/, 
 
 i2i ^ 5:3^ i^ .^:^ i:^. "^2- 
 
 OF THK 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 i> o :v -A. 1* I cj >r OF" 
 
 SAMUEL AQNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Q4^o 
 
 |j Case, Du^on..: :..'... ..^ 
 
 ^' Shelf,, Sectien S 
 
 I' Booh% No 9 
 
 tj ' ■''" 
 
 
# • ••■■ 
 
Digitiz^ By the Internet Archive 
 
 in 21)09 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 /; 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/discussionofconjOOyate 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 CONJOINT QUESTION 
 
 13 THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT FOR ANY PARI" 
 OR PORTION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY TAUGHT IN THE SCRIP- 
 TURES ; OR, IS THE DOCTRINE OP THE FINAL HOLINESS AND 
 HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND 1 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 FREEMAN YATES, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, SOUTH-BERWICK, ME. 
 
 EBEN FRANCIS, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, DOVER, N. H. 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 DELIVERED IN DOVER, N. H. 
 
 IN THE MONTHS OF MARCH AND APRIL, 1343. 
 
 ii: X E TER : 
 
 PRINTED BY FRANCIS GRANT. 
 
 1843. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 The following discourses were prepared in haste, amid the multiplicity of our 
 other duties. 
 
 As the congregation, which was present on the last evening of the discussion, so 
 unanimously requested their publication, we cheerfully accede thereto. 
 
 This, we believe, will be sufficient apology for our present appearance before 
 the public. 
 
DISCUSSION, 
 
 Part I. No. I. 
 
 IN TKK UKIVEUSALIST CHURCH, WEDNESDAY EVENING, M iRCH 15,1843. 
 
 BY F. YATES. 
 
 Question : Is the doctrine of endless punishment for any 
 part or portion of the human family taught in the Scrij)- 
 tares ; or, is the doctrine of the final holiness and happiness 
 of all mankind 1 , 
 
 Questions of more importance than these were never pre- 
 sented to the mind of man. Our race, of whatever clime, has 
 ever looked towards the future with deep interest, and most 
 men, whether sage or savage, have looked forward with expec- 
 tations of future existence. 
 
 The Bible comes to us from the hand of the Father of the 
 Universe, dispelling the doubts, and confirming the faith of 
 those who receive it, by pointing them to a state of being be- 
 yond the confines of the present world. To this holy Book we 
 must turn, not only to learn the ^ac^ of oui- future existence, 
 but also the character of that existence. The great body of 
 those who regard the Bible as a revelation from God have be- 
 lieved that it teaches that man is a moral agent, governed by a 
 moral law, the proper penalty of which is endless punishment. 
 But some few, in these latter days, have risen up, and called in 
 question the doctrine of endless punishment. They tell us that 
 the world has been deceived altogether in reference to this sub- 
 ject. The Bible does not teach — what the most pious and 
 
learned men of all ages of the Christian Church have believed 
 — that " a part or portion of the human family" will be end- 
 lessly miserable, but directly the contrary, that " all mankind 
 will be finally holy and happy." If this be the truth it is im- 
 portant that it should be known ; if biblical students for 1800 
 years have failed to discover this doctrine, which, it is contend- 
 ed, was the doctrine taught by Christ and his apostles, — if this 
 discovery was reserved for the wisdom of the present age, we 
 may bless ourselves that we live in such auspicious times, that 
 the lines have fallen to us in such pleasant places ; for the dis- 
 covery of truth should always be a matter . of thanksgiving. 
 But before we congratulate ourselves too highly, let us pause a 
 few moments and examine the claims of such new teachers to 
 our confidence in their doctrine. We are commanded in scrip- 
 ture to " try the spirits, and see if they be of God," for we 
 are told that '^ false teachers shall arise." If any man bring to 
 us any other gospel than that preached by Christ and his 
 apostles, we are bound to reject it. Let us examine, therefore, 
 and see what was taught by him who " spake as never man 
 * spake," and those who were instructed at his feet. Was there 
 any such thing known in the time of Christ and his apostles as 
 the doctrine of endless punishment? and what was the conduct 
 of these teachers in reference to this subject 1 Were they 
 found opposing it, or did they take such a course as would lead 
 the believers in endless punishment to conclude that this was 
 their doctrine also ? These inquiries I shall endeavour to an- 
 swer on this occasion. 
 
 I. Was the doctrine of endless punishment believed by both 
 Jeivs and Gentiles in the days of Christ and his apostles ? In 
 answer to this question it is sufficient to say, that Universal ists 
 themselves admit that the doctrine of endless punishment was 
 extensively believed by Jews and Gentiles at the time of Christ's 
 ministry. The following are some of their testimonies on this 
 point. " The Pharisees it is well known believed in the endless 
 punishment of human souls." Lectures by W. 31. Ferncdd, p. 
 79. "It is generally admitted that the Jews, in our Savior's day, 
 maintained the Pagan notion of immortal happiness for the 
 righteous, and undying pain for the sinner." Letter in the 
 
Trumpet Feb. 3, 1838. " That the Pharisees believed in a 
 punishment after death we do not deny." Whittemorc' s Notes. 
 on the Parables, p. 62. " Jews and heathen believed in end- 
 less punishment. Balfour's Essays, p. 326. 
 
 We miofht enlarge these quotations fromUniversalist authors, 
 to show that the doctrine was generally received by both Jews 
 and Gentiles. The following is given to show how extensively 
 it prevailed among them at the time our Savior, the great teach- 
 er of truth and righteousness, was in their midst publishing his 
 own gospel. Mr. Balfour, in his inquiry, p. 260, where he at- 
 tempts to show that the Jews obtained their notions of endless 
 punishment from the heathen, says — " The introduction of this 
 and other heathen opinions among the Jews was gradual, but 
 in the days of our Lord, had become general, with perhaps the 
 exception of the sect of the Sadducees." This sect composed 
 but a small part of the Jewish nation. Having established this 
 point by the testimony of Universalists, we will inquire, 
 
 II. Was Christ or his apostles, who lived and preached i?i the 
 midst of believers in endless punishment, ever hioicn to oppose 
 this doctrine : or, were they ever opposed by others for believing 
 and preaching the contrary doctrine ? 
 
 The doctrine of endless punishment is either true or false. 
 If it is false, it is the invention of wicked men got up for un- 
 hallowed purposes. It was designed by its originators to fright- 
 en the superstitious into obedience by exciting their fears, and 
 threatening them with endless torments if they should dare to 
 go contrary to their wishes. We are told by the opposers of 
 this doctrine that it originated among the heathen, and the Jews 
 received it from them ; and that in the time of our Lord and 
 his apostles it had become general. This doctrine is regarded 
 also by its opposers as the most destructive error that ever pre- 
 vailed among men ; nay, worse than all others put together. 
 We will hear how Universalists of the present day speak in ref- 
 erence to this doctrine. What heart-rending feelings they must 
 have on account of this " dreadful error." In the so call- 
 ed Gospel Banner of Feb. 20, 1841, the editor, speaking of the 
 doctrine in question, says — " We believe it to be the greatest 
 error of our times, — one fraught with the worst results to so- 
 
ciety." The Lord save us IVora an error that reflects so inglo- 
 rioiisly upon the ever adorable perfections of Almighty God, 
 our heavenly Father. We would not see his character tra- 
 duced and slandered by such a reflection upon his nature and 
 proceedings. Neither would we see our fellow men oppressed 
 and made wretched by such a faith." " We believe its influ- 
 ence is decidedly bad — injurious to good morals, and destruc- 
 tive to human happiness. Put all the errors of the world into 
 one, and this would not equal in magnitude the one to which 
 we refer. Is it any longer a wonder in your mind, reader, that 
 we, as Universalists, should employ so much of our time in 
 preaching and writing against this grand error. Nay, we must 
 do it." Mr. Whittemore, in his Modern History of Universal- 
 ism, says, " It is an error pregnant with evil consequences above 
 every other." Again, Guide, p. 245 — "When we see the 
 deep misery and heartfelt anguish which a sincere belief in the 
 doctrine occasions, the heart bleeds for the unhappy sufferer,"* 
 These extracts are in perfect keeping with Universalist pres- 
 ses and pulpits everywhere. On the supposition that Christ 
 and his apostles had as much feeling for human woe as Univer- 
 salists of the present time, and were as capable of judging of 
 the effects of this doctrine which prevailed to such an alarming 
 extent in their day, what would be expected of them 1 of 
 him especially, whose heart was made of tenderness, and who 
 needed not that any should teach him ? Would it not be ex- 
 pected of Christ, who manifested such disinterested benevo- 
 lence for the children of men, and whose great object was to 
 secure human happiness, that he would have opposed such an 
 error as this in a manner which would have set the matter at 
 rest with his followers at least? But did he, or his apostles 
 ever come in collision with either Jew or Gentile on this sub- 
 ject 1 Where is it recorded ? Four of his disciples, who were 
 his constant followers, have given all of his history that infinite 
 wisdom saw fit for the benefit of future generations, but they 
 have not mentioned a single instance of the kind. He was oft- 
 €n found exposing other errors, trifling indeed when compared 
 
 *Tliese extracts are taken from an Essay written by Rev. N. D. George, of the 
 iMaine (Methodist) ('onforence, to which "Essay I am indebted for some of the 
 thoughts contained in tliis disoouriie. 
 
with the one of which we speak, if it be an error, l)iit no wliere 
 do we read of his coming in contact with any one on this 
 point; or warning his disciples against it, though he often warned 
 them against other errors of the day. The Pharisees frequently 
 met him with various objections, but we never read of their 
 opposing him for believing and preaching that all men would 
 be saved. 
 
 We have a brief history of the acts of the apostles, giving 
 frequent accounts of disputations with both Jews and Gentiles, 
 who were believers in endless misery, but no account of oppo- 
 sition on either hand in respect to this doctrine. We have 
 twenty-two Epistles, written by the apostles and addressed to 
 believers in endless punishment, and while they name and ex- 
 pose numerous errors the correctness of this doctrine is never 
 called in question. 
 
 " Is it not strange, passing strange, that the greatest teacher 
 the world ever saw, or ever will see, whose heart was made of 
 tenderness, should dwell in the midst of a people believino- in 
 an error which outweighs all others put together, and never once 
 raised a warning voice against it, nor showed them its man-de- 
 grading, God-dishonoring character ? His apostles too, who 
 received their theology from his own blessed lips, labored and 
 reared Churches in the midst of believers in the hated doc- 
 trine, yet nowhere in their history do we learn that they raised a 
 single note of alarm against it." 
 
 In view of the fact that the doctrine of endless punishment 
 so extensively prevailed in the days of Christ and his apostles, 
 would not their silence on this subject be enough to show that 
 they held the same doctrine, and therefore, that it is the doc- 
 trine of the Bible ? But, 
 
 III. / come now to a third inquiry. — Did Christ and his 
 Apostles use such language in their discourses and writings as 
 was used hy believers in endless punishment in reference to this 
 subject ? 
 
 It will not be necessary for me to show that Christ or his 
 apostles ever entered into any labored defence of the doctrine 
 of endless punishment to prove that it was their doctrine. As 
 this doctrine was almost universally believed, it was not necessa- 
 
8 
 
 ry that tliey should take such a course. They did not spend their 
 time in hiboring to prove what every body admitted to be true. 
 If I can show that they took the same course, and used the 
 same language, in reference to this subject, as those who are 
 admitted to be believers in endless punishment, my point will 
 be gained. 
 
 First, I will inquire, what was the character of the Savior's 
 teaching '? Was his manner of preaching calculated to con- 
 found the believers in endless punishment, or to confirm them 
 in their belief? I will suppose a case. A clergyman comes 
 into this village and seeks an introduction to my opponent as a 
 brother in the ministry. On the following sabbath he is invited 
 to officiate. He reads for his morning lesson the seventh chap- 
 ter of Matthew, the concluding portion of our Lord's Sermon 
 on the Mount. Such passages as the following are read without 
 comment : " Enter ye in at the straight gate ; for wide is the 
 gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and ma- 
 ny there be which go in thereat : because straight is the gate, 
 and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be 
 that find it." " Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, 
 shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the 
 will of my Father which is in heaven. Many shall say to me 
 in that day. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, 
 and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done 
 many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I 
 never knew you ; depart from me ye that work iniquity." 
 " And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth 
 them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his 
 house upon the sand ; and the rains descended, and the floods 
 came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it 
 fell ; and great was the fall of it." 
 
 The stranger reads for his text, " Except ye repent, ye shall 
 all likewise perish," {Luke xiii, 3.) He proceeds without any 
 labored criticisms to cxjjiain away, and gives a plain and scrip- 
 tural view of repentance. To show its necessity, he declares 
 that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 
 To show that men are pursuing a wrong course and ought to 
 turn about, he exclaims with Ezekiel, turn ye, turn ye, from 
 
9 
 
 your enil ways, for why will ye die? and with Isaiah, " Let the 
 wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, 
 and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon 
 him ; and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. For my 
 thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, 
 saith the Lord," He repeats his text, " Except ye repent ye 
 shall all likewise perish." To enforce this doctrine, he speaks 
 of the destruction of the old world by water, of the cities of 
 the plain by fire, as did Christ, — of the burial of the harden- 
 ed Egyptians in the Red Sea, and of the calamities of the Jews 
 in consequence of their impenitence. He speaks of individu- 
 als, — of Lot's wife, of Belshazer, and of Herod who was smit- 
 ten with worms. Again he repeats his text with still greater 
 emphasis, " Except ye repent, ye shall all likacise rcpasH." 
 The speaker closes wltli the language of Paul, God " now com- 
 mandeth all men everywhere to repent, because he hath ap- 
 pointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteous- 
 ness, by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts xvii. 30, 
 3L^ Would you begin to conclude that the speaker had prov- 
 ed universal salvation ? or would you not at once declare that 
 you had|been imposed upon by a bigoted partialis! ? And yet 
 this is the manner in which Christ and his apostles preached. 
 
 I shall now introduce a few passages of scripture, which I 
 regard as teaching the doctrine in question, and v/hich the Jews 
 and those addressed must have so understood. 
 
 Luke xvi. 22 — 26. " And it came to pass that the beggar 
 died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom : the 
 rich man also died, and was buried : and in hell he lifted up 
 his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and 
 Lazarus in his bosom : and he cried and said, Father Abraham 
 have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the 
 tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am torment- 
 ed in this flame. But Abraham said, son, remendjer that thou in 
 thy life-time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus 
 evil things ; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 
 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf 
 fixed ; so that they which would pass from hence to you can- 
 not ; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence." 
 
10 
 
 The object of this quotation is to show that Christ used such 
 language as was used by the Jews in reference to future and 
 eternal punishment. This will be seen at once by a quotation 
 from Josrjjiius, who lived and wrote in that age of the world. 
 Let it be remembered that Josephus was a Jewish historian. 
 The extracts are made from his discourse to the Greeks con- 
 cerning Hades, which is the word that is rendered hell in the 
 above passage. " Now as to Flades, wherein the souls of the 
 righteous and the unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to 
 speak of it. In this region there is a certain place set apart, 
 as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one 
 hath hitherto been cast, but it is prepared for a day afore deter- 
 mined of God, in which one righteous sentence shall be de- 
 servedly passed upon all men ; when the unjust, and those that 
 have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such 
 idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men, as 
 to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punish- 
 ment, as having been the cause of defilement ; while the just 
 shall obtain an incorruptible and never fading kingdom. 
 These are now indeed confined in hades, but not in the same 
 place wherein the unjust are confined." Speaking of the place 
 of the just, he says, " This place we call the bosom of Abra- 
 ham." 
 
 With these extracts, exhibiting the belief of the Jews, it is 
 easy to see how they must have understood the language of 
 Christ in the above passage. When he spoke of Lazarus be- 
 ing carried to Abraham's bosom, the mind would at once be 
 carried to the world of departed souls, and to that part of it 
 prepared for the just. " This place we call the bosom of Abra- 
 ham." When he spoke of the rich man, lifting up his eyes in 
 hades, they at once called to mind that part of the invisible 
 world in which the souls of the unjust are " retained until the 
 day afore determined of God, in which one righteous sentence 
 shall be deservedly passed upon all men." If there is no such 
 thing as future punishment, and consequently no such place as 
 that mentioned by Josephus, how can this conduct of the Sav- 
 ior be accounted for ? Does he not appear to adopt the notion 
 of the Jews ? and how will he escape the charge of deception! 
 Let my opponent attend to this matter. 
 
11 
 
 Luke xii. 4, 5. " And I say unto you, my friends, be not 
 afraid of them tiiat kill the body, but after that have no more 
 that they can do ; 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." Mark ix. 43, 44. " And 
 if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter 
 into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into 
 the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth 
 not and the fire is not quenched.'"' This last expression, 
 (where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched) 
 occurs three times in this connection. The question again 
 comes up — How did the Jews understand this language of 
 the Savior ? They could not have understood him as speaking 
 of the grave, for two reasons. 1. Whatever is meant by hell 
 here, it is a place into which man has no power to throw his 
 victim, which is not true concerning the grave. 2. There is 
 connected with this hell a worm that dlcth not, and ^fire that 
 shall never he quenched, which is not true of the grave. How 
 then would they be likely to understand this language? Sup- 
 pose it to be language familiar to them, such as they were in 
 the habit of using when speaking of endless punishment, would 
 they not be very likely to understand it as speaking of the same 
 doctrine ? I will here introduce one more extract from Jose- 
 phus, to show that this was the very language employed by the 
 Jews when speaking of endless punishment, and consequently 
 they must have understood Christ as teaching this doctrine- 
 Speaking of the judgment, (which he held to be after the res- 
 urrection,) and of the judge, he says, " at whose judgment- 
 seat, when all men and angels, and demons shall stand, — 
 they will send forth one voice, and say, just is thy judg- 
 ment ; the rejoinder to which will bring a just sentence upon 
 both parties, by giving justly to those who have done well, an 
 everlasting fruition ; but allotting to the lovers of wicked works 
 eternal punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire, 
 and that without end, and a certain fiery icorm, never dying, 
 and not destroying the body, but continuing its eruptions out 
 of the body with never ceasing grief." Here we see that 
 Christ employs their own phraseology, that with which they 
 
12 
 
 were familiar ; and with what propriety or consistency, I ask, 
 if he did not allow the doctrine ? Let my opponent answer 
 this question — if he can. 
 
 I will now call attention to Matthew xxv. 31 — 46. " When 
 the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels 
 with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and 
 before him shall be gathered all nations ; and he shall separate 
 them one from the other, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from 
 the goats : and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
 the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on 
 his right hand. Come ye blessed of my Father ; inherit the 
 kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world ; 
 for I was an hungered and ye gave me meat," &c. " Then 
 shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, 
 ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
 angels; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat," &oC. 
 " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
 righteous into life eternal." 
 
 Now call to mind the fact that the Jews believed in a gen- 
 eral judgment following the resurrection, and in the existence 
 of a devil and evil angels, and in a hell burning with unquench- 
 able fire, and that at the judgment, the wicked would go into 
 everlasting punishment ; would they not be likely to under- 
 stand Christ as teaching the same doctrine ? How otherwise 
 could they have understood his language in this discourse ? 
 Must not every candid man be constrained to admit that the 
 Lord Jesus Christ not only countenanced these opinions of 
 the Jews, but taught them clearly, and distinctly, as his own 
 doctrine 1 If then, he did not allow the doctrine of endless 
 punishment, how can his conduct on this occasion be vindica- 
 ted so as to clear him from the charge of gross hypocrisy and 
 dishonesty ? It will avail nothing to attempt to show by criti- 
 cism that the terms used here do not necessarily mean what 
 they have generally been understood to mean. For instance, 
 that the word everlasting in v. 46, does not strictly mean end- 
 less, for this is the term employed by the Jews to signify 
 endless duration, and they must have so understood it in the 
 above passage. 
 
13 
 
 As this is an important passage in this dicussion, I will offer 
 a few remarks to show that it cannot be consistently intepreted 
 so as to teach any thing short of future and endless punish- 
 ment. I suppose the only question that will come up in this 
 discussion in relation to this passage, is this, Does it relate in 
 its fulfilment to this world, or must it have its accomplishment 
 in the future state ? If I can show that it cannot he fufilled 
 in this state of existence, it will then be applied, with common 
 consent, to the resurrection state. And if the punishment 
 threatened is to be inflicted in the future \yorld, the contro- 
 versy will be at an end. 
 
 We have already seen that the Jews must have understood 
 the Savior as speaking of a general judgment at the end of this 
 world, when he will receive his saints into his everlasting 
 kingdom, and sentence the wicked to endless punishment. 
 The following considerations I think sufficient to show that 
 we must so understand it now. 
 
 1. The rewards and punishments here spoken of are to be 
 distributed ^' tvhcn the Sun of Man shall come in his glory.''' 
 This can mean nothing short of his personal appearance to our 
 world, as will appear from a ^ew passages of scripture which 
 speak of his coming in such a manner as has never yet been 
 witnessed. Matt. xxvi. 64. " Hereafter shall ye see the Son 
 of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
 clouds of heaven." — Acts i. 9, 10, 11. "And when he had 
 spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up ; and 
 a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they look- 
 ed steadfastly toward heaven, as he went up, behold, two men 
 stood by them in white apparel ; which also said, ye men of 
 Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Je- 
 sus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in 
 like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven." — 1 Thess. 
 iv. 16, 17. " For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, 
 with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the 
 trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then 
 we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together 
 with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ; and so 
 shall we ever be with the Lord." — Rev. i. 7. "Behold, he 
 
14 
 
 comelh \vi(h clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they 
 also, which pierced him ; and all the kindred of the earth shall 
 wail because of him." 
 
 These quotations are sufficient to establish the following 
 points : 
 
 (1) The Son of man is to come again, — " this same Jesus — 
 the Lord himself." 
 
 (2) He is to come " in like manner" as he icent up in the clouds 
 of heaven " toith the voice of the archangel, and with the trump 
 of God." 
 
 (3) His coming will be visible, — "ye shall see him, every 
 eye shall see him." 
 
 (4) " The dead in Christ" tcill then have a resurrection. 
 
 I think it is now proved that the coming of " the Son of Man 
 in his glory" cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but 
 to his coming to judge the world in their resurrection state. In 
 farther support of this view, I remark, 
 
 2. That his coming is to be accompanied by "all the holy 
 angels." When has Christ ever yet appeared with all the holy 
 angels ? 3. " He shall sit upon the throne of his glonf at his 
 coming here spoken of How did Christ sit upon the throne of 
 his glory at the destruction of Jerusalem, any more than he did 
 at the fall of Babylon ? 
 
 4 " Ml nations shall be gathered" before Christ at his coming 
 here referred to. Has this ever taken place ? 
 
 5. Christ shall " separate" the gathered nations at that time. 
 This has never taken place, nor will it till the general judg- 
 ment. 
 
 6. The righteous are to be reioarded at this coming of Christ, 
 such as cannot take place in this world ; for the reward is in 
 consideration of actions that are passed, and they are put in 
 possession of a " kingdom" which they did not before possess ; 
 which cannot, therefore, be the gospel dispensation. 
 
 7. At the coming of Christ described in the text, the wick- 
 ed will be sentenced to " everlasting punishment. 
 
 As these considerations show conclusively that this passage 
 must be applied to the resurrection state, it is therefore proved 
 that " a part or portion of the human family" will endure " end- 
 less punishment." 
 
