these words are grouped together in the original, and blended almost to confusion in the English version. Admitting, what no body but an Atheist, Materialist or Universalist will deny, the punishment of the wicked after death, and it is most natural and necessary to place these terms, grave, hades and hell, in the same neighborhood. The grave comes first, next hades, then may come hell proper. Will Mr. Shehane and his friends deny, that the Scriptures teach us plainly, that there is a grave, which is in its com¬ mon sense and certain import, different from the hades of the Bible, so as to make a real grave, and real hades; and to leave the mere corpse of a man in the former, and his soul in the latter ; for the good reason that the body in its state of death,.is unfit for the hades of the Bible, and the soul in its spiritual, immortal character for the grave? To be mbre definite. No one ever dreamed, much less believed, that the torments of the damned were ever reached on this side of the grave—these fearful words follow speedily upon death—and are very naturally, and not improperly,, I think, blended with the Scripture communications on the subjects of the grave, and hadfes. No. man 20 'UNIVERSAt-ISlfl yielding to the convictions fixed upon his mind by the unsophisticated word of God, can take his stand at the grave of a wicked man, who had lived in defiance of God's will and word, and died as he had lived, without grouping together in his mind, the authorized notion of his body in the grave and his soul in hades, as being in the order and fitness of things, its proper receptacle, just as the grave is the proper receptacle of the body. Hades in the Scriptural sense of the word, is therefore as naturally the place of departed spirits, whether of saints or of sinners, as the grave is the depot of their dead bodies, and may, in this, the only doctrinal view which the Bible gives us, be a place of happiness to Lazarus, and of torment to the rich man. Common sense, if it is left to its own simple, sound and safe deter¬ minations in this account given by the Savior of the rich man, will find and leave his soul in hades, and in hell. Common sense under¬ stands all the leading facts named in the narrative, as of the most definite and natural import. The rich man died, and was buried, and in hell—or to gratify my friends—as Mr. Sheliane is a dear lover of Greek—in hades he lifted up his eves, being in torments. In torments, where? In the grave? No. Where then 1 Why in hades. So Mr. Shehane if he will lay down bis dogged assump¬ tions and let his common sense settle the meaning of God's faithful word—will see that here is a case of suffering, the suffering too of a Soul in hades. What folly then must it be for Universalists, thus to fight against all the laws, rules and reasons of common sense to prove there is no hell-Mliat no soul ever did suffer, neither ever will suffer hell torments beyond the grave, when here is a case reported by Christ himself of a soul in hell. Or, if the Universalist grasping at his last plank of hope, will insist that Christ was using parabolical figures here, and not disclosing facts, it is but his last plank. Uni- versalism with all her crew of anxious pilots on board, has struck on a shoal of common sense matter-of difficulties which has stove in her flimsy bottom, and left her disappointed crew to patch up as well as they can, or to drop the figure. This is the dilemma. If Christ reports a soul in hell, as an awful fact, Universalism lies when it says there is no such place as a future hell for the jJunislnnent of sinners. If Christ by any sort of figure of speech teaches that a human soul may after death, in hades lift up its eyes in torments—then Univer¬ salism is false, for it denies, in toto, every such reality. If- the doc¬ trines taught by Universalists on the subject of future punishment, by which is meant by ninety-nine hundreths of them, no punish¬ ments after death, is true, then did the Savior sts£teja case here in EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 21 terms entirely too strong for sober common sense. Beingin torments. These words cannot be disposed of under any chapter of critical subterfuge. Mr. Shehane makes a mighty parade about Greek, but he never pulled his Greek Testament out of his pocket to show, either that these were interpolated to favor the dogma of eternal damnation as he calls it, or translated through prejudice against Universalism, as he thinks most of the hard cases he meets with in our translation were. I will ask him to tell us how the blessed Savior could have lead his disciples into such a difficulty, on the ground of faith 1 Will Mr. Shehane tell us, it was because he was opposed to Universalism? I wish he would, because it is the true ground, and it would be much safer for him to follow Christ, than it is Hosea Bal- low. If Christ had been a Universalist minister, and intended to teach that all punishment due to sin, is meeted out to the sinner, like a skilful apothecaiy weighs out the most precious medicines by grains, so that the patient may neither get more nor less than is best for him, and all this in life, and in dying, so that he may come to heaven's gate with clean papers—then doubtless, knowing as he did the power and meaning of words—he would have said, the x-ich man also died and was buried, and in hades he lifted up his eyes, having been tormented. This is the form a Universalist would have put it in. And why? Because he would have designed his readers to undei- stand, that sin is fully punished, but not in hades, not after death.— And this he would have done, because his common sense would have satified him that if he used the words, being in torments, in the con¬ nection in which they are found, his readers would assuredly under¬ stand him as teaching punishment after death. But if he used the words, having been tormented, common sense would understand it in the past tense. I ask Universalists one and all, to tell me why Christ risliould have left a doctrine so precious in their eyes—a doctrine, so J easily made clear as this, if it was the doctrine of the Bible, in such clouds of doubt and darkness, that it requires digging and wrenching to get a text to look at it, that it would take, to write a volume of one hundred pages upon a common sense interpretation of God's word, in refutation of it. Could Christ and his Apostles have been Universalists, clear and decided, heaven inspired Uni¬ versalists, and made such a clumsy out of getting the sweet morsel, clad so in lines of light as to make its authorship plain? I trow not. There is yet another circumstance in the facts contained in the account of the rich man and Lazarus worthy of our gravest notice.. 22 UNIVERSALISM When the rich man, from amidst hellish torments, plead with Abra¬ ham to send Lazarus to him on a mission of mitigation, he was informed that it was impracticable—a great impassable gulph lying between the two points, heaven and hell. If hell here had. meant hades only, and merely, as a Universalist must contend, then the words are too strong to be soberly true. Hades in its simple unmixed meaning, is mere spirit land—open and passable to all spiritual existences. But if there is a hell of torments, of endless torments, as is every where taught in God's infallible Word, where future punish¬ ment is its travail—then is it the lake of fire, from which the wailings of woe rise up forever and forever. And this hell is found in hades— found no where else—and the inevitable doom of the sinner is the yawning gulph which lies between. And if the intended meaning is not that no one from heaven over falls away to hell—neither shall any one ever from hell ascend to heaven—it is simply verbage— meaningless sounds. An excess inexcusable in a sophomore, impossi¬ ble in a God of truth. But to the point of difficulty alluded to in the passage. The rich man next prayed that Abraham would send Lazarus to his father's house, where he had five brothers, living no doubt as he had lived, and warn them, lest they also should land in the place of torment, where he was doomed "to pour eternal groans." But what was the answer ? not that it could not be done, as before— but that nothing could be effected by it, which would be either as certain or as safe as the Bible. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Now, therefore, if Abraham could have sent Lazarus to the rich man's late abode, but declined it on the ground of its being unnecessary, and only on fhat ground—and declared in the other case, the act itself—the very act desired, an act of mitigation, the mitigation of hellish anguish was impracticable—made so by a great gulph—which gulph must be the invisible decree of the acting judge, then indeed is Universalism doomed to a most fearful travail. There is another aspect pf this subject lying open to the survey of common sense. It is the doctrine of opposites. A doctrine not often brought into notice, because its application is so common and indis¬ putable in every walk of life, that no one is apt to give to it, its proper weight. I don't mean by opposites, anything in the way of compari¬ son merely. I mean the same that Christ did, when he said a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither can a good tree bring forth evil, or corrupt fruit. There may be a comparison between < men in many ways, and in many degrees. But can there be directly EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 23 opposite laws, or elements, existing in all moral agents like man; therefore hear the word of God, in distinguishing between saints and sinners, 1. John iii., 8, 9, 10. In the tenth verse it is said: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." In what! Why in this, that both parties partake of a parent nature—and acting under the law of that nature, the point-blank moral proof is given of its lineal descent. This however can only be established, when it is admitted to be as tine, that there is a devil, as that there is a God. For the text says, children of the devil, with just the same naturalness that it does children of God—and the application in both cases is given on the ground of moral nature, which when it is employed in acts of piety and holiness, classifies us as the children of God—and when in sin and impiety, as children of the devil. This state of things, in a moral and free agent, may undergo changes back and forth. But this makes no difference in the doctrine of opposites, but rather confirms it. It confirms the view given by St. Paul in Rom. vi. 16. " To whom ye yield your¬ selves servants to obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." Here man's moral character is assigned to the nature of the eternal agency in securing his obedience. Wherefore it seems to follow, as a matter of course, as much that there is an agency opposed to God's will, and exerting influences on man ; as that there is a divine agency left in the world, in the person and offices of the Holy Ghost, to work in man both to will and to do God's good pleasure—and that man, as a moral agent, owing his allegiance to God, which can only be discharged by obedience to his moral government—argues a moral character, in so far, and only so far as the moral principle impressed upon his moral nature is or may be developed in him. In like manner, the Scriptures in divers places represent Satan as working directly against God, in that he seeks through the flesh to make man disobedient to the moral law of God, and obedient to his Satanic majesty. If God is obeyed, we become his obedient children. If the devil, his servants we are, because him we obey. This doctrine of opposites, forms the broad basis upon which Jehovah plants the defence of his righteous administration. See Ezekiel xviii and xxxiii chapters at large. And see the xviii ch. 26, 27 verses. There the prophet of God says: "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." Again, "when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness 24 UATVEUSAI4SM wliicli lie hath committed*, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Let us suppose that God could, and would reverse this ground of action and act directly opposite—could the common sense of mankind sanction it as equitable? And to reverse the question—does not the common sense of all enlightened minds, embrace it as it is, as truly equitable ? How is this ? And why is it? It is because intellectual reason, sees and feels, that if it were so—God must evade one of his attributes, though not less essen¬ tial to the perfection of his holiness than the-other, by the extension of the exercise of his mercy, at a reduction of the value of his justice. This, common sense says, a being of infinite perfection cannot do.:— This makes the conclusion inevitable, that if there is any such differ¬ ence in the moral character of man, as that which makes one man morally good, and another morally bad, God cannot deal with them on his final action upon their cases as if it were not so. This is proof satisfactory and undeniable, that God must retain in his gov¬ ernmental decrees, punishments as well as rewards. The clear eye of reason has seen this, and conscience has so approved it that many Universalists have denied that there are any rewards distributed by the Almighty Judge. So anxious are they to get clear of the doc¬ trine of punishment, that they denounce the doctrine of rewards; and do it doubtless because common sense tells them in unmistakable language, that a being who rewards virtue in his creatures, must punish vice. Thus, gentle reader, you see, that these poor self-deluders, remind us of a feeble band trying to push a car up a heavy grade, loaded with weighty materials, upon the presentation of which they expect to win large booty, but unexpected difficulties, compel them to throw out now one, and then another choice article, until when they get up, and begin to look for business, they have nothing that promises certain remuneration. Thus have our Universalist friends battled it along with sober reason and common sense as well as they could, and whenever they found it necessary to do so, in order to make a stand about the vital assumption of the scheme, which is, that all souls will land in heaven—they have gone about to maintain it pretty much in this way. All souls will be made holy, and get to heaven, this is certain, and when you make this doubtful by such reasonings as I have adduced in the former part of this argument, out they throw the doctrine, which seems to reason, to be in the way, and so the doctrine of rewards has been cast out, being too heavy to roD up with. Well, you inquire, what will they say, in the way of a showing 1 Why, that God is too great to reward any of his creatures EXAMINED. AN3> CONDEMNED. 25 for any love or service done him by; them, and consequently to glo¬ rify himself by the favorable exertion of his power in our behalf.— He lets it be known in all his dominions for the comfort of all drunken, swearing, unclean creatures, that as he is too merciful to punish them eternally for these venial faults; so he is too great to reward them for a life of the most unexampled devotion to his will and word—and consequently he had made the Salvation of men not the result of fitness in them, effected by his grace, through faith in that grace, and accompanied by loving obedience, but the result of naked lawless power. Your comfort then infidel sinner is, that salvation is not a question of law and right, but a question of power. So says much of the spirit of Mr. Shehane's published arguments. Let us return again to the text in Ezekiel, xviii and 26. " When a righteous man turneth away," &c. In this text my readers will please keep common sense at home, and apply it liberally to the terms used by God's Prophet, in the natural, easy style of the passage; and don't forget if you are a Universalist, that the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but that a holy man spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. In the text the prophet speaks of this backslider as dying simply, and also of his dying penally. I must tax Mr. Shelaane and his trio, as they all seem fond of work, and delight to dwell upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament, to give us a clear, reasonable and common sense explanation of.this verse. I boldly assert that the text upon the Universalian explana¬ tion, is an instance of the most unreasonable tautology ever put upon record by one competent to use words imderstandingly. And surely this power will be awarded.to the Holy Spirit. "When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity and dieth in them"—here dying is used in its natural acceptation, as coming along in the common course of things, and therefore it is not mentioned as a primitive threat. It brings with it no idea of a pun¬ ishment inflicted in view of a special judicial reason. For his ini¬ quity that he hath done, shall he die. Here the words bear upon the face of them, not only the idea of a judicial infliction for sin, but the declaration of it. No honest mind will deny it. How then can a Universalist overcome the testimony of this text, in proof of pun¬ ishment after death. I know indeed that they have a method of shuffling off a difficulty of this sort, but it is so silly, if used because they believe what they say, that I almost blush to name it, and if used by them, without believing it a fair interpretation, it is so disingenu¬ ous, as to stamp with infamy, the creed that can demand it, and the 2* 26 UNIVERSALIS*! preacher that will advance it. It is, that this threatened dying, men¬ tioned in the second member of the text, is the penalty of the sin of turning from righteousness and committing iniquity. According to this logic, this poor backslider from righteousness to iniquity, lost his life for his folly. Well if this be true, what would have become of him if he had stuck to his righteousness? Would he have lived on? Or would he have died? Died, I think you say. Well then as Mr. Shehane is judged by his brethren to be a little above medi¬ ocrity in the art of squeezing out a little of the honey of Universal- ism, from texts barren of it, I will ask him to aid us a little with his ready mind : for I see an absurdity ahead, which Universalism will have to father, unless they can do better. The absurdity is this, that the heavy penalty of death, inflicted as Universalism alleges as a punishment for sin, and to the end that the divine law may be satisfied, and the bad man be brought into- union with the good man in God's holy heaven, is just what the best man the world ever saw suffers in the dissolution of his body. So that the best we could make of it is, that when bad men die, we are to regard the Almighty as taking their life executively for the satisfaction of his law. And when good men die, he leaves them to suffer precisely the same things for nothing. Any man that can train his mind to the belief ■of such absurdities, ought not to be relied upon in a matter of the vast' interest which must ever attach to the question of future pun¬ ishment. Let me then intreat all who may read this essay, to listen to the words of St Paul, designed doubtless to prevent just such mischief as Universalism can do. " Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience." Common sense de¬ clares by the most obvious and infallible rules of safe exposition, that the second dying mentioned in the text is a different and dis¬ tinct death from the first named death. In a word, that the first is natural death, inflicted upon all mankind as the penalty of original sin, and always bearing with it abundant evidence " that sin entered into the world, and death by sin." But the second death named by the prophet, is the death of the soul. It is made up of the idea of a penal infliction of death upon the soul, for sins committed by the individual within its own probation, and intended to be carried out after the intervention of natural death; is of necessity the second death mentioned by John, Rev. xx; 14, which death is peculiar to the lake of fire, known in the divine word in no other place, and must be regarded by every one, who will let God speak, as the EXAMINED and condemned. 