15 
 
 Having examined the character of Christ's preaching in ref- 
 erence to future and eternal punishment, we will now inquire ' 
 into the manner in which the apostles preached and wrote in 
 respect to this subject. It has already been remarlced that not 
 an instance can be found where they directly opposed the doc- 
 trine of endless punishment, though they travelled extensively 
 among Jews and Gentiles, and held frequent controversies 
 with them on various subjects. In all the twenty-two Epistles 
 written by them under the inspiration of the Almighty, no in- 
 stance of opposition to this doctrine can be found. How does 
 this look when compared with the labors and productions of the 
 opposers of this doctrine at the present day ? What would be 
 thought of a Uuiversalist Minister of the present day, who 
 should publish a single sermon and not distinctly oppose the 
 doctrine of endless punishment ? Would his people be satisfied 
 with it. 
 
 But I am prepared to show that the apostles, like their divine 
 teacher, employed language directly calculated to confirm the 
 believers in endless misery, and which has led the brightest 
 intellects that have ever adorned Christendom to believe that 
 they taught this doctrine. 
 
 Take for example the language of Paul, 2 Thess. 1. 7 — 9. 
 " When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with 
 his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them 
 that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlastuig destruc- 
 tion from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
 power." Is not this strange talk for a Universalist mjnister ? 
 especially when writing to believers in endless misery ! Would 
 those who claim to be his brethren of the present day be guilty 
 of such a thing ? Let the candid think of this. 
 
 I know of but two applications that are made of this text. 
 Believers in endless punishment generally apply it to a day of 
 general judgment, when the Lord Jesus shall make his appear- 
 ance to be glorified in his saints, and sentence the wicked to 
 endless punishment. Those who deny that the doctrine of end- 
 less punishment is taught in the scriptures, apply it to the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. To the latter application of this pas- 
 sage, I have three objections : 
 
16 
 
 1. Tlie cliurcli at Thessalonica was not composed of Jews, 
 but principally of devout Greeks and converted heathen. 
 "Hence," says Dr. Clarke, "we find in the epistle but few 
 allusions to the Jews, and but few references to the peculiarities 
 of their civil or religious institutions." 
 
 2. This church was situated too far from Jerusalem to be ma- 
 terially affected by the judgments which befell this devoted ci- 
 ty. Thessalonica was a city in Europe distant nearly one 
 thousand miles from the noise and blood of the siege that prov- 
 ed the overthrow of the Jews." 
 
 3. The declaration of the apostle in the second chapter of this 
 epistle uiterly forbids the application of this text to the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem. In his first Epistle he had spoken of the sec- 
 ond advent of Christ, and it seems that some at least, supposed 
 that it was about to take place. But he writes again unto them, 
 and takes occasion to set them right on this subject. And how 
 does he do it ? by informing them that he only meant that Je- 
 rusalem would be destroyed by the Romans ? No ! He reas- 
 sures them of theyac^ that Christ is to come again, but proceeds 
 to inform them that the event is not about to take place as some 
 supposed. He says, " Now we beseech you, brethren, by the 
 coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering togeth- 
 er unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, 
 neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as 
 that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by 
 any means ; for that day shall not come, except there come a 
 falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of 
 perdition ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is 
 called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God, sitteth 
 in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God !" 
 
 This man of sin, who must be revealed before Christ could 
 come, is considered by commentators generally to mean Pa- 
 pacy, which was not revealed till centuries after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. Therefore, it is certain that the text under con- 
 sideration cannot refer to that event ; but it must refer to the 
 coming of Christ to punish the ungodly, and to be glorified in 
 his saints in the end of this world. 
 
 If my limits would permit, I should like to introduce the tes- 
 timony of all the apostles, but time will not allow it. I hasten 
 to inquire, 
 
17 
 
 IV. Were the Chr'xst'mn' s fathers , xcho lived in, and immediate- 
 ly after, the days of the Apostles, believers in the doctrine of end- 
 less punishment ? 
 
 If those who were converted to Christianity by the Apostles, 
 and Avho associated with them in the christian ministry, and oth- 
 ers who lived immediately after their time, were believers in the 
 doctrine of endless punishment, the fact will go far to prove 
 that the apostles were believers and advocates of this doctrine. 
 I do not appeal to the fathers as doctrinal, but as historical au- 
 thority. If Christ and his apostles were believers in no future 
 punishment, and that all men will be finally holy and happy, 
 the apostles of course would not have omitted to instruct the 
 churches collected by them, in such important doctrines, for no 
 faithful Universalist preacher would fail in this part of his duty. 
 
 This being the case, we should expect to find a clear state- 
 ment of these sentiments in the early christian writings, espe- 
 cially of those fathers who were cotemporary with, or immedi- 
 ately succeeding the apostles. But this is so far from being the 
 case, that the nearer we approach the apostolic age, the less 
 do we find of any thing that looks like such sentiments." The 
 writings of Barnabas, (the companion of St. Paul,) Clement of 
 Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who were cotempora- 
 ry with the apostles, have come down to us ; also the writings 
 of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Theophilus, and others. 
 Now where, we ask, in the writings of all the fathers is to be 
 found that there is no future and eternal punishment } Where 
 have they once said that all mankind will be finally holy and 
 happy .=" Universalists do not pretend to find these sentiments 
 in their writings, but on the contrary, they admit that the fath- 
 ers prior to A. D. 196 maintained the opposite sentiment. H. 
 Ballou 2d. in History of Universalism, p. 67, says in reference to 
 those who lived and wrote prior to A. D. 196, that nearly all al- 
 lude to, or expressly assert a future judgment, and a future state 
 of punishment, seven call it the everlasting, the eternal fire tor- 
 ments. Again he says of them " that there was a future state 
 of suffering, they all agreed, p. 83." 
 
 I might make extracts from accredited translations of the 
 fathers, showing that they fully believed and taught the doc- 
 trine of endless punishment ; but one only shall suffice. Jus- 
 
 n 
 
18 
 
 tin Martyr vvi'oh; his apologies lor the Christians about 50 years 
 from the death of St. John. In stating the belief of Christians 
 to the Roman Emperor, he says, "And moreover we say, that 
 the goals of the wicked, being reunited to the same bodies, shall 
 be consigned over to eternal torments, and not, as Plato would 
 have it, to the period of a thousand years only ; but if you will 
 affirm this to be incredible, or impossible, there is no help, but 
 you must fall from error to error till the day of judgment con- 
 vinces you that we are right." 
 
 I will now bring this argument to a close, by stating what 
 has been proved, 
 
 1st. It has been proved from the admissions and testimonies 
 of Universalist authors, that the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment was generally believed by Jews and Gentiles in the days 
 of Christ and his apostles. 
 
 2d. It has been affirmed that Christ and his apostles never, in 
 a single instance, opposed citiier Jew or Gentile on account of 
 this doctrine, which we are told is " worse than all the other 
 errors put together," nor were they ever known to warn their 
 followers against it ; and farther, that no instance can be found 
 in which they were opposed for preaching the opposite doctrine. 
 I call on my opponent to give us one instance of the kind from 
 the whole New Testament, only one — this he cannot do. 
 
 3d. It has been proved that Christ and his apostles, so far 
 from opposing this doctrine, imbodied thieir sentiments in refer- 
 ence to the punishment of the wicked, in the same language 
 employed by the Jews to express endless punishment. 
 
 4th, It has been proved that the churches gathered by the 
 apostles were, so far as is known, believers in endless punish- 
 ment. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment was taught by Christ and his apostles, and is, consequent- 
 ly, the doctrine of the Bible. 
 
DISCUSSION, 
 
 Part I. No. II. 
 
 I.V THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, MARCH 15, 184^ 
 BYE. FRANCIS, 
 
 REJOINDER. 
 
 *' He that is first In /ws own cause seemeth just ; but his nei^h- 
 kor comeih and searchelh him." 
 
 PROv. xviii. 17. 
 
 I HAVE selected this language of the wise man, as a suitabl« 
 motto for my rejoinder to the discourse to which you have Hst- 
 ened from my brother in the ministry, yet of an opposite faith 
 in some important points. 
 
 And here it is proper that I should remark, that this contro- 
 versy is not one of my seeking. The challenge, if such it may 
 be called, came from my brother, and, as it is my pleasure and 
 my duty to speak in behalf of the ' ' doctrine once delivered to 
 the saints," and which is nearly "every where spoken against" 
 in the religious world, I should be recreant to my calling, did 
 I refuse to meet what I deem error, with the sword of God's 
 truth. 
 
 My prayer to the great Father of spirits, is, that I may be 
 enabled to proceed in my investigations and remarks with can- 
 dor; that I may be kept from exhibiting any other disposition, 
 than that of my master; and that the grand object before my 
 mind, shall be, to learn 'what is h'uth.' -v 
 
20 
 
 My brother, after delivering his introduction, has presented 
 the discourse under four separate divisions. I propose to re- 
 ply in the same order. 
 
 I agree with him that the questions we are discussing, are 
 of the highest importance ; and that it is to the Holy Bible all 
 " must turn, not only to learn the foci, but also the character 
 of the future existence." 
 
 I do not feel willing to allow the assertion, that only " some 
 few in these latter days,'' declare that, " the Bible does not teach 
 what the inost pious and learned men of all ages of the chris- 
 tian church have believed" concerning endless punishment. 
 But, as one assertion is of as much weight as another; [I meet/ 
 this with the declaration that there have been " biblical stu- 
 dents, "all along through these " 1800 years" past, who have not 
 only " discovered," but rejoiced in and published to the world, the 
 truth " that all mankind will be finally holy and happy." And 
 this fact I am prepared to prove, as also the heathen origin of 
 the commonly received sentiment, in the religious world, that . 
 " some part or portion of the human family, will be endlessly ' 
 miserable."/ But this is not required by our question, which 
 makes the Sacred Scriptures the test; and not the opinions of 
 those whose outer tabernacles have long since crumbled away 
 to dust. 
 
 I agree with my brother that we must " try the spirits,'" and 
 " if any man bring to us any other gospel, than that preached 
 by Christ and his apostles, we are bound to reject it." 
 
 Methinks I might with propriety style my brother and his 
 co-workers " ?iett; teachers," since his denomination cannot 
 trace its existence as such, I believe, much over one century. 
 
 I. The first question, in my brother's discourse, that forms a 
 particular division, is this — " Was the doctrine of endless pun- 
 ishment believed hy both Jeios and Gentiles in the days of Christ 
 and his ApostlesV He has quoted from Universalist writers, 
 sufficiently, to convince the most doubting, that we acknowl- 
 edge its truth ; and further, he has presented testimony from 
 our authors, that the doctrine came not from God, but that it 
 was a Pagan notion. 
 
 He does not deny its heathenish origin. As he has quoted 
 "Balfour," among others, as authority, I will quote i^e same 
 
21 
 
 language with a few sentences preceding and sncceediiio- it. 
 After tixing two important points in reply to a question wliicli 
 he proposes, he says, "Again, it is stated by Dr. Campbell, 
 and others, that during, and after the Babylonish captivity, the 
 Jews came to learn from the heathen, the notion of endless 
 punishment in a future state. This we have seen above. The 
 introduction of this, and other heathen opinions among the 
 Jews, was gradual, but in the days of our Lord had become 
 general, with perhaps the exception of the sect of the Saddu- 
 cees. / But though they learned from the heathen tiiis notion 
 of a place of endless punishment, they could not learn from 
 them, to call it by the name Gehenna, Ibr this was a Hebrew 
 term." / 
 
 Gehe.nna, I should remark, is a word that "is uniformly 
 rendered the valley of Hinnom, throughout the Old Testa- 
 ment; it occurs in the New Testament twelve times, and is 
 rendered hell every time by the English translators and by Lu- 
 ther, though it is seldom so rendered in any foreign version.— 
 As the name of a well known place near Jerusalem, it is 
 as improper to render it hell, as it would be to render ' Baby- 
 lon,' or 'Egypt' by the word hell." 
 
 Enough has now been said upon this first division, to which 
 I cheerfully assent. 
 
 n. My brother's second position, is in defence of this ques- 
 tion: " Was Christ or his apostles icho lived and preached in 
 the midst of believers in endless misery, ever known to oppose this 
 doctrine; or ivere they ever opposed by others for believing and 
 preaching the contrary doctrine V 
 
 My brother says "the doctrine of endless punishment is 
 either true or false." No one will dispute this. He tells us 
 how he conceives it must have originated, if it is false. And 
 as I have already said, I cannot discover that he pretends to 
 deny its false— its heathen birth or invention. He does not, 
 I beheve, tell us from whence it came if true. Probably the 
 inference was intended to be drawn, that it came from the 
 all-wi.se JEHOVAH. " To the law and to the testimony" we 
 must then look as the criterion. 
 
 /The feelings of Universalists, towards the sentiment we are] 
 considering, my brother has faithfully proclaimed to you,ywitl 
 
22 
 
 some of our reasons i'or cherishing them. He then argues: 
 " On the supposition that Christ and his apostles liad as much 
 trelitig for human woe, and were as capable of judging of the 
 etfects of this doctrine, which prevailed to such an extent in 
 their day," as we have, " it would be expected of them, that 
 they would have opposed such an error." 
 
 And he further thinks it "strange, passing strange," that 
 Christ and his apostles "no where in their history," so 
 far as he can learn, " ever raised a single note of alarm a- 
 gainst it." This is a bold assertion — is it the fact. ^ Under 
 his first head my brother quotes from "Fernald." I quote 
 the same language with a portion of its context, in reply to the 
 position I am now noticing. " The dodrinc of endless punish- 
 ment is expresshj contradicted by the Hohj Scyiptiiyes. With 
 reference to this, we must consider the acknowledged difficulty 
 of proving a negative. The Scriptures rather tell us what is 
 true, than labor to explode what is 7iot true." 
 
 " The Pharisees, it is well known, believed in the endless 
 punishment of human souls. Their doctrine was, that the 
 souls of tlie wicked, at death, passed immediately into a state 
 of never ending torment. Yet our Savior (Matt. xvi. 12) said 
 to his disciples, without an)- reservation, "Beware of the doc- 
 trine of the Pharisees!" — a very singular circumstance, if that 
 one doctrine, which is magnified as the very pillar of morality 
 in our day, was the truth of the Almighty. Why should Jesus 
 caution against the doctrine of the Pharisees, so sweepingly 
 and so unreservedly, if they held at least one of the most im- 
 portant, soul-saving truths? They did, unquestionably, teach 
 the doctrine of endless punishment, and yet our Savior said. 
 Beware! And so say we. "Beware of the doctrine of the 
 Pharisees!" Christ and his apostles wei^e not ' silenV on this 
 subject, but in consequence of their preaching the opposite 
 sentiment they met with trials and afflictions. 
 
 Jesus was despised because he was " the friend of sinners." 
 Those old, self-righteous Jews were not willing that such vile 
 creatures, that all should be brought to repentance. 
 
 My brother says on this head, at the close of his discourse — 
 " No instance can be found in which they [the disciples] were 
 opposed for preaching the opposite doctrine," — i. e. the final 
 sal^tiott of all men. He says, " I call upon my opponent to 
 
23 
 
 ^ivc us one instance oi" the kind from the whole New Testii- 
 inent — only one. This he cannot do." Well, inv friends, I 
 will produce one inslance, and will submit to your candid 
 judgment whether it meets the case or not. 1 Timothy iv. 10. 
 " For therefore wc both labor and suffer reproach, because we 
 trust in the liring God, who is the Savior of all men, especialhj 
 (f those that believe." I need offer no comments. Paul the a- 
 postle, gives his own reason, why they sutfered reproach. 
 
 I have thus replied to the second position of the discourse, 
 and have shown that we have no reason to suppose that Christ 
 or his apostles, from any thing they suffered, or any thing they 
 did not say, believed in the doctrine of endless punishment, 
 or, that it is the doctrine of the Bible. 
 
 III. " I come now to the third inquirij ;" and this is the mo.st 
 important division. On this, the question under discussion 
 comes directly into consideration. " Is the doctrine of endless 
 punishment for any part or portion of the human family taught in 
 the Scriptures'?" 
 
 My brother presents the subject under the following 
 question: 
 
 " Did Christ and his apostles use such language in their dis- 
 courses and ivritings as ivas used by believers in endless punish- 
 ment in reference to that subjectV An affirmative answer to 
 this question, appears to be assumed; for my brother so far 
 from attempting to present language commonly used by the be- 
 lievers in endless punishment as descriptive of their views; and 
 then presenting testimony of the same kind, from the teachings 
 of Christ and the apostles, — says, " They did not spend their 
 time in laboring to prove what every body admitted to be true." 
 And further — " If I can show that they took the same course, 
 and used the same language in reference to this subject, as 
 those who are admitted to be believers in endless punishment, 
 my point will be gained." 
 
 I. In support of this last declaration he speaks first of the 
 character of the Savior's teaching. He introduces a case in 
 illustration of his theme, and quotes freely from Matt. 7th 
 chapter; he also mentions the supposed preacher's text, and 
 gives an outline of his discourse. It is not necessary that I 
 should notice this further than to remark, that Universalists 
 
24 
 
 profess to receive the teacliings of Christ as truth ; and that we 
 believe in the necessity of repentance, true, sincere repentance; 
 as firmly as any christians. I might ofF-set the illustration by 
 another of the same sort, though to his mind, perhaps, oppo- 
 site in its main features. But he does not present his supposed 
 case, I believe, as proof of the affirmative of his question, 
 therefore it is not my duty to examine the Scriptures quoted, 
 in this place. I will only add, that as I have learned Christ 
 and the apostles, they preached differently from what is rep- 
 resented in the illustration ; to be sure he has strimg passages 
 from difterent parts of the bible together; but that amounts to 
 nothing if they are perverted from their true meaning. Hard- 
 ly one of those passages, will he or his fellow believers, 
 rely upon as proof of their doctrine of endless punishment. 
 
 We come now to those passages from the Savior's teach- 
 ings, that my brother conceives, to be the strongest proofs of 
 his sentiment of endless punishment. They are found in Luke 
 xvi. 22 — 26: Luke xii. 4, 5: Mark ix. 43, 44, and Matthew 
 XXV. 31 — 46. Four distinct passages: these he gives us as 
 proof texts of the '' endless funishment of a part or portion of 
 the human family. Now what think you, my friends, when we 
 declare unto you that three of these are parables; — three out 
 of the yb?(r passages. The parable of the Rich Man and Laz- 
 arus ; the parable of the Offending Hand; and the parable of 
 the Sheep and Goats. 
 
 And what are parables? Are they literal histories of facts, 
 and circumstances that have transpired, or will take place ? 
 None will presume to make such an assertion I think. The 
 word parable signifies an allegory, a fable, a fictitious narra- 
 tion. Bishop Lowth describes a parable thus, — "it is that 
 kind of allegory which consists of a continued narration of a 
 fictitious event, applied by way of simile, to the illustration 
 of some important truth." The parable of the poor man and 
 his ewe lamb, related by the prophet Nathan to king David, 
 (2 Samuel xii. 1 — 6) is a beautiful illustration, of the use that 
 are made of them strikingly to illustrate and enforce important 
 truths. Now no one would think of interpreting that fable as 
 a literal fact. The parables of Christ were drawn chiefly from 
 the manners, customs, occupations, and vicAvs of the Jews. 
 
25 
 
 Sometimes he made them to conform to the religious prejudi- 
 ces and superstitions of the Israelites, yet without endorsing 
 these superstitions as truth. The parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus is of this description. 
 
 All the doctrinal and moral truths and principles of the gos- 
 pel are revealed by the Savior in plain, distinct and literal 
 language, without figure or parable. Parables are not actual 
 histories. The Savior uttered them simply to illustrate and 
 bring more directly to the comprehension of his hearers, truths 
 which he, in other instances, expressed in the most distinct and 
 literal language. These remarks we wish the hearer to keep 
 in remembrance, as they have a general application to the par- 
 ables presented for our examination. Luke xvi. 22 — 26. The 
 parable commences with the 19th verse, and closes with the 
 31st. My brother's quotation, however, commences with the 
 22d verse. "Audit came to pass that the beggar died, and 
 was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man 
 also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, 
 being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus 
 in his bosom; and he cried and said, father Abraham, have 
 mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of 
 his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am tormented in 
 this flame. But Abraham said, son, remember that thou in thy 
 lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil 
 things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And 
 besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fix- 
 ed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; 
 neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." 
 
 My brother says, on this parable: " The object of this quo- 
 tation is to show that Christ used such language as was used 
 by the Jews, in reference to future and eternal punishment." 
 And in proof of this he quotes at length from Josephus, who 
 discoursed to the Greeks — Heathens — Pagans — on the no- 
 tion of Hades, or, as it is translated, hell. Well, what if 
 Christ did use similar language, for the purpose of illustrating 
 and setting forth, in a forcible manner, to the understanding of 
 his hearers, some great truth he wishsd to impress upon their 
 minds. Does that prove that he acknowledged such language 
 or such ideas as literally true ? not unless he applies it to the 
 4 
 
26 
 
 same object. Well, does Christ apply this parable to the fu- 
 ture state of existence ? This is assumed. My brother does 
 not show how Christ does this. I call for proof upon this 
 point. What is there in the parable itself or its connection, 
 that will convince us that it is a description of endless punish- 
 ment? Why,* the word /iar7c5 is found in the 23d verse ; and 
 hades or hell as it is translated, is supposed to be decisive evi- 
 dence of a place of endless punishment having been prepared 
 for a " part or portion of the human family." 
 
 We are told that by Abraham's bosom, is meant " that 
 part of the world of departed souls, prepared for the just." It 
 was there that the Angels carried Lazarus. We would like to 
 know what right Lazarus had there, if he was a. just man in 
 this world ? From aught the record tells us, he might have 
 been heir to large estates, and by a course of profligacy and 
 wickedness, become diseased in body, and so poverty stricken 
 as to be forced to beg for a morsel of bread, to sustain a mis- 
 erable life. By hades we are told is meant " that part of the in- 
 visible world in which the souls of the unjust are retained un- 
 til the" day of general judgment. When that is to be nobody 
 knovTs. 
 
 We wish to know what great crime the rich man had com- 
 mitted, that should doom him to this place ? The record 
 makes no charge against him, only that he was rich in this 
 world's goods, it does not tell us he was unjust, for aught we 
 know he might have been one of the most charitable, kind- 
 hearted, and benevolent individuals that ever lived. My 
 brother, perhaps, has some knowledge about this matter that I 
 have not. 
 
 I will offer a remark or two upon the word hades, and leave 
 this parable, as time will not be sufficient to examine it tho- 
 roughly. 
 
 Upon the word Hades I presume my brother rests his argu- 
 ment. This word occurs eleven times in the New Testament, 
 and is in every instance save one, translated by the English 
 term hell. Hades is a Greek word that corresponds with the 
 Hebrew word Sheol; and in almost every instance throughout 
 the Old Testament the LXX, who made what is denominated 
 the Septuagint translation, about 277 years before Christ, have 
 translated tTie original Hebrew Shcol by the Greek Hades. 
 
27 
 
 111 order therefore to learn the true meaning of the word 
 Hades in the New Testament, we must ascertain its meaning 
 in the Old Testament. 
 
 Now these words in the Old Testament, never signify a 
 place of literal torment. The original and true meaning of 
 these words, have reference to the state of the dead, without 
 any reference to their happiness or misery — the place to 
 which the Jews believed the souls of all the dead went when 
 they left the body. This is the sole and invariable meaning 
 of these words. I do not think my brother will pretend to de- 
 ny this. 
 
 Dr. Whitby says — " Sheol throughout the Old Testament, 
 and Hades in the Septuagint, answering to it, signify, not the 
 place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the 
 grave only, or the place of death." Much other testimony of 
 like character, might be produced if necessary. The one to 
 which I alluded is 1 Cor. xv. 55 — where hades is translated 
 grave. " O grave [hades] where is thy victory V It would 
 have been just as proper to have used the word hell as the 
 translation of hades, in this instance, as in any other portion 
 of the New Testament. My brother will not deny this. 
 
 I must hasten to his second proof text. Luke xii. 4, 5. 
 " And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that 
 kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. 
 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : Fear him which af- 
 ter he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea I say unto 
 you, Fear him." This my brother has connected with the parable 
 of the Offending Hand. He says nothing upon the passage it- 
 self, to prove that it has particular reference to the sentiment, 
 that a part or portion of the human family will suffer " endless 
 punishment." He assumes that the word Hell, here, refers to 
 another world. The original word in this passage is Gehenna, 
 and the same word occurs in his third proof text, which I will 
 presently notice. Upon this passage in Luke, I need only re- 
 mark, that I believe as ^xm\y diS d.ny la i\\e infinite poiver of 
 God, 
 It will be seen by examining the connection, and more par- 
 
28 
 
 ticularly the account which Matthew has given, (ch. x.) that 
 Jesus having called the tioclve disciples, and given them their 
 mission, proceeded to give them certain instructions which he 
 deemed needful, and further he tells them whom they should 
 fear, and whom they should not fear ; viz. — that they should 
 not fear human tribunals, those men whose power was limited ; 
 but they should fear the great God ; that Being who is all pow- 
 erful — who is infinite. Enough, however, upon this passage. 
 III. The next proof text is Mark ix. 43, 44. " And if thy 
 hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into 
 life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the 
 fire that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth not, 
 and the fire is not quenched." Upon this and the former pas- 
 sage, my brother gives " two reasons" why the Jews " could 
 not have understood Jesus as speaking of the grave," They 
 are good reasons, such as I suppose any Universalist would 
 give. I agree with him, there is no reference to the grave. 
 He introduces another extract from Josephus in further proof 
 of the opinions of the Jews concerning Aarfcs. And triumph- 
 antly calls upon his opponent, to answer this question : he says, 
 " Here we see that Christ employs their own phraseology, that 
 with which they were familiar, and with what propriety or con- 
 sistency, I ask, if he did not allow the doctrine?" Well, my 
 friends, I am not disposed to answer this question ; for the ve- 
 ry good reason that the original word in the two passages ren- 
 dered hell, is not hades, but Gehenna. My brother has made 
 a slight mistake in reference to the passage under considera- 
 tion. The English word hell is used by our translators, for 
 four different words in the Bible ; namely, Sheol a Hebrew 
 word, and of course always found in the Old Testament, and 
 occurs in 64 instances; in 32 it is rendered hell, and in the oth- 
 er 32 it is rendered pit and grave. Hades is a Greek transla- 
 tion of Sheol, and always has the same meaning. We have al- 
 ready spoken of these two words. The other two words are 
 Tartarus and Gehenna. The former Tartarus does not really 
 occur at all, but a denominative verb derived from it, which is 
 rendered * cast down to hell.' It is found only once, in 2 Peter 
 ii. 4. Gehenna occurs 12 times, and is uniformly rendered 
 hell. I have already spoken of this word in the first division 
 
29 
 
 of my discourse. My brother applies it to another world; or 
 rather the passage under consideration. His argument was 
 intended to have a special bearing upon this parable of the Of- 
 fending Hand — yes, this fable, fictitious narration, or allego- 
 ry, designed by the Savior to illustrate some important truth. 
 The inquiry that presents itself then, is, what was the object 
 of Jesus in addressing his disciples thus? We answer — that 
 it was to warn his followers of the necessity of casting aside 
 every personal habit or gratification, that could prove an ob- 
 stacle to their giving themselves up wholly to the service of 
 their Master. This will be learned from the context. 
 
 By the words enter into life, we conceive the Savior to sig- 
 nify an entrance into the belief of the gospel. In support of 
 this idea I will quote from John vi. 63, where Jesus said on a 
 certain occasion, " The words that I speak unto you, they are 
 spirit, and they are life." Again, he exclaimed, John v. 24, 
 " Verily, verily I. say unto you, he that heareth my icord, and 
 believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall 
 not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto 
 life." 
 
 But what does Hdl or Gehenna mean, " where the worm 
 dieth not and the fire never shall be quenched ]" 
 
 The word Gehenna is derived from two Greek [Hebrew] 
 words, which being united make Gee Hinnom, (Gehenna) the 
 valley of Hinnom. Professor Stewart informs us that it is a 
 part (the eastern section) of the pleasant wadi, or valley, which 
 bounds Jerusalem on the south. " Here, in ancient times, and 
 under some of the idolatrous kings, the worship of Molock. 
 the horrid idol god of the Ammorites, was practised. To this 
 idol children were offered in sacrifice." " It was hollow 
 within; and being heated by fire, children were laid in its 
 arms, and were there literally roasted alive." " After these [idol- 
 atrous] sacrifices had ceased, the place was desecrated and 
 made one of loathing and horror. The pious king Josiah 
 caused it to be polluted — that is, he caused to be carried 
 there the filth of Jerusalem. It would seem that the custom 
 of desecrating this place, thus happily begun, was continued, in 
 after ages, down to the period when our Savior was on earth. 
 Perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the offal 
 
30 
 
 which was deposited there." In time, it came to be the place 
 where criminals were executed by burning to death. The Jews 
 therefore, viewed this Gehenna with great dislike and horror. 
 Schleusner tells us that " every severe punishment, and par- 
 ticularly every ignominious kind of death, was called by the 
 name of Gdimna" — or hell. 
 
 There is no proof that the Savior, or the Jews of his day, 
 ever used the word to signify a place of endless wretchedness. 
 We should understand the phrase, " where their worm dieth 
 not," &c. as indicative of the intensity of the punishments in- 
 flicted. Prof Stuart says, " Perpetual fires were kept up [in 
 the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna] in order to consume the 
 ofFal that was deposited there. And as the same offal would 
 breed worms, (for so all putrifying meat of course does,) hence 
 came the expression, where their toorm dieth not, and the Jire 
 is not quenched.^' 
 
 We therefore understand the words, " cast into hell," or " go 
 into hell" figuratively, as becoming involved in calamities and 
 woes, in consequence of sinful gratifications. 
 
 Jesus instructed his disciples that it was their duty to put 
 away all habits, practices, and inclinations that would interfere 
 with duty, and enter into the life and enjoyment of the gospel, 
 rather than by neglecting duty, apostatize from their Master, 
 and become involved in the dreadful woes which were soon to 
 come upon the Jews for their wickedness. 
 
 We are informed by historians that those who apostatized 
 were involved in the calamities that soon after overwhelmed 
 the Jewish nation. They were cast into Gehenna, into a scene 
 of distress, and suffering, and awful horror, such as the world 
 has never witnessed in any other instance. But enough — ex- 
 cepting in one case, Gehcmna, was never used by any New 
 Testament writer beside our Savior ; and it never occurs in 
 the Gospel of John, in the Acts and preachings of the Apos- 
 tles, nor in all the Epistles of Peter, Paul, John and Jude ; 
 and yet this is the word, the only word, which our opposers re- 
 ly on as the name of their supposedly endless hell, in the orig- 
 inal Scriptures ! ! ! I have spoken at greater length upon this 
 parable than I at first intended. 
 
 IV. I pass to the fourth proof text. The parable of the 
 Sheep and Goats — Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. 
 
31 
 
 This my brother says is an important passage in llie discus- 
 sion. He wishes the hearer to keep in mind certain facts. I 
 wish the hearer also to keep in mind certain facts. Remember 
 that this is Vi parable. That it was one of several which Jesns 
 delivered to his disciples in reply to certain questions thty 
 asked Jiim. 
 
 The question before us is — Does this allegory " teach the 
 doctrine of endless punishment for any part or portion of the 
 human family?" My brother asserts that it does, and has en- 
 deavored to prove that it is specially applicable to the future 
 world. He says — " We have already seen that the Jews must 
 have understood the Savior as speaking of the general judg- 
 ment at the end of this world." 
 
 Where, we would ask, has he shown this 1 But let this pass. 
 It so happens that this parable was spoken not to the Jews, but 
 to the Disciples as my brother may learn by consulting Matt, 
 xxiv. 3. His propf that the passage describes something yet to 
 take place is, that it is to be " When the Son of Man shall 
 come in his glory ; which must mean Christ's second appear- 
 ing. He quotes four passages which refer to this event, as he 
 thinks. As they are not proof texts on the question under dis- 
 cussion, I need not notice them farther, than to assert that 
 Christ has already made his second advent, which I stand rea- 
 dy to prove. I pass therefore hastily over his conclusions 
 drawn from those passages ; he having assumed the ground, 
 that there is to be a day of general judgment; which should first 
 be proved, as something yet to be. The last verse of the par- 
 able seems to be the important part. " And these shall go 
 away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life 
 eternal." It is not necessary that I should declare that the 
 word everlasting does not always signify endless when it occurs 
 in the Bible ; this, my brother acknowledges. The true mean- 
 ing of the word is to be determined from the connection in 
 which it is found. This reward of eternal life and doom of 
 everlasting punishment was to be dispensed at the time of the 
 coming of the Son of Man. By examining the questions in 
 the 3d verse of the xxivth chapter of Matt, it will be found 
 that what follows in that chapter, and what is contained in the 
 xxvth was spoken in reply to them. 
 
32 
 
 The questions were, When shall these things be ? and what 
 shnll be tlie sign of thy coming and of the end of the world ? 
 
 When shall what things be ? Why the things of which he 
 had before been speaking ; the destruction of the Jewish Tem- 
 ple ; and the overthrow of that nation ; and the end of the 
 Jewish age. The phrase rendered " end of the woi'ld," does 
 not signify the end of the material universe ; — it is not Kos- 
 mos but Aion, which signifies age. We nowhere read in the 
 New Testament of the end of the material world ; though we 
 do read of the " End nf the Age." 
 
 It is a fact too well known to require proof, that the Jewish 
 Temple was destroyed ; that the nation was overthrown in a 
 dreadful manner by the Roman Armies, more than seventeen 
 centuries ago. At that time the wicked Jews figuratively 
 speaking, went away into everliisting punishment; and the 
 Christian believers entered into life eternal ; they enjoyed the 
 special blessings promised them here ; while those unbelievers, 
 the Jews suffered the judgment pronounced upon them. And 
 they still suffer it ; they are despised and persecuted in our 
 own day. 
 
 My brother having presented these three parables of the Sav- 
 ior with the passage in Luke xii. proceeds to quote one pas- 
 sage from the Epistles of Paul in support of the affirmatipe of 
 the question. 
 
 Before noticing that, I wish to call your attention to the fact 
 that his proofs, have not been accompanied, with that which is 
 equivalent to a " Thus saith the Lord." They have been 
 drawn mainly from three parables, which if they are to be in- 
 terpreted ^^?/roi/yc/?/ in one part should be so in all, and if 
 literally in one part they should be so in all. 
 
 5. The fifth passage quoted is 2 Thessalonians i. 7 — 9. 
 " And to you which are' troubled, rest with us, when the Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
 flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall 
 be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of 
 the Lord and from the glory of his power." 
 
 My brother says this must refer to a time yet future. He 
 urges three objections to the supposition that it may refer to 
 
33 
 
 the Jewish overthrow. 1st. That the church in Thessalonica 
 was composed principally of devout Greeks and heathen, and 
 not of Jews. In answer to this ohjection I will refer my broth- 
 er to Acts xvii. 1 — 4, where he will learn that there was a syn- 
 agogue of the Jews at Thessalonica, and that some of them 
 were converted under Paul's preaching, &c. 
 
 2d. He objects that they were 1000 or more miles dis- 
 tant from Jerusalem. I reply, that proves nothing : for were 
 not all the Jews, and Christians, wherever scattered abroad, 
 effected by the destruction of that nation ? 
 
 13d. He objects that in the second chapter of the epistle we 
 read that there should be a falling away first, and that the man 
 of sin should be revealed, the Son of perdition ; and this he 
 tells us signifies Papacy, which did not rise until several centu- 
 ries afterwards. To this I reply, that the application is assum- 
 ed ; — he gives no conclusive reason why this should be said 
 to refer to the Romish Church. 
 
 The Gth verse of the chapter tells us who were the persons 
 that were to be punished — " Seeing it is a righteous 
 thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble 
 youy No other persons than those who troubled the Thessa- 
 lonian believers, had or can have any part or lot in the matter 
 of the punishment. It is true that those believers suffered 
 much at the hands of their own countrymen — but it is plain 
 that the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica were the instigators 
 thereof, as well as the principal persecutors in person. This 
 is obvious from Acts xvii. 5 — 9, and 1 'J'hess. ii. 14 — 16, 
 2. Thess.i. 10, is as follows: " When he shall come to be glorified 
 in his saints, and to be admired by all them that believe (be- 
 cause our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 
 Tliis then fixes the time. 
 
 Paul speaks of " the mystery of iniquity as hc'mg (dread ij at 
 work when he wrote. He declares that the events by him 
 spoken of should occur lohen the Lord Jesus shoidd he revealed 
 from heaven — when he should come; Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the 
 point. " Even thus it shall be in the day when the Soil of Man 
 is revealed. In that dav, he which shall be upon the house- 
 top, and his stuff in the house, let him not cumo down to take 
 
34 
 
 it away ; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return 
 back. Similar directions are given in Matt. xxiv. 15 — 18, and 
 in Luke xxi. 20 -- 23 ; in all which places the time of tribula- 
 tion to Jerusalem is obviously referred to — " When he shall 
 come.'' See Matt. x. 23 ; xvi. 27, 28 ; xxiv. 29, 30. 
 
 But enough, — I have shown, I believe, who are the persons 
 signified and the time when they were to be punished. I need 
 not now pursue the subject further. 
 
 IV. My brother's fourth division in his discourse has refer- 
 ence to this question. "Were the Christian Fathers who lived 
 in and immediately after the days of the apostles, believers in 
 the doctrine of endless punishment V 
 
 I need not devote any time to examine this portion of the 
 discourse. It is not necessary that I should now produce tes- 
 timony from the early Fathers, in proof that some of them (at 
 least) did not believe in the doctrine of endless punishment; 
 among them the pious and learned Origen. If the Scriptures 
 teach the doctrine my brother endeavors to maintain, it is not 
 important that this latter question should be found in the afBrm- 
 ative or negative. 
 
 I leave this subject with the prayer that my mind may be led 
 into all truth ; and not only I, but all present, yea, the whole 
 intelligent creation of God. — Amen. 
 
DISCUSS I O N , 
 
 Part I. No. III. 
 
 IN THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, APRIL 4, 1813. 
 B Y F. V A T E S . 
 
 L\ support of the affirmative of the first part of this conjoint 
 question, I endeavored to show, on a previous occasion, that 
 the teachings of Christ and his apostles were calculated, not 
 only to confirm believers in the doctrine of endless punishment, 
 but to lead others to regard this as a prominent point in their 
 faith. It was shown in my discourse, and admitted by my op- 
 ponent, that the doctrine of endless punishment was generally 
 believed by Jews and Gentiles in the days of Christ and his 
 apostles. It was thought, that, if this prevailing doctrine, 
 which its opposers regard as " worse than all other errors put 
 together," were not the doctrine of him who came to " bear 
 witness of the truth," that he would have distinctly opposed it, 
 as " injurious to good morals, and destructive to human hap- 
 piness." It was affirmed that such opposition could not be 
 found, in a single instance. It was further shown, that, in- 
 stead of opposing this doctrine, Christ and his apostles used 
 such language, when speaking of the punishment of the wicked, 
 as was used by believers in endless punishment, and which can- 
 not now be consistently interpreted to teach anything short of 
 Uiirf doctrine. It was further shown, that the churches gathered 
 
36 
 
 by the apostles, and instructed by them in the doctrines of 
 Christianity, were, so far as is known, behevers in endless 
 punishment. 
 
 I. I now come to notice the reply made by my opponent 
 to these arguments. — He does not seem " willing to allow, 
 that only ' some few, in these latter days,' declare that " the 
 Bible does not teach, what the most pious and learned men of 
 all ages of the christian church have believed, concerning end- 
 less punishment;" but asserts that " biblical students, ' all a- 
 long, through these ' 1800 years," have not only ' discovered,'' 
 but rejoiced in, and published to the world, the truth that all 
 mankind will be finally holy and happy." And he thinks he 
 " might stylo" mc and my co-workers 'new teachers, sirtce" 
 my "denomination cannot trace its existence, as such, much 
 over one century." Certainly he will not style us "new 
 teachers" in reference to the doctrine of endless punishment, 
 for Universalists admit that many of the early Christian Fath- 
 ers taught this doctrine. 
 
 But how old 19 Universalism, pray.'' In the Modern History 
 of Universalism, p. 318, John Murray is styled the "father of 
 Universalism,^' who commenced his public life in 1770. Can 
 the child bo older than its parent? But the system as it is 
 now advocated, cannot claim so near a relation to John Mur- 
 ray as a child. Not a single doctrine peculiar to Mr. Mur- 
 ray's creed can be found in the present system of Universal- 
 ism. " He believed in the supremo divinity of Jesus Christ, 
 in original sin, in regeneration, and in endless punishment. He 
 believed that the curse of the law was endless death ; that all 
 men were justly exposed to it, and that from this Christ came 
 to redeem men. He believed salvation to be deliverance from 
 deserved punishment."* The present system can trace its or- 
 igin no farther than Hosea Ballou of Boston, and finds its true 
 date in 1818. So much for his " assertion." 
 
 He admits my first point — that the doctrine of endless pun- 
 ishment was generally believed in the time of Christ, and de- 
 clares that it had its origin among the heathen. This I deny, 
 
 *Sce M. 11. Smith's Lectures, p. 234. 
 
37 
 
 and call for proof. The law of God first given to man, I re- 
 gard as the first anouncement of this doctrine. 
 
 II. He next attempts to answer my second inquiry — Was 
 Christ or his apostles, who lived and preached in the midst of 
 believers in endless misery, ever known to oppose this doc- 
 trine; or were they ever opposed for believing and preaching 
 the contrary doctrine ? 
 
 I contended, and do still contend, that if this doctrine be not 
 of God, Christ and his apostles would have borne a faithful 
 testimony against it; that they would at least have been suffi- 
 ciently clear on this subject to let their followers know what is 
 truth. In my first discourse, I stated, that nowhere, in their 
 history, do we learn that they ever raised a note of alarm a- 
 gainst the doctrine of endless punishment. This my opponent 
 calls " a hold assertion," and asks if it is true. 
 
 In reply, he makes the following quotation from W. M. Fer- 
 nald: " The doclrine of endless punishment is expressly contradic- 
 ted by the holy scriptures. The Pharisees, it is well known, be- 
 lieved in the endless punishment of human souls. Their doc- 
 trine was, that the souls of the wicked, at death, passed imme- 
 diately into a state of never-ending torment. Yet our Savior 
 (Matt. xvi. 12,) said to his disciples, without any reservation, 
 • Beware' of the doctrine of the Pharisees." 
 
 This may be quite satisfactory to those who are in the habit 
 of taking every thing on credit, without reading for themselves. 
 He has produced a solitary text to prove his " bold assertion" 
 that " the doctrine of endless punishment is expressly contradic- 
 ted in the holy scriptures!" Now let us examine this text, and 
 see if it sustains his point. Let us read the verse which con- 
 tains his proof text. " Then understood they how he bade 
 them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of 
 the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.'" Why did he stop in his 
 quotation where there is not so much as a comma? Because 
 if he had continued to the period it would have destroyed his 
 object, for the Sadducces did not believe in future punishment. 
 This Universalists admit. Allow me the liberty with this text 
 that my opponent has taken, and by leaving out the Pharisees, 
 
38 
 
 I will prove to you that the Savior warned his diciples against 
 Univer'salism. I will take the argument of Mr. Fcrnald. 
 
 " The doctrine that there is no endless punishment is express- 
 hf contradicted by holy scriptures/' With reference to this, wc 
 must consider the acknowledged difficulty of proving a nega- 
 tive. The scriptures rather tell us what is true, than labor to 
 explode what is not true." The " Sadducees" it is well known 
 believed in "no" endless punishment for human souls. Their 
 doctrine was, that the wicked, at death, " did not go" into a 
 state of never-ending torment. "Yet our Savior (Matt. xvi. 12) 
 said to his disciples, without any reservation, ' Beware' of the 
 doctrine of the Sadducees! — a very singular circumstance, if 
 that one doctrine, which is magnified as the very pillar of mo- 
 rality, in our day, was the truth of the Almighty." Thus you 
 see the sophistry of his reasoning. 
 
 Again, Mr. Fernald and my opponent tell us that this warn- 
 ing was made " without any reservation;" i. e. all the doctrines 
 held by the Pharisees were contradicted by our Lord! — I 
 presume my opponent will readily admit that the Pharisees be- 
 lieved in the existence of God, and the future and endless bliss 
 of the saints. And yet he asks: " Why should Jesus caution 
 against the doctrine of the Pharisees, so siveepinghj, and so un- 
 reservedly, if they held at least one of the most important, and 
 soul-saving truths ?" ! ! ! 
 
 But our Savior tells us definitely, what this doctrine is a- 
 gainst which he warned his disciples: " He began to say unto 
 his disciples first of all. Beware of the leaven* of the Pharisees, 
 ivhich is HYPOCRISY." (Luke xii. 1.) This will be seen also by 
 reading Matt, xvi, from which his proof text is taken. The 
 controversy on this text must now be at an end. This, I have 
 no doubt, my opponent will have the candor to acknowledge. 
 As this is the only text that has been produced to prove that the 
 Bible " expressly contradicts" the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment, my position, that Christ and his apostles nowhere oppose 
 this doctrine, remains unanswered. 
 
 Next he makes a bold assertion, which remains to be prov- 
 ed: " Christ and his apostles were not silent on this subject, 
 
 * The Savior used the icrni Icon n in botli cases. 
 
39 
 
 but in consequence of preachin<2; the opposite sentiment, they 
 met with trials and afflictions." This he asstimes ; let him 
 prove it. 
 
 In answer to my call for a single instance where they were 
 opposed for preaching that all mankind will be finally holy and 
 happy, he has produced the following passage: " 1 Timothy 
 iv. 10. For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, be- 
 cause we trust in the living god, who is the Savior of all men, 
 especially of those that believe." This is the only text that he 
 produced in answer to my call; and this he read without 
 comments. 
 
 It was evidently designed to make the impression, that the 
 apostles suffered reproach for believing or preaching that all 
 men will be saved in a future state. But is there any thing 
 like this in the text? Let us see. "We both labor and suf- 
 fer reproach." For what reason? "because \ve trust in the 
 LIVING GOD." The phrase living God," is apphed in scrip- 
 ture to the true God, to distinguish him from the dead gods of 
 the heathen." 1 Thess. i. 9. "And how ye turned to God 
 fi'om idols, to serve the living and true God." It was for this 
 they suffered reproach, while laboring among the worshippers 
 # idols. It is added: "Who is the Savior of all men, espec- 
 ially of those that believe.'" He is the Savior of all men, inas- 
 much as he has provided salvation for all, and has invited all 
 to " come" and " be saved." But especially is he the Savior 
 of those that believe. Universalism asserts that all men will be 
 finally holy and happy; but the text teaches no such doctrine. 
 It asserts a fact in the present tense. 
 