27 judge immortal, invisible and eternal, as the beacon light on the verge of our eternity to warn us that there is a second death. This method of refuting the doctrine preached by Universalists, might be pursued indefinitely. It is the common language of the Bible, and how any set of men could ever work their minds up to a point of presumption sufficiently bold, to defend such nonsense, is to me matter of alarm. It is done, I believe, by reasoning from an assumed fact, to a desired conclusion. In all right reasoning, men trace out, either necessary or rational conclusions from known premises. But the Universalian scheme is to begin with a conclu¬ sion and make whatever alteration in the common sense reception of biblical terms, may become necessary to make the Bible seerii to be, the text book of Universalism. Hence you will find in all the defenders of this faith, that the more figurative parts of the'Old Tes¬ tament, where history and poetry, and parable and metaphor, are all blended one with another, and the evangelical sense lies hid in the folds of verbal drapery, and can in the original be discovered with great difficulty, except it is by looking up their spiritual import, through the brighter disclosures of the New Testament. The Old Testament is the home of the Universalist preacher. Let him find hades and hell, by the use of figurative language, frequently mixed up with the grave, and if he can by the use of any plain text, show that the grave, and death will be destroyed—as in-Hosea xiii; 14— and away goes hades, and hell, and every other truth that lies in the way of his conclusion, which is universal salvation. He don't -allow himself for a moment to see whether these words may not be found in other connections, where it is impossible according to the • use, and design of language, that are to be taken figuratively, but positively. It cannot matter how often in a figurative way, hades and hell may be used for the grave—if they are ever used in a way where they cannot mean the grave—then it is evident, that they have a dif¬ ferent and distinct meaning of their own, which cannot be destroyed by the liberal grants which have been made by usage, in favor of poetry and parables. And it must be allowed by all ingenuous minds, that if the places are but few comparatively, in God's word, where the Use of hades and hell is found without a figure, yet that the fact that they are so found, settles the question forever of the truth that there is a futurity, in which is now the hades of the Bible, and that according to the last disclosure made by the Son of God to John, this hades will be cast into the lake of fire; and whosoever 23 UNIVERSALIS M was not found written, in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire. That is, all sinners, who like the rich man have been torment¬ ed in hades, from the moment of their death until that day when the dead small and great stand' before God—will with their hades be cast into hell proper—'Which is made intelligible to us by calling it a lake of fire. We now proceed to show, that the scriptures unquestionably use the terms, hades and hell independently of the grave. This must be the case in Matt, x; 28, and Luke xii; 4-5, where Christ doubt¬ less intended to warn his disciples against a dastardly spirit, by as¬ suring them that if the time should come, in which it should be necessary for them to resist unto blood, striving against sin-—not to hesitate a moment—but fearlessly to die in the way of duty. Be¬ cause the wrath of a human persecutor was impotent beyond the body. But calling then, minds to the momentous fact, that God should be feared by them, because his power extended heyond the body, even to the death of the soul and body both. Hear Christ's words in Matthew, " and fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:, but rather fear him which is able to des¬ troy both soul and body in hell." In Luke, we have the penal part thus—" but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear, fear him which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you fear him." Upon the Universalian creed, what are we to be afraid off Why that after God has killed,, he will cast us into the grave—-for mind you gentle reader, every Universalist is shut up bv his creed to the necessity of making hell, in these admonitorv words, mean hades, and hades the grave, or else he is gone; he must swear off this count, or else judgment must go against him ; and my opinion is, that when he does it, he will feel a little pricking in the sound part of his conscience. And now while my way is clear I will say to my Universalist friends, deal honestly with divine truth. You may find it difficult to confess your inward hesitation to swallow the dogmas of the party upon the words now under re¬ view—you may never do it. But God knows your thoughts afar off. I ask you then, can you with the aid of every conjuror in the service, ever bring yourself to believe, that the hell named in the texts cited, means grave ? Nothing more—nothing worse. How strange would it appear in the eye of good common sense, for the blessed Savior to warn his disciples against desertion, through fear of death, by threatening them with the grave after death. I say how strange the penalty annexed to desertion, In other words to a examined and condemned. 29 cowardly denial >of their Lord before men. The direction is, fear not them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do-^that is no more in the way of evil—for no doubt they could cast the body into the grave if they would try. The "no more" alluded to by Christ, then, is to be confined to the body, exclusively, but fear him who after he has killed, (the body, doubtless,) has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him. Fear him because his power is over the soul, as well as the body—-extends as well into eternity, as to the grave—can cast both or either into hell—let it be hades if yoli please—and I ask you, upon the honor of rationality, is hades here a grave-—the grave—only the grave ? I ask also in the name of old fashioned common sense, such as adorns unsophis¬ ticated minds, what restraint could Christ expect to impose upon his disciples by way of making them fear of desertion, or of cowardly apostacy—the stronger passion—-by telling them that the conse¬ quence of unflinching integrity might be martyrdom. But here the evil would end, as their murderers could pursue no further. But if through the fear of man they deserted-—denied their Lord-—and fell under his displeasure—he would kill them. That is take from them the natural life which they enjoyed under his providential care, and cast them into the grave. Awful! Take care, poor cowardly disciple, for if you deny your Lord and Saviour to save your life, and denounce him as an imposter, to please his revilers— and provoke him to kill you—-he will kill you and bury you for your vile revolt. Does such senseless sayings as these look like my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's words, uttered with the evident design to warn I Shame upon a creed that can't get along without reduc¬ ing much that Christ said to nonsense. The difficulty does not end here. Our blessed Saviour said, " fear him which after he has killed is able to cast into hell," or in another place, " is able to des¬ troy both soul and body in hell." One evangelist says, cast into hell, the other to destroy in hell. If the Universalist should tiy to bolster up his halting creed by alleging he may be right after all my objections to his views, in that, that Christ claims the power to destroy both body and soul in hell, that is the grave, according to Universalism. We enter the following as our caveat:— First. The Scriptures abundantly teach the doctrine of a resur¬ rection— a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust—and by parity of teason, if the bodies of the just when raised in incorrup- tion shall be glorified,'and made like unto Christ's glorlofis body ; so must the bodies of-the unjust be raised in a state of immortality 30 UNIVERSALIS M also; for however different may be the condition of the just, and1 unjust, in point of happiness, there will be none in point of this in— corruption, or immortality. So that the Scriptures favor the doctrine of the judicial condemnation of the body of sinners, just as much and just as far, as they do-the doctrine of a general resurrection, and of fu¬ ture punishment. And as the common sense of mankind was that the body was destroyed in and after death; it was most natural for Christ to warn his disciples against the destructive nature and end- of sin, by associating the doctrine of the soul's destruction by sin,. with the idea of the body's destruction by death. And hence it be¬ came the common language of inspiration, to speak of the soulV damnation under the notion of death, because in death destruction^ ensued. Secondly. We caveat, on the ground that the soul is no where in God's word considered as a tenant of the mere grave; but is oft the real scriptural hades, and, as we have before shown, may find in hades a heaven of. ineffable delights, or a hell of eternal woes. Wherefore, when Christ reminded the disciples that they ought to fear him who after death could destroy both soul and body in hell; he then taught the possibility and danger of punishment after death, _ or he taught nothing that is intelligible to our common sense per- ception of a wise, worthy, and useful design, in a heavenly teacher. . Mr.\Shehane, in his first speech, in that published debate, in his extraordinary leyy made upon St. Paul, Heb. ii; 14, to prove his first wonderful pledge—the destruction of the devil and his works— is very particular to inform us, that the word, in the original in this passage, rendered destroy, is no where used in this sense, in reference to the souls or spirits of men. It could not be so used, if Mr. She- hane's notion of it, in reference to the devil, was at all legitimate. . For he pretendedly goes for the annihilation of the devil. But we preach the punishment of souls in hades, and then in all after eternity—not their annihilation—consequently, if this wonderful criticism could be credited for any importance, it could not lay its claim here. We are using the word destroy, as equivalent to ruin; a sense in which it is frequently used in all common parlance, but which use of it is often hyperbolical, and means no more than great hurt when used properly, as it evidently was by Christ in tile case under consideration. It means irreparable ruin; which is the con¬ dition of the soul when placed by death beyond^ the region of its probation and in the world of retribution. The difference which Mr. S. seeks to make his capital out of, no doubt is- this—the word; examined and condemned. 31 in Heb. ii; 14, as used in reference to the devil, is not used to sis1- 7 O nify either his literal or spiritual destruction, but in reference to the fact of his diabolical scheme to ruin man. First in the fall of our original parents; and secondly, in his fell design to turn away Christ from the heavenly purity of the divine nature, through the sympathy of the human with the innocent infirmities of life, was utterly frus¬ trated. This I affirm to be the Scriptural meaning of the words "destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hence the reason why John says of Christ "for this purpose was the son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil ;'r and this is done in the same way in which Christ saw it done,, by the preaching of the seventy, when he said unto them, " I beheld Solon as lightning fall from heaven." There is no easy and natural sense in which our Lord's words can be taken here, but that of the disastrous influence which the preaching of the gospel has upon Solon's kingdom. This is what was meant by the first promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpents head, which is, should vitally injure him; while he, should only lightly injure the church. Poor Mr. S., by the aid of a Catholic Bible, has en¬ larged bruise into crush; his determination to save all the devil's children, as Christ called the wicked Jews, is so intemperate, that he has waged a war of extermination against the devil himself. As I have a very serious bill to settle with Mr. S. and his fraternity about the devil, in an after part of this work, 1 will inquire now—Why they don't have the devil saved, instead of destroyed? Could not a God working by the rule of lawless power, have saved this fallen angel, and returned him to his native heaven again ? Why destroy him ? Mind how you answer. We will now proceed to inquire how the Universalian scheme of salvation can press into its support the language of Christ address¬ ed to unbelieving Jews, in Matthew xi; 22-24; where he declares it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon,. than for the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida, and of Sodom than of those of Capernaum. Here our Lord lays it down as a rule of his equitable administration, that those who have enjoyed, but neglected properly to use the blessings of his gospel, will be worse off in the day of judgment, than the less enlightened portions of mankind. Does not the common sense of mankind agree fully with this view of justice ? Let us drop the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, and confine our remarks to those of Sodom. Where in the history of our sinful race can we find a more imbruted, degraded 32 UNI VERBALISM population of «ten, than in 'the devoted cities of the plain? These miserable sinners vexed the righteous soul of Lot from day to day with their unlawful deeds- These sinners God condemned with an overthrow, making them an eiisample to those that after should live ungodly, 2 Peter ii. ch.; and travellers tell us that the Arab does not know this accursed place, by the usual name of the Dead Sea, but ask him for the Sea of the Dead, and he points you at once to this perpetual monument of God's wrath. Thus has tradi¬ tion embalmed and perpetuated this awful tragedy of sin's blighting curse. The inhabitants of Sodom had been long dead when Christ used the comparison in the passage cited, and yet he evidently re¬ fers to the day of judgment as to a day to come, and not as Mr. She- hane seems to hold to a day already past. For if I can understand his views he holds, that judgment is always in session, and always will be until the resurrection, and then the grave, and hades, and hell, and all the rest of these troublesome -communications are to be blotted out, and the Universalis* crowd are to march into heaven ; and old Lot is to fare just as that despicable mob, who thousands of years before attempted to pull him out of his own house, because he refused to deliver to them the two angels who lodged with him for the night, that they might commit Sodomy with them—and this sensual mob is to fare just as old Lot does, notwithstanding there is upon divine record the fact, that the moral difference between Lot and these degraded Sodomites, was as wide as the difference be¬ tween the most brutal licentiousness, and the highest degree of moral chastity. But, according to Mr. S. and his liberal scheme, God took satisfaction out of their Sodomitish bodies, and their want of moral principle made no difference. Heaven paraded its lightnings, and the earth furnished its bitumen for the occasion, and justice went majestically through all the motions of a vindictive action against the offenders. And after all, if Universalism is true, this unclean crowd went home to heaven1—will never be called to a general judgment—and Lot the best man in Sodom was left to battle it with life's trials as best he could. To say the least of it, gentlemen Universalists, this is a mighty strange looking feature in the divine government. But to the text. " It shall be more tolerable in the day of judg¬ ment for the inhabitants of Sodom, than for those of Capernaum." More tolerable. Upon the Universalean plan of interpreting scripture, it is exceedingly difficult to say what Mr. S. would do with this text. If I did not mistake his method of ^defence, it consists very much in EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 33 the art of making a tremendous fuss over every text in Avliich the sound of Universalism could be heard. In this scheme it is the sound of scripture more than the sense of it, that a TJniversalist preacher swells his notes upon. But when you draw him up to one of these ugly passages, where the denial of univel-sal salvation lies up naked upon its face, or is very thinly veiled by-metaphor so as to make- digging after it with that old fashioned instrument common sense a work of ease and certainty; he hurries away with hasty steps, seek¬ ing to carry off with him his hearers, by saying he had answered that difficulty before, or else by saying, he would attend to it when his aged opponent had answered some back slap of his. He will no doubt remind me again "that charity thinketh no evil," and I will endeavor by God's blessing to heed the blessed caution. But still reminding the reader that this timely call of my mind to duty, does not by any means prove him innocent in the alleged evil. And now I affirm, that to my apprehension of things, Mr. S. never did attempt by ar¬ gument to show that my opposing texts were misinterpreted by me and that they had a more natural and obvious meaning in favor of Universalism than they had against it. Neither will he ever attempt it, because he knows that the easy, natural, common sense meaning of words, and of sentences is decidedly against him; and especially so in the New Testament, and most especially so in our Lord's dis¬ courses. I will then give a common sense explanation of the pas¬ sage cited and leave Mr. S. to grind his own grist, It shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom— that is for Sodomites in character—'-than for Capernaum—that is than it will be for a people, who lived where Christ did the very works, which according to accredited prophets of God, were to attest and demonstrate his claim to the Mesiahship, and still disbelieved and opposed him. The language of Christ here is comparative and primitive both. The comparative view of his werds, is designed to show only the ground of the degrees of punishment which the right¬ eous judge of the earth will administer to all mankind in the day of judgment. Knowledge is to be the rule by which God will meet out punishment. Mark it reader! The Bible does not even intimate in terms, that rewards will be distributed upon this principle, and why? Beeause in rewarding fidelity, it is perfectly right that God should do as he pleases with his owti-^-and he will give unto the last even as the first. But in the work of punishment the case is specifically different—rewarding is the glorififcation of the attribute of mercy— •and God is rich in mercy—~and -however lavish he may be in the 3 34 UNIVERSALISM bestowment of life and blessing upon the worthy, he cannot do wrong. But punishment is the glorification of the attribute of jus¬ tice, and justice cannot be glorified by exhorbitant punishment. Hence every common sense notion of justice throughout the civilized world is, that eveiy administrator of law if he can by possibility as¬ certain that fact, should in every case graduate the punishment equi¬ tably due by the knowledge which the offender had of moral right and wrong. Consequently the Sodomites must suffer a lighter de¬ gree of punishment in the day of judgment, than the inhabitants of Capernaum. These latter had been exalted to heaven in point of privileges and were brought down to. hell' under the law of demerit.. The former were doomed to a darker age of the world, and enjoyed only the mysty twilight of that glorious day which rose refulgent on Capernaum- But they were so far in the order of providence a law unto themselves, their thoughts in the mean while accusing or else excusing them, as to make them responsible agents, and therefore- fit subjects for the exercise of primitive law. But their punishment was modified by the rule of their knowledge, modified, not omitted. The language we said was primitive also, and we proceed now to explain our meaning. First. It is found in a connection used only in an evil sense. Wo unto thee Cborazin, Bethsaida, Caper¬ naum. Alleging that if the mighty works done by Christ in Chora- zin, and Bethsaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long before that day, in sackcloth and ashes. And that if they had been done in the land of Sodom, it would have re¬ mained until that day ; and that therefore in meeting out to them the demands of justice, they must and would be, more sorely pun¬ ished. The little monosyllable wo, is nowhere used in the word of God, only in the sense of malediction. It is used in this sense in reference to the cities named, but not merely, nor chiefly as they were posted upon the globe as geographical and historical objects— but especially in reference to their wicked human population—it was heaven's withering curse falling upon a people who had despised and rejected God's beloved son. And the fact is forced upon reason and common sense, as undeniable, that the curse which had fallen ages before, upon the people of Tyre, and Sidon, and Sodom, would fall upon those of Chorazin, and Bethsaida, and Capernaum, with accumulated wrath. Because they who know their Master's will, and yet neglect to prepare themselves, shall be beaten with many stripes. While such as do not know it and ignorantly do things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes—mildly punish- EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 35 ed, but actually punished. They that sin without law are to perish without law, but to perish. The text then teaches us, , that there may be greater and less amounts of misery even in hell, and that the measures of the damned will be meeted out by the most exact ad¬ measurement. The dead, small and great, in the day of judgment will be judged out of the books of God's faithful entries, according to their works; and in so far as miseiy itself is an object of interest, there might be in hell a choice of evils. But while this thought is up and will even unbidden introduce itself to one's notice, let us pause long enough to satisfy ourselves, that with the means of salvation revealed to our minds, and pressed as it is upon our hearts, whether we would not upon a consultation, in advance of another probationaiy life, prefer to encounter all. .the responsibilities which were imposed upon Christ's auditors by his miracles, and his- ministry, and take all the chances which must judicially follow upon light and knowledge, rather than live under the moral darkness and consequent degradation which reigned in Tyre, Sidon and Sodom. And if we answer, yea,, then it is clear to reason's eye, that the whole course of providence and of restoral justice, in which has been and is now engaged, is based upon such a common sense scale of equity, and would compel an inhabitant of Capernaum, though wrapped in his mantle of hottest