 Thus far, my opponent has failed to produce a single text 
 in which the doctrine of endless punishment is distinctly oppos- 
 ed in the Bible. 
 
 I now renew my call for a single instance from the whole 
 New Testament, in which Christ or his apostles opposed the 
 doctrine of endless punishment, or were opposed by others for 
 preaching the contrary doctrine — only one. This he cannot 
 produce. 
 
 HI. I come now to review his reply to my //m-rf inquiry: 
 " Did Christ and his apostles use such language in their dis- 
 
40 
 
 courses, and writings as was used by believers in endless 
 punishment, in reference to that subject." 
 
 In reply to my observations on this point, he says that 
 " an affirmative answer to this question appcarsto be assumed." 
 Jlflcr I had given extracts from Josephus, containing the lan- 
 guage employed by the Jews in reference to endless punishment, 
 and showing that they believed in a general judgment at the 
 end of this world, my opponent starts up and inquires, "where, 
 we would ask, has he shown this ?" When he made this in- 
 quiry he had before him in my manuscript, extracts from Jose- 
 phus, containing the following passage : "At whose judgment 
 scaf, where all men, and angels, and demons shall stand, they 
 will send forth one voice, and say, just is thy judgment; the 
 rejoinder to which will bring a just sentence upon both parties, 
 by giving justly to those who have done well, an everlasting 
 fruition ; but alloting to the lovers of wicked works eternal 
 punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire, and that 
 without end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying." I will 
 now leave our hearers to judge of the pertinency of his ques- 
 tion. 
 
 It was proved in my discourse that Jesus Christ and his apos- 
 tles used the same language when speaking of the punishment 
 of the wicked, as was employed by believers in endless punish- 
 ment to express that doctrine. This my opponent does not 
 pretend to deny. Nay, he admits it! After assuming that my 
 proof texts are parables, he remarks, " the parables of Christ, 
 wore drawn chiefly, from the manners, customs, occupations, 
 and views of the Jews. Sometimes he made them to conform 
 to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Israelites, yet 
 without endorsing their superstitions as truth. The parable of 
 the Rich Man and Lazarus is of this description." 
 
 Here then, is an admission of all I contend for, Jesus Christ 
 made his mode of teaching to conform to the "views of the 
 Jews ; " ])ut that he could do this without endorsing their senti- 
 ments 1 do not admit. On this principle, how can it be proved 
 that Jesus taught that there is an endless heaven.'' he "con- 
 forms to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Isra- 
 elites" in reference to this subject. 
 
 On thi.s point I beg leave to introduce an extract from a Ser- 
 
41 
 
 mon of Rev. Dr. Fisk, late President of the Wesleyan Uni- 
 versity : 
 
 "The Jews held the endless punishment of the wicked. 
 This may he abundantly proved from the rabbinical writings, 
 and from the targums. And if this were an error of that peo- 
 ple, which from the corruptions of the church, they had run 
 into, why did not our Lord and his apostles plainly point out 
 their error, as they did the other errors which had been intro- 
 duced? why did they use the very terms which the Jews used, 
 to express the eternal torments of the wicked, and that too, 
 when speaking of that very subject, and yet not explain their 
 meaning? No man in his senses, I think, can deny, that by 
 this course they either designedly left them in the dark upon 
 this subject, yea, designedly confirmed them in their error, or 
 else they meant to give their authority to this doctrine. * * * 
 If our Lord or his apostles did not intend to confirm the Jews 
 in their error, then they meant to stamp with their authority 
 the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked. I see 
 no means of avoiding this conclusion; and the argument must 
 certainly have great weight. It will outweigh a thousand ver- 
 bal criticisms upon Greek and Hebrew terms. It has certainly 
 been well said, that scripture is to be taken in that sense in 
 which the common people who heard it at first took it. If so, 
 then we are to understand those passages in the New Tasta- 
 ment in the manner that the Jews must necessarily have un- 
 derstood them. We have already seen that these terms were 
 understood by the Jews as applying to the endless punishment 
 of the impenitent. This gives the doctrine of the Jews addi- 
 tional weight, while it leads to a clue, which, beyond the pow- 
 er of successful contradiction, will determine that our Lord 
 and his apostles held the same doctrine, and thus they both 
 unite to corroborate it. And this argument gathers more 
 strength from the consideration, that the advocates of the two 
 systems, Jewish and Christian, were at variance. When a 
 new system is introduced to take the place of an old one; in all 
 those points of any importance in which the two disagree, there 
 will be a controversy, as was the case in many instances be- 
 tween Christ and the Jews, the apostles and their countrymen. 
 6 
 
42 
 
 But there was no controversy between them on the subject of 
 the duration of punishment. Also, such opposing advocates 
 for different systems will be careful not to use terms that es- 
 tablish what they conceive to be the errors of their opponents; 
 but not only was no such caution used by our Lord and his a- 
 postles, but they frequently and commonly used the same terms 
 that the Jews used when speaking on the subject of future pun- 
 ishment, and that without any explanation, or even a hint, that 
 they meant to be understood dillerently from the current opin- 
 ion ; — a strong proof that they used the current terms on this 
 subject according to their current meaning. And the other con- 
 sideration, that in no other case have they given intimations 
 that such a doctrine which was then prevailing was false, is 
 sufficient, I think, to establish the point, that Jesus Christ and 
 his apostles held the punishment of the wicked the same as the 
 Jews." 
 
 This is the ground on which I cliallenge my opponent. The 
 object of the argument, as first presented, was to prove that 
 Christ and his apostles used the same language employed by 
 the Jews, in reference to endless punishment, and that without 
 the least intimation that they held a contrary doctrine. My 
 opponent allows that they used the phraseology of the Jews in 
 reference to this subject, but makes no attempt to reconcile 
 their conduct in this respect, with the doctrine, that all man- 
 kind will be finally holy and happy. He says " they were not 
 silent on this subject," but he has failed fo produce a single in- 
 stance in which they bore testimony against the doctrine of 
 endless punishment, while I have produced several ii?fetances 
 where they employ the strongest terms used by the advocates 
 of this doctrine, and am prepared to present as many more. I 
 challenge my opponent to produce a single term or phrase em- 
 ployed by the Jews, to express endless punishment, stronger 
 than those used by Jesus Christ and his apostles. 
 
 The efforts of my opponent to ^ow that my proof texts do 
 not teach this doctrine, go just as far to prove that the Jews did 
 not believe and teach the doctrine of endless punishment, as 
 they do that our Lord and his apostles were not of this faith! 
 But why has not my opponent met my argument as it was pre- 
 
43 
 
 scnted? The object of these texts was to prove that Christ and 
 his apostles must have been understood as teaching the doc- 
 trine of endless punishment, inasmuch as they used the same 
 terms employed to express this then prevailing doctrine. This 
 argument he has not met; consequently, I am under no obli- 
 gation to notice his reply to my proof texts. 
 
 But lest he should take advantage of my silence on his expla- 
 nation of these scriptures, I will give it a passing notice. 
 
 After naming the four proof texts produced by me to show 
 that Christ used the language of the Jews in reference to end- 
 less punishment, he asks, " now what think you my friends, 
 when we declare unto you that three of these are Parables." 
 
 But I ask, what evidence has he produced to prove his as- 
 sertion that three of my proof texts are Parables ? He made 
 no attempt to prove it. It is a bold and unwarrantable assertion, 
 made with as much confidence as though the lip of truth had 
 declared it. " Now what think you my friends, when we de- 
 clare unto you" that he cannot prove from the texts themselves, 
 or from the whole book of God that they are parables. And 
 yet, this unwarrantable assumption forms the basis of all his re- 
 marks on these texts! !! Is this candid"^ 
 
 He remarks that " all the doctrine and moral truths and prin- 
 ciples of the Gospel are revealed by the Savior in plain, distinct 
 and literal language, without figure or parable." Now let us 
 bring this principle laid down by my opponent to the texts which 
 he calls parables. They are the account of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus, Luke xvi. 2x> — 26— </ie Offending Hand, a7id danger 
 of hell fire, Mark ix. 43, 44, and the concluding portion of 
 Matt. 25th chapter where it speaks of the Son of Man coming 
 in his glory, with all the holy angels, and that the wicked shall 
 go into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life 
 eternal. Now according to the above principle, all this teach- 
 ing of the Savior either contains no doctrinal or moral truth, or 
 principle of the gospel, — or it is plain, literal language, and 
 no parable. He can take which horn of the dilemma he 
 chooses. 
 
 But now for the texts. My first proof text is Luke xvi. 22, 
 26, which contaijis the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 
 
44 
 
 given by our Savior. This my opponent calls a parable. 
 Where is the proof? But suppose it be a parable? What 
 then? Dr. Clarke says in respect to this passage, that it "is 
 cither a ixivahh or real hislorij. If it be a parable, it is what 
 may he: if it be a history, it is what has been. Either a man 
 viay live as is here described, and goto perdition when he dies; 
 or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the tor- 
 ments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in 
 whichsoever of these lights it is viewed. 
 
 But I make the following objections to this being a parable. 
 
 1, It is not introduced as such. The Savior commences 
 with saying, " There ivas a certain rich man," &.c. He gives 
 all the facts as having actually taken place. But my oppo- 
 nent says there is no such thing. Who shall we believe, Mr. 
 Francis, or the Savior ? 
 
 2, There is no general feature of this account that is nec- 
 essarily figurative. The language is such as any man would 
 employ in giving a plain narration of facts. 
 
 3, It is unlike all other parables. The parables of our 
 Savior are usually figui'es and circumstances with which the 
 people were familiar — such as the parable of ' ' the tares and 
 the wheaV — " The ten virgins" — " The pearV — " The mus- 
 tard seed," &c. designed to illustrate high and important truths. 
 But if this be a parable, it is a " fictitious narration" of some- 
 thing — no one knows what. 
 
 Until my opponent brings a " tJuis sailh the Lord" to prove 
 his assertion that this is a parable, this fearful passage of holy 
 writ stands out in bold relief, as conclusive evidence of the 
 doctrine I advocate. "The Rich man died, and in hell he 
 lifted up his eyes, being in torments." So says Jesus Christ, 
 and who will take the responsibility to contradict him ? 
 
 He " would like to know what right Lazarus had" in Abra- 
 ham's bosom? And " he wishes to know what great crime the 
 rich man had committed, that should doom him" to the tor- 
 ments of hell. I will refer him to Jesus Christ on this subject. 
 He may stand up and demand a reason of the Savior for his 
 conduct towards these individuals. His complaint about their 
 final destiny may pass to this audience for all it is worth. 
 
45 
 
 111 this passage is found language which the Jews used when 
 speaking of endless punishment, einph)yed by the Savior. This 
 my opponent does not deny, but asks, " What if Christ did use 
 similar language for the purpose of illustrating and setting 
 forth in a forcible manner to the understanding of his hearers, 
 some great truth, he wished to impress upon their minds." I 
 call on him to point out a great truth that is illustrated and 
 set forth in a forcible manner, in these passages. What great 
 truth is so much as named, or even alluded to, if he rejects a 
 literal understanding of it.-* " Does Christ apply this passage" 
 to some great truth, in this " state of existence.'' This is as- 
 sumed. Our brother does not show us how Christ does this. 
 I call for proof upon this point." 
 
 My next proof text is Luke xii. 4, 5. " And I say unto you, my 
 friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, 
 have no more that they con do. 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." In reply to 
 this text, my opponent makes some very good remarks on the 
 duty of fearing God, rather than man, and concludes " It is 
 enough." He " beheves in the infinite power of God as much 
 as any one." Does he believe that God has power to punish 
 the soul in hell after the body is dead, if there is no such 
 place ? He spares his criticisms on the word here rendered 
 hell for the next passages, which he is pleased to call " the 
 parable of the offending hand;" probably thinking he might 
 bring them in there with more jylausibilitif. But I am disposed to 
 test his criticisms on this word by this passage. The Greek word 
 that is here translated hell is Gehenna ; which my brother says 
 is derived from two Greek words, which being united make Gee 
 Hinnom." My brother has made a slight mistake hei'e, — 
 Ge Hinnom are Hebrew words. He thinks that because the 
 word originally signified the valley of Hinnom, a place near 
 Jerusalem, it cannot be used to mean a place of punishment in 
 another world! But does he contend for the original meaning 
 of Gehenna in every instance where it is used by the Savior? 
 Let us see. Speaking of the calamities of the Jews, he says, 
 ^' They luere cast into Gehenna — into a scene of distress and 
 
46 
 
 sitff'erinf!;, and awfal horror.'''' I presume my opponent will not 
 conteiul for a moment, that Gehenna in the text under conside- 
 ration means leterally the valley of Hinnom. Now we will see 
 if his other application of the term will work. "Fear him, 
 which after he hath kitled, hath power to involve you in the ca- 
 lamities which shall come upon the Jews at the destruction of 
 Jerusalem"!! That don't do. The truth is, the punishment 
 threatened in the text must relate to the other world, — it is to 
 be inflicted "after he iiath killed the body." — In the 
 text which he calls "the parable of the offending hand," the 
 same word occurs, and if it is applied to the future world in 
 one case, it is in the other. It reads as follows: Mark ix. 43, 
 44. " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for 
 thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into 
 hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their 
 worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
 
 This passage my opponent calls a ^^ fable," a "fictitious nar- 
 ration!" Let me ask our hearers, what confidence they can 
 place in the teachings of those who can thus trifle with the sol- 
 emn word of Almighty God } — My opponent thinks I have fal- 
 len into a slight mistake, because I introduced an extract from 
 Josephus' discourse on Hades in connection with this text, for 
 the word in this text is Gehenna and not Hades. I think he 
 must have seen, from the words which were underscored in that 
 extract, that it was not made in reference to the word hell, but 
 in reference to the undying worm, and the unquenchable fire . 
 Josephus says, in the extract referred to, while speaking of the 
 doom of the wicked after the general judgment, " to these be- 
 long ih.c. unquenchable fire, and that without end, and a certain fi- 
 ery worm, never dfing. The Savior in the text under considera- 
 tion, speaks of going into Gehenna, into the fire that never shall 
 be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
 quenched." — My object was to prove that Jesus Christ used 
 the same language, while speaking of the punishment of the 
 wicked, as did the Jews to express endless punishment. This 
 is proved in the above passages. Again, I ask, with what 
 consistency or proi)riety, if he did not allow the doctrine? 
 Let my opponent meet this question fairly. 
 
47 
 
 But to return. It is clearly proved I'rom the text in l.uke, 
 that hell as a \Aacc of punishment, is beyond this life; andlli(> 
 text in Mark as clearly proves that the punishiuenl of hell can 
 have no end. So, at least, must the Jc\v.s have understood the 
 Savior. My opponent says, " We should understand the 
 phrase, ' where their worm dielh not,' (fcc. as indicative of the 
 intensity of the punislnnent innicted." To tliis I have no ob- 
 ject ions. 
 
 I cannot consent to leave this part of my subject without no- 
 ticing the closing paragraph of my opponent concerning 6'r- 
 hcnna. Here it is. " E.Kcepting in one case, Gehenna was 
 never used by any New Testament writer besides the Savior ; 
 and it never occurs in the gospel of John, in the acts and pro- 
 ceedings of the apostles, nor in all the epistles of Peter, Paul, 
 John and Jude ! and yet this is the word, the onfi/ word, which 
 our opposers rely on as the name of their supposed endless 
 hell, in the original scriptures ! ! !" 
 
 What, we ask, does all this amount to 1 No speaker or wri- 
 ter in scripture, uses the term Gnhcnna but Jesus Christ and 
 St. James ! yet the great mass of biblical scholars have had the 
 credulity to rely upon it as the name of hell, when they have 
 no higher authority ! ! ! He tells us in another place, that 
 " Gehenna occurs 12 times, and is uniformly rendered hcliy 
 How far does this go towards proving that there is no place of 
 punishment beyond this life ? Where did he find authority for 
 saying that Gehenna is the only word we rely upon as the name 
 of hell l But suppose there is no other term that designates a place 
 of punishment ? How many words does he rely upon as the proper 
 name o^ heaven in the original scriptures ? Can he mention one 
 term that nrigbially signified a place of endless happiness '? If 
 it can be proved that there is no hell, because there is no word 
 used in the scriptures that originally signified endless punish- 
 ment, the same argument will prove that there is no heaven of 
 bliss, for the word used to signify this place originally meant 
 nothing more than the atmosphere that belts the earth. 
 
 I am prepared to prove that Gehenna had come into com- 
 mon use before our Savior's advent, to express endless punish- 
 ment, and they (the Jews) must have understood him as using 
 it in the same sense. 
 
48 
 
 I coine now to his remarks on Malt. xxv. 31 — 4(5. This he 
 calls " the parable of the sheep and jroats." By what authority 
 does he call this the parable of the sheep and goats ? Sim- 
 ply this : " And before him (the son of man) shall be gathered 
 nil nation;^, and he shall separate them (the gathered nations) 
 one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
 goats." As well might we call the 24th chapter of Matthew 
 "the parable of thunder and lightning," for " as the lightning 
 Cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so 
 shall also the coming of the son of man be." 
 
 If a passage of scripture happens to contain a figurative al- 
 lusion, must the whole passage therefore become a parable? 
 With this rule, the whole New Testament might be turned in- 
 to parables. The only possible reason why this portion of scrip- 
 ture can be called a parable is, the Savior makes one nllnsiun 
 to the shepherd and his flock. This whole passage (which he as- 
 sumes is a parable)is applied by my opponent to the "Destruction 
 of Jerusalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish nation." This 
 application was anticipated, and a list of seven objections urg- 
 ed against it ; but these objections he did not see fit to notice. 
 Before he can make such an application with the least shoto of 
 plausibility, he must prove that it is a parable. This, I appre- 
 hend, he will find no easy task. 
 
 My opponent prays that he may be guided into truth. This 
 is 7nj/ prayer also. I now invite him to a careful, a candid and 
 prayerful examination of this portion of God's word. 
 
 Allow me to ask, what evidence he has that the Savior meant 
 to be understood figuratively? By what rule of interpretation, 
 either of scripture or of language in general, does he make 
 this passage figurative ? It is reasonable he should tell us. 
 
 I regard this passage as an application of the two parables 
 which precede it. In the parable of the ten virgins reference 
 is had to the coming of Christ to receive his bride — the church. 
 Then will it be said, " the marriapc of the Lamb is eome, and 
 his bride hath made herself readt/." In the parable of the tal- 
 ents the same scene or event is brought to view again in anoth- 
 er form. The return of the master, refers to the coming of 
 
49 
 
 the judge to reckon with his servants. In both of these para- 
 bles the coming of a particular personage is mentioned at which 
 time there is a gathering and a separation. After closing these 
 parables, he proceeds to make an application of them in plain, 
 literal language, as I believe, — " When the Son of Man shall 
 come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall 
 he sit upon the throne of his glory ; and before him shall be 
 gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them." One class 
 he pronounces " blessed," and invites them to a kingdom pre- 
 pared for them from the foundation of the world ; — while the 
 other class are pronounced " cursed," and told to depart into 
 everlasting punishment. All this my opponent says took place 
 at the destruction of Jerusalem, — I say it is a description of 
 a day of general judgment at the end of the world. Now I 
 ask, which looks the most consistent with the language here 
 used? Let the candid answer. 
 
 I suppose it will be admitted on all hands, that this passage 
 either refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or it is a descrip- 
 tion of a day of general judgment yet future. If I can prove 
 that it cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, and was 
 not fulfilled in that event, it will then be established that Jesus 
 Christ is to make his personal appearance, to gather all the na- 
 tions of the dead and living, and pass the final sentence, — re- 
 ceiving some to everlasting life, and dooming others to everlast- 
 ing punishment. And my point will be gained, that the scrip- 
 tures teach that a part of tlie human family will suffer endless 
 punishment. 
 
 I shall now repeat some of my objections to applying this 
 text to the destruction of Jerusalem, and hope my opponent 
 will condescend to notice them. 
 
 1. These events are to take place " tohcn the Son of Man 
 shall conic in his glory." I ask, how did Jesus Christ come in 
 his glory at the destruction of Jerusalem, any more than he 
 did at the fall of Babylon, or Sodom, or in any other great ca- 
 lamity ? VVas the coming of Titus to destroy Jerusalem, the 
 coming of Christ in his glory ? The apostle Paul speaks of 
 being " glorijicd together with Christ,'' hut if his glory consia- 
 7 
 
50 
 
 ted in the bloody conquests of Home over the Jewish nation, 
 could it be very desirable, by a pure minded apostle to share in 
 that glory? 
 
 2. " All the holy angch" are to come at this time. How 
 was this fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem? The hoh/ 
 angels cannot mean the Roman armies, for they are nowhere 
 called holy. They were bloody, savage heathen, called by our 
 Savior the " ahominntion of desolation ;" hence^ they could not 
 be the holy angels spoken of in the te.xt. Again, it is said he 
 shall come with all the holy angels; if the Roman soldiers are 
 meant, then all the Roman soldiers must have been at the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem which was not the fact. Neither could 
 it mean the ministers of the Gospel, and other Christians, for 
 they did not " cume'" to Jerusalem at that time, but those who 
 were near the city all fled before the fearful blow was struck. 
 I ask again, how did Christ come " tvith all his holy angels''' 
 at that time ? 
 
 3. '' All nations" are Xo he " gathered before him" ai that 
 time. Was this fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem ? It 
 could not be the Jews, for they were not " all nations," but 
 only one nation, neither were they fdl "gathered" at that time 
 before the Son of Man, but those who were present, were either 
 slain, or carried into captivity. Neither can the Roman armies, 
 though composed of individuals from many nations, be said 
 to be " all nations." To assert this, would be giving his op- 
 ponent a liberty with the word all, which might be used to his 
 disadvantage before the close of this discussion. 
 
 4. The gathered nations are to be " separeded" ai the com- 
 ing of the Son of Man mentioned in the text, one part receiv- 
 ing a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, and 
 the other portion being driven " into everlasting f re prepared 
 for the devil and his angels." How was this fulfilled at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem? My opponent says, " At that time 
 the wicked Jews, figuratively speaking, went away into ever- 
 lasting punishment, and the christian believers into life eternal " 
 1 would ask if this aj)plication is satisfactory to this audience ? 
 How did the Jews go into everlasting punishment at that time ? 
 
51 
 
 1 will tell you. Hundreds of thousands of them, by sword, by 
 s licide, by fainiuo, and various other ways, during the siege of 
 the city, and wars in other places, passed through tlie gates of 
 death, and, according to the theory of my opponent, went im- 
 miduddij to the joys of heaven ; while the christian believers, 
 who, he says, entered into eternal life at that time, were left on 
 earth, in a condition of great suffering, and more wretched 
 limn before the destruction. For more than two hundred years 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Romans followed the 
 cJiristians with persecutions unparalleled for severity and cru- 
 elty in the history of the church. And this my opponent calls 
 " enjoying the special blessings promised them here"! ! ! Ac- 
 cording to this, Paul received the " c.roion^'' that was laid up 
 for him, to be given in " tliat day,^^ and not to him only, but 
 to all them that loved Christ's appearing at the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. It was thin that those who did not "fall" had 
 " an entrance administered unto them abundantly, into the ev- 
 erlasting kingdom," and. the " people of God" entered into 
 " the rest that remained for them !" How absurd ! 
 