fire, if he could be supposed to meet one of the inhabitants of Sodom, weeping and wailing in his endless exile from God and heaven, but merely an outcast from happiness, to exclaim, brother spirit though doomed to wo, yet your hell is more tolerable than mine, just as it ought to be—and hotter still would burn his hellish fever. The language of Christ then—that the state of a Sodomite in the day of judgment will be more tolerable than the state of one in Capernaum who had failed to profit by Christ's miracles and minis¬ try, can only be made intelligible to reason and common sense, when it is referred to a state of suffering. How can the condition of one country, city or person, be more tolerable in heaven than that of another. The language of Christ, is the language of comparative suffering, not of comparative happiness. The idea would be too ridiculous ever to be mentioned if Christ was introduced by the Evangelists to the world's notice as having said, it should be more t tolerable for Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for Capernaum. Having before, and then, and always, taught Universaiism; and assured Tyre, Sidon, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Sodom and Capernaum, that each and all of them passed through judgment as they pass 36 UNIVERSAL IS SI through life; and would by these purgatorial punishments, inflicted by God for sins committed in life—walk out of that gauntlet race into heaven, being purified and made holy, as Mr. Shehane says. But where, when, or how, I could never understand. But when you all meet in heaven, in the day of judgment, it will be more tol¬ erable for the land of Sodom, (the people of Sodom) than for Ca- pernaum, (the people of Capernaum.) You will all be in heaven, and all have much of heaven—there will be degrees in the amount of heaven which will be distributed. But it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for Capernaum. Mr. S., I have no doubt, will be taken with a fit of the horrors about here and as soon as the parox¬ ysm goes off, i want you to ask him to give a fair and natural expo¬ sition of the passage, upon the assumed and asserted doctrine of universal salyation. Christ did say, it should be more tolerable for Sodom than for Capernaum in the day of judgment. The compari¬ son relates either to their happiness or their misery. If to their punishment; common sense can see its truth and propriety—but if to their heavenly joys, common sense has no eyes with which to see its beauty or its force. The passage, according to my rule of intelligi¬ bility, denies the doctrine that the day of judgment is either past, or now going on, but refers to one to come. According to the published views of Mr. Shehane, the trial judgment of the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, had been long past, when Christ uttered the words we have been considering. And the trial judgment of those of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum was then going on. For he does not believe that the human family will be raised for judg¬ ment, in the morning of the general resurrection ; although Luke has said, "that God has appointed a day, in the which, he will judge the world in righteousness, by the man Christ Jesus." He believes every day is a day of judgment, and when life ends, every man's personal judgment is past. All this he is driven to, to bolster up his doctrine that sin is duly punished in this life; for if justice did not get its dues this side of eternity, he feels that it must have them in eternity. He has not quite reached the point yet, where he can venture to issue a proclamation of universal acquittal; but he has reached a point from, which he has published his proclamation * of universal indemnification. If a man were spervetrse enough to prefer to be eternally damned, he would not let him. With all his boast of liberal feeling he would play the tyrant here. Allow his views to be true, and how will Christ's words be made intelligible to unsophisticated minds. Mere tolerable in the day of judgment for EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 37 Sodom than for Capernaum—and yet the day of judgment with Sodom is past, and with Capernaum is not finished. Strange com¬ position, especially for my blessed Lord. Mr. Shehane will likely rally his forces upon the ground, that the sudden end which incensed justice put to the inhabitants of Sodom, was more tolerable than the protracted evils and miseries which befel the sinners of Capernaum. This is his only chance, and if he will dodge out of a hole of this kind, let him go. Universalism can never by any sort of legerdemain make this passage in our Lord'fe warnings minister to its dogma of universal salvation, for if all the souls of both places were to be in heaven, no such comparison could be truly declared of them, whether their judgment day was past, present, or to come. We will next apply our, common sense rule of interpretation to Christ's words upon the case of Judas, and will select as the particu¬ lar subject of our remarks, Matthew xxvi; 24, 25. " The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him ; but wo unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, answer¬ ed and said, Master, is it II He said unto him, thou hast said." The character of Judas, is one of awful interest to every reflecting mind—intensely so to the christian. The first, and perhaps only, allusion to him in prophecy, is made up of the most fearful detail; and as prophecy declared, so did his history finish. Luke says that he fell from his Bishoprick that he might go to his own place, and that another took his office. The circumstances connected with him, and recorded by the evangelists; are full of warning to every one of a like temperament. There is but one leading feature of his moral character noted by the evangelist, and even that, in many instances, is rather incidentally alluded to. In a few, however, it is mentioned in no measured terms. The distinguishing vice in the character of Judas, was avarice. And his life and end furnish most indubitable evidence of the truth of the Apostle's declaration, that the love of money is the root of all eval, which leads covetous men to err from the faith. It is also a most wholesome illustration of our Lord's meaning in his parable of the sower—" Some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked it." This was defined by Christ to be the cares of this life, and love of riches, with other things. Many of these unhappy victims of avarice have as many wishes after religion as any other people, but their love of money is such a cherished passion that they will enter in at every open 38 UNIVERSALISM door to make it, and, as Paul says, fall into temptation- This is precisely what Judas did. The Saviour had so openly designated him as the traitor in his family, which, no doubt, kindled within his bosom the unholy fire of revenge, and lead him at once to the idea of betrayal; but not without making something by it. And he went straight to the Scribes and Pharasees—the very market for him— and said, "What will ye give me, and I will deliver him to you; and they covenanted with him for thirty -pieces of silver." It was coeval with this plan that the evangelist says: Satan entered into him. This entry of the devil into Judas was in perfect keeping with all our notions of satanic influence. Judas was offended with Christ for exposing him. Angry and revengeful feelings were stirred up—feelings that lead out in that way—he has done me an injury— I will return it. All these and such like emotions, open a pathway for Satan into the human heart; and when we adopt, by purpose and plan, his suggestions, then it is said Satan has entered into us. Up to this point, he is regarded as an external agent, engaged in pulling the wires of man's passions and prejudices, to bring about the desired conjunction. Judas entered into Satan's suggestions, and this let Satan into Judas' heart—a conjuncture of things which always leads to mischief. While these evils were being concocted, Christ said, in the language of the text: " The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him; but wo unto that man by whom the S6n of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not been born." The whole moral character of Judas, as given by the evangelists, is unfavorable to a happy termination of life; but it would not do to infer his ruin as a necessary result of these unfavorable signs. But his end, itself, to every body but a Universalist, may be set down as the highest degree of presumptive evidence that he was lost. A few- might plead probable insanity, in bar of his ruin for self-murder; but the plea would be so destitute of any reliable fact, among.those recorded, which would justify it, that no one would make a stand upon it. On the contrary, all that is said about it leads to the fullest conviction that his mind was unimpaired. Our first argument against Universalism, and in favor of the final ruin of Judas, is predicated of his self-murder—technically called suicide. And to conform ourself to the language of the Court, we will consider Judas as guilty of suicide. If murder is a sin, self- murder is sinful. The word of God expressly forbids murder, and all the passions which lead to it. And it ought not to be overlooked examined and condemned. 39 that the New Testament ranks hatred with murder, and keeps us fully awake to the fact, that we may die under the law of murder without committing the overt act. John tells us that whoso hateth his brother, is a murderer in his heart; and ye know that no mur¬ derer hath eternal life abiding in him. I do not understand this text a§ declaring murder to be unpardona¬ ble, though I would not enter any plea in denial of it. It is likely that murder in its first and highest degree—murder with malice prepense —may be an evil of such deadly and damning kind as to give rank among the remediless sins. At all events, I think the general testimony of history is decidedly against such murderers. Like Cain, the mark of interminable exile is fixed upon them; and in the cases known and observed, the unhappy wretches go on from bad to worse. The text, however, does teach that to die with that sort of hatred to man which leads to murder, and which is every where recognized in the gospel law as murder in spirit—and Christ does constantly teach that the violation of his holy law, by the entertain¬ ment of affections and desires adverse to its divine and spiritual purity, is, in the eye and demand of the law, a damning violation of it. Why should it not be? Could God be the author and defender of a law which would condemn an act, if committed, and yet allow man to indulge those very desires and affections which lead to the actual crime? These unholy desires and affections are precisely what disqualify us for Heaven, and make spiritual regeneration and actual sanctification indispensable to heavenly bliss. The overt acts of sin may be worse upon society, by reason of the damage they do to its relations and its interests; but they cannot blacken, by a single shade, the hue of our morality. And here I will remind my readers that every regular built Universalist denies, even contemptu¬ ously, the doctrine of regeneration, and, consequently, denies the doctrine taught above—that man's moral character is derived from the nature of his desires and affections, as connected with their respective objects, and not merely by the overt acts of his life. If a man who had imposed himself upon me as an honest man, should subsequently tell me that he believed in stealing his living from others, and was exceedingly anxious to meet with a chance where he could enrich himself at once—from the moment of that disclo¬ sure, he is, to all intents and purposes, a thief; and to keep his company any longer, is to degrade one's self to the society of thieves. Man may be deceived, and the virtuous may seem to be quite at home with the vicious. Not so with God. He sets our 40 UNIVERSAL ISM' secret sins, in the light of his countenance, and if he does not reject us from his society, and deny us the evidence of his social approba¬ tion, it is because he does not deem it demanded by the law of heavenly union, nor requisite to the rnaintainance of his own character. Upon the principle defended in the foregoing remarks:—it is evident Judas died involved as deeply as he could be in the guilt of an evil intent, and of the overt act to which it led—to wit, suicide. Suicide has been long regarded, in all enlighted countries, as one of the most daring of sins ever committed by man—especially when committed with any sort of consciousness of the fearful responsi¬ bility, of leaving a world of probation, unprepared, and rushing, unbidden, into the holy presence of a sin-hating God. This, it is very certain, Judas did. The reasons which led him to seek and desire a revocation of the covenant to which he had made himself a, very guilty party, and the manner in which he did it, all prove beyond question, that he had as much mind, when he sought to dissolve the contract, as he had when he made it; and must, therefore, have died in the sin of suicide. In controversies with Universalists,, the difficulty which suicide presents to their scheme of salvation has befen frequently urged. Their scheme is, that the demerit of every sin is rigidily inflicted by God upon the sinner all along through life, so as to have him even with justice when he dies, taking it for certain that, as a general rule, such people will cease from sin in their last hours, and thereby make the chance for a square settlement easier. Suicide, as well as many sudden deaths by killing, and what is generally denominated accidents— which often take place while the unfortunate victim is engaged in committing sin—seemed, to sober reason and good common sense, to oppose very weighty obstacles. These obstacles the Universalist has had to meet and turn aside as best he could. In regard to the difficulty presented by suicide, in which the lastN responsible act of the individual is an act of the most unmitigated crime, this is their ground:—The sin in suicide, is the intention to commit it; the act in suicide, is the penalty which justice inflicts. That is to say, if a person intends to kill himself, it is a sinful intention; but if he does kill himself, the sin of his wicked intention is attoned for or satisfied by the sufferings of his death. This is a wonderful system of theology—-wonderfully suited to the voracious appetite of sin ; for if their is such a principle existing in the divine government, itj cannot be restricted to the single crime of suicide, but must, by the EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 41 rule of propriety, be applicable to. all those sins where the agent suffers in his own person the judicial, demand. And it might, therefore, apply to dr.unkenness-^-to loudness* in many of its penal sufferings, and, to all such cases as those named by David, where the sinner falls into the pit which his own hands had dug for another; or where the arrow, shot from his bow with evil intent to another, falls on his own pate. But the beauty of this new divinity is in this—That a just and holy God should ordain and publish to the world a law which should condemn the intention or desire to sin,, and.yet make the act, if committed, a satisfaction, full and complete, to the law. Condemn the principle that leads to an act— sanctify and satisfy the principle by the commission of the act. Well, well, well! This religion you call Universalism, is a wonder¬ ful art in fixing up matters. It first determines upon what is most desirable to man—this is found to be salvation—then upon what will be the most certain way to pacify his mind upon the question of title—and, finally, he fixes up Universalism as the most liberal view of God, and works upon his notions and feelings until he becomes asimuch of a fanatic as any Abolitionist. He has but one leading idea in his head—-the love of God in his determination to destroy the devil and hell, and sanctify Ilinnom and malqg it holy, and take every body to Heaven, excites him so that he loses all patience with every poor orthodox brother that falls in his way; and with many wonderful exclamations of our almost infatuation with hell and the devil, and such like ugly things, he tells his people how these poor hell-yolced orthodoxies are mislead in their religious notions—serving God for fear, if they don't do it, they will be eternally damned. But a Universalist serves him out of pure love, because he will not let him go to hell eternally, even if he were shot dead by a watchman while he was putting the match of an incendiary to the dwelling of a widow from motives of plunder, or even murder. He would determine the poor fellow had paid enough, in the loss of his precious life, to meet all the claims of justice, aftd that he had a heaven-sanctioned title to eternal salvation. No wonder a good many Universalists love their ideal God so well. It is his clemency they love—his giving so much in the way of liberalism. I have noticed, for years, how popular Mayors and Aldermen are with every body that keep a disorderly Rouse in cities, if these authorities will let them go on, with only a nominal denunciation. I proclaim this ground of love a vicious one, wherever found. Ta love God because of an attribute which man may 42 UNIVERSALISM improperly ascribe to him, is a very different affection from that which loves him as he has revealed himself to us. Revelation makes holiness, not leniency, the leading attribute or native property in God, to which we are to look for a rule of life, by which . we are to be made meet for heaven, and for a motive power by which we are to be > urged on in the desire of entire sanctification. David said, " Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it." Suppose he had said, Thy word is very lenient, therefore thy servant loveth it. Would it not have betokened a very different reason for love? From what-I heard Mr. Shehane say, and from his printed views, I am left to this only conclusion r That if he was to be brought to the belief that God could and would punish sin eternally, he would despise his government, though divine; thus showing, conclusively, that such love is the love of an idea or notion, and not of a fixed element of nature in the being. Who does not perceive that even in the most important and sacred relations of life, that of marriage, this evil may exist; and who does not know, that in all pure and unsophisticated minds and hearts, the ascertain¬ ment of the fact, that it was a fancied quality, or excellency, which captivated my affections, but which, after disclosures have satisfied me, were never possessed, will close up all real love—especially that sort which was rapturous and enthusiastic? Many a husband and many a wife, who married with the most enthusiastic notions, found • out, not long afterwards, that they married a notion, while the reality was a very different thing. So, I believe, it will be with Universalists, who are attracted towards God on the score of his leniency to man—of his lawless love of man—and such like qualities, ascribed by them to him. Every man who feels inclined to Uni- versalism on the ground of its boasted liberality, may, on that very account, suspect both his creed and his reason for admiration. We come now to apply our rule of interpreting scripture to the words of Christ in the case of Judas: uIt had been good for that man if he had not been born." Mr. Shehane, when this was introduced by me, at the time of our debate, never attempted to show., by any sort of manly argumentation, that Christ could have used these awful words in away consistently with the assumption of universal salvation. This, no doubt, he avoided, because he knew that he could get on much better with a bold declaration that all will be saved—than lie pould, with an argument, showing how each individual in the catalogue of the dead, was saved consistently with God's words used in reference to them. In this way, Mr. S. thought Examined and condemned. 