 Having now shown conclusively that this passage cannot re- 
 fer to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that it must have 
 its fulfilment in the future state. Now, taking the principle 
 laid down by my opponent, that " the true meaning of the 
 word [everlasting] is to be determined by the connection in 
 which it is used, we are prepared to understand the closing 
 verse of the passage under consideration : " Those [the wick- 
 ed] shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righ- 
 teous into life eternal." As this text has its fufilment in the 
 future state, everlasting must be taken into its unlimited 
 sense. My point is therefore proved. 
 
 My fifth and last proof text is 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9. This he 
 also applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. What a conve- 
 nient hobby the destruction of that city makes for a great mul- 
 titude of passages, which, if literally understood, would entire- 
 ly destroy the whole theory of Universalism. Such is the text 
 under consideration. There is not Ja word said about this e- 
 vent in plain language in either of the epistles addressed to the 
 
52 
 
 Thessalonians. He cannot furnish the name of a single bib- 
 lical student of any note who applies this text to that event ! 
 But I must notice his attempt to prove his application of this 
 text. He thinks Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the point. But be- 
 fore he can make this appear, he must prove, 1. That the text 
 in Luke relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 2. That 
 the phrase "that day" in both texts, refer to the same period. 
 He next quotes Matt. xvi. 27, 28. The first verse reads, " For 
 the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 
 angels, and then shall he reward every man according to his 
 works." This text cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, for the reasons that Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, cannot refer to 
 that event, which have been given. Once more, I will 
 here add — Christ did not at that time " reward every man 
 according to his works" in any sense. But the next verse he 
 regards as his strong hold. " Verily I say unto you, there be 
 some standing here which shall not taste of death, till ihey see 
 the son of man coming in his kingdom." But did Christ co?ne 
 in his kingdom at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romansi 
 If so, then his kingdom /s " of this world," and then did his 
 servants Jight ! which plainly contradicts his own doctrine. 
 (John xviii. 3L) Let my opponent get rid of this conclusion, 
 if he can. Again, my opponent remarked, (extempore) that 
 " this is plain, literal language, and no p arable. If it is, it 
 cannot certainly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, for 
 there is nothing of the kind in the text, {unless the coming of 
 the son of man in his kingdom is equivalent to the coming of 
 Titus with the Roman army. The parallel text in Mark* reads, 
 " there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste 
 of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come'with 
 power." Turn to Luke xxiv. 49, where, after his resurrection, 
 he tells his apostles, " behold, I send the promise of my Fath- 
 er upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye he 
 endued with power from on high." Now read the 2d chap, of 
 the Acts, and you will find this fulfilled in a wonderful manner. 
 Then the kingdom of God, which had already come, (for 
 Christ said in his day " the kingdom of God has come upou 
 
53 
 
 you") came with still greater "power." The declaration of 
 the Savior, " there he some standing here that shall not taste 
 of death till they see the kingdom of God come with power," 
 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, in the baptism of the dis- 
 ciples with the Holy Ghost, and the conversion of 3000 who 
 scattered abroad, preaching Christ and the resurrection. How 
 much more this looks like the kingdom of God than the bloody 
 wars of the Jews and Romans ! 
 
 My opponent " stands prepared to prove that Christ made 
 his second advent at the destruction of Jerusalem." If he 
 will undertake this task, I will spend an additional evening 
 with him on this point. 
 
 I now close my arguments on the first part of this question, 
 unless it should be thought best to prolong the discussion on 
 this point. 
 
 I consider that it is clearly sustained that Christ and his apos- 
 tles tauglit the doctrine of endless punishment. 
 
 Arguments have been, and are noio presented before this 
 audience in support of this doctrine ; which bare assertion, 
 and appeals to human sympathies, will be unable to move. 
 " The word of God standeth sure." " He that bclicvcth, shall be 
 saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned." So saith 
 the " living and true Witness." 
 
DISCUSSION, 
 
 Part I. No. IV. 
 
 REJOINDER 
 
 IN THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, APRIL 4, 1843. 
 
 BY E. FRANCIS 
 
 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, hut try the spirits whether 
 they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into 
 the loorld." 1 John, iv. 1. 
 
 This exhortation of the beloved disciple, John, has seemed 
 to me appropriate, as a motto, in replying to the discourse to 
 which you have listened this evening. 
 
 It is, and I trust it may ever be, my prayer, that I may be 
 enabled to " try the spirits whether they are of God," by the 
 true spirit of my master — Jesus Christ. 
 
 I cannot but express my regret, that my brother has felt it 
 to be his duty to make use of some language that he has on 
 this occasion. The Prince of Peace, " when he was reviled, 
 reviled not again." God grant, that his servant now, may thus 
 aim to do ! 
 
 The introductory remarks of my brother, 1 need not notice, 
 as they give merely the outline of his former discourse. I pro- 
 ceed directly to the first division of his second discourse in 
 proof of the affirmative of the question ; which is indeed, simp- 
 
55 
 
 ly a reply to my rejoiiuler. Duty roquires me to follow, as 
 well as I am aMe, in the course he htis marked out. 
 
 I. In the former discourse, my brotlier asserted that " some 
 few in tliese latter days," had risen up and taught a sentiment 
 which had never been taught before ; this was the idia, though 
 not the precise words. That argument — assertion, we 
 should call it, met with an opposite assertion ; believing that 
 one (t:iscrtwn was as good as another. I also alluded to the 
 brief existence of the denomination to which my brother be- 
 longs. To this allusion he replies that I " will not style them 
 new teachers in reference to the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment." Certainly not — this sentiment, as I before said, is 
 of heathen origin, and was currently entertained more than 
 2000 years ago. I alluded to the length of time since his dc- 
 nominotlon had been established, as such, to meet the argu- 
 ment from the brief existence of my own, as a distinctive 
 sect. 
 
 My brother "will not style us ' nnc tcac/irrs,' in reference 
 to the doctrine of the restitution of all things, which God hath 
 spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world 
 began." (Acts iii. 21.) He says, " Universalists admit that 
 many of the early Christian Fathers taught this doctrine" of 
 endless punishment. In reply to this I remark, that I suppose 
 he will allow that the public advocates of our faith, are as well 
 acquainted with what we admit, as one nut of our denomina- 
 tion ; and for myself, I never was aware of this fact before ; 
 nay, but the contrary is the truth ! If by 'the early Christian 
 Fathers,' is understood those who lived and taught, and wrote 
 during the first two centuries of the christian era, we confess 
 ourselves unable to discover this doctrine of enfUcss jyunisJi- 
 ine.vt, as contained in their writings. But suppose that they 
 did teach this, does it prove that the scriptures do ? 
 
 The first christian writer that is known to have asserted 
 the equal duration of happiness and misery, was Tertullian, 
 about the commencement of the third century. 
 
 My brother has professed to tell us how old Universalism is ; 
 and quotes, as lie says, from the " Modern History of Univer- 
 salism," page 318. to show that the beloved " John Murray is 
 
56 
 
 styled the Father of Universalism." He asks, " can the child 
 be older than its parent?" 
 
 Though off from the question under discussion, " is the 
 doctrine of endless punithment taught in the scriptures V I 
 must beg leave to notice these statements here. 
 
 I wish to quote the whole paragraph alluded to in the histo- 
 ry. After noticing the doctrine as it existed before and at 
 the time of Father Murray's arrival in this country, Br. Whit- 
 temore says, " These are the traces of Universalism as it ex- 
 isted in the United States previously to, and at the time of Mr. 
 Murray's arrival. But this doctrine can be said to have been then 
 scarcely known ; and as his labors were the principal cause of 
 exciting public attention to the subject, and of establishing so- 
 cieties of that faith in different parts of the country, particu- 
 larly in our populous cities and towns, he is justly considered 
 the Father of Universalism in America." 
 
 I submit it to the candid whether the extract presented by 
 my brother that Murray was " the father of Universalism," 
 without noticing the connection of those four words ; particu- 
 larly the two words that follow them " in America," which 
 like them are printed in capital letters, is becoming a fair and 
 honest disputant ; whose aim is Truth. I have the volume 
 with me, which any one may examine who wishes to satisfy 
 himself that I have quoted correctly. 
 
 My brother says, that " not a single doctrine peculiar to Mr. 
 Murray's creed can be found in the present system of Univer- 
 salism." Does my brother claim him as a Methodist ? He 
 was one in the early part of his life ; but then he became con- 
 verted under the labors of James Relly of London, previous to 
 his arrival in this country in 1770. But what is the distin- 
 guishing sentiment of Universalism, now ? what was it in the 
 days of Murray ? What idea is commonly affixed to the name ? 
 Is it not that Universalists believe, and teach " the doctrine of 
 the final holiness and happiness of all mankind?" I need not 
 notice this matter further, nor speak of the unjust, because un- 
 true, declaration, that Universalism " finds its true date in 
 1818." My master directs to pray for those who dcspitefully 
 use us : " Father, forgive thar, !'" 
 
67 
 
 My brother denies my position that the doctrine of endless 
 punishment is of heathen origin, and calls for proof. I thought 
 T presented a little proof in my former discourse, hut he has 
 not deemed it worthy of notice. He says, " The law of God first 
 ffiven to man, I regard as the first announcement of this doc- 
 trine." Is it not a little singular that my brother should call 
 upon me to present proof of the origin of his sentiment of end- 
 less punishment, which he regards as taught in " 'JMie law of 
 God first given to man," witiiout so much as producing one tes- 
 timony from the first written law of God, in proof of the cor- 
 rectness of his opinion ? Had he produced one " thus saith 
 the Lord," from the Old Testament, it would have settled the 
 matter at once, and I might well have been defied to produce 
 the contrary. But I will endeavor to sustain yny position. — 
 " Jahn says, that the Pharisees ' taught that the spirits of the 
 wicked were tormented with everlasting punishments.' (Bib. 
 Arclueology) Prideaux, however, is more distinct than Jahn, 
 in stating this as their opinion. Of the wicked, they believed, 
 that their souls, as soon as separated from the bodies, were 
 transmitted into a state of everlasting wo, there to suffer the 
 punishment of thdr sins to all ctcrniti/.' (Vol. 3. p. 46.) 
 
 From whence did the Pharisees obtain this doctrine ? I an- 
 swer, that this sect undoubtedly found it among the Jews, 
 when it sprang up among them. But whence did the Jews ob- 
 tain it 1 not from the Old Testament ; for the Old Testament 
 may be searched from end to end, and in vain, to find such 
 doctrine. What then ? Dr. Geo. Campbell shall tell us in his 
 own language. 
 
 " But the opinions, says he, neither of the Hebrews nor of 
 the heathens, remained invariably the same. And from the 
 time of the captivity, more escpecially, from the time of the 
 subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian empire, and af- 
 terward to the Roman ; as they had a closer intercourse with 
 pagans, tlici/ insensibly imbibed many of their sentiments, par- 
 ticularly on those subjects whereon the law was silent, and 
 wherein, by consequence, they considered themselves as at 
 greater freedom. On this subject of a future state, we find a 
 considerable diff'erencc in the popular opinion of the Jews, in 
 
58 
 
 our Savior's lime, from those which prevailed in the days of 
 the ancient proplicts. As both Gi'ecks and Romans had adopt- 
 ed the notion, tiiat the ghosts of the departed were susceptible, 
 both of enjoyment, and of sutfering; tliey were led to suppose 
 a sort of retribution in tliat state, for the merit or demerit in 
 the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the pagan fables 
 on this subject, nor did they express themselves, entirely, in 
 the same manner; bid ihc general Iruia of Ihinking in hoik, came 
 ■pretiy much to coincide.'" (]3is. G, Part 2, Sec. 10.) 
 
 We wish it to be carefully observed, that this testimony of 
 Dr. Campbell, whom I d.)ul)t not my brother will acknowledge 
 is some little authority, tells us that the Jews learned opinions 
 of the heathen, on those subjects about which their law pre- 
 served silence. " Their law, as we have seen, preserves 
 the most profound silence in regard to endless misenj ; 
 while the heathen did believe, as we have also seen, in endless 
 njisery. What more probable, then, that the Jews should im- 
 bibe the heathen notions on this subject, especially during the 
 Babylonian captivity, in which they came in contact with pa- 
 gans for seventy years? Indeed, Campbell says, that they 
 weie led to suppose a retribution in another world for the sins 
 of this; and that the train of thinking, on this point, both by 
 Jews and pagans, came pretty much to coincide. It was from 
 the pagans, then, that the Jews learned the doctrine of endless 
 misery. And when the Pharisees sprang up, they found this 
 doctrine among the Jews, and they adopted it."* 
 
 II. My brother's second division, has reference to the same 
 subject presented in the second position of his first discourse ; 
 viz. 1st. That Christ and his apostles, " nowhere in their his- 
 tory ever raised a note of alarm against the doctrine of endless 
 punishment." He speaks of me as having pi^oduced a solitary 
 text to meet this assertion of his. Did he ask for more than 
 one? Pie said so far as he could learn, "they nowhere in 
 their history ever raised a single note of alarm." One text 
 then was as good hh fifty to meet his statement. 
 
 He seems to think I used craft in that when I quoted from 
 Matt. xvi. 12, I left off the words "and of the Sadducees." 
 He askn, " Why did he stop in his quotation" ? &.c. I did not 
 
 * G. W. Moiiigiiincrv. 
 
59 
 
 deem it necessary to bring tlie Sudducees into the argument at 
 all, because tbey were believers in the doctrine at' aiinihilulion. 
 " Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Saddu- 
 fvcs," is what he would have presented. 1 did not suppose 
 that my brotlier would have been disposed to assert that the 
 Sadihicees were Universalists; because, were he to do thus, he 
 would have contradicted his former declaration, tliat " some 
 I'iiw in lluac killer datjs had called in (juestion the doctrine of 
 endless punishment;" that they were " new teachers." lie 
 attempts to refute my argument upon his main position, by an 
 alteration in the ptiraseology of the quotation 1 made from W. 
 M. Feriiald. That quotation was made in consequence of his 
 having quoted a sentence in its connection himself. By leav- 
 ing out the Pharisees, (he says) " 1 will prove to you that the 
 Savior warned his disciples against Univevsuiism." Well, 
 then, Universalism is some older, according to his own admis 
 Bion, than John Murray, or Hosca Ballon! But, my friends, 
 the Sadducees were not Universalists. Far from it. They de- 
 nied the doctrine of the future life altogether; not only futui-e 
 punishment but future happiness also. See Matt. xxii. i23; 
 Mark xii. 18; Luke xx. 27. 
 
 This single fact, that Christ and his apostles taught the res- 
 urrection, was a death blow to their system; but not to Univer- 
 salism — not to Christianity. 
 
 My brother says, "• But our Savior tells us (f(.;/tui/c/i/ what this 
 diulrinc is against which he warned his disciples." He quotes 
 from Luke xii. 1, where Christ bids his discii)les, "Beware 
 of the leaven of the Pharisees, wlucli is hijpocrisij.'''' The text 
 that I presented, was from Matt. xvi. 12 — Where Jesus di- 
 rects the disciples, " Beware of the doclrine of the Pharisees 
 and of the Sadducas.'" 1 have yet to learn that the sin of h\j- 
 pocrhil, was a dodrlnc publicly believed in and advocated eith- 
 er by the Pharisees or Sadducees. The master warned his dis- 
 ciples of the doclrine of the Pharisees, which represented that 
 only those ihcij called the sainis would enjoy future and endless 
 bliss, while tliose they called the sinners, would be doomed to 
 endless punishment ; and, also the doclrine oC ^.\n^ Sadduetes, 
 which denied the doctrine of the resurrection, taught by Jesus, 
 
60 
 
 and which Universalists in these days teach. I am not aware 
 that the belief in the existence of God was not cherished by 
 others beside the Pharisees in those days. 
 
 2. My brother notices the passage in 1 Timothy iv. 10, 
 which I presented as proof that the apostles were opposed for 
 believing and preaching a doctrine opposite to endless punish- 
 ment. He says of me, " this is the only text that he produced 
 in answer to my call." Well, my friends, the call was made for 
 but one instance in the whole New Testament — only one. 
 Surely he should be satisfied if I presented one. The impres- 
 sion designed to be made by the text, was simply of the fact 
 taught in it. " Therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, 
 [why.^] because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of 
 all men.'' But my brother says that the reason they "suf- 
 fered reproach, was because they trusted in the living God in 
 opposition to the idol gods of the heathen." But was this let- 
 ter of Paul written to a heathen convert? Nay, it was written 
 to one, who from childhood was educated in the Jewish relig- 
 ion, which surely taught the existence of the one living and 
 true God; it was written to his son in the gospel ministry — 
 Timothy. The gospel taught something more than the Phar- 
 isees' and Sadducees' creed, concerning the Great Jehovah. It 
 not only taught that he was the living God, but that he was 
 " the Savior of all men." Will my brother attempt to maintain 
 the position that the apostles met with opposition, or suffered 
 reproach only from the heathen nations? that tlie Jews, the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees never opposed the christians? It is 
 very evident that there was some other cause, why Paul and 
 Timothy, and the rest of the christian band suffered reproach, 
 and this is distinctly declared in the passage presented," because 
 they trusted in the living God who is the Savior of o// jue/i." 
 My brother says God is the Savior of all men, inasmuch as he 
 has provided salvation for all, and invited all to come and be 
 saved." Well, allow this; the all-wise God would not be so 
 unwise as to make provision for the salvation of all, when he 
 knew that only a part would come and be saved. But the idea 
 he evidently designed to convey, was this — God had made the 
 provision, yet all would not come; nevertheless he is the Sav- 
 
61 
 
 ior of those who do not come! I confess myself unable to com- 
 prehend this. 
 
 Were you on board a vessel, when some unfortmuUe sailor 
 had fallen into the ocean, and witnessed the exertions of the 
 crew to rescue him from a watery grave, which proved abor- 
 tive; would you call that crew the saviors of the sailor? They 
 indeed made all the offers — tiiey used every means in their 
 power to save him; but they were unsuccessful. 
 
 I cannot believe our Heavenly Father is the Savior of all 
 men, unless he has made such provision for all, as icill save 
 all. 
 
 The latter clause of the text, my brother deems important, 
 " especially of those that believe." I appeal to every chris- 
 tian believer present, whether he or she does not feel that he 
 or she enjoys a special salvation in believing ? This testimony in 
 the text does in no way invalidate the preceding portion of it. I 
 will present two passages that will make the subject plain. Paul 
 says, 2 Timothy iv. 11. "The cloak that I lefl at Troas with 
 Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, 
 but especially the parchments." Will any say that Paul did 
 not wish the cloak and the books, because he spoke especially 
 of the parchments? Again, David says, Ps. xxxi. 11. "I was 
 a reproach among all mine enemies, but especialbj among my 
 neighbors." Would any assert that David was not a reproach 
 among his enemies from this? By no means. We argue then 
 that not only is God the special Savior of the believer here, but 
 he is also the Savior of all men, and that it was for preaching 
 that he is such, that Christ and his apostles suffered reproach. 
 My brother calls for a " single lexl" that declares this fact, and 
 says, " This [i] cannot produce!'''' I appeal to the honest and 
 candid hearer whether I have done this, and whether one testi- 
 mony has been presented where Christ or his apostles ever 
 preached against the sentiment of endless punishment. Jesus 
 warned his disciples against the endless punishment doctrine 
 of the Pharisees, and the annihilation doctrine of the Saddu- 
 cees! As did Christ so would we say unto you, Beware of the 
 doctrine, yes, and also, Be^vare of the hypocrisij of the Phari- 
 sees. They believed " in the doctrine of' endless punishment 
 
62 
 
 for a part or portion of the human family." Not for themselves, 
 to be sure, but for those ihcy called sinners. Again, we say, 
 beware of this partial, endless wo doctrine of the Pharisees, 
 and annihilation doctrine of the Sadducees. 
 
 III. We pass now to an examination of the third and main 
 division of the discourse. This is based upon the following in- 
 quiry, which is the same as presented in the former discourse. 
 ' ' Did Chrisl and his aposlles use such language in their discour- 
 ses and ivntings as was used by believers iii endless punishment in 
 reference to this subjectl" The idea, if I understand it, is this. 
 If Christ and his apostles ever used such language as the be- 
 lievers in endless punishment were accustomed to use as de- 
 scriptive of their doctrine, either in parable or otherwise, why 
 then, they of course believed with those who taught such doc- 
 trine. But we deem this conclusion illegitimate. 
 
 Our reasons are, that were we to allow this to be truth, we 
 should in applying this same principle of interpretation, make 
 the Savior a believer in many foolish notions entertained among 
 the people of those days. For instance, it is well known that 
 the Jews believed in the doctrine of demonology; that people 
 were actually taken possession of by wicked, invisible spirits; 
 that the spirits of deceased wicked men were permitted to 
 return to the earth and torment mankind. Now it is allowed 
 by the enlightened of all sects, indeed they unite, in rejecting 
 the belief of these heathen demons as absurd in the extreme. 
 And yet it is said repeatedly in the New Testament, that the 
 Savior cast out devils. On a certain occasion the Pharisees 
 accused Christ of casting out devils, or demons, by the power 
 of the idol " Beelzebub, the prince of devils." In reply, Jesus 
 exclaimed, " If I, by Beelzebub, cast out devils, by whom do 
 your children cast them out.'" Here Jesus did not correct 
 their heathen notions on this subject and instruct them that this 
 God was but a senseless idol, but he allowed them to remain still 
 in their belief of Beelzebub as the prince of devils. 
 
 If he had thought it important to correct this error, particu- 
 larly, he doubtless would have done it. But because he used 
 this language common among tiiem, it is no more right for us 
 to say that he believed in and taught the possession of devils. 
 
63 
 
 as a truth, than it would ho for usi to say that our riiysirians 
 hcUovo that corlaiii iniagiuai-y saints have taken up th(Mr alxxle 
 in those persons who are alllicfed with th(! St. Antliou} 's J"'ire — 
 or St. V^itus' Dance, &.c. 
 
 These are simply diseases of the hody, and arc not caused 
 by the power oi' sonic imaginary Saint. 
 
 "Jesus evidently did not deem it necessary or important to 
 undertake to correct all the erroneous and absurd notions of 
 that age. The Jews were exceedingly superstitious and bigot- 
 ted. They entertained a vast variety of dogmas of the most 
 unreasonable and foolish description. Had C'hrist turned his 
 attenti(»n to these minor errors, and endeavored to banish from 
 the minds of tlie people all the absurdities they cherished, it 
 would have occupied his whole time and attention. Jesus, rath- 
 er than spend his time upon the multitude of these lesser errors, 
 deemed it more important to correct the greater errors which 
 the Jews entertained in regard to the character oi God, and 
 the principles by which he is governed in his deaUngs with the 
 world, and to devote his whole energy to the establishment of 
 his gospel among men, knowing that wherever that gospel pre- 
 vailed it w'ould unavoidably sweep away this doctrine of demons 
 and all false ''notions." 
 
 Tliis subject we have introduced, merely to illustrate the idea 
 wc intended to convey, when we said, in our former rejoinder, 
 that Jesus sometimes in his instructions made kis language " to 
 conform to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Is- 
 raelites, yet without endorsing their superstitions as truth." 
 
 This my brother is unwilling to admit, because as he thinks 
 on this principle it will be impossible to prove that there is such 
 a place or state as Heaven. Very well, I do not wish to reply 
 to this objection, as I do not rely upon heathenish testimony 
 in proof" of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
 
 My brother quotes again from Josephus, and speaks of my 
 admitting all he contended for, which he shows is not the case, 
 in that he immediately proceeds to make a''long quotation from 
 Dr. Fisk, the substance of which is "that Christ and his apos- 
 tles used the same language employed by the Jews in reference 
 to endless punishment, and that without the least intimation that 
 
64 
 
 tliey held a contrary doctrine. Whether Christ and his apos- 
 tles taught a doctrine contrary to endless punishment, viz. the 
 final holiness and happiness of all mankind, is a point that comes 
 under the latter head of the question under discussion, and 
 which will he noticed when we come to search the Word in its 
 support. 
 
 Allow that Jesus used the same phraseology that the Jews 
 did when speaking of endless punishment; it still remains 
 to to be shown that Jesus applied this language to the 
 future, endless condition of all the wicked, — as the Jews 
 did. The challenge of my brother to me to produce " a 
 single term or phrase employed by the Jews to express 
 endless punishment, stronger than those used by Jesus 
 Christ and his apostles;" appears to me to be off from the 
 question under discussion, and may with propriety be met 
 with a challenge for him to produce language used by Christ 
 and his apostles, stronger than that used by Jews or heathen. 
 For surely if they taught this doctrine of endless piinishment 
 which is deemed the pillar of morality by many, they would 
 have presented it in plain, distinct terms, so that there need be no 
 question about it. But I make not the challenge, as were there 
 such a case, my brother would have presented it as one of his 
 proof texts. We will here ask a question which has often pre- 
 sented itself to our mind. If Christ and his apostles taught 
 this blessed, nay, horrid sentiment of endless misery, so conge- 
 nial to the opinions and feelmgs of the Jews and heathen gen- 
 erally, why did they persecute him so bitterly? 
 
 Was it for preaching this doctrine of partialism — endless 
 and unmitigated woe — that the pure, the humble, the sinless, 
 the kind, and benevolent Jesus was crucified.? No, no! The 
 bosom of the " beloved Son," contained too much of the milk 
 of human kindness, too nmch of love, too much of pity and 
 compassion; it felt too much of the spirit of the first and sec- 
 ond commandments — love to God and love to man — on which 
 hang all the law and the pVophets, to teach the doctrine of 
 God's endless love to a part, and God's endless hatred to the 
 remaining part of the human family. 
 
G5 
 
 I. My brother accuses me of having made an " unwarrant- 
 able assumption that three of his proof texts were parables ; 
 wiiich he says I " made no attempt to, and cannot prove." It 
 will bo remembered by the liearer, I presume, tiiat I gave an 
 explanation of wliat was considered a parable. I did not sup- 
 pose my brother would deny those texts were parables; it is the 
 opinion of the most intelligent and respectable commentators, 
 ancient as well as modern, and of all denominations, that the 
 narration of tlie Rich Man and Lazarus, is not a literal history 
 but a parable. I may mention the names of Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. 
 Whitby, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Gill, the ancient and learned 
 Theophylact, Dr. Proudfit, Archbishop Tillotson, Stc. all but 
 one, I believe, were believers in the doctrine of endless 
 punishment. Dr. Lightfoot speaks of it as credulity and ignor- 
 ance, to suppose this a literal history; and in addition remarks 
 as follows — " That it was a parable not only the consent of all 
 erpositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it. 
 
 My brother's quotation from Dr. Clarke need not be noticed, 
 as it proves not that the account is real historij. Three objec- 
 tions are urged against calling this passage in Luke xvi. 22 — 26, 
 a parable. 
 
 1. He says, "it is not introduced as such." It begins 
 " There ivas, ^c.^' The eloquent and celebrated French di- 
 vine, Saurin, says, " certain critics affirm, some ancient man- 
 uscripts introduce the passage with these words, " Jesus spake 
 a parable, saying, There was a certain rich man,"&c. Arch- 
 bishop Tillotson agrees with this. But receive the record just as 
 it is now, this objection of my brother's is of no weight at all, 
 since it could be appHed with the same propriety to the parable 
 of the good Samaritan, (which begins — " A certain man went 
 down from Jerusalem,") and the prodigal son, and many oth- 
 ers that are recorded without any distinct declaration that they 
 are parables. 
 
 2. My brother says, " there is no feature of this account 
 that is necessarilij figurative." I should like to know if this is 
 the fact, how large the bosom of Mr aha m might be, if Lazarus 
 was literally carried into it by angels. 
 
 3. He says, " It is unlike all other parables," which were 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 " designed to illustrate high and important truths. If this be a 
 parable, it is a fictitious narration of something — no one 
 knows what." I reply, that as this narration, from what we 
 have already said, must evidently be a parable ; and as it was 
 spoken by our Lord, it must have been designed to illustrate 
 some truth. The remark that, " if it be a parable, it is a ficti- 
 tious narration of something — no one knows what," I presume 
 to be an acknowledgement that if I can prove it to be a para- 
 ble, it no longer is an argument, or proof text, in support of 
 the doctrine of endless punishment. 
 
 I will offer one or two more reasons why this must be a 
 parable. 
 
 If received literally, it would teach that a certain man was 
 lost, simply because he was rich, and another saved because he 
 was poor. The passage does not say that the rich man was 
 vicious and wicked. The only thing that is alleged against him 
 is, that he was rich; that he was clothed in purple and fine lin- 
 en, and fared sumptuously every day. Now if the rtc/i in this 
 world are to be lost forever, I tremble for some members of 
 my brother's denomination. Dr. Clarke says of the rich man, 
 " In comparison of thousands, he was not only blameless, but 
 he was a virtuous man." 
 
 Again, there is nothing in the record to show that the moral 
 character of the beggar was any better than that of the rich 
 man. Another objection to receiving the passage as a real 
 history is, that it would compel us to believe that when the beg- 
 gar died, he actually and literally went into the bosom of Abra- 
 ham. How absurd the idea. We cannot say that this is figu- 
 rative, unless it be allowed that the whole account is figurative. 
 It would violate all rules of language to say, a part of the trans- 
 actions were figurative, and another part literal. 
 
 Another objection to giving a literal construction to the pas- 
 sage is, that it would teach that heaven and hell are so near, 
 that the inhabitants can see and converse with each other. 
 Can any who possess the least sensibilty, desire to go to heav- 
 en, if they must there look upon their father or mother, their 
 brothers or sisters, or some of their dear friends, and countless 
 multitudes of their fellow beings, writhing in flames of fire, and 
 
67 
 
 hear them shrieking in agony, and calHng for water to cool 
 their tongues? What kind of hearts, I would Uke to be in 
 formed, must those possess who can wish to enter such a heav- 
 en? Again, must not these sights be seen, and these sounds 
 be heard, by those who are in heaven, if the account of the Rich 
 man and Lazarus is a literal history ? But enough ; we think 
 that reasons sufficient have already been presented to satisfy our 
 hearers, that the passage under consideration is a imrahle. 
 Was it then candid in me when I before declared that it was 
 a parable ? 
 
 My brother asks. What great truth is even alluded to if the 
 passage is not understood literally? He calls for proof that 
 Christ applied it to something in this state of existence. If I 
 have shown that his application cannot be correct, it is suffi- 
 cient so far as the argument is concerned. It is not my duty 
 to give the true application, since I do not rely upon the pas- 
 sage in support of my side of the question; and again, the time 
 allotted me, docs not admit of a thorough examination of the 
 parable. Suffice it that we state in outline, that we consider 
 the rich man the parabolic representative of the unbelieving 
 Jewish people ; that Lazarus is the parabolic representative of 
 the publicans and sinners, whether of Jewish or Gentile ex- 
 traction; that by Abraham's bosom, is symbolized the gospel 
 kingdom; and that Hades is symbolically used, as in other 
 parts of the Bible, to represent the miseries and torments ex- 
 perienced by those of whom the rich man is a parabolic repre- 
 sentative. Jesus evidently designed by this allegory to repre- 
 sent the casting away of the Jews in consequence of their blind 
 and obstinate unbelief, and the entrance of the Gentiles into 
 the gospel kingdom of Jesus Christ.* 
 
 II. My brother's second proof text is Luke xii. 4, 5: where 
 Jesus said to his disciples, " Be not afraid of them that kill the 
 body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I 
 will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; Fear him, which after 
 he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; (Gehenna,) yea, 
 
 * Agreeably lo the notice given 1 Icclurcd on llie parable tlic following Sunday 
 
68 
 
 I say unto you fear him." The simple idea of this passage 
 to my mind, as I gave before, is that Jesus would have his dis- 
 ciples fear God, and not men. God who had infinite power, 
 and therefore could inflict upon them something more grievous 
 than men could do. Human tribunals could deprive them of 
 physical life, but they could do tw more. I did not assert that 
 by Gehenna in the passage, was to be understood the calami- 
 ties which should befall the Jews, as my brother would repre- 
 sent me as having done. The question upon the text is, " does it 
 teach the doctrine of endless punishment for any part or portion 
 of the human family?" The whole argument, therefore, is bas- 
 ed upon the word Gehenna — here translated hell. Does this 
 word signify endless punishment? I answer it does not, and 
 further, that the word was not used by the Jews in such a 
 sense, before or at the time of the Savior. But, allowing that 
 it does here mean endless punishment, for the sake of the ar- 
 gument, which we contend it does not, there is no proof from the 
 text itself, that God will cast any into endless woe ! It proves 
 nothing further than that God "hath power,'' not that he will. 
 You will get my idea more clearly from the words of Jesus, 
 Matt. iii. 9; where he says, "God is able of these stones to 
 raise up children unto Abraham." God was «6/e, he had </ie 
 power to perform the act, but that was no proof that he would 
 do it. Again, Matt. xxvi. 53, Jesus says, " Thinkest thou that 
 I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently send 
 me more than twelve legions of angels." Although God 
 was able — had the power — to send these angels, yet he did 
 not do it. 
 
 My brother represents me as saving my criticisms on Ge- 
 henna for certain reasons, until I came to notice his third proof 
 text. Now be it known to you all, that my reason for not say- 
 ing more upon this text before, was the very good reason that 
 my brother presented this text and the parable of the ' Offend- 
 ing Hand' together; that he said nothing in the way of com- 
 ment upon the text itself I thank him for reminding me of 
 the mistake I made, in saying that the two words from which 
 Gehenna is derived — Gee and Hinnom were Greek words, 
 they are indeed Hebrew — and it can nowhere be shown 
 
69 
 
 that these words in t!ic Hebrew text of the Old Testament, 
 have tlie least allusion to the doctrine of endless punishment. 
 My brother well knows that this was a mistake of careless- 
 ness, from the remarks I made upon the word under the first 
 division of my former discourse. This is excusable. But the 
 presenting of two passages, where the word Gchnna occurs, 
 and then commenting upon them as though the original word 
 was Hades, is quite another thing. I am glad my brother 
 has discovered his error, and is willing to allow that Gehenna 
 is not a word which could ever be translated grave. I pass 
 now to his third text. 
 
 III. Mark ix. 43, 44. The parable of the Offending Hand. I 
 need not notice his question, in which he represents me as tri- 
 fling with the word of God. Perhaps his views and mine may be 
 different upon this [matter. It appears that I was in error in 
 supposing the extracts which he presented from Josephus, in 
 his remarks upon this passage, should have reference to the 
 place of endless punishment, which he calls hell ; it was in ref- 
 erence to the phrases undying worm and unquenchable fire, 
 that he quoted it. Well, I did not divine that this was his ob- 
 ject, since he gave two reasons why the grave could not be 
 signified in the passage; and quoted from Josephus' discourse 
 on Hades, which surely was something quite different from 
 Gehenna in the passage. Again, I did suppose that the 
 phrases, uiidying worm and unqiicnchahle fire, were not literal, 
 but figurative expressions, and if so, they should be inter- 
 preted with reference to the subject to which they were appli- 
 ed. If they were applied to endless punishment, then we 
 should understand them differently from what we should if they 
 were applied to something that .=hould take place in this world. 
 My brother asked in his former discourse, — having quoted 
 from Josephus, where he introduces terms as applied to the 
 heathen //a(/c5 — not to the Jewish Gehenna; "With what 
 propriety or consistency Christ employed their own phraseology, 
 if lie did not allow the doctrine ?" What doctrine ? The un- 
 dying worm and the unquenchable lire ? No, surely not, these 
 were only appendages of the supposed place of endless misery. 
 
70 
 
 By the doctrine he evidently meant that which he wishes to sus- 
 tain, namely — endless punishment. Well, does the passage 
 prove this woe will befall any part or portion of the human fam- 
 ily ? I think not. And I cannot perceive that my brother has 
 introduced any proof to show that the Jews used the term Gchcn- 
 na, to designate a place of endless punishment ; and that there- 
 fore the disciples of the master understood him as speaking of 
 that when he delivered the parable of the Offending Hand! To 
 be sure my brother says, " I am prepared to prove that Gehenna 
 had come into common use before our Saviour's advent, to ex- 
 press endless punishment, and they (the Jews) must have under- 
 stood him as using it in the same sense." But I cannot discover 
 that he has presented such proof; I should rather have had the 
 thing itself, than the assertion. For my own part I confess 
 myself ignorant of any thing that can be considered unquestion- 
 able authority upon this point. I presume if my brother had 
 had this, he would have presented it and thus have set the mat- 
 ter at rest upon the point, that the Jews used the word Gehen- 
 na, as descriptive of a state of future endless punishment. 
 
 I spoke of the true idea set forth by this parable in my for- 
 mer discourse. I therefore need not do it now. That the pas- 
 sage with the two that follow it, should be understood figura- 
 tively, as parables, and not in a literal sense, is clear, because 
 if taken literally it would be attributing to Jesus the doctrine, 
 that some will enter upon the spiritual existence of another life, 
 deprived of a hand, a foot, or an eye — than which nothing 
 could be more unscriptural or absurd. The remarks that my 
 brother makes upon my closing paragraph consist mainly of 
 questions which deny nothing I asserted, and which it is not 
 my duty to answer; I have not the affirmative of the question, 
 but the negative. Besides there appears to be, and I believe I 
 am not mistaken, something like one Matthew Hale Smith about 
 them, from whose lectures I presume my brother has gathered 
 much material. If he knew him as well as some, he would be 
 cautious how he made much use of that unfortunate individu- 
 al's libellous production. 
 
 IV. llis fourth passage it^ Mutt. x.w. 31 — 40. The parable of 
 
71 
 
 the Sheep and Goals. I marvel much that my broilior shouhl de- 
 ny that the passage is a parable. But this he does, and says, that 
 before I can make the application which I did with the least 
 show of plausibility, I must prove that it is a parable. 
 
 lie professes to give my reasons for calling it such, but he 
 does not go far enough. lie acknowledges that the preceding 
 portion of the chapter consists of two parables. The latter, 
 the parable of the Ten Talents, is known to be such, because 
 the record says, " For the kingdom of heaven is as a man trav- 
 elling into a far country." Now the passage we are to notice 
 says, that " When the Son of Man shall come, &c. — he shall 
 separate them (all nations) one from another as a Shepherd di- 
 videth his sheep from the goats ;" with this my brother stops in 
 his quotation. He acknowledges the latter clause of the 32d 
 verse to be figurative, but the rest of the passage he tells us is 
 to be understood as literal and not parabolical. The 32d verse 
 is as follows, "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
 the goats on his left." Is this to be understood literally ? Yes, 
 that is the amount of my brother's argument. Very well then, 
 the passage answers not the purpose for which it is produced, 
 for if it is to be received in a literal sense, it is far from prov- 
 ing the endless punishment of man. And these, who ? why 
 these on the left hand, these goats, not wicked men to be sure, 
 for the passage does not contain tlie words ; to be sure the 
 words, the cursed, occur; but who are the cursed'.' the goats of 
 course, for be it observed this account is not a parable but a 
 literal fact, according to my brother's argument. " And these 
 (goats) shall go away into everlasting punishment." And what 
 is the everlasting punishment 1 Why the everlasting fire, pre- 
 pared for the devil land his angels. Everlasting fire? yes, a 
 literal fire, it matters not what may be the materials that keep 
 the fire alive, it is an everlasting fire prepared, designed for the 
 devil and his angels, but then the goats are to go into it ; there 
 is no excuse for them, never mind if they are not the devil's an- 
 gels, the decree has gone forth. Depart ! and these shall go into 
 everlasting punishment. 
 
 Do you my friends call this trifling with the language of Je- 
 
72 
 
 siis ? It is. And whose .irgunient is it that does this? Is it 
 his wiio claims the passage to be a literal truth, or is it his who 
 asks only that the language may be received as the Great Tea- 
 cher uttered it, and designed that it should he ; figuratively, to 
 illustrate an important truth .' I submit it to the candid hear- 
 er whether the passage is a parable or otherwise. 
 
 I have presented this matter in the light I have, that my 
 brother may see that bold assertion and ridicule is two edged, 
 it may be used by each, but it is not the true weapon for either. 
 Let then the aim be to present convincing argument, and plain, 
 reasonable, scripture proof in support of affirmative declara- 
 tions. 
 
 My brother endeavors to overthrow my position that the pas- 
 sage has special reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 the overthrow of the Jewish nation. But his objections are bas- 
 ed wholly upon tlie fact that it is to be understood literally, and 
 not as a parable. He further thinks that if he can show that 
 the Jewish overthrow is not alluded to, that it will be admitted 
 on all hands that this passage " is descriptive of a day of gen- 
 eral judgment yet future." 
 
 For one I should not be willing to admit the position. I 
 should then call for proof allowing that there is to be such a 
 day of jndgmtiit, as my brother speaks of, which by the way I 
 do uut find taught in tlie Holy Bible. — I say, allowing that 
 there is to be such a day, I must still call for proof that a portion 
 of the human family will be sentenced to endless punishment. 
 
 I need not condescend to notice his objections, since I have 
 shown that the foundation upon which they are based is not 
 literal but parabolical language. Where are his arguments in 
 support of his sentiment drawn from the passage ? I have seen 
 none other; then if it does not refer to the Jewish overthrow, 
 it must refer to another world. This I do not admit. The 
 careful reader of the New Testament will remember that the 
 division into chapters and verses is an invention of comparative- 
 ly recent origin ; he will therefore, in commencing a chapter, 
 be careful to observe whether the subject is continued from the 
 previous chapter or not. Now the chapter in which the para- 
 
73 
 
 ble of the Sheep and (ioats is recorded, begins with the words 
 'Jlicn shall, t^T. When ? look back through the 24th chap- 
 ter, and you will have your answer. Now I believe that it is 
 universally allowed that the first part of this chapter has refer- 
 ence to the time of the Jewish overthrow, and I have never 
 been able to discover where Jesus left that subject and proceed- 
 ed to speak of another and very different one. As therefore 
 the former part of the Savior's discourse, speaks of the Jeru- 
 salem destruction, so does the whole, unless it can be distinct- 
 ly shown that Jesus did change, and where he changed his 
 theme. As the parable under notice is recorded in this dis- 
 course, it has reference to the same general subject spoken of 
 here. The ti?iic to which the parable refers depends upon the 
 meaning of the word then at the commencement of the 25th 
 chapter. To learn this, as I before said, we must examine the 
 24th chapter. I will read the 14th to the 2 1st verses. * * * * 
 Now the question is, what is spoken of here 1 Every one will 
 allow that it is the Jewish overthrow. The time then is fixed, 
 to which this parable refers ; and as it has allusion to something 
 that took place in this mnrld, it cannot teach the doctrine of 
 endless punishment, for any part or portion of the human 
 family. 
 
 V. My brother's fifth and last proof text is 2 Thessaloni- 
 nns i. 7 — 9. The amount of his argument upon this passage, 
 is, that the Jewish overthrow is not plainly alluded to, in the 
 epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. He also says of me, " He 
 cannot furnish the name of a single biblical student of any note 
 who applies this text to that event." In reply I ask, whether 
 such men as Dr. Hammond, Newcome Cappe and Dr. Gill, 
 were men of mean obscurity ? I assert without the fear of con- 
 tradiction that such individuals as these stand high in the theo- 
 logical world as biblical students of some note. Perhaps as 
 hiwh as my brother himself would like to stand. They answer 
 his assertion. Let it be observed that my brother has not re- 
 plied to my arguments on the passage, neither has he presented 
 an iota of proof this evening to show that it must have refer- 
 ence to another state ef existence. He has noticed, indeed 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 certain texts which I prfscuted to show tlie tinu- aJliided to by 
 Paul. But he has not shown that lliey necessarily have refereuoe 
 lo the future svorl-l. 1 wish to quote here again Luke xvii. 30, Ul ; 
 Matt. xxiv. 1;> — i&, Matt, xxiii. 36 ; Luke x\i. -20—23; Matt. x. 
 23; xvi. 27, 28; xxiv. 29, 31).* Now from these passages we 
 learn that directions were to be observed in that day, when the 
 Son of man should be revealed, when the abomination of 
 desolation spoken of by D iniel should be witnessed, when Jcv 
 rusalem should be compassed with armies ; and Jesus testifies 
 that all these things should come upon that generation, yea the 
 disciples should not have gone over the cities of L-^rael till the 
 Son of Man be come, that then the tribes of the earth should 
 see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with pow- 
 er and great glory, and that there were some standing before 
 him who should not taste death, till they beheld the Son of 
 man coming in his kingdom. What shall we say of the indi- 
 vidual who presumes to dispute this plain testimony I May I 
 not with justness retort the language deemed appropriate to 
 me ? Let him who calls in question the words of the great 
 master, go and settle the matter with Jesus. For my part I 
 prefer to receive the teachings of my Savior, as of more weight 
 than the attempts to ' explain away,' made by persons in these 
 days. 
 
 In conclusion, I remark, that 1 have thus briellv, endeavored 
 again to meet, what my brother has presented as proof of tlie 
 affirmative of the question, lie presented in his first discourse 
 five passages from the New Testament ; these he has reiterat- 
 ed in his second, and whether I have shown that these, which 
 are his strongest, if not all of his proof te.xts, do not teach the 
 horrid sentiment of endless punishment, or otherwise, is left 
 to the candid judgment of our hearers. 
 
 One word upon the passage quoted as the conclusion of his 
 discourse. Mark xvi. 16. " He that believeth and is baptized, 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." 
 I need not ask from what those should be saved who believed ? 
 
 * The reader will please turn to the paj$ag;es. 
 
75 
 
 Ii» wlinl we have thi'< evening advanced, it ise\Ldent th;it it 
 >v;is not etuiless punishment in another worhl. It' you will 
 re.id tiie verses th;it follow the passage, you will find some- 
 thing like this — " And these signs shall follow them that be- 
 lieve : In my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak 
 with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they 
 drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay 
 hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Does my brother 
 profess to bc/iciw ? Can he do these things ? Then let him 
 he cautious how he quotes language on which he intends a pe- 
 culiar construction shall be put. 
 
 I leave the subject with the |)rayer that the time may soon 
 come when the heathen sentiment of Partialism, " The doc- 
 trine that a part or portion of the human family shall be doom- 
 ed to suifer endless punishment, in another state of being," 
 may be eradicated from the minds and hearts of men, as tho- 
 roughly as it is from that Book of books, the Holy Scriptures, 
 and that in its place the light of divine truth, and the spirit of 
 love may pervade the whole intelligent creation. — Amen. 
 