43 it-mot safe to meet issue upon the obvious meaning of Christ's words in the case of Judas. In this case, he dodged the question, by adverting to Dr. Clarke's wild speculations in his Notes on Judas— a very poor and unfortunate production, in my opinion, for a man of his learning. But it was the floating plank on which Mr. S. took his departure in that emergency. We will, however, draw his mind to the case and the words again, in a way in which he will not find it quite so easy to shuffle on us Dr. Clarke's speculations. He must give us Mr. Shehane's speculations upon the difficulty. We will not allow him to hide his difficulties behind the broad assumption of universal salvation. We will demand of him what we are clearly entitled to—the proof of the salvation of individuals upon the ground of the divine declaration, in their respective cases—made, most obviously, in reference to the question of salvation. A scheme of faith on such a subject as man's salvation—a subject which, when it was jeoparded by the fall, engaged the deep councils of the Godhead to meet the emergency—and when the news of Heaven's matchless plan for relief was heralded to the world by the ancient seers, it excited the angels of Heaven to wonder, and made them mingle their shouts with the pious shepherds of Bethlehem—we say a scheme of faith which undertakes to force its acceptance upon the world, by declaring, in wholesale language, universal salvation, and dodging the question in the individual cases, ought, for that very reason, to be discarded as a damnable hypothesis. Whatever the Bible teaches as a general truth, it will sustain in its individual ■details of it. And now, in conclusion, upon the case of Judas, I fearlessly assert, that no man can let the words, "It would had been good for that man if he had not been born," stand in their most obvious meaning without feeling that Universalism is struck with the lightning of Heaven's truth, and shattered in its hull too much for any prudent man to engage his passage into the next world upon. If these words of Christ are to be taken in their common sense acceptation, then he asserts that nonentity would have been a less evil in Judas' : case, than that he should have had an existence. Sold his master for thirty pieces of silver, repented of it so deeply when he failed in buying his master back, as to drive him to suicide, and, according to Universalism, to go straight off to Heaven, where his existence is made up of immortal blessedness. Now, if any sober man can believe this, then let him employ Mr. Shehane as his pastor. If Universalism is true in that, that all God's human family, and 44 UNIVERSALIS*! consequently,, Judas Iscariot, tlxe traitor,, tlie self-murderer, among them, will be made holy nolens volens, and taken to .Heaven, then the words used by Christ to depict the unholy and unhappy condi¬ tion of Judas cannot be believed as a rational truth. Non-existence cannot be better than everlasting life in Heaven, even if the recip¬ ient did do bad enough to make him take the short route of suicide to get there. It is a life and death case with Universalism in this affair; for if Judas, or any Other human soul, finds that non-existence in the world of spirits could be preferred to their condition, then Universal¬ ism is false. The ruin of one soul beyond the grave, is an irrevocable decree against the truth of this boasted scheme. The actual strength of the most flattering chain, is measured and determined only by the weakest link in it. Next we will invite Mr. S. and his disciples to attend us while we test the words of Christ found in Matthew, xii; 32, by our common sense rule of interpretation. These are his words, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,, it shall not be for¬ given him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." In the thirty-first verse this speaking against the Holy Ghost is called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and it is simply said of it that it shall not be forgiven. In this passage our Lord was very specific- in his words, I might perhaps say with evident truth that the words are strikingly precise. Where these special signs appear upon words either of warning or of special instruction, I have accustomed my mind to a most reverent heed to all such communications. Here the particularity in both verses is confined to the difference which Christ evidently intended to institute between the sin of one who looked upon him only as a man, however high in office, and one who, from the divinity of his miracles, had been led to apprehend the presence of a divine person within the human nature, and yet, either from motives of malice, or of prejudice, towards him, ascribed to him a diabolical agency, thereby blaspheming against the Holy Ghost by a malicious aspersion of his holy character. The former is set down as pardonable—the latter as unpardonable. The same principle is recognized in Prov. xxi, 27: " The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind." These views of the demerit of sin have been long incorporated with moral science in every country where moral science has taken its color and character from divine revelation. EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 45 Hence, we have in our jurisprudence degrees in murder, the highest of which, is killing with malice prepense. Universalism has, in some of her awful embarrassments, denied that any man ever did commit an act where his mind had previously determined the act to h% sinful; thus demolishing at once the distinguishing feature in moral science, and the most time-honored principle in courts of judicature. Universalism is one of those fanatical schemes which, like Aboli¬ tionism, after having taken its position, is deaf and blind to every voice of warning, and every evidence of impolicy. If the very pillars of government be broken down, and society thrown into anarchy, and republicanism perish amid the chaos of things, an Abolitionist would smile serenely, and laud his liberal principles, as if he knew them to be the pillars of Jehovah's throne. Just so, in my eye, is Universalism. It has taken its position, and asserted what God ought to do, and then assumed that he will do it, and proceeded accordingly to wage uncompromising war with every thing which opposes this favorite idea. It is a safe common sense rule of understanding with all law-givers; that whatever is declared as a rule of action, or as a rule of right, is of equal truth and dignity, whether it prescribes or proscribes-^ whether it declares that some offences may be pardoned, others commuted, or speaks of one or more offences which shall neither be pardoned nor commuted, but suffer the highest grade of punishment known to the law. And if interpreters of the law should undertake, whenever a case should come under this fearful aspect of the law, to persuade the juries of the country that it was impossible that the law-giver ever intended such a heartless and cruel meaning to be taken of the law as that which allows of no escape from the punishment decreed, he would be to the country, in so far as he perverted the minds of its jurors, in regard to the intent of the law, a Universalist. In the very same way does Universalism damage the restraints of the divine law by mouthing about its excessive and cruel demands, if indeed it did and could demand such penal suf¬ ferings. But this they declare God never did, neither will he ever demand; that all these notions of the divine administration are nothing more or less than old prejudices, which have been riveted on the minds of a priest deluded populace, by the orthordox of the church; until Universalism like Socialism poured its liberal light upon the world, and showed to the degraded slave and guant pauper, that the law which enslaved the one and doomed the other to be a hireling to the rich, were both unworthy of the true spirit of equality 46 UNIVERSALIS!! and liberty. I analogize here, because I believe the error of either,,, to be the error of both. It is the daring assumption, that inequality in the one case, and final approval and disapproval in the other, are alike incompatable with all our rational notions of God; and, con¬ sequently, if God-should have taught in his word a different doctrine, it must be hunted down, Wisdom having determined that such a law would not become the Almighty Jehovah. Hence it is that I have often listened, with mortified feelings, at some inflated Uni- versalist declaring against the doctrine of future punishment, on the ground that it was utterly revolting to his feelings to think that God could and would punish the sins of his erring human children thus. Eternal punishment is altogether too severe and too much for man's pecadillo faults; for you know, my readers, and don't forget it, that sin, in the eyes of a; Universalist, is a very small affair, and, of" course, it is so in the eyes of God—for eveiy Universalist determines, not so much what God will do, as what he ought to do. Hence it is, that they determine beforehand what is the demerit of sin, not considering that God may, by reason of his greater holiness, and more perfect knowledge of the terpitude of crime, come to a con¬ clusion as wide of their's as the extremes of heaven and bell. All other systems of religion, leaning on the Bible for life and character, leave the Almighty to judge their opinions; but Universalism. daringly determines the opinions of Deity—or what is the same thing in effect, it determines what ought to be his opinions. If it should be thought that these charges are ungenerous, I must be allowed to say in my own defence, that they are made against Universalism—not against Universalists. If, however, any advo¬ cate of the scheme chooses to identify himself with it, and with its legitimate tendencies, he may answer at the bar of his country for fostering a system of moral responsibility as deleterious to the interests of piety as I verily believe the doctrine to be. We have seen, I trust, with sufficient clearness, that it is equally unwise and unsafe to credit all Christ has said on the subject of pardonable sins, and become all at once cautiously incredulous when he speaks of an unpardonable sin. A Universalist, particu¬ larly, ought to be careful. The doctrine of free and ready pardon he might like well enough, because it would present no insuperable difficulty to his dogma of universal salvation; but when you preach to him of a sin that cannot be pardoned in either world, you wake up in him the most unrelenting opposition. For notwithstanding all his easy notions about Heaven, he is not willing to endorse for a EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 47 sinnei that can t be pardoned. Consequently, the words which seem to talk of such an awful thing, must not mean what they evidently say; or if they must mean it, then the terms used'by Christ do not mean what an orthodox heretic would make them mean, but quite another thing. So, gentle reader, you will find; Universalism to be a sort of religious variety shop, where things are made, not by known and uniform patterns, but like the chink wedges of a bad workman, made to fill the chasms, as they may occur. There was but one possible chance left in these words for Universalism to escape the most decided overthrow, and this they rallied upon with great unanimity; and as far as I know, they are all tied down now to a single hope of saving the creed, with a colorable title to rational belief. This is it: That the words, " neither in this world," refer to the Jewish age; and the words, "neither in the world to come," refer to the Christian age—or, as my worthy friend is a little fastidious sometimes about language, let us say, neither under the Old Testament, neither under the New Testament. All this, doubtless,, to keep this side of the eternal world, because Universal¬ ism has previously settled this question; that all difficulty about sin is quieted before we enter the eternal world, and even Christ himself must not unsettle it. "•Neither in the world to come" must not, therefore, mean the eternal state. All this has a very silly appear¬ ance to me. Let them have it their own way, and still the words declare the simple fact, that there was a sin unforgivable in either of the great ages of God's revelation to man. This would be precisely what the words would mean and say. But this, we think, was neither the real nor probable meaning of our Lord; for first, the Jewish age was virtually passed—and secondly, the Christian age was not to be succeeded by any other—it was the end of these earthly ages. How, therefore, could Christ have spoken of the age that then was, and of another age of the same kind still to come.. He could not, and therefore did not. And common sense can see no propriety in the words, only when they are understood to mean that this unpardonable sin could not be forgiven, either in the world of probation, where it was committed, or the world of retribution, where it will be punished through endless ages. Nor would any man ever think of giving to the words any other meaning than tnis, if he had not previously adopted a creed or notion which made it necessary for him to controvert and deny the obvious meaning of the text. 48 UNIVERSALIS M The appalling doctrine of an unpardonable sin is evidently taught in Heb. vi; 4, 5, 6; and x; 26, 27. In both of these fas- sages the enormity of the sin is accounted for on the same ground ; to wit, a wicked denunciation of the vicarious character of Christ. This seems to me to be in its nature of the same moral quality of v/hat is called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in the Gospels. And whenever we can see the same reasons given in Several passa¬ ges of Scripture for any defined effect, we ought to pay to it the most unfeigned deference. Where a doctrine, or a consequence of any course of things is laid down in the Bible, the former as a mat¬ ter to be believed, the latter as something to be hoped for, or to be feared, and this too in many places; there is little or no chance for honest minds to be misled as to its meaning. Where a thing is but once mentioned, and then, rather in an incidental degree, there may be ground for disputation. But what is revealed on the subject of an unpardonable sin, is several times repeated, and in eveiy in¬ stance in connection with an order of offence which every man would say, would most deserve it, if it is a possible event: and where these divers revelations fall in with the determinations of rea¬ son, to say the least of it, we are more bound to heed the lesson. Universalism is deeply interested in this issue, for if there is a pos¬ sibility of commiting a sin which cannot be forgiven under the pro¬ visions of the divine government, this scheme would be false in its main ground of reliance, which is that eternal punishment is impos¬ sible to God, if his nature is love". It would be false even if no soul was ever to commit it, in that, that God had recognized the possi¬ bility of it in the laws of his kingdom. But if any prejudiced Scribe or Pharisee ever let his pride of opinion drive him against the pri¬ vate "determinations of his conscience, to attempt maliciously to slander God's eternal son ; or if any apostate ever proved so derelict in principle, and diabolical in heart, as to count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and thereby to crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame—then has the unpardonable sin been committed, and if committed, it stands against him to-day, and will forever stand. And standing as an eternal monument of justice, Universalism dies by the force of its truth. We will now call the attention of our -readers to a brief examina¬ tion of Matthew xxv; 46, and its kindred passages. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." These words in the connection in which they are found seem naturally, and intentionally, to lead their readers to the EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. -49 belief of a general judgment day, which is vividly and circumstan¬ tially related in the third and last general division of the chapter; and the words themselves are the natural picture of the final sen¬ tence of a presiding judge. This work is declared to be the last act of the Lord Jesus Christ in his mediatorial office, after which the kingdom is to be delivered up to God the Father, as it was at the beginning; the offices of mediator and of mercy will then be over, and every thing belonging to the ruler of men and of angels, will be seen and reorganized, only in the executive character of God. Christ will reign, until he has put down all rule, and all authority, and then as the Son of Man, he will become subject to the Father, and seated upon the throne of his universal empire, every knee in heaven, earth and hell, will bow to him. Gvenvhelmned with the righteousness and equity of his administration, they will acknowl¬ edge him Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. The Scriptures so universally concur in these circumstantial accounts of the general judgment, which Universaiists deny, and which we contend for as a truth evidently taught in God's word, that the common sense meaning of words and sentences must be sacrificed to the insatiable moloch of fanatical faith, before any man can make a feasible stand against them. And here I will offer to the reading, thinking public, a rule, or law, of scriptural interpretation, never before laid down in definite terms, as an essential guide to the biblical stu¬ dent. It is this, that divine revelation discloses to the world its important truths in families, or in other words, in classes of ideas- subjects, doctrines, duties, and judgments; and that the removal of a text out of its proper family or class, will lead to confusion, and even to heresy. This is precisely what my Universalist friends have done generally, and especially in reference to a day of general judgment, co-incident with general resurrection. The latter, I think, they generally profess to believe—the former, as far as I know, they all deny and disbelieve. This denial and disbelief they predi¬ cate of all such passages as those which call wars, famines, pestilence, and afflictive dispensations of Providence, generally, judgments of God. In view of this department of the divine procedure, our Lord Jesus Christ said, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they that see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."—John ix; 39. ' Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the backs of fools. Prov. xix; 29. "And I will make Pathros desolate, and will set fire in Zoan, and will execute judgments in No."—Eze. xxx; 14. But I 4 50 UNIVERSALISM should like to see how Mr. S. would dispose of the words in John— "And that they which see might be made blind." This is judicial punishment, of course—punishment on account of sin—a punish¬ ment often alluded to as peculiar to the Scribes and Pharisees, a people who said truly "we see," and in consequence of which seeing, Christ uttered the awful words, "Therefore, your sin remaineth." Does this penalty, the penalty of blindness, look like a process of disciplinary justice exercised towards these Jews in a way of certain ultimate mercy. Let any man who is willing to do it stake his claim to good, honest, common sense, upon this issue— that the God of holiness and wisdom, has, in his economy of salvation, a system of discipbne by which he curses a sinner, with a more sinful state, as a measure to fit him for Heaven—and he will do much to make all men of reflection despise his senseless dogma. But to pick up again the thread of our argument, which is—that the scriptures of truth lead us to see a class of judgments inflicted on the rebellious subjects of his kingdom, which, though primitive, are nevertheless disciplinary, and all who are properly exercised thereby reap the peaceable fruits of righteousness from these light afflictions. No sound divine denies this, even though he should be an Orthodox Minister., The issue in dispute between the Universalists and the Orthodox Ministry, is not, whether there is not a perpetual dispensation of judgment going on daily in this world of probation, accountability, and responsibility, but whether tliis dispensation of disciplinary judgments is not to be succeeded by a final general judgment. In this present judgment, the word of God teaches- us distinctly that the primitive application of his law to his creatures, is used for restriction, correction, and submission. That these measures have been successful in many instances, and that where they have failed, it has been noted, as of evil consequence. God said, in one of these instances, that they would not see when his hand was lifted up, but that they should see. Deeply do I fear that my own great nation is destined to feel ultimately this very threat. God's hand has been lifted up—nationally it has not been seen, but God may make us see it. In the future and final judgment, the Supreme Judge of Heaven and of Earth will declare the rewards and punishments which have been made proper, and may be regarded as due, under the eternal justice of God; and hence, no doubt, has arisgn the necessity for that sort of particularity which forms so conspicuous a part of t*he scriptur¬ al details of mercy and justice. Of mercy it is said, upon the basis EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 51 of the atonement, God can be just, and the justifier of him that believeth. Without he could be just and do it, he could not do it at all. Of justice, it is said, that every one shall be judged for deeds done in his own body—that they that have sinned without law, shall perish without law—and they that have sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law. According to my rule, it is very easy for a Universalist, for they all have a mortal antipathy to a future general judgment—I say it is very easy for them to affirm that judgment is now going on, and seize upon such passages as refer to the general judgment, and work them up as well as they can in the class of texts which do allowedly speak of the judg¬ ments of God being now dispensed. But while we confess with candor, that the Universalist may prove that the judgments of God are now being dispensed on the earth, we openly dare him, if he has any manly regard, either for his brains or his heart, to deny the fact that God has declared a day of final, eternal judgment, in words which cannot mean any less, or any thing else but a general judgment, without the most wanton perversion of words, of cir¬ cumstances, and of definite finish, ever inflicted upon natural language. But the words, "these shall go away into everlasting punishment," must, of themselves, pour a deadly shot upon the exposed front of Universalism. The very words will make the naked and natural impression, upon every ingenuous mind, that they refer to only a part of the great multitude mentioned in the account of the general judgment; and when we refer to the account itself, we find the portion alluded to, to be such as have lived devoid of those affections which would have interested them in all the interests of Christ on earth. A more natural picture of a Christless set, could%hardly have been given. This is a general and safe clue to the moral and spiritual state of man, for all seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. A people not actively interested for. Christ, is unfit to be rewarded with eternal life; to these, the word is, " Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels —for X was hungry, and ye gave me no meat"—you were not con¬ cerned about my wants nor my weal. To be actively, deeply, and intentionally interested in the affairs of Christ's kingdom, is indis¬ pensable to piety, and piety is indispensable to Heaven. And these shall go away. We see who were meant by the words, and why they were thus cursed in the day of final accounts. Their whole character and course was antipodal to those who were welcomed to 52 UNIVERSALIS®! eternal life; and as their characters were different, the final act of the Judge of ai the Earth, who will do right, must be so too. If their is any real difference ^between piety and impiety—-between vice and virtue—God must recognize it and duly regard it, or else, he differs essentially and strangely from all other good beings. But he does recognize it and duly regard it, and therefore, he will have a general judgment to vindicate his laws and his throne. Let us, however, proceed at once to the main facts, as given by Matthew. The account of the general judgment begins at the 31st verse and closes with the 46th—the basis of our argument. The whole report is purely declaratory. There is nothing imaginative in it—not even a figure of speech, only in so far as sheep are used to designate the righteous, and goats the Wicked. With the likeness that might be traced between the work of the Son of Man, in the separation of the righteous from the wicked, and that of a shepherd dividing his sheep from the goats, and with these figurative ideas included; it is still simply a descriptive announcement of the Day of Judgment, with the circumstances which are to accompany it; and as it belongs to those portions of scripture which are declaratory and. descriptive of facts, it can admit of no explanation or fulfilment but what is literal. Let the Universalists show when and how this and other accounts of a Day of Judgment to come has ever been justified and sustained in any day of the long term of judgment, which they say is now going on. They cannot begin to do it; and yet it is obliged to be true, in the natyre of a simple declaration of events, that the failure of a part of the events named and described, is a failure of truth, in part, of the prophetic description, and in a divine revelation of things and events, foretold by the spirit of prophecy, every thing mentioned as a part of the revelation must come in. Hence, it was as necessary that Christ should ride into Jerusalem on an ass, as it was that he should be born in Bethlehem of Judea—as necessary, because it was. foretold by the Holy Ghost, seeing into the future with unerring certainty, and making God's prophet a seer too. How often did the blessed Saviour say, " Thi^ was done that the scriptures might be fulfilled." Let us suppose, then, that there will never be a day when the Son of Man will be revealed from Heaven, and all the holy angels with him—that all nations will never be gathered before him—that the righteous and the wicked will never be separated from each other, like a shepherd divides a flock—that the Son of Man will never openly,%and all at once, justify and reward his friends—nor openly, and at once, EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 53 condemn the Christless world,, who felt and took no interest in all his holy and mercifjul designs and plans—and that^ instead of dis¬ tinguishing between good people and bad—between the martyrs who served him in life and died for him ift death, and the evil-hearted Jews who, when a Roman Governor declared him faultless, and hesitated and feared to deliver him up to crucifixion, cried " Crucify him, crucify him!"—I say, suppose nothing of all this was ever literally to take place, or suppose that a large part of all these circum¬ stances were literally to fail, what would become of the truth of this revelation, made by Christ to his disciples, every word of which they doubtless believed? It would have, of course, to float off with the froth of the world's hyperbolical extravagance, leaving that much more evidence to mankind that the Bible itself is full of the mere rant of wrath against the wicked—words which might ultimately mean lit¬ tle or nothing, and being so unmeaning, or so unsettled in meaning, as to threatening?;, might be so as to promises; and it is in this that Universalism is found, North and South, to be in easy alliance with every form of infidelity which pretends to build its fabric out of language found in the Bible ; always maintaining their ground by ^eizing upon some word or figure- which, if it has any definite and natural meaning, in its proper acceptation, is often used in the various figures of speech in an unnatural sense: to this sense they labor to bring eveiy use of the word where it is naturally and properly used. This brings us naturally to show how the word "everlasting" came to be robbed of its natural import in the words of our text. We come now to consider the words everlasting punishment; and first, ive declare the word everlasting, in its natural common sense meaning, to be endless or eternal. Therefore, whenever the word everlasting, or any of its cognates, is applied to such things as can and will exist through endless ages to come, it must be used in its natural acceptation. If this law of language is not absolute, and therefore absolutely proper, then are we out at sea without any reliable chart or compass. If, because everlasting, for ever, and < for ev,er and ever, and such like phrases, has, by well known figures of speech, been applied to things of limited duration, this unnatuial and hyperbolical use of the words has settled and determined their meaning to extend only to things of limited duration; and thus bring, by use defined, to be the acceptation in which the Bible intended the ministry and the church to receive them. Why then, of coufse, when we find them applied to things which, by common 54 UNIVERSAL ISM sense, have always been regarded as of endless duration as to God, Heaven, and the imniortality of the soul—we can only say they are improperly used; but when we find them applied to time, earth, hills, mountains, &c., we receive them as legitimately used; for let my readers always remember, they cannot be used naturally and properly in both acceptations. They either have a natural, definite, and proper meaning, or else, they have no standard mean¬ ing in the theology of the Bible—and if no standard meaning, then are we without any divine revelation upon these essential doctrines, and the words which conveyed to us these sublime and overwhelming ideas of God, and Heaven, and eternal fife, are confessedly of too meagre import to furnish to faith any pillar of certainty on which to lean with calm and confident repose in the day of temptation—when the dark clouds of Atheism itself roll up sometimes—when the mind is made gloomy by morbid, nervous associations—and Satan says, in the language of naturalism, let us eat and drink, for to¬ morrow we die. But if these words naturally and properly teach of things which will never fail the confiding disciple, because their import and the reality to which they point him, will be ever present with him in time and in eternity, then I say to my soul again, as I have often said before, trust in the Lord Jehovah, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength. We contend, with a world-Made conviction in our favor, that the words heretofore cited, and particularly as it relates to the word everlasting in the text, is improperly used whenever and wherever used in reference to things of limited duration, only in so far as the figures of speech have justified that use for the purpose of giving force to thought and language. Thus, in speaking of the ability of the earth to endure under the heavy wear of six thousand years, an orator, or poet, or historian, might speak of its everlasting hills and moun¬ tains with propriety, according to the allowed use in language in these departments; but if any one, settling the proper use of the word, should declare, either that the mountains would never be destroyed because the Bible had used the word everlasting in refer* ence to them, or that the word everlasting was a limited word in meaning because the Bible had applied it to things of limited duration, how weak and ridiculous would all such divines be. Again, we remark upon the word everlasting, that even in the Bible, where it is used out' of its proper acceptation, but for the purposes which this liberty in language has been allowed even in divine composition, there is always a peculiar majesty in the very EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 55 use and sound of the word. This is so, because there is something sublime, or majestic, or awful, always attached to the ideas which can legitimately flow into the mind from it. Apply it to time in its religious divisions, and call it everlasting ages, and what a rush of thought does it bring to the reflecting mind. Apply it to mountains and rivers, and call them everlasting, and what a thrill will the vast associations produce in an excitable bosom. Think of these moun¬ tains having been covered with unmelted snow, or wrenched with volcanic labor, for six thousand years. Think of Euphrates, or of the Nile, of the Thames, or of our Mississippi, having poured their rushing, rolling waters in our oceans for six thousand years, without exhausting the hidden fountains which feed them—and see if no poetical spring is stirred within you. Think of the eternal ice which guards the poles from too familiar an acquaintance with their mysterious laws. It is a long existence—existence which seems to look out upon the war which time has waged against the objects of its influence with a calm and satisfied mein, saying to its wasting tooth, our duration is fresh as when the morning of our birth pealed first upon the ear of time. It is these vast ideas which makes the words everlasting, forever, and forever and ever, fall upon the heart of man with eternal weight. But if these words were applied to things of small importance, however good the thing in its limited life might be, still it would excite disgust to hear these mighty words thus trifled with. To talk of the everlasting life of a man, would be foolish extravagance—of that of a sparrow, still more so. The word naturally means forever—liberally applied, it means a long ' time; but as Universalists want us to understand it in the text, it means neither long time nor eternal ages, but just nothing—it is, in the arithmetic of future punishment, aught. When everlasting is applied to mountains and to other things of lim¬ ited duration, no one doubts but what the term will be effectual for the attribute ascribed to the object as long as the object itself can endure. Let everlasting be applied to a mountain, it is applied to its long existence, and while it can exist as a mountain, everlasting is as applicable to it when it has existed thousands of years, as it was the first moment of its existence. The thing to which great 'length of duration is fitly ascribed, may itself cease to be, as the everlasting mountains will in the end of time ; but the word itself is unimpaired and timeless as ever—showing that the end of ex¬ istence in the mountains of earth is not brought about by the use of term, which improperly seem to ascribe to it endless duration, but by 56 universalis;.!. the law of limited duration, under which the thing itself existed.. According to this most undeniable rule of interpretation, whenever the term everlasting is used in reference to a being of never-ending exist¬ ence, as is the soul of man, it must carry with it and perpetuate the attribute or issue ascribed to the existence, so long as the existence itself endures. It is thus, that we conclude most logically,, that when the Lord Jesus Christ used the words: "And these shall go,away into ever¬ lasting punishment,'"—he applied them to a portion of the human family ; and that each individual of that great family is possessed of an immortal soul, which soul is deathless in its nature, and there¬ fore, may as certainly endure everlasting punishment as everlasting happiness, only because the former is denied and the latter admitted. But in so far as the natural import of the words everlasting and eternal are concerned, and in so far as the immortality of the soul is concerned, Mr. Shehane and his brethren could just as readily prove, by this text, the eternity of punishment and the end of heavenly joy and life, as the reverse. And let Mr. S., as he is mighty fond of Greek, take out his Greek Testament, and look for the difference between the word rendered everlasting, in one division of the text, and that which is rendered eternal in the other, and let him dare deny what I charge him with—namely: that the legiti¬ mate chance to prove the end of eternal life from this text, is just as good, as it is to prove by it the end of everlasting punishment; and that if he could have been as deeply interested in opinion in disproving eternal life, as he is in disproving everlasting punishment, he would not give a fig to boot on the ground of any radical differ¬ ence in the original. Consequently, if the word everlasting is of absolutely different import, in the original, from the word eternal, as Universalists would have all we gulled Orthodoxy to believe, then I will call upon Mr. S. and his friends to give us a learned and manly critique upon the original—^showing, independently '%f the defence of his dogma, that the learned translators ought to have rendered the two words, everlasting and eternal, so distinct and distinguished that everlasting should never have been applied to the existence of God and the endless life of his saints, as it often has been, but wore out upon hills and mountains, and other long lived' things. But this he neither can nor will attempt. He knows as well as lie knows his name, that the original here was as well trans¬ lated when it was rendered everlasting, as when it was rendered eternal; and eternal, as everlasting. And therefore if the word is EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 57 too much diluted by its natural impotency to mean endless punish¬ ment, it may be also, to insure eternal life when the word ends in its meaning, the office of insurance is clearly broken. Finally upon this text we may avail ourselves of the good old maxim, that when an argument proves too much it destroys itself. By which I. understand this to be the rule,, that when the ground defended by the disputant is so clearly established, as to,become good in argument, the truth of which he makes himself the boasted advocate, is evi¬ dently, by legitimate inference weakened or destroyed. This is the case with Universalists in regard to the text in dispute. They claim to prove that the words everlasting in our text, is a word often used in Scripture, in reference to things of limited duration, and there¬ fore cannot be adduced in proof of the endless punishment of the wicked.. We show beyond denial, that Christ used the same word to maintain the doctrine of endless punishment that he did to main¬ tain the doctrine of eternal life, and that if the word is insufficient, on account of its own natural and proper meaning, to prove the endless future punishment of the wicked, it is insufficient, on the same account, to prove the endless happiness of the saints. Thus it seems to us, that Universalists in their mad and determined course to get rid of the doctrine of the future, endless punishment of sin, have destroyed—-or more properly, tried to destroy—the common sense guarantee of eternal life, by denying to the wrnrd of endless promise its native, eternal import. This is intended to be an appendix to all which I have said before on Hades. The reader's* attention is called very especially to Rev. xx ; 11, to the close. This magnificent description of the resurrec¬ tion, and of the General Judgment, resembles in so many striking incidents the account by Daniel' in the Old Testament, and that ny Christ in Matthew, which we have just considered, as to leave no honest doubt in any mind that all the accounts refer to the same ev^nt, whatever it might be. In the passage the Holy Ghost has employed such language as leads us naturally to understand, that all the race to which we belong will be arraigned before the great white throne that a regu¬ lar trial will be held—that the books will be opened—note here they are in the plural—and that another was opened, which was the book of life. Note again that this book was in the singular. To my mind all this particularity is replete with the most important suggestions. To meet this universal call to judgment, every reposi¬ tory of the dead is named as giving up its tenants. The sea gave 58 UNIVERSALIS M up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them. Now if a man's prejudices would let him read this account as an humble believer, and not drive him to lay hands upon it as a critic, it is all simple and natural, and well Sus¬ tained by the natural repositories of the dead, as known and be¬ lieved in by us all—they are the sea, the earth, and hades, called in this passage hell. All these repositories will be emptied of their tenants in the general resurrection. The sea and the earth, or land, of their bodies, for to these the bodies belong by divine decree— " then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it," hence hades, or the receptacle of departed spirits, will deliver up every spirit to be judged according to what was written in the books. Here all the books are doubtless put to¬ gether, unless any one is smart enough to show, that the book of life was opened for nothing. And if the books named before, in two classifications, are all named here, as I believe they are, then to my mind the mention of the book of life by itself, true in the description of the final day, is a circumstance too remarkable to be overlooked in this investigation. It must teach us at least this much, that there will be two classes of persons to be judged in that eventful day, and in some way it is true, that while much which concerns us all will be found in the books first opened, yet still there is something which some will be deeply interested in which is to be found only in one special book of life—which leads to the idea that this book is the enrolment of a peculiar company, and under some peculiar regulations. Accordingly, we find Christ reminding the seventy disciples not to rejoice in their great ministerial success, but because their names were written in Heaven. In the epistles, we read of those whose names were in the book of life. In the account now under consideration, it is said, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire." This may all be mere verbage to my opponent, but to my mind, it is the description of an issue pregnant with eternal consequences. Let him who does, do it—but Heaven save me from attempting to force the meaning of God's infallible word. In this passage of holy scripture it is said, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." This is the second death. That these words refer naturally and necessarily to the bodies raised from the dead, and to the spirits called from the true hades, will occur to every one, or else they are devoid of any connectional sense; and the apparently unlimited meaning given to them, is fully and natu- EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 59 rally explained, on the ground that there will be no hades proper after the resurrection—there will be no separate state—every soul will be united to its former body, whatever may be the nature of that body after the resurrection. And whatever is the condi¬ tion of the soul after that event, will be of the body also. There¬ fore, it might be truly said, according to a common figure of speech, that depth and hades were cast into the lake of fire, the places of their late abode being named instead of the inhabitants. It is, however, more fully qualified and explained by the words, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire." These being excepted by this distinct and precious record from those who are cast into the lake of fire, clears the ac¬ count of all ambiguity, unless you let a Universalist mystify it by his hatred to its natural suggestions." This lake of fire is not death—neither is it the hell or hades about which Mr. S. and his friends make so much ado, and yet it must be something; and if it is not the real, true gehenna, or hell, of the New Testament, it is Avithout meaning in the world of realities. But if it is the last and best idea of an endless hell which could be furnished to the mind by familiar realities, then it is evident that this lake of fire is to be in existence after the dissolution of time. This awful idea of hell- is frequently mentioned by John, who received this book as the end of this order of communication between earth and Heaven, and was directed to inform earth of the consequences of adding any thing to it, or deducting any thing from it. The lake of fire, though several times named, is mentioned without variety of meanings or variation of object. It is every where named as the great prison of retributive justice—as the final rendezvous of dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, adulterers, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie—the final abode of the beast and of the false prophets, and of the old Dragon and Satan. ' These are to make up the miserable population of the lake of fire, from whence the Avail of their woe is to ascend forever and ever. Now, if it will not shock the nerves of Mr. S. too badly, I will ask him if his common sense does not tell him that if there is a future, eternal hell, where bad men will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, the crowd mentioned above would be the very characters Avhich ought to be punished? I will not wait an answer, but will answer for him myself. He says yes. Well then it may be well for him to reflect Avhether the sanction of his common sense to a measure of this soit, 60 UNI VERS ALISM if any measure of the kind should be found in the divine govern¬ ment, is not good presumptive evidence in favor of its existence. If hell was described as the place where God's faithful and dutiful children were to weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth, forever and ever, and Heaven was the place assigned to murderers, adulterers, and suqh as love and make lies, common sense would be driven to madness, and would declare,.in the face of the sun, the administra¬ tion to be wrong. These feelings, running parallel with the word of God, and saying Heaven is promised to the very class of people who ought to have it if any do, and hell threatened to the very characters who ought to go there if any do, amount to almost absolute moral certainty that this is the model of God's righteous government. Mr. Shehane may probably say, the idea would be shocking to him that the government of God could countenance eternal punishment. This is very likely ; for I thought, while I was listening to Mr. S., that a good many of his expressed views and feelings were very different from, those of his Lord and Master. It would shock and surprise some of us equally as much, if it was proclaimed to us from Heaven that God had decided that Caligula and Nero were as pure and good men, as soon as death had. ended their tyranny and blood¬ shed, as were the apostles Paul and Peter. And yet this is the spinal cord of Universalism. Break it, and palsy is the result. We conclude this article by remarking that the ideas of designa¬ tion given in these passages, where hell is called the lake of fire and the place of the second death, all convey so naturally the notion of a local hell, and this idea is so well sustained by our Lord's account of the rich man's hell and circumstances of suffering, as to make the whole appear like one unbroken chain of communication on this awful subject. In Mark, ninth chapter, this place of wo and death is called hell fire--—the place where the gnawing worm of guilt never dies, and the unquenchable fires of hell forever burns. This hell is distinguished in the original by being called Gehenna, always con¬ sidered as the word in Greek which most naturally and properlv means hell. But Gehenna is Hinnom, and Hinnom cannot be hell; consequently, if the ancient valley of Hinnom, where children were once sacrificed to Moloch, has, by political changes, ceased to be used, either as a place of idolatrous sacrifice, or as a purgatorial fire for the consumption of nuisances, hell is blotted out, and all our Lord's warnings, enforced by the terror of a hell, whose agonies are pictured upon the canvass of eternal scenery by a worm that never dies, and a fire that shall never be quenched, is to be regarded as the EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 01 mere rant of an excited orator, or as the enthusiasm of an impas¬ sioned poet—-a figure strained until its vigor was lost in the effort of its birth. Indeed, if such language was used by any mere man, to give to his teachings the appearance of an overawing authority, it would be regarded a humbug. And if there is nothing more of reality in all these words of warning, coming from heavenly lips, than what Universalists attach to them, they are just such specimens in language as might justify that fashionable falsehood—not at home. This untruth I suppose to be justified by its friends on the ground that invited guests generally receive a card, Mr. and Mrs. A. B. at home such a time—this means, they want to see you at that time; but call at a time when they don't want to see you, and if their consciences are kept by the law of fashion, just send out word not at home, and all is right—because all these liberal laws of honor don't bind the parties by what may appear all the while to be the natural common sense meaning of the word, but by what the author may privately intend. Hence, not at home, may look, to an honest yeoman, to be a declaration of absence ; but to the ensconced gen¬ tleman or lady, whose conscience is formed by fashion, the words mean, not absent, but don't want to see you. So does Universalism dispose of much of the New Testament. The language may con¬ vey to plain, good common sense, one idea always—but it means, to the author of it, a very different thing. SECTION II. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DEVIL AND HIS WORKS. Mr. Shehane, whom I suppose by the way in which he was set upon me is regarded an oracle on the side of his church, relied •chiefly on I John iii; 8. "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil." And Heb. ii; 14, " that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." It is true he did mention what the Almighty said in Genesis, that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head," and wanting all the help he could muster, as every desponding disputant does, he said that some Catholic Bible he had seen, rendered the word not bruise but crush. This I judge he did not confidently believe, for being such a man of Greek if he had believed the word rendered bruise twice in the Scriptures, to have been crush, he would have given us what with him would have been higher authority than this Catholic Bible, his own translation. As the Scriptures use the word bruise twice in reference to Satan, once in the form of a curse against him, and once in the form of promised aid to the tempted, it seems to me to indicate not Satans destruction, but his subjugation to Christ and the damage done to him by Christ's gospel. Accordingly it was made to happen in the days of Christ's miracles of healing, demons were made to confess him to be Jesus the Son of God, and the Son of God most high, and legions were dismissed by his word of command; but all these mat¬ ters of fact, as I understand, made a part of the visible evidence necessary to assure us of the control of Christ over our most vigi¬ lant and powerful enemy, are by Mr. Shehane and' his scheme re¬ duced to mere nonsense, or what is more proper, to legends of heath¬ enish superstition. I will venture if any one will read these passa¬ ges of the New Testament to Mr. S. in support of the positive existence of evil spirits or demons, that he will spurn the idea. Show¬ ing by tins very work of infidelity that whenever the Holy Spirit does not put words into his mouth which will suit his cherished dog¬ mas, one of which is the destruction of the devil, that he will attempt 64 UNIVERSALISM to amend the revelation, or else to deny the application. This very thing, about which I am speaking, is a matter almost if not entirely identical with the divine course when he brought the Jews, his an¬ cient people, out of Egypt. Moses was sent there as a legate of the skies. What was necessary in order to prove Moses to be a Minis¬ ter and Prophet of God more highly accredited than any one or even than all the God's of Egypt? Why just what the God of the Jews did, he dishonored successively all their chief deities, showing himself to be superior to them. This he did in many similar emer¬ gencies, and often extorted the acknowledgment of his universal empire. Christ came to demonstrate the truth, that in him dwelt the fullness-of the Godhead bodily. This he did in many most con¬ clusive Ways, among these was the casting out of devils. Hence it said, alluding to the present condition of his people, "that he also took part of the same," to wit, a human body, "that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil." And here we engage to show that the words in Heb. ii; 14, cannot be adduced in proof of the Universalist doctrine, of the total des¬ truction of the devil. E-very passage of scripture in which any remarkable -thing is mentioned, as the destruction of the devil is in this, must be referred to the general and special subject embraced in the passage, in order to ascertain with accuracy the meaning of any particular expression or mode of expression found in it. Let Mr. Shehane deny this if he wants to draw upon himself the odium due to a knave-1—and yet, the tying of himself down to this common sense rule of elucidation tears his dogma all to pieces. The entire pas¬ sage, of which the destruction of the devil is mentioned as a glorious consequence, commences as follows: " And again behold I and the children which God hath given me." " Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." The careful, honest reader, will perceive that whatever is meant by the destruc¬ tion of the devil, the effect, so called, is to be brought about by the incarnation and death of Christ. Now, therefore, I demand of Mr. S. and all his advocates, to show to the world by any fair and logical mode of reasoning, what connection the incarnation and death of Christ could naturally and necessarily have with the destruction of the devil ? The text says, that " forasmuch as the children were partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himself like¬ wise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 65 him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who all their life time were subject to bondage through fear of death." Mark it, reader; "through fear of death," not through fear of the devil. All which is illustrated by the apostle's words, 2 Tim. i; 10: " But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought life and im¬ mortality to light through the Gospel." Let every Universalist mark well, that Paul says the abolishing of death was by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ. In what way and by what means was this abolition of death brought about"? By the death and resurrection of Christ, doubtless. But neither did the death nor resurrection of Christ deliver us from the necessity of dying; consequently, the abolishing of death by Christ was the demonstra¬ tion of the resurrection by his own rising from the grave. The abolition of death, therefore, in the text, means only the fulfilment of that blessed prophecy, "O! grave, I will be thy destruction." Paul, in Thess. iv; 13, calls the mind of the infant church to the constant recognition of that article of faith which says: "For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so them which sleep in Jesus shall God bring with him." Christ said, em¬ phatically and significantly: "/am the resurrection and the life, and he that believeth in me, though he were dead yet shall he live." All these blessings are appended to the resurrection of Christ, and the truth of his resurrection is everywhere alluded to as the great test truth of all Christ's life and miracles. The chain, as a whole, is admitted to be no stronger than the truth of Christ's resurrection. But to our position. We say it, fearless of any contradiction, that no man can trace any connectional relation, properly and naturally existing, which could demand the incarnation and death of the Son of God as a reason for the simple executive destruction of the devil. Christ's incarnation is not only everywhere coupled with our race, as forming the ground and reason of our redemption and consequent existence, but all other objects and connections are expressly exclud¬ ed. See Heb. ii; 16, 17': " For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." If Mr.* S. believed there was a devil to destroy, and that he was a fallen angel, as Peter and Jude both so plainly intilhate, I might rein him right up here, and prove at once that all that is said of Christ in Heb. 11, has no connectional reference with or to satan, in any other way, than that by his incarnation and death he will suffer in a way not inaptly called destruction. His plans would be frustrated, and his 68 UNIVERSALIS M expectations cut off—a stronger than he would come upon him; and overcome him. So did the allied armies come upon Napoleon* ahd overcame him—and ever afterwards, orators,. poets, and historians, spoke of Napoleon Bonaparte as destroyed- And why? Because Siis power as an emperor and as a military captain was broken;- In like manner, if the incarnation and death of Christ broke up the infernal plan of destruction devised against man, and successfully executed in the fall, in which the plan was to reverse the relation in which the first parents of our race stood to the divine law while innocent, this divine law blessed them, and marked them as worthy of eternal life under its pure government. But when they sinned and fell, and became guilty under this law of disobedience, it poured its unmitigated and eternal curse upon them; but it did so, doubt¬ less, as justly under its dominion, and as guilty of its violation. And here let it be especially noticed, that if ever an accountable subject, of God's law violates that law, and becomes condemned under it, that relation to the divine law can never be reversed, ex¬ cept by such an act of suffering and by such a victim as could be emphatically vicarious, so as that the righteous claim of God's violated law would be as safely, and fully met, in every government¬ al view, by the sufferings of the vicarious offering, as by the punish¬ ment of the actual sinner. This is exactly what was done by the vicarious death of God's eternal Son, in a human body of flesh and blood, taken on him as a medium, of suffering; and as a link of union, that by death he might destroy the devil. That is, so derange his original plan, by providing an atonement for original and actual sin, in such a way as that Christ's vicarious sufferings might as much magnify the actual justice of the divine law, as the punishment of each and every sinner could have done, and thereby open a way by which Christ may be offered to each and every sinner as a legal ground of justification by faith in the atonement. Hence,, the ground of the sinner's ultimate condemnation is reversed. If Adam and Eve could have lived at all unredeemed* and could have had progeny, they must all have been punished, or that law of obedience which they had broken must have been thrown aside, as evidently disregarded by its author as it had been by its subject. To make it possible that the race might be continued, the great Creator provided a second Adam—the Lord from Heaven. In him was confirmed, the covenant of grace or redemption, and the fallen family of Adam; were legally as well as graciously transferred to a covenant of grace or favor. Natural life itself was granted as a EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 67 favor,-wherefore it is declared to be in Christ that "we live, move and have our being." There would never have been a human birth if , it had not been for the atonement—God must have executed, the sentence of death upon our parents actually, and upon us conse¬ quently. By all this did Christ defeat, the hellish scheme of utter ruin, and ensure the salvation of every sinner who shall offer the sufferings of the Saviour as legal satisfaction, and the merit of his death as a ground of justification whereby God may recover our faith as if it was an actual righteousness of our own. When satan's plan was to destroy our race, either in mass or in detail, and Christ defeated him by the plan of redemption, he destroyed him in the sense of the text. Henee,.it is said that Christ, in won¬ derful achievements in death, spoiled principalities and powers,, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. SatanJs plans failed in the hour when Christ returned from the spirit land, dragging death and every foe captive after the;chariot of his glory. Satan felt the shock, like the throes of an earthquake, in all his dark domains, when in the wilderness,, where he tried his luckless skill upon the second Adam. . He was not only .foiled* in his plan, but dishonored in his person:—" Get thee behind me Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only, shalt thou serve." He felt the mighty words,, and, trembling in dismay, hasted away. Whereupon the angels ministered unto him. A crisis was now passed which, no> doubt,. sent its joyful thrill through all Heaven's loyal family. Humanity in the second Adam has with¬ stood the tempter's power. Once that nature, though allied to innocence, had faltered and fell. Bub now, in a conflict of forty days—fasting, hungry, and faint—under circumstances of the most sensitive kind, it had triumphed—^gloriously triumphed; and angels came down to join in-the jubilee of our second Adam's loyalty. Hell itself felt the keen, conviction of disappointment in the early but significant event. Defeat, defeat, defeat, was openly seen. The evil spirits dislodged by Christ are often seen to make a deadly effort to destroy their unhappy victims when he called them to him, thereby giving evidence of their dread of Almighty power. CHrist conferred upon his apostles power over unclean spirits, and when the seventy went outim their Master's name, they reported that evil spirits were subject t© them through that name. And Christ himself spoke as seeing satan fall like lightning from Heaven, referring, undoubtedly, to the tremendous blow inflicted upon his kingdom by the gospel—a blow which, like lightning, hurled him. from his 68 UNIVERSALIS!# • tottering throne. These are the events which made it meet to say that Christ, by his mighty and meritorious death, destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. It was his wielding over mankind the power of death that was destroyed. His fatal power was broken'—not his being annihilated, as Mr. Shehane pretends to teach. If I am not mistaken, Mr. S. derides the doc¬ trine of a vicarious sacrifice for sin. This he must deny or admit, and until he denies, I shall charge him with the disbelief of it, and assign him a place with the'rankest infidel of the age. The doctrines that the Father laid upon the Son the iniquities of us all, as Isaiah says, and that the Son bore our sins in his own body on the tree— that he was made a curse for us-=-is so emphatically taught in the New Testament, that Mr. S. must come out, and let me know whether I charge him understanding^ or not. He must do so especially in view of what has been said upon Heb. ii; 14, and its connection with others on the same general subject. My antagonist promised, in his letter of arrangement, to prove the destruction of the devil and all his works. Like a good undertaker, he determined to make a clean job of it. To prove the destruction of the devil, he relied mainly upon Heb. ii; 14^—to prove the destruction of his works, upon 1 John iii; 8: "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." And now, gentle reader, if you did not know it before, I will tell you a secret:—Mr. Shehane does not believe in the existence of a positive personal devil? and all his rant on that subject ought to be charged upon him as an insult to every enlightened audience before whom he speaks. The order of his proposition is a snare—a deception, he proclaims to the "world—he did it to me—that he intends to prove the destruction of the devil and all his works. Any unsophisticated mind, on hearing such a pompous proposition as the one above named, would suppose the man believed there was a devil to destroy. And then, after waiting and watching three days to see the death warrant of the devil duly made 'out, and his extermination well attested—lo! and behold, the preacher's real creed leaks out, and it is that there is no real personal devil to destroy—'-that all that is said in the Bible which seems to look that way is figurative and poeti¬ cal—Satan is an imaginary monster, introduced into the Bible pretty much as raw-head and bloody-bones used to be itito the nursery, to make children shut up their eyes, and breath with about half inspiration, for Tear the monster Would hear them1: I say, for a man thus 'to impose upon the community, is a shame. If the point is so EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 69 dear that there is no real devil—Such as- we poor,, credulous ortho¬ doxies believe in—a being "who goeth;about seeking whom he may devour"—one whose rage for victims is such, that the Holy Spirit of prophecy could illustrate his temper, and do it truthfully too, by that of a "roaring lion"—I say, if Mr. S., and the rest of the true lights who hold with him on this subject, know all this to be clear, revealed truth, why not come out openly, like men who believe and know themselves right,, always do! and instead of humbugging an audience with a promise to prove the devil will be destroyed, take the higher ground at once, and prove there is no devil proper. Why this is contemptible Indian mode of fighting, behind trees and from the concealments of swamps. The same class of remarks will justly apply to the whole scheme. Mr. Shehane, I remember, during our debate, wrought himself into a transport while speaking of the destruction of the works of the devil. This was the form of his magic argument:—"God made the sun to give light to the world, and therefore the world shall have the light" This looks pretty well in