DISCUSSION, 
 
 Paut II. No. 1. 
 
 l.N THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 11, 1843. 
 
 BY E. FRANCIS 
 
 " Is the doctrine of endless punishment. for any pari or portion 
 of the human family taught in the Scriptures ; or, is the doctrine 
 of the final holiness and happiness of all ma7ikindV^ 
 
 WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? 
 
 TEXT EOM. IV. 3. 
 
 The subject of discussion this evening is the latter part of 
 the conjoint question we have just read. The language I have 
 selected for my text, seemed to me peculiarly fitting, as it is 
 my duty and pleasure to speak in behalf of the position that 
 the Scriptures " teach the doctrine of the final holiness and hap- 
 piness of all mankind." 
 
 I acknowledge that the situation I have occupied on the otii- 
 er evenings of the discussion, was not very pleasing to my feel- 
 ings ; in that it was my duty to combat error, and show the 
 absurdity of certain arguments relied upon as proof of the sen- 
 timent of endless punishment for a part or portion of the hu- 
 man family, without being permitted to present direct proofs 
 of the opposite sentiment. At this time a more agreeable task 
 is mine. "To the law and to the testimony," our subject di- 
 
77 
 
 reels us. Do the Srripttirrs loach iho universal and ini|)arli;il 
 love of God as maniresled in ullinialely redejcniing the whole 
 human (amWy from all sinfulness and misery, and niakinir thuin 
 finally holt/ and happy ? 
 
 As my time is very brief, and I am wholly confined to the 
 Scriptures, you will perceive that I am obliged to omit the 
 thousand arguments 1 might derive from reason, from the 
 workings of God's spirit on the renewed heart, and from God's 
 teachings in nature. Even many of the abundant proofs fur- 
 nished by the Holy Sciptures, I must wholly omit for the want 
 of time. 
 
 I. It has been sometimes said that Universalists derive the 
 most of their scripture arguments from the Old Testament ; I 
 will, therefore, produce but little of its testimony to the doc- 
 trine of " the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken 
 by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began," 
 Acts iii. 21. From the Old Testament, then, I now produce 
 only the promises made to the Ancient Patriarchs. In Genesis 
 xxii. 18, we find it recorded, as the language of the Lord to 
 Abraham, " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed." This declaration was renewed unto Isaac (xxvi. 4;) 
 and the same promise was confirmed unto Jacob in Genesis 
 xxviii. 14 ; it is written thus — " In thy seed shall all the fam- 
 ilies of the earth be blessed. These promises are also spoken of 
 by Peter (Acts iii. 25,) on this wise : " And in thy seed shall 
 all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." From this testimo- 
 ny we learn, that the eventual blessedness in Christ of all the 
 nations, families and kindreds of the earth, is guarantied by 
 the promise of the Almighty, who, " is not a man that he 
 should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent. Hath 
 he said, and shall he not do it ? or hath spoken, and shall he 
 not make it good?" (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Moreover, " When 
 God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no 
 greater, he sware by himself. . . . For men verily swear by the 
 greater ; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all 
 strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto 
 the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirm- 
 ed it by an oath : that by fivn immntnhlt f/iinq-f, in which it wa!» 
 
78 
 
 imj>()ss!h/( for (JcxI to lie, we iiiiirlit have a strong consolation, 
 who have fled lor refuse to lay hold u])on the hope set before 
 lis," (Hebrews vi. 13 — 18.) That the language of the prom- 
 ise conveys the idea of i/niiursality cannot be successfully dis- 
 puted, inasinuch as no individual can be found who belongs 
 not to some nation, family, or kindred. And, indeed, Partial- 
 ists themselves are constrained to admit the universality of this 
 language. On Gen. xxviii. 14, Dr. Clarke remarks, " Not on- 
 ly all thy rear, but all the other families or tribes of mankind, 
 which have not proceeded from the Abrahamic family, shall be 
 blessed ; for Jesos Christ bi/ the graee of God tasted death 
 FOR EVERY MAN." And On Geu. xii. 3, he remarks, " In llie 
 Messiah shall all the families of the earth be blessed; for he 
 shall taste death for every man ; his gospel shall be preached 
 throughout the world ; and innumerable blessings be derived on 
 Ahh MANKIND, tlirough his death and intercession.'" But an 
 objection is sometimes urged here, that these promises which 
 are thus universal, are not gospel promises, but only promises 
 of temporal blessings. The apostle refutes this objection ; he 
 calls them gospel promises. Paul, in Gal. iii. alluding to them 
 says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto A- 
 braham, saying, in tliee shall all nations be blessed." And he 
 adds — "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promise^^ 
 made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as for one. 
 and to thy seed, irhirh is Christ." Again, we wrMild ask, is 
 Jesus only an rartlih/ prince and merely a ien:poral Savior ? 
 Xo — his is a hrarenltj dominion, and his is a spiritual suhn- 
 lion, and such, also, must be tiie blessiii'^. It was said of him, 
 " Thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people 
 from their sins. Matt. i. 31. Jn accordance with this text, 
 Peter, in speaking of the gospel preached to Abraham, says, 
 in Acts iii. 26, " Ve are the chiblren of the prophets, and of 
 the covenant which Go<l nridc with our fathers, saying unto 
 Abraham, And in thy seed sli.ili all the kindreds of the earth 
 be blessed." Ifow wore they to be blessed \ — witii tenipor;i] 
 blcssin<Ts, only ? Xo — he ir tlie trstimony — " I'nto you, fir?i , 
 God having raised up hifi Son Jesuf, sent him to bbss you, //' 
 
79 
 
 turning awaij evf.rv one uf xjun ihom his iniquities" — i. e. in 
 saving e\ery[.:1N'D1\ im ai. " kuom his sins." 
 
 This testimony that we have preseiited, fully meets the objec- 
 tion that these promises'made to the Patriarchs were promises 
 oUemporal blessings only. They were indeed sphHual, and as 
 the apostle testifies, Gnspd promises, and also promises of jus- 
 tification through thith. 
 
 But again, it is objected that admitting they are gospel prom- 
 ises, nevertheless they are conditional; that the blessing indi- 
 cated in the promise was to be enjoyed Ihrough failh, and that 
 as faith is not exercised by all the nations, families, and kind- 
 reds of the earth, soothe prospect of universal blessedness in 
 Christ is a mere illusion. 
 
 1st. We answer that there is nothing in the promises than- 
 selves that is conditional.* The language is positive and abso- 
 lute. The Lord says, In thy seed shall all be blessed. We 
 further answer, these promises are either unconditional, or else 
 God's veracity is impeached. To say that faiih is any part of 
 the condition is the veriest absurdity. For the proi/./.se is the 
 very thing to be believed. As such, it must be absolutely true 
 before we believe it, else we are required to believe a falsehood, 
 or something which is not true till we believe it. If it he false, 
 no one can justly be required to believe it; and if it be true, 
 its veritv cnimot be afiected either by the faith or the disbelief 
 of man. The argument then which we are noticing virtually 
 involves the absurdity, that faith creates the o6/ec/ of faith — in 
 other words, that the promise which we are required to believe 
 is not true until we believe it! The promise then, we say, is ab- 
 solute, and bv it the doctrine of universal salvation is clearly 
 established. It may perhaps he denied that the promise is the 
 thing to be believed; we remark then, (1.) That with equal 
 propriety one might deny that the gospel is the thing to be be- 
 lieved — for when God made promises to Abraham, he preached 
 the gospel, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal. iii. 
 8. (^2.) The gospel was thus preached, that the heathen might 
 
 * Many of ihc ideas found in this di.rom.e. were obiaiiied from A. C. Thomas, 
 \V. M. tVniald. iuid \. B. Cro-ii. 
 
80 
 
 be justilif'd //tro»<;7t /«i7A. Faith in what? Certainly in the 
 doctrine preached. Will it then be contended, that any man 
 can be justiMed by faith in that which is not true before it is be- 
 lieved? 
 
 'r2d. It in written, "they which 6e of faith are blessed ivilh 
 faithful Abraham," Gal. iii. 9. We inquire then, How was 
 Abraham blessed? Plainly in believing that in his seed all the 
 nations, families, and kindreds of the earth should be blessed. 
 His blessedness was consequent of faith in universal blessed- 
 ness — and the presupposition is, that the fulfilment of the prom- 
 ise was not, in any sense, dependent upon the exercise of faith 
 by him. And as they who believe the same gospel are blessed 
 in like manner, it follows that the alleged conditionality of the 
 promise is based in error. Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to 
 see my day; and he saw it, and was glad," John viii, 56. He 
 saw it by faith; and the righteousness of his faith was predica- 
 ted of the absolute character of the promise which announced 
 the coming of the Savior. 
 
 In 1 . John V. 9 — 11, we read thus: " If we receive the wit- 
 ness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the wit- 
 ness of God which he has testified of his Son. He that believ- 
 eth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself : he that be- 
 lieveth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not 
 the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, 
 that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 
 Be it observed, that in this passage, believers and unbelievers 
 are called upon to believe the record that God gave of his Son. 
 
 Now it is tlie province of a witness to make that known which 
 is already true, and by disbelieving his testimony we impeach 
 his veracity. What is the record? " This is the record, that 
 God hath given to us eternal Ufe." And " he that believeth 
 not" this record " hath made God a liar." But how can this 
 be, if the unbeliever hath not this life made sure for him before 
 he believes? The very fact that unbelievers are required to 
 believe that they have eternal life, proves that they have it in- 
 fallibly in store for them, whether they believe it or not; be- 
 cause, if they thus have it, and yet disbelieve it, they make God 
 a liar, (that is, they impeach the Divine veracity ;) but, if they 
 
81 
 
 cio not have it we cannot 3ee how they could make him a liar if 
 they did disbelieve it, for they would disbelieve no truth. It is 
 precisely so with the promises. We are called upon to believe 
 them. They must, therefore, be true before we believe, and 
 faith cannot be the condition. 1 am willing to grant that, with- 
 out faith, we cannot cnjoi) the promises; but this does not prove 
 that they are false, or not true till we believe them. They 
 ARE true, and our disbelief cannot efiect thier verity. And 
 they which believe " are blessed with faithful Abraham." But 
 • ' what if some did not believe ? Shall their unbelief make the 
 faith [rather faithfulness] of God without effect? God forbid: 
 yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 3, 4.) 
 
 We feel no disposition to deny that conditions are appended 
 to many Divine testimonies — such, for instance, as this in 1- 
 saiah i. 19, 20: " If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat 
 the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be de- 
 voured of the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken 
 it." I further hold, that while the promise of universal bles- 
 sedness in Christ is absohtle, our present happiness is, in a 
 great measure, dependant on the hearty acknowledgment of the 
 truth. Nevertheless, should every soul of our race live and 
 die in total ignorance of the promise in question, the ultimate 
 purpose of the«Almighty would not be defeated thereby. And 
 I am satisfied that this statement is fully sustained by the argu- 
 ments already presented. 
 
 But, again, the apostle hath distinctly declared, in so many 
 words, that the divine promises are not conditional. "But as 
 God is true, our Avord towards you was not yea and nay. For 
 the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you 
 by us, even by me, and Sylvanus and Timotheus, was not yea 
 and nay, bvit in him was yea. For all the promises of God in 
 him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." 
 
 Now then it appears to us that the doctrine of conditions to 
 be performed by the creature, contradicts the spirit of this Sa- 
 cred Scripture. It affirms that the divine promises, if believed, 
 will be yea; and ii: disbelieved, will be nay. And, therefore, 
 instead of the apostle's doctrine, that they are all yea and a- 
 men, it contends that they are both yea and luty, according to 
 
 n 
 
82 
 
 the belief or unbfliel' of iiicm. And, in fact, this system goej 
 still further. It approaches the deistical ground, that God's 
 promises are neither one thing nor the oliier, neither yea nor 
 nay, uniil they are believed or disbelieved by man! ! 
 
 The language of the Almighty to Abraham, is absolute and 
 unequivocal. No conditions are expressed — no conditions 
 are implied. " In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations, 
 families, and kindreds of the earth be blessed." The thing 
 promised is clearly expressed; and it is beyond questioning 
 that the Lord God had at his disposal all the means which are 
 essential to the fulfilment of his purpose. I am " fully persua- 
 ded that what he has promised he is able also to perform;" and 
 consequently, I " stagger not at the promise of God through un- 
 belief," but am " sti'ong in faith, giving glory to God." Sin in- 
 deed, abounds — but grace or power abounds much more than 
 sin, Rom. v. 20. Unbelief prevails — nevertheless " he is faith- 
 ful who promised," Heb. x. 23. Men are in bondage — but, 
 " the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of 
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," 
 Rom. viii. 21. 
 
 So much then for the affirmed conditionality of the promises. 
 Indeed, we are willing to acknowledge that man is not a pas- 
 sire instrument in the hands of God; that God's promises will 
 not be fulfilled upon his head with man in a posture of unwil- 
 lingness or ignorance; that a certain condition of the mind is 
 requisite for the experiencing of God's salvation; — but if this 
 be called a conditional salvation, it is a condition that is sure of 
 a true performance; for God, after all, is the ultimate and di- 
 reeling cause, and in this sense it may be said that " we are 
 his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." 
 
 II. We pass now from the Old Testament to the new. We 
 have endeavored to present clearly to the minds of our hear- 
 ers, what we believe to be the truth, concerning the precious 
 promises made to the patriarchal fathers. We will now present 
 testimony from the New Testament that we conceive to be in 
 perfect accordance with the promises. Our testimony is in 
 proof of the doctrine, that the ultimate universal holiness and 
 happiness of the race, is the ii'ill of God. 
 
83 
 
 Tlial the. all-wise, aiul all-fuwertul Being, who created and 
 sustains all beings, .uust have had some design, some will in 
 the creation of mankind, no one will deny. The only difficulty 
 which can arise, is in determining whaiihut will is. What then, 
 is God's will respecting us? In 1 Timothy ii. 3, 4, we read as 
 follows: "For this [i.e., supplicalion.s, prayers, &c. for all 
 men] is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 
 who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowl- 
 edge of tlie trutli. 
 
 It is a settled rule, that the word all is to be taken in its most 
 unlimited sense, unless an express limitation is named, or the 
 nature of the subject requires a limitation. By examining tho 
 context, it will be seen, that so far from limiting its meaning, 
 the apostle expressly guards against it, by specially including 
 even the Pagan rulers, who then were persecutors of the 
 church — and by connecting it with the duty of praying for all 
 men. In the 6th verse, he also connects it with the extent of 
 Jesus' redemption or ransom — thus expressly rendering the 
 meaning of the words " all men," as universal as possible. I 
 will quote the oth and fith verses. " For there is one God, 
 and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Je- 
 sus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in duo 
 
 time." 
 
 We wish to quote here previous to offering other comments, 
 the following remarks by Dr. Whitby, whose general ortho- 
 doxy none will be disposed to dispute. He says: 
 
 "These verses contain several convincing arguments that 
 God wills the salvation of all men in particular, and that Christ 
 thus died for all. For, 1. The apostle here enjoins us to pray 
 tor all men, because God tcill have all men to be saved. Now 
 It is unquestionably the Christian's duty, and was the constant 
 practice of the cluirch, to pray for all men in particular; and 
 therefore the reason here assigned for this duty must reach to 
 all men in particular. 2. The apostle reasons thus: God will 
 have all men to be saved, because he is the God of all, the common 
 Father, Creator, Governor and Preserver of all men. Now thus 
 he is the God of all men in particular; and so this argument 
 must show that he would have all men in particular to be saved. 
 
84 
 
 3. Ho icill have all men to be sared, saith the apustle; for there 
 is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, u-ho 
 gave himself a ransom for all. Now if the argument from one 
 God was, as we have proved, designed to show that he is tho 
 God of all men in particular; the argument from this one medi- 
 ator must also prove Christ the mediator of all men m particu- 
 lar. Hence he is here emphatically styled the man Christ Jc- 
 sics, to intimate unto us, that having taken upon him the nature 
 common to us all, to fit him tor this office, he must design it 
 for the good of all who were partakers of that nature; for as he 
 was a man, he surely was endued with the best of human af- 
 fections, tiniversal charitu, which would ex'cite him to promote 
 the welfare of all. As he was a man, he was subject to the 
 common law of humanity, which obliges us to endeavor the 
 common benefit of men." — Annot. in loc. 
 
 Such is the annotation of Whitby, on the passage, and tho 
 argument is to our mind, equivalent to demonstration. Never- 
 theless, the learned commentator believed in and advocated the 
 doctrine of endless punishment — with which, however, his rea- 
 soning is radically irreconcilable. We fully unite in his expli- 
 cation of the will of God. 
 
 But it may be objected, that the expi-ession, God will have 
 all men to be saved, simply denotes the desire of the Almighty 
 that such may be the issue. That his will of desire, and will 
 of purpose may be different. Well, suppose we admit for the 
 sake of the argument, that it is only a will of desire, and not of 
 purpose. This does not invalidate our position in the least, for 
 since if it be admitted that God desires the salvation of all men, 
 it must either be conceded that all men will be saved, or the 
 language of Scripture be denied that testifies, "the desire of 
 the righteous shall be granted," Prov. x. 24. Now, it appears 
 to me that he who " openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire 
 of every living thing," Psalm cxlv. 16, will certainly so ar- 
 range matters as to satisfy his own. Besides: how does it con- 
 sist with true theology, to allege, that the Supreme God desires 
 a consummation which he has not purposed to effect.^ or that 
 he wills a result which he does not desire ? 
 
 Should if br denied thnt God desires the salvation of all men. 
 
85 
 
 one of tUcst; positions must be taken: 1st. Timt (Jud is wholly 
 indifferent to tlie fate of the children of humanity; id. That ho 
 desires the endless wretchedness of our race; or 3d, That he 
 desires the salvation of a part or portion of tlie human family, 
 and the interminable misery of the i-est. 
 
 The first and second positions are exploded by the testimony 
 that Jesus " gave himself a ransom" — which argues against 
 indifference, and proves a Divine desire for salvation to some 
 extent ; and the consideration that he ' ' gave himself a ransom 
 FOR ALL," demands a reply to the question, how the one medi- 
 ator could consistently give himself a ransom for a greater 
 number than the one God desired to save? 
 
 Moreover: since Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all," it 
 must be admitted that all will be restored, or we must consent 
 to the appalling conclusion that Christ died in vain! But the 
 Bible instructs us to believe, that our blessed Master " shall 
 see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied," Isa. liii. 11 ; and 
 that he who " tasted death for all," Heb. ii. 9, shall finally 
 " subdue all things to himself, and deliver up the kingdom to 
 the Father, that God may be all in all." 
 
 Perhaps it may be urged that Jesus said of the city of Je- 
 rusalem, " How often n^ould I have gathered thy children to- 
 gether," &c. " and ye would not." To this we reply, that there 
 is a manifest difference between saying, "I would," and "1 
 will" — the very form of expression denotes that the former is 
 conditional, but the latter is positive — the first is a mere de- 
 sire, the latter is a determination. 
 
 Again it may be objected, that God says he has " no plea- 
 sure in the death of the wicked," and that the wicked do, nev- 
 ertheless, die." We answer, that a person's pleasure may not 
 always be his will — but tliat Being, who is infinite in wisdom, 
 will not ii'iU, or determine to do that which he well knows can 
 never be performed. Besides, the very passage quoted, proves 
 this to be the meaning — " As I live, saith the Lord God, I 
 have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wick- 
 ed turn from his way and live." Ezekiel xxviii. 1 1. The word 
 " but" is from "be-out," to leave out, to omit. The plain 
 rrteaning of the passage i$, therefore, " leaving out" that the 
 
86 
 
 v>'[rki'd turn [\-oin his way and live, fxod has no pleasure in his 
 death — or, in otiier words, rather tiian have the wicked remain 
 t^intul, he will visit them with moral death, in order that they 
 may be turned from tiieir evil way and live. Instead, ther«- 
 fore, of being opposed to our views, this passage is decidedly 
 in their favor."* 
 
 Yet again, it may be urged that the will of God, we have 
 quoted, is only his revealed will, and that he has a secret will 
 in opposition to it, which will lead to a different resuh! We 
 answer this, by asliing, " How did those who urge this objec- 
 tion, become acquainted with this secret will? Why have they 
 dared to reveal God's secrets.' Can God be so deceptions as 
 they represent him to be in this matter? But they are mistak- 
 en here for the will which we have quoted, is God's secret will, 
 now made known and revealed by him, through his chosen ser- 
 vants. For this will of God is not merely one of desire but one 
 of purpose. This is taught by the apostle; " Gfod will have 
 all men to be saved.'' Besides, the testimony of the same apos- 
 tle is, (Ephes. i. 9, 10,) God " Having made known [i. e. re- 
 vealed] unto us the mtjstery of his will [i. e. the secret of his 
 will,] according to his o:ood pleasure, which he hath purposed 
 in himself, that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he 
 might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which 
 are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." Now 
 this cannot refer to those that are already in Christ; for such 
 are already gathered together in one — for " there is neither 
 Jaw nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
 male nor female; for ye, [i. e. the believers] arc all one in Christ 
 Jesus. Gal, iii. 28. Again, to show that believers are already 
 gathered into one body, in Christ, see Rom. xii. 4, 5; 1 Cor. 
 X. 17, and xii. 12, \S k. 20 — " For as we have manv mem- 
 bers in one body, and all members have not the same office; 
 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one 
 members, one of another" — " For wc, being manv, are one 
 bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one 
 bread" — " For by one spirit are we all baptized into one bo- 
 
 * A. B. f;r->sli. 
 
87 
 
 dy, whether we ho Jews or G<'iiHh-.-^. wliether we t)e boiul or 
 free/' etc. " But now are (In y iinny inemiter«<, yet but one 
 body." 
 
 Thus it is to be seen, that those in Christ, are alr.adij gath- 
 ered together in one, and hence the text must include those 
 out uf Christ, as well as those in Christ— literally " all things"— 
 all intelligent beings in heaven and in earth. 
 
 But another objection may be presented, viz. that those in 
 hell are not named, and therefore are excluded. We reply, 
 that as hell is always declared in the Scriptures to be in the 
 earth, so even those in hell are included. For proof that hell 
 is in the earth, see Dent, xxxii. 22; (the first mention 
 made of the word in our common version) 2 Samuel xx. 
 6; Jonah ii. 2; Psalm Ixxxvi. 13, and Prov. ix. 18, &.c. Be- 
 sides, Professor Stuart, of Andover, and other eminent Par- 
 tiali.st critics, admit that the phrase '"things in heaven, and 
 thino-s in the earth," is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew 
 and New Testament writers, for the univn-^i-. It is, then, the 
 deslrr, and ihe pnrposr of Jehovah to gather together in one 
 nil t/iino.'.- i/i Christ. It is also further slated in the next verse 
 1 Ith of this l^t. chapter of ri:phes. thus, " In whom also we have 
 obtained an inheritance bi;i.\g i'iu:i)c.sTtNATED according to the 
 purpose of him who worketh all thing.s after the counsel of his 
 (.wn will." Could we have anything stronger than this testimo- 
 ny we have presented in evidence of the will and purpo.se of 
 God to effect the s.dvation of the world I 
 
 Now, what God willed and purposed, he .<ent his Son to ac- 
 complish. The beloved apostle says, " We have seen and do 
 testify, that the Father, sent the Son to be the Saviour of the 
 world !" (1. John iv. 14.) 
 