the eyes of a willing dupe ; but is it an argument ? In the school where my mind was educated, this would have been called the declaration of a fact—a natural fact—a mere truism. Mr. Shehane places his proof of the destruc¬ tion of Satan and his works upon the same footing—a work of simple abstract power—Christ came to do it, and will do it. This would be worth something if there was no difference between moral and natural laws, and the manner in which the divine administration meets and manages them. If there is a real and universally ad¬ mitted difference, the whole benefit of that difference must be allowed us. For while it is admitted that the world will have under all its moral mutations the benefit of the sun's natural light, because the Creator willed it, and will carry out his will by means of his power^yet it is the application of power to natural and not to moral agents. God will destroy the world that now is by fire, as he did the former by flood; but both agencies belong to the natural and unconscious subjects of his vast empire, not to the conscious and accountable. Unless, therefore, it is first proven that it is befitting the nature of things, and an act worthy of a God acting under the perfection of wisdom, to apply the simple abstract power of his omnipotence as well to the subjects of moral as of natural govern¬ ment, and to both in the same monarchical way—then is all Mr. Shehane's overwrought predestination mere rant. Christ was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil, and unless 70 UNIVERSALISM the devil is stronger than he, he will do it. ' He comes on purpose, and he will accomplish it. And running on in this wild, irrelevant style, he would excite himself into rhapsody. All the while and in every instance when he made a point or gave a reason for his dogma, it was power-—simple, abstract power—wild, lawless power—exercis¬ ed with a sort of pell-mell force, regardless of all relations if it accomplished its end—-force, whether to rive an oak by lightning- punish a sinner by his devices—so as to make the gratification of his passions the death of his body, or the annihilation of our ideal devil, if he thinks a nonentity destructible. All, all is done by power. - Indeed, he disgusted me with his ungenerous allusions to the Calvinistic churches, some of whom have made themselves respon¬ sible at least for the charge of believing that the ultimate fate of all our race will be conformed to a predeterminating purpose in the mind of him-who does indeed work all things after counsel of his own will; but not according to ultra Calvinism, much less according to pre¬ sumptuous Universalism. I say he disgusted me by these allusions. No set of men ever known to history have held simple predestina¬ tion in a degree so high and lawless as the Universalists. Their only objection to the Calvinist churches is found in this: That the Calvinists all have good Bible sense enough to know that some must and will be lost, because they die in sins; and that those who are saved, will be fitted in this life for Heaven by regeneration and sanctification; and as far as their hearts enter into it,, they un¬ derstand that this definite and precise predestination was in full view of the characteristic qualities of both select arid reprobate. Their end was the consequence of their character—not of their predestina¬ tion. It is true we have heard of some old fashioned Calvinists, who were a little ultra in their notions—who said our end was conformed to our predestination, and not predestination to character. But these lived in a dark day ; and who would expect to find a prodesti- narian of this grade now-a-days—but even these would only meet the rebuke of Universalism, because they had directed the energies of the Almighty as well to the vindication of his holiness as the exemplification of his mercy. Had the ultra Calvinist directed his creed to the unconditional salvation of all mankind—to the utter abolition of all moral distinction in God's final court of decrees—so as to assert, in effect, the equality of gentleman and rascal, virgin purity and brothel corruption, traitor and patriot, benefactor and swindler, selfish and benevolent, the man of prayer and the man of cursing, the devoted worshiper of God and the blasphemous Atheist— EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED. 71 I say, if ultra Calvinists had taken this ground, and come out with a creed which would have compromised nothing, swallowed every absurdity that seemed to be in the way of the dogma of universal salvation, swept like a drag-net over earth and through hell, and laid down-at the bar of God as a moral gem every old debauchee who had either worn out or rotted away in the halls of illicit love, but whom Heaven had strangely made meet for its banquet of joys by letting him die with the wicked—-you had never heard of Universalism as now you have it. Calvinism would have been the thing—the very thing itself; and we poor orthodoxies would have called those of the creed ultra predestinarian. These unwelcome disclosures of the undeniable range of the Universalian assumption of human salva¬ tion, may possibly produce a little internal erysipelas, and to make the case as mild as I can out of the ashes left after the destruction of satan and his works—if indeed there be any—and if it is well done and well worn, it will countervail the evil by inducing a chill which may be so easily managed as to bring on a healthy equilibrium by a few potions of the milk of common sense truth. Let us hasten to the work; which is to examine whether there are any works of the devil to destroy. The answer to the question must depend, of course, upon the fact of their being a devil; for if there be no such a being as the one we call devil and satan, then the field is clear for the old school adage, " nought from nought and nought remains," and leaves Mr. S. just where we have put him, among the disingenuous—and until he declares in intelligible terms where he hails from, we shall hold him up to the world as trifling with our sense. We are aware that some of the craft hold that the evil and violent passions found in some men and women constitute the devil of the Bible, and that these passions all have their root in our animal nature, and cannot survive our dissolution, and that God makes them pay for their violence as they go, and that when they get too inveterate for milder measures, he makes death their penalty and their atonement; but all this does not remove the difficulty. There is too much fern and cane about him; we want a clear shot at him. In all he said in debate, and in all found in his pamphlet, there is nothing open or decisive on the ground upon which we now are. If he believes the devil has works to destroy in this woi'ld, then, of course, he believes there is a real personal devil, having children, as Christ said of the wicked Jews, " and his children ye are." This he can easily declare, and then we shall only have to.meet the question of his destruction. If he believes our sinful passions constitute the devil ol the Bible, let 72 UNIVERSALISM him say so, and then we shall only have to prove there is a personal, positive devil, and his doctrine is disproved. But notwithstanding Mr. S. keeps his real opinions in such close reserve, our readers will expect an answer to those defended by Mr. S. in so far as we can see them, or may legitimately guess at them. And first, we guess he does not believe in the being of a personal devil. We guess so, because in his public speeches at Americus, he alluded to the notion of such a being with great levity, and an air of contempt for persons who could have their minds bound down by such a legend. He said it was. true that we had heard a great deal about such a being "walking up and'down the earth, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he might devour ; " but that none of us had ever seen his fancy tail, or heard his Hon roar. Mark this! Ranker looking infidelity never fell from his Northern ally, Mr. Kneeland, who, if I am not mistaken, affiliates with the Universalists because they destroy all the bands and bonds of morality imposed upon society by the Bible and its orthodox defenders: I say, such light remarks, founded upon the language of God's holy word, are irreverent, infidel-like, and abom¬ inable. These divine revelations concerning satan never pretended to promise us a sight of his " fancy tail," nor a sound of his infuriate roar, as the evidence of his being. If they had, and none of us had ever seen or heard of him in his ramblings, we might begin to talk as lightly as Mr. S.; but as the Bible, God's own book, only design¬ ed to'teach, us that there is such an adversaiy—Mi at he is active, untiring, full of malicious rage, &c\, we see no reason for such appal¬ ling satire. What are a few of the reasons which lead us to the belief of a real, personal, diabolical agency in the earth! First—Such a being is often named in both the Old and New Testaments, and always with such characteristic qualities, aims, and ends, as fully to identify the same being. Secondly—Locomotive power could not be seriously and soberly ascribed to any mere passion or appetite in man's nature, and yet the scriptures uniformly attribute such power to the devil. Thirdly—The Bible ascribes to satan great intellectuality—a grand intriguer, eminently skilled in wily strata¬ gem ; it says he deceived Eve, and that the church, not ignorant of his devices,, feels him to be an ever present enemy. Now these attributes cannot be ascribed with a just regard to truth and reality to any one, nor to all the evil qualities found in man, as such. If great intellectuality was attributed to intemperance, and locomotion also, with a talent fruitful in devices, always engaged by the em¬ ployment of a sound understanding of man's gullahility, in the best EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED* 73 ways of deceiving him, so as to make him,destroy himself; while he was only seeking gratification—I say, if such a personality, and if such attributes were openly, and' with the show of truth common to the Bible, ascribed to drunkenness, (and to no one sin could it be more fitly done,) how unfavorably would the account impress us as to its claim to a heavenly origin? Not so when openly and con¬ stantly ascribed to satan; because, in the former there is the absence of the want of possibility—but in the latter there is the felt presence of an actual and rational possibility of these attributes. There¬ fore, we have to fight off the native, simple convictions of the mind, to doubt the truth of the record. It takes disingenuousness to make us unbelievers; but simple acquiescence in the divine record makes us believe all God has spoken, and cheerfully leave him to his own choice of words to convey to us ideas and notions of realities. Fourthly—The scriptures, in many places, speak of satan as a comparable being, and it is evident to all good common sense that no two beings can be said to resemble each other unless both of them really exist, and in the department of personal, positive being, this is essentially so. Christ and his apostles both speak of sinners as devil-like, and as of fraternal relation to him. If there is not a devil proper, he can have no children among all the varied grades of crime, and the analogy does not exist in truth, and it is falsely charged—"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."—John viii; 44. " He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning."—1 John iii; 8. Christ said to Peter, when he ignorantly opposed the plan of salva¬ tion by opposing the crucifixion of Christ: "Get thee behind me, satan—thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not of the things of God, but those that be of men." Satan was opposed to Christ, because he came to frustrate his plans. Peter ignorantly fell into his ranks—Christ openly rebuked him by showing him- his infernal ally. But if there was no external diabolical agent, Christ did a very strange thing when he declared the tendency of Peter's plan to be the accomplishment of satan's purpose, which was the prevention of our redemption by the vicarious saciifice of the man Christ Jesus. Peter could not act conjointly with nothing—with nobody. Peter never was properly called satan in the New Testa¬ ment ; and yet it speaks oftener of the devil and satan than it does of any other personage—God alone excepted. In the passage last quoted, Peter is incidentally and representatively called satan; be¬ cause he was acting as an adversary of Heavens immortal plan. 74 UNIVERSALIS M But that the devil is recognized as a being to whom bad men may¬ be compared, is evident, from Paul's words in Acts xiii; 10. While engaged in his ■ministry, he fell in with a sorcerer—a false prophet— a Jew, whose name Was'Bar-Jesns, and was with Sergious Paulus, the deputy of the country, who seemed favorably inclined to the apostles, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas, the sorcerer—for so was his name—withstood' Paul and Barnabas, striv¬ ing to turn away the deputy from faith. Then Saul, called Paul, fixed his eyes upon him—Oh ! my God, what a look!—"And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right Ways of the Lory the arbitrary application of power to the soul, without any degree c|f previous sorrow for sin-—without any ex¬ ercise of the will in that direction—without any degree of that faith, which is said to justify tlm ungodly—I will trouble Mr. Shehane if he pleases, to give us som® reason which will at least appear worthy of a wise and good God, why he does not make these vile sinners holy while they live. It would certainly be better for all concerned, and as God has a way, according to Mr. Shehane's doctrine, of mak- APPENDIX. 89 ing the soui holy, by his will and the application of his power direct, it seems to us to lay the blame of the unlioliness and sin of the world upon the will of Deity. Come out and tefl. us why it is either best for us, or most becoming in the character of God, upon whom ye devolve the whole responsibility of fitting souls for heaven, to let those souls wallow in the very slime of impiety for years, when at last their cleansing is a work wholly of his own. But the absurdity Will more fully appear Avlien it is remembered,, that Universalis doe- trinally deny the corruption of the soul.. Whence then the neces¬ sity of its being made holy ? God made the body and soul both holy in the day of their first estate, and if the soul did not become corrupt in the fall, it cannot have become so since, and needs no making holy; and this I guess is Mr. Shehane's opinion,, if we did not misap¬ prehend. the very light manner in which he spoke of original sin, and of the vicarious death of Christ, in view of it. But he has rightly judged when he determined that the less of the infidelity of his scheme he let out and the more of Christianity he seemed to retain, the better he could get on with his cardinal dogma.. Accordingly he has allowed the existence of a sanctification font somewhere between the couch of death and the gate of heaven, not being willing to en¬ counter all the difficulties which spring upon him, if he openly fought under his Pelegian flag. But there is yet another link in this chain of absurdities, attached:to Universalism. It is this, that God keeps up and carries on a regular legal settlement with the law, in meeting out to every offender just as much punishment as his sin deserves ; consequently when he dies there is no wrath behind. What then is to hinder the entrance of the soul at once upon its great reward! Why must it be made holy? Does it require two modes.of prepa¬ ration to save a soul? And here let it be especially remem¬ bered, that what Universalists call the punishment due to sin, because they say that sin must and will be punished, is very different from what we mean by evangelical repentance for sin. Punishment for sin is known to produce no diminution of the love of sin in the offen.- der,ffiut only a hatred of the law which requires it, and cannot therefore make the offender morally better. But evangelical repen- ^ tance produces the most holy hatred for sin, and thereby piepaies the way for the safe bestowment of pardon, and the certain prepar¬ ation of the soul for the holy joys of heaven. But accoiding to Mi. Shehane's scheme, we have to pay our dues to God's, holy law by suffering the demerit of every sin, and.then to be made holy to give us a title to heaven. And yet our souls are so little affected by sin, either original or actual as to render the new birth absolutely un- 90 APPENDIX. necessary in order to a home in heaven. Will Mr. S. work off a little of this mist which hangs upon his theory, and give us a manly elucidation of John iii; 3, in support of his scheme of unconditional salvation. I denounce Universalism because, if the testimony of A. B. Grosh, of Utica, at the time he wrote a history of the Universalian Church, in its origin and creed, in the United States, can be received as good, Universalists have from their earliest date and in their chief minis¬ ters and writers affiliated with every style of heresy concerning our Lord Jesus Christ which has ever divided and distracted the church of God. Grosh says of some of the apostles of his church, that they entertain Arian views, some Unitarian and some Sabellian. Some belieyed in limited punishment after death, some in none, one or more believed in the sleep of the soul after death until the resurrec¬ tion. The Holy Ghost, his person and offices, his influence and es¬ sential instrumentality in the change of the human heart, are all spoken of in the measured -language of a cautious infidelity. He says however, that after they bad boxed every point of the riligious compass, they settled down in company with the English Unitarians. 5 This then locates them among that class of Ministers who deny the equality of the Son with the Father, and consequently the natural and common sense meaning of the words which declare Christ to be the express image of his Father's person. In what order of beings Mr. S.Avill place Christ, he wili have the goodness to tell us. We are out at sea without a pilot, not knowing precisely what an En¬ glish Unitarian believes. So awful was this history of the Univer- salist church, that I imagined to myself before I read it to the audi¬ ence, that Mr. S. would rise up in a burst of righteous indignation -and disabuse the public mind of an imputation of infidelity, cast upon their whole order by the impudence of one of their leading ministers. But what was my astonishment, when Mr. Shehane cried out from behind me, "I endorse every word of it." That is that as a body of ministers and people, we are Arians, Unitarians, Sa- bellians, disbelievers in the generally received views of the faoly Ghost, and are tied together only by one article of belief. Yes, fel¬ low-citizens of Georgia, Mr. Shehane is Mr. Grosh's endorser on the bond of their infidelity, and I intend to indict him on it, as an in¬ fidel in matters of faith until he repudiates. This article is found in a work called Religious Encyclopoedia, in which a minister of each denomination furnishes the creed of his own church. Mr. Grosh of the Universalist church furnished this, and as he knew full well APPENDIX. 91 that these views were regarded in most of this country as highly heietical, I have no idea that he colored the picture more highly with infidel paint than the original. I object to Universalism, because the legitimate tendency of its main principle is to destroy the lines of distinction so necessarily drawn in society, on the ground of merit and demerit. Let my Uni- versalist friends say what they may in the way of denial, it will still be a logical truth, that their scheme of religion does virtually annul the only grounds on which the actual rejection of dishonored and degraded members of society can be justly predicated. They are two, to wit: The demerit of crime, and necessary consequence of Voluntary association. If it is true that a member of civil and social society can sin away his right to be received and treated as an acceptable guest, and reduce his condition to such a point that a voluntary association with him, would be a just ground of censure and condemnation to any one doing so, and that all this does not ex¬ ceed in punishment the demerit of the offenders ; then does it fol¬ low as a consequence, that there exists in the nature of things a law which makes it right and necessary to inflict upon certain offenders a penalty of exclusion from the better portion of society. And this a cunning Universalist might seize upon as being in harmony with this creed—-this he might call his disciplinary punishment—the re¬ ward of his sin. But let us suppose that at the very time society should inflict this punishment upon a degraded member of it, it was distinctly avowed that the exclusion was only for ceremonial and so¬ cial ends—that the ultimate treatment you should meet with at death, in an honorable burial—eulogistic obituary—and sculptured marble, to herald your immortality, shall be as good as the best. How infi¬ nitely rediculous would this announcement make all the parade and show of society on this ground of penal honor! But let us not pass too lightly over what we said about voluntary association. The great necessity and propriety of this lable of exclusion posted up upon bad men and women by the good, arises from the fact, that the low¬ est point to which any one will voluntarily descend in the choice of a companion, is the point at which you must commence your esti¬ mate of his or her moral taste and principle. The best thermome¬ ter is not physically, a better guide to the temperature than is the voluntary choice of a companion to the moral worth or imamy of all men or women. Holding this to be a great, primal truth in the ascertainment of moral law and character, I can but tremble for the ark vof God when I see it in Ashdod, and set down in company with 92 APPENDIX. Dagon. The country ought to put its most reprobative veto upon, eveiy move in it, which looks in the slightest degree to-the removal of the old land-marks by which our noble ancestors determined the worth of men and women, and the degree of reliability to which their constant adherance to rigid principles had entitled them. Every rule in society by which virtue and chastity were held too sacred for familiar touch, should be preserved inviolate. Every move towards the removal or modification, of them, should be met with most unqual¬ ified reprobation. Mask-balls, and near relations of the bodies in waltzing and dancing, such as would have horrified a mother of the eighteenth century, and been refused by her daughter, creep slowly in upon us in the nineteenth century,, and that too under the plausible guise of refinement. But query, is it not possible that these famili¬ arities grow upon us more through the depreciation of these element¬ al laws of virtue which once presided over society even at a ball, than that they were useless abridgments of human intercourse ? I say again, that all those doctrines which magnify the demerit of sin by offering to the sinner full indemnity in the future, should be renounc¬ ed. The views entertained by Universalists about the final equality of men, are too agrarian for me. I do not see how God can make a rascal into a gentleman by declaration, or a human demon upon earth,, into a seraph in heaven. And yet upon the wanton exercise of power, depends the ultimate worth and truth of Universalism. I can see very clearly how a bad man may be converted into a good one, by the beautiful process of spiritual regeneration. But I con¬ fess I cannot see how God, because he is omnipotent, and under no law, but the law of truth and holiness, can by declaration make a bad man into a good one. With great reverence, oh! my God, do I merely say, that if it were possible for thee to declare a drunken man sober,, or a sinner a saint, while the drunkenness of the one and the sin of the other was actually upon him, I could not under¬ stand it. I understand the judgment of God to be according to truth, and that his only prerogative in the premises is found in this, that he may and must declare who are good, but not make men good by mere declaration. This wanton exercise of power in the sudden and unaccountable reversal of human character, is the difficulty in my way about the tendency of such indifferent views of sin. It makes the marks of distinction too shallow, it leaves the lines of separation between the pure and the vile too much like the colors of the rain¬ bow, hard to tell where the one ends and the other begins. In na¬ ture this adds to her beauty, but in morals this is ruin. There must APPENDIX. 93 be an impassible gulf here, or all is lost. Men cannot be kept pure under the present arrangement, and if they are enticed by the dimi¬ nution of risk to a closer alliance with sin and sinners, the moral consequence must be bad. Mr. Shehane seems to think very lightly of any man who would admit the fear of being damned as an element into the spirit of his Feligion. All such rant as this is but the clearer proof of the desper- ateness of his system. Sin need not alarm here. Why 1 Because it is a matter of such little concern with God, that you can never dis¬ sever yourself from his favor and society by sin. Earth contains a great many proud aristocrats, who if a man robs a Bank and is found out, or if a woman sells her virtue and is convicted of it, will cut their acquaintance, withdraw from them, put up a high fence of separation between them. But God has insured you all the highest honor in his gift-—you may not be ticketed to the marriages of these wonderful specimens of excellency, but you shall be at the marriage supper of the Lamb, clothed in a robe of light and glory. Such abominable doctrine as this, may very naturally make men afraid to carry out the laws of society against offenders of the class alluded to in this article. A man or woman who needs only to die to be placed in heaven as a fit companion of the highest and purest order of exist¬ ences, should be regarded good enough for a parlor guest or a daily companion of this world's impure society. For mark, if death can¬ not make the moral character better, the inevitable conclusion is, that those whom we reject from our society on account of moral de¬ preciation, are ready at a moment's warning to join the purest society in God's universe. Mr. Shehane in his published debates, alludes with very caustic intent to my saying in the description, that the existence of anger in the Almighty, if it was necessary to the perfection and harmony of his attributes, was matter of delight to me. I now repeat the same declaration, and add to it the further remark, that I do not believe the divine character could be presented to an intelligent world as lovely and commanding respect, without the existence of anger in that sense in which the Bible ascribes it to God. It is the existence of a constitutional law or element of holiness which cannot be reached by sin, without kindling in the bosom of Deity a repulsive emotion. It is not the exciting into flame of an unhallowed passion •oftener in excess than in due proportion. But it is the calling into repulsive action an element in the divine nature which can nevei look with indifference upon an antagonizing one, because to do so 94 APPENDIX.. would be to dishonor the nature which gave it being;1 To illustrate - the idea. Let us suppose a Patriot such as Washington, was invited unexpectedly by one of his army or cabinet"to join in the sale or be¬ trayal of his country—would'it be necessary for him to wait and ; meditate what he would do, or would his patriotism burst forth in a spontaneous evidence of the opposition of his patriotic heart to every issue, that would antagonize it? This would be [the anger of his purity. Such is the anger of the Lord. It is the natural and neces¬ sary opposition of his holiness to sin. . God must be angry with the wicked every day. . He attempts to taunt me with the cruel and dia¬ bolical law of endless punishment, especially so when it falls on . others, and not on my friends. This is a poor apology for a man who has traveled a hundred miles to prove there was no eternal death.. It was however a little gratification to him to-do it, as he seems to me to carry a pair of nippers with. himr with 'which when he is frustrated a little he attempts to pinch his antagonist.- We will give our own version of it.-. In one of those fits of horror into - which he occasionally falls, and in which he always repeats a set of the most horrible and harsh expressions, evidently that he may blow upon the doctrine of future punishment the poison breath of at least an affected horror and disgust, he asked me, as his aged and vener¬ able opponent, the senseless question, how l-would relish the doctrine of future and eternal punishment if inflicted on my wife and child¬ ren. To. this weak inquiry I .replied, that although it would be a matter of deep affliction to me to have a .member of my family in the State Prison, yet I .would not have the State to abandon a sys¬ tem of punishment indispensible to the maintenance of good govern¬ ment, because a member of my family might by the practical con¬ tempt of law and good order fall into its primitive grasp. And that by parity of reasoning I eould not be offended at the existence of such penal laws in the government of God, as he might deem neces¬ sary to the maintenance of wholesome discipline, and from my soul do I believe the existence of endless punishment to -be indispensible to a government made for moral agents. And this is likely the rea¬ son Universalists in these days constitute a class of the most ultra predestinarians and fatalists the sun ever shown upon; resolving the issue of final and eternal life into an act of absolute sovereignty. But if my nervous opponent cam stand the shock,. I will give him a little more of my faith and sentiments upon this awful subject. I do rejoice that the government is as I. believe it to be. It is easy for me to love and even . admire the character of God as it is revealed—a APPENDIX. 95 God of goodness, keeping mercy for all who love him and keep his covenant, and that will not acquit the guilty. If I believed as Mr. Shehane does, that God Could and would amalgamate all mankind, placing the vilest man that ever died, and who died in his wicked¬ ness, otii an equality with the holiest and best that ever died; reward¬ ing them both with the same eternal testimonial of his love and ap¬ probation, I could not for the life of me admire his governmental character. I have no sympathy with any protector of me or mine, who is so good and kind-hearted that he is willing to see virtue and fidelity deprecated, so he may let rebels and scamps know that he is too merciful to punish them with any brand of perpetual disap ¬ probation. Mr. .Shehane made a mighty adof,during the public discussion,-, because I complained thathe quoted too much Scripture, and in his published speeches, has paraded this matter with a good deal of self- gratulation. , Bisingenuousness in a case like this, I despise, and such I pronounce this to be. I will give my own version of it, and renew and enlarge my remarks upon it at the time. Mr. S. has a way of quoting Scripture pretty muchdike a Junior orator. He sel¬ dom attempts to explain a text. He asserts his ddgma, whatever it may be, and away he goes like a velocipede pouring out upon you in a flood, Scripture after Scripture, evidently with the hope of mak¬ ing his unlearned auditors believe there is nothing but Universalism in the Bible. . He draws principally upon the figurative portions of the old Testament, especially the prophets. The more thickly veiled with poetical and figurative language the better he likes it. His plan is to string together as many passages as possible with words of the same sound, as if he expected the jingle of sound to betaken for the genious of interpretation. Many passages upon which he makes these provoking levies, when taken in their proper connexional sense, have about as much to do with' his theme, as they have with the ter- itorial questions before Congress. It is provoking to a man of hon¬ est common sense, who has studied the ways and means by which Scripture truth must be explained, to sit and hear it handed out in this pragmatic style. Mr. S.' has been dubbed the walking Bible, but a more apposite title would be the Bible maelstroom,. It was because my captious adversary quoted much Scripture, and explained none, that I complained. Every man of sense must know, that in so Tar as the sound of words goes, many things may seem to be proven, by the Bible which it never thought of teaching, and that therefore its doctrines must be gathered from the meaning of its terms, an Trio t 06 APPENDIX. from the sound, and the meaning of Bible terms must be sought, and will be found in the general or connectional scope in which the word of God places the text. No leading doctrine of man's salvation is to be deduced either from a single text, or a strong word found in any particular relation to it, and yet such passages and occasional words, form the castles of defence for Universalism. My position in the debate was that the truth of a doctrine does not depend upon the number of texts which its advocates might parade around it, but upon the correct understanding of any one or more of them. Du¬ ring all the debate, I did my best to get Mr. S. to engage with me as a preacher in the special explanation of a text, showing like an honest man, that the terms used in the text could not be taken in any other than the Universalian sense, without a violation of the common sense meaning of terms. And I now say that I do not be¬ lieve Mr. S. can be induced to discuss this question upon this plan. He is a mighty man for Greek meanings, and I say free for all, and say it to all, that whenever you find a man attempting to teach a doc¬ trine of as much general interest to mankind as eternal salvation, who cannot sustain his tenet from the English Bible as it is, but has for aught you know, to bamboozle you with new translations—-just let him go. We come now to take an exception to Universalism, which if true, and in as far as it is true, strikes a death blow to the scheme, just as far as men will let reason and conscience erect themselves into a law of moral and religious calculation. The exception is this, that Univer¬ salism as a safe system of morals and faith for such portions of man¬ kind as are ignorant and unbelieving—more under the dominion of passions and appetites, than of reason and intellect, is condemned and rejected, by a sort of spontaneous consciousness of its being more likely to make bad worse, than to make bad better. We need go no further to settle this question, than to the intelligent and pru¬ dent planters of the South. To the praise of this valuable, and I think I may safely say (comparing numbers) most intellectual, and best educated portion of the South, they have within a few years waked up to the great truth, that the gospel of Christ is the best means of making good servants that has ever yet been employed, and hence beside the moral obligation to give them the gospel, they are led to do it on the ground of good policy. They all know, wheth¬ er they are religious or not, that if the gospel of Christ exerts any legitimate and direct influence upon the principles of action, just so far they are good and reliable servants. And yet I do not believe APPENDIX. 97 that there is a slaveholder from the Potomac to the Rio Grande who would allow a man of Mr. Shehane's opinions to preach to his slaves, and I add no qualification to this remark, but this, if he did* it would be because he did not know these opinions himself. And as there will likely be some big talking done by Mr. S. on this ex¬ ception to his boasted creed, and as much of the moral safety of the country depends upon it, and it had as well be settled now, as at any future time, I will take the appeal right away to the planters on the Atlantic coast and in the interior, whether they would allow a Uni- versalian preacher to act as missionary to their slaves ? or, even as an occasional preacher? And if not, what is the reason ? It is not that these gentlemen would suspect them of abolition evils, but it is because every man knows that when a set of human beings of strong passions, and weak judgments are urged to believe that hell cannot be gained, nor heaven missed, and that nothing worse will ever hap¬ pen to a poor fellow for his sins, than a few floggings on his back* or prickings in his conscience, and that if his passions should become so rampant they should send him to the gallows, he is as sure of heaven, as if he had ended his days at the martyr's stake, his reli¬ gion will form the worst element in his nature, and add to the cor¬ rupt momentum that drives him on in sin now, by becoming in the cherished faith of his heart, an insurance office for the safety of his soul, no matter on what shoal it may fall. These are the reasons why men of sense, who can see without the possibility of a mistake, the leadings of such doctrine in their legitimate tendency over a car¬ nal heart, should reject them. Just let a sinner believe, that no greater evil will ever befall him for his transgressions, than the pun¬ ishment inflicted on his person or honor, as he supposes he has seen the Almighty taking satisfaction out of others, and if it is a matter of pleasure with him to do it, he will do it and take the chances, and if the temptation is to gain, as it often would be 011 a plantation, just let the unfortunate sinner feel that if he can escape detection, and save his back, and have no trouble here but the goadings of his conscience, that if he can only cany on his maraudings safely, until death comes to his eternal rescue, that all beyond is the raptu¬ rous smile of God, and the bliss of heaven if many of them do not take what risk there is for the chances of pleasure and gain, I am answerable for the entertainment of a wrong opinion. But let us in conclusion enquire a little more particularly into this weighty exception. We lay it down as a sort of self evident truth that whenever it appears clearly to the eye of reason, and to the con- 7 98 APPENDIX. sciences of enlightened minds, that u scheme of faith, or if you pre¬ fer it, of religion, is uiifit to be preached to any portion of our race, on the ground that it contains views, of themselves, or of the Al^ mighty Jehovah, which lead him to risk a life of sin and disobe¬ dience, it must be false. It is morally, and I think philosophically absurd to believe, that God could have devised a plan of salvation, and procl^med it by angelic ministers at the advent of his son, that he should save his people from their sins—that this great teacher should have opened his ministry by preaching repentance—that all his apostles and disciples should have preached it, (not penance, as the Romanists and Univer^alists preach,) but repentance, godly sor¬ row for sin, and not only repentance for sin, but the new birth, with the most solemn asservation,tl|atno man without it shall see the kingdom pf God, and yet, that without and beyond all this, there should be a secret and unaccountable decree, that all men, whether with or with- put this new birth, shall sde the kingdom of God. These declara¬ tions could not both be true, therefore every Universalist denies the pew birth, as taught by Christ to Nicodemus ; regarding it only as a figure, and asserts in place of it, that God by the might of his will makes us holy and takes us to heaven. Here then it is needful we should make an appeal to men of reason and common sense, whether our Lord's words in John iii; 3 and 4 are to be laid on the shelf as a mere trope, or whether they are to be held as a rule of ab¬ solute necessity. If men can be saved without the new birth, as taught by Christ, here (then Universalism may be true, but if not, then Universalism is false. For the plan of saving men by an arbi¬ trary decree of God in whom up to the moment of their death there was no godly sorrow for sin, nor experience of pardon, cannot be the new birth preached and enforced by Christ as the only fit qualifica¬ tion for God's eternal kingdom. And it should be marked down to the discredit of Universalism and its teachers, that heaven has never uttered a word on the terms of salvation, no matter how clear or strong in itself, if the natural and easy sense seemed to lie against Universalism, that they have not attacked, and in some measure at¬ tempted to neutralize or destroy. It should in my opinion be regard¬ ed as a safe and easy rule of estimating the probable truth or false¬ hood of a doctrine, pretendedly based upon the Bible, to watch the process of its defenders in their use of Scripture. If you find them uniformly leaving unnoticed passages, which in their easy un¬ sophisticated sense, go clearly and strongly to condemn the doctrine, and dwelling frequently and dogmatically upon passages in which Appendix. 99 the words reliedlifjmn, occur perhaps tlfe only tii|ie in the Bible, and^ even there in a connection which must modify? and qualify thei you may rest assured doctrine is %lse. God could neverAiave ^iven us a revelation, dictated by theppirit of truth, in a ipdnner so i|ly suited to our capacities andt^cejsities, that what it says without 4 figure, must be forced into one, aim what is conveyed in figurative language, must be understood literally. I And the time. There is no one evidence in the hist f that will tolexa£eJthe idea of our Lord's | words , from the nature of historic truth, by* f ingr I of the annihilation of Satan, occurs which he attaches,Ls forbidden by the ofbnnectio are found. The effect to be brought fibout is and no man will ever be able to see; any reaso Christ, should be necessary to justify fie perso tMisi'lMr. ,S. does all a,/ . f of the rich man, here being varied paint- ,leans, for proof £ime in the strong ce, the meaning iii which the words e ; death of Christ, why the death of 1 destruction of tlx devil, but i( was necessary to the dej&jpt of his jvonderful sch ruin maq/by the fall. f V' A" ' \ ERRATA. Page 4, eleventh line from top, for terns read termss 11, twentieth " " " for universal read universalisnt, 11, third " " bottom, after upon add the. 13, fourth " " " for appearing read affixing. 14, eleventh " " top, for thus read this. 17, twenty-second line from top, for deportmentxeQd department. 21, tenth line from bottom, after requires add more. 23, twentieth line from top, for eternal read internal. 25, eleventh " " bottom, for primitive read punitive* 27, fourteenth line from bottom, after that add they. 31, thirteenth and sixteenth lines from top for Solon read Satan. 35, nineteenth line from top, for restoral read rectoral. 49, ninth " " " " reorganized read recognized. 67, eighth " " " " recover read reckon. 87, twenty-fifth" " " " ovation read occasion. 92, seventeenth" " " " magnify read mistify. 93, thirteenth " " bottom, for description read debate. 95, tenth " " top, for deprecated read depreciated. * The word primitive occurs in several other places, read it puni¬ tive or positive as may appear best.