 Again, what God willed and purposed, and sent his Son to 
 accomplish, Jesus, in accordance with the mission he received, 
 faithfully undertook. He " gave himself a ransom for ail, tasted 
 death for every man, and is the propitiation for our sins, and 
 not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 
 ( I John ii. 2.) And yet again, what God willed and purposed, 
 and sent his Son to accomplish, and Jesus in accordance there- 
 
88 
 
 witli muiertook, sliall be fully acconiplisijed. The great apostle 
 speaks of the consummation in terms of perspicuity and force: 
 " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered the king- 
 dom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down 
 all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he 
 hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
 be destroyed is death. * * * And when all these things shall 
 be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be subject unto 
 him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 
 (1. Cor. XV. 24 — 28.) 
 
 We wish it to be carefully observed, here, that all enemies 
 are not to be subdued by being imprisoned for eternity, or by 
 placing the rebellious spirits where no further harm can result 
 to the interests of Christ's Kingdom. O no ! this is not the 
 subjection of Christ. A slave or rebel may be subdued in this 
 manner; chains may hang upon his body, yet still the mind 
 may burn with vengeance, and fJie man be only outwardly sub- 
 dued. This, as we before said is not the subjection of Christ, 
 and if vou will look at the passage last quoted, you will find that 
 the text warrants the conclusion that all men are to be subdued 
 by having their enmiii/ destroyed, and becoming iPilUng sub- 
 jects of the King of Saints. Nay, the passage presents us with 
 the fact, that these enemies are to become subject unto Christ 
 in the same vny that he is subject unto God. Remember " He 
 must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet ; and when 
 v.W things shiill bo sul)dued unto him, then shall the Son oho 
 Jlimse/f br siihjrrf unto him that put all things under him, that 
 God may be all in all." God can never be all in all in a spir- 
 itual sense, until all are subjected unto Christ as he is to God, 
 which, in fact, the Spirit te.stifies. 
 
 Another testimony with regard to the consummation of God's 
 will and purpose, for which Christ was sent, and for which he 
 labored, may be found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. At the 
 conclusion of the eleventh chapter, after tracing the successive 
 stages of God's providence in the system of election, he makes 
 it issue in the salvation of all the Jews, and all the Gentile 
 world, and ronrludes the universal theme with the followinsT 
 
89 
 
 univcrsril latiguago : For God liatii conclude<l them all in uiibe- 
 lief,[both Jews and Gentiles,] that he might have mercy upon all. 
 O the depth of the riches iioth of the wisdom and knowledge of 
 God ! how uiiscarchable, are his judgments, and his ways past 
 finding out ! For who hath known tlie mind of the Lord ? or 
 who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, 
 and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and 
 through him, end vo njM ark all things; to ivhom be glory 
 forever. — Amen." 
 
 P^rom the whole, we cannot conceive, a more connected and 
 conclusive argument for the salvation of the world presented 
 to the human mind. It is clearly established, that God, in the 
 pleniturle of his goodnesss, first willed the salvation of the 
 woi;ld ; that this will is a will of determinate purpose ; that he 
 t^ont his Son to execute his purpose ; that Jesus accordingly 
 undertook the work ; and that, finally, the will, and purpose, 
 and work, shall be consummated, in the subjection of all man- 
 kind to the Messiah's spiritual reign, as he is to be subjected 
 to the Father, who shall then be all in all, to whom be glory 
 forever. 
 
 III. Having thus spoken concerning the promises of the 
 Great Jehovah, and the will of the one living and true God ; 
 we will, in the remaining time allotted us. present other pro- 
 miscuous Scriptures, confirmatory of the same great truth of 
 " the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
 
 1st. The Savior himself hath declared the universality of the 
 accomplishment of man's salvation. " And I," says he, " if I 
 be lifted up from the earth, rrill draw all men unto 7nc." John 
 xii. 32. In this language our Lord does not intimate that he 
 would draw those only to himself who in after times should be- 
 lieve in his name ; but he states, positively, that he would draw 
 all men unto him, if he should be lifted up from the earth. So 
 soon as the condition was performed, the declaration was num- 
 bered with the promises of the Lord, which are ?/' « cud omen. As 
 the Savior i/'a.< lifted, like the serpent in the wilderness, so 
 must he draw, influence, or attract all men unto him. And 
 this agree'; with another testimony that is written, " The Fatb- 
 
90 
 
 «r loveth the Son, and halh wiven all things into his hand.* * * 
 All that the Father giveth me siuill come to me ; and him that 
 eometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.''' (John iii. 3o; vi. 37-) 
 2d. The next passage we present is in tlie fifth of Romans. 
 " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all 
 men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one, 
 the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 
 Now it is very evident that this is the idea of the apostle here, 
 that the free gift unto justification is as extensive as was the 
 judgment of condemnation. And how extensive are they ? 
 Both are universal. As all mm are condemned by the offence 
 of one, " EVEN so" are the same all men justified (i. e. made 
 just) by the other. If it is said that the free gift was only of- 
 fered by these means, but that many will not accept the offer, 
 we reply, that such is not the doubtful character of the apostle's 
 language. Besides, we have before proved that all must be- 
 come willing subjects to Christ, even as he is to be subjected 
 to the Father. But the apostle's language is emphatic : " Thk 
 Free Gift came upon .\ll men," not, was offered to. Look 
 also at the next verse : " For as by one man's disobedience 
 many were made sinners ; so by the righteousness of one shall 
 many be made righteous." How extensive is the signification 
 of the term mcmy here ? How many were made sinners .' All. 
 " So by the obedience of one," then, " shall ali-," or the 
 6ame number, " be made righteous." And this agrees perfect- 
 ly with the former verse. To be made righteous is the same 
 thing as to obtain justification unto life. And the free gift 
 came upon all men for this justification. The apostle contin- 
 ues — " Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might a- 
 bound ; but where sin abounded, grace did much more a- 
 bound." is not this a very singular expression, if, in millions 
 of instances, sin is to abound over grace, and the triumph of 
 sin be perpetual where grace (or favor) can never operate 1 The 
 doctrine of unpardonable sin, and the idea of " sinning away 
 the day of grace," we conceive are both repulsed by this gra- 
 cious testimony ; for grace must abound over sin, or this testi- 
 mony is effectually repudiated. But the very next verse con- 
 firms and e.stal)iislies the whole. " That as sin hath reigned 
 
91 
 
 niuo deatli," [tiiat is, «/i/i'cr.s«%,] kven ho inigl.t grace reign, 
 [universally,] through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." We cannot discover any thing in this last 
 verse which an objector can cavil on, except it be the term might. 
 He may say that it is decidedly poftn^/a/, and implies /;oss/6i7- 
 iti/, power, icill, and this is all. We would direct him, then, 
 to examine the 19th verse of this chapter, which has already 
 been considered, where the indicative shall declares this fact, 
 that all shall find righteousness by Christ. We also ask him 
 to consider this whole subject, to take in all the connection, 
 and say whether terms so absolutely universal, and so variously 
 diversified, upon so glorious a subject, can possibly be recon- 
 ciled with the limitation of Gods blessings through Christ, 
 upon the lapsed of Adam's race. We are satisfied that they 
 cannot. 
 
 In confirmation of the views we have here expressed, we cannot 
 well refrain from introducing an extract from Clarke's Works, 
 showing that not only Universalists, but Partialists, have felt 
 the force of the apostle's language here, and have fairly stum- 
 bled on the truth unconsciously, (at least, so it appears,^ in 
 utter contradiction to their creeds. We present it at any rate, 
 as an ample comment on the text. 
 
 " As extensively, as deeply, as universally as sin, whether im- 
 plying the act of transgression, or the impure principle from 
 which the act proceeds, or both, hath reigned ; even so, as ex- 
 tensively, deeply, and universally might grace reign, [here is 
 the potential,] filling the whole earth, and pervading, purify- 
 ing, and refining the whole soul, through righteousness, 
 through his doctrine of free salvation, unto eternal life, by Je- 
 sus Christ our Lord. Thus we find that the salvation from 
 sin here, is [here is the indicative] as extensive and complete 
 as the guilt and contamination of sin : death is conquered, hell 
 disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally des- 
 troyed. Here is glorying to Him that loved us, and wash- 
 ed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us kings 
 and priests to God and his Father, be glory and dominion, 
 forever aud ever, Amen ! Hallelujah ! The Lord God om- 
 nipotent rcigncth ! Amen and amen." 
 
9-2 
 
 Here is the force of truth I and the glory of truth. Who 
 could think that such an exposition of this Scripture, and sucli 
 an exclamation, would proceed from a Partialist believer in the 
 endless perpetuity of sin and misery ? Yet so it is, that truth, 
 which is powerful, will sometimes apparently make men forget 
 their creeds, and exult in the salvation of the world. Verily, 
 the good Doctor, when he penned this language, must have 
 felt, not merely that he was bound for the kingdom of love 
 himself, and would ask all others, " Will you go to glory with 
 me 1" hut by the eye of faith he was enjoying a rich foretaste 
 of that blissful period, wiieii not only he, but all the sons and 
 daughters of humanity, should have arrived at the kinwdom of 
 
 glory- 
 
 3d. We pass to the Epistle to the Corinthians. We have 
 already noticed part of this testimony ; but there is still another 
 passage which, with its connection asserts the universality of 
 final blessedness: " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive." (1. Cor. xv. S2.) If the word in the first 
 instance conveys the idea of universality, so also must it in the 
 second. To be made alive in Christ is to be raised to a state 
 of immortality, in opposition to the mortality of those who die 
 iu Adam. But is this all? Is it only to be raised to immortal- 
 ity.'' We say, that it is to be raised to inunortality and glory. 
 For the apostle goes on to state the order of the resurrection, 
 (order of time,) and in the three orders which he mentions — 
 Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his com- 
 ing, then the end, when all enemies shall be subdued unto him, 
 that God may be all in all — in these three orders or successions, 
 all mankind are not only included in the resurrection of immor- 
 tality, but in the resurrection of glory; for as before shown, 
 they are to be subjected unto Christ as he is to the Father! 
 And, further, no man has ever yet shown, or ever can show, 
 that in this account of the resurrection to immortality, there is 
 any limitation in number, even to the 4'2d verse, where we are 
 instructed that " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is 
 sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory." And, further yet, (to 
 the 49th verse,) " As we have borne the image of the earthy, 
 we Bhall also bear the image of the heavenly." And so on till 
 
93 
 
 verse bl: " W'c shall all l)o cli:tiigcd," and " Dt'iitli,'' (vers? 
 oi,) to every son and dauj^htei- oi" Adam, " is swallowed u\) in 
 victorv," and the apostle renders thanks for all, thronf^'li Jesus 
 Christ onr Lord. 
 
 We say no man has over yet shown, or ean .^liow, that 
 there is any limitation in numbers, from the all that die in Adam, 
 to the number who shall be raised in glory and bear the imag" 
 of the heavenly. No, the ehapter is a glorious one — yea, we 
 may say the best one in the Bibl(> — and wiiich alone would 
 render the Bible a Lfniversalisl Book. Tiie ultimate and univer- 
 sal prevalence of immortality, virtue, and happiness is thud 
 plainly disclosed, and asserted with all ti\e energy and dignity 
 worthy of the exalted theme. Let any person look it over and 
 see if we are not correct. It avails nothing to sa}- that this 
 Epistle was addressed to '• the church of God." We know 
 this: still, in that Kpistle, the apostle speaks of mankind at 
 large, and asserts, most plainly, their resurrection to immor- 
 talitv and glorv. 
 
 We forbear introducing more passages of direct scripture 
 testimony; not to be sure, because there are none others, for 
 there are those we would be glad to present, particularly from 
 the Epistles to the Phillipians, Colossians and Timothy ; — but 
 because we should go beyond the limits allotted us this evening. 
 We have given a part only of what might be given; but we 
 have aimed to present a few undoubted passages; not parables, 
 but plain testimony, and trust the argument to them. We have 
 given under our second division what to our minds would be 
 suliicient, without any further scriptural array. "That is a 
 pillar of everlasting truth. For ourself we could do with the 
 very purpose of the Almighty; but when we see that purpose 
 put in execution — when we see Jesus sent by the Feather, and 
 coming to accomplish his unalterable will — and when we see 
 the END described, the grand consummation of the divine gov- 
 ernment emphatically declared to embrace the xvhole in a resur- 
 rection of immortality and glory, — we are more than doubly 
 assured that this is Christianity — this is truth. 
 
 Brethren and friends, permit me to exhort you to give heed 
 to the inquiry of our text ; " What saith the scripture ?" search 
 
94 
 
 Ihr scriptures " to aee whether these things arc so;" '" prove 
 all things, and hold fast thai icliich is good.'' Having found the 
 truth, openly profess it and faithfully practice it, and you u'ill 
 receive the end of your faith, the salvation of your soul." 
 
 Amen. 
 
I) I S C I S S I vj N , 
 
 Paht II. No. II. 
 
 IN THE MKTUODIsr CHCRCJI, .IPRII. 11, 1843. 
 
 I{ V F. Y A T K S 
 
 " /fc //ta< is Jirst in his own cause seemdh just , but his neigh' 
 bor cometh and searchelh /a"m." prov. xvin. 17. 
 
 I HAVE chosen this text as a suitable motto for my reply to 
 the discourse to which you have just listened. My opponent 
 speaks of his situation as being an unpleasant one to his feel- 
 ings on the previous evenings of the discussion. He may be 
 assured that it was no pleasing task to his opponent to be under 
 the necessity of presenting arguments a second time, which 
 were deemed as conclusive proof of the question at issue, and 
 have them passed by, with complaints about language used and 
 the spirit manifested, — unnoticed. 
 
 I iiope to be able to pursue a more honorable course in my 
 attempts to reply to his arguments. They shall stand before 
 the audience as he presents them, and when I am unable to 
 meet them by fair reasoning, I will yield the point. I contend 
 not for victory over an opponent, but for the defence of truth. 
 I am happy to confess that on this occasion my opponent has 
 taken a manly course, and his sentiments are plainly and di.s- 
 tinctly set forth. And I respectfully solicit the candid attention 
 
9C 
 
 of ev«M-\ imlividiuil. while I unclortakc to show you that his 
 proof U'xls do not sustain his position. 
 
 He remarks that as he is " wholly conlined to the scriptures," 
 lie is " obliged to omit the thousand arguments" he " might 
 derive from reason, from the workings of God's spirit on the 
 renewed heart, and from God's teachings in nature.'' If the 
 scriptui'es teach this doctrine, and if he can make this appear, 
 this will be enough. AH we ask is, " What saith the scripture?" 
 Let liim produce one declaration from the word of God that 
 "all mankind will be tinallyholy and happy," and we will close 
 the controversy, and .strike hands as brethren of the same faith. 
 We believe God's word, and what that declares we will rejoice 
 to acknowledge. " To the law, and to the testimony." 
 
 I. He first introduces testimony from the Old Testament, as 
 he says, to prove the " doctrino of the restitution of all things, 
 which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 
 since the world began;" Acts iii. 21. My opponent regards 
 this text as amounting to the same a? the expression that " all 
 mankind will be iinally holy and happy," and theretore has in- 
 troduced it here instead of the question imder discussion. But 
 is it so.' ]jet us read commencing with the 18th v. "But 
 those things which God before had showed, by the mouth of all 
 his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath fulfilled. Re- 
 pent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be 
 blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come Ironi the 
 presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which 
 betbre was preaclicd unto you ; w hom the heavens must receive 
 uiiiil the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spok- 
 en by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world be- 
 gan. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall 
 the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like 
 unto ine; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall 
 say unto you. And il shall come to pass, that everij soul ^l'hich will 
 not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.'" 
 Now, if the "restitution of all things" in this text refers to 
 " the final holiness and happiness of all mankind," the tejct, of 
 course, must i-elate to [he future state. It cannot serve his pur- 
 pcse un]os«( it is applied there. Rut the very moment this ia 
 
97 
 
 admitted two points are established entirely fatal to universal- 
 ism. 1. It will be settled that Jesus Christ is to come again. 
 For, " he shall send Jems C/insf, which before was preached 
 unto you; Jflwm the heaven must receive until the times of the 
 restitutio7i of all things." This is plain, literal language. The 
 Father " shall send Jesus Christ whom the heaven must receive 
 until" this time. 2d. At this time " it shall come to pass, that 
 everij soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed 
 from among the people." When Jesus Christ shall come, at 
 " the times of the restitution of all things which God hath spok- 
 en by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began," 
 he shall destroy those who do not believe in him, and obey his 
 gospel. The .«5imple meaning of the passage is, that God will 
 accomplish " all things" wliich has been declared by the proph- 
 ets. When he will produce testimony from "all the holy 
 prophets" that God will finally restore all mankind to holiness 
 and happiness, and will reconcile the two points above named 
 with his doctrine, I will yield the point. 
 
 I now come to the testimony which he has produced from 
 the Old Testament to prove his doctrine that all mankind will 
 be finally holy and happy. It is Genesis xxii. 18, " In thy seed 
 shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." By quoting the 
 renewal of this promise first made to Abraham, to Jacob, and 
 the mention of it by Peter, he makes it read, " In thy seed 
 Bhall all the nations , families and kindreds of the earth be bless- 
 ed." It is evident that the terms families, and kindreds are 
 used instead of nations, and mean the same thing. He has 
 discoursed at some length on this promise, and he evidently re- 
 gards it as one of his strongest proof texts. 
 
 We will now attend to his remarks on this text, and see if 
 they are in accordance with Bible truth. 
 
 1. He first contends that the promise is universal, and intro- 
 duces an extract from Dr. Clarke to show that "Partialists are 
 constrained to acknowledge the universality of this language." 
 For my part I am not at all " constrained" on this point, but I 
 rejoice to admit it. But does this argue that all men will be fi- 
 nally holy and happy ^ By no means. " It is perfectly easy to 
 conceive that all the nations of the earth, and all families of the 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 earth can be blessed with the gospel of Christ, without suppos- 
 ing that every individual of all nations must consequently be 
 saved. We as a nation, are now blessed with the gospel, or 
 are blessed in the seed of Abraham, but every individual of our 
 nation is not blessed with personal salvation." But more of 
 this hereafter. 
 
 2. He next proceeds to notice two objections to his use of 
 this text. The first objection, that these promises are not gos- 
 pel promises I do not urge. I admit that they are gospel prom- 
 ises, or promises realized in the gospel. So far we agree — but 
 now comes the point at issue. He contends the promises are 
 wholly ?t«conditional, but I shall contend, and hope to be able 
 to maintain that they are conditional. It is understood of course, 
 that the blessing promised here is Christ particularly. So far 
 as the promise of his advent is concerned, I grant it is uncon- 
 ditional. He was to come, and he did come; and "by the 
 grace of God he tasted death for every man." And by his 
 death all nations were brought into such a state as that God 
 can now " be just and the justifier of him which believeth in 
 Jesus," (Rom. iii. 26.) So far the promise is universal and 
 unconditional; but justification from sin is conditional — holi- 
 ness is conditional, whether present or future. These are the 
 blessings brought to view in this promise in Jesus Christ, as 
 the scriptures will plainly show. 
 
 Before noticing his arguments on the unconditionality of sal- 
 vation, I wish to make a few remarks that I desire our hearers 
 to bear in mind. My opponent has based this argument on the 
 supposition that Jesus Christ is the author of the unconditional 
 salvation of all men. Or rather, he has labored to establish 
 this point. Now let it be remembered that he denies the doc- 
 trine of atonement by Jesus Christ altogether. He does not 
 believe that Christ saves us from a single pang of deserved 
 punishment in this life. Every man must at all events, suffer 
 all his sins deserve before he can be saved. (Wonder if there 
 is any condition here?) According to his theory, Christ can- 
 not save us from the commission of sin, for we must all sin as 
 long as we live. He does not save us from future punishment, 
 for we are not threatened with any punishment after death. In 
 
99 
 
 what sense then is Christ our Savior? If he undertakes to 
 |)rove that all men will be saved through Christ, it is devolving 
 upon liini to show us how. I will here ask my opponent one 
 plain (piestion, and request from him a definite answer in his 
 next. In whnl seme does Christ save us from our sins, if not 
 from the commission of sin, or for punishment due for sins already 
 commiltedl If he assures us that Jesus Christ will save all 
 men, he ought to tell us how. It may be that he has changed 
 his views on tlie atonement since our discussion in the school 
 house, if so, his present course will appear the more consistent. 
 At any rate, it will be rather unfortunate for him to come for- 
 ward no/r and deny the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of 
 Christ, for it will entirely destroy his whole argument, on 
 which he now relies so confidently. 
 
 But waiving this inconsistency, we will now notice his argu- 
 ments, or what he may call arguments, to prove that our salva- 
 tion is ^inconditionally secured in Jesus Christ. 1. Rethinks 
 our salvation must be unconditional, because " there is nothing 
 in the promises thrmsclvrs that is conditional." I have admitted 
 that the promise in question is unconditional in a qualified sense, 
 liut so far as our salvation is concerned, I shall show you pre- 
 sently that it is conditional. '2. He remarks that " these prom- 
 ises are either unconditional, or else God's veracity is impeach- 
 ed. To say that faith is any part of the condition is the veriest 
 absurdity. For the promise is the very thing to be believed." 
 He acknowledges that men ought to believe, but that the prom- 
 ise is true whether we believe it or not. His argument amounts 
 to this : God has promised to bless all nations in Jesus Christ. 
 This promise is unconditional and absolute. All men are re- 
 quired to believe that they have eternal life in Christ ; but if 
 no one should ever believe this, they have it in store for them 
 nevertheless ! I wish here to point out two errors which my 
 opponent has fallen into. The first is in supposing that the 
 blessing promised is tlie final salvation of all men in Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Secondly, that a mere assent to this truth is the faith requir- 
 ed in the gospel. These arc the very points to be proved be- 
 
100 
 
 fore his conclusions can be legitimate. The fallacy of this argu- 
 ment consists in supposing that men are required to believe that 
 they have eternal life unconditionally given them in Jesus Christ. 
 That there is eternal life in Jesus Christ we admit ; but that it 
 is unconditionally given to sinners, or that they are uncondi- 
 tionally made partakers of it we deny. The simple facts are 
 these ; there is life in Jesus Christ, life for all who will accept 
 of it on gospel terms ; but in order that the sinner may be 
 made the partaker of this life he must believe and be connect- 
 ted with Christ by faith, as a branch is connected with the vine. 
 •'I am the vine, ye are the branches : If a man abide not in me 
 he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gath- 
 er them and cast them into the fire, and they are 
 burned." John xv. 5, 6. From this it must appear, that though 
 there is life in Christ, yet it cannot save the sinner, who doe.s 
 not believe in him, any more than the life and nourishment 
 which is in the vine can preserve the branch, when severed 
 from it. There is life in Jesus Christ, but what good can this 
 do that class of sinners of whom Christ says " ye will not 
 come unto me that ye might have life," John v. 40. 
 
 That gospel faith is something more than the assent of the 
 mind to certain truths is clear from James ii. 19 — 22. " Thou 
 believest there is one God ; thou doest well : the devils also 
 believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that 
 faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father 
 justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the al- 
 tar ? Seest thou how faith wrought icith his works, and by 
 works was faith made perfect !^^ Here we see how Abraham 
 was saved. He obeyed God. And Jesus Christ " being made 
 perfect, became the author of eternal salvatk>n to all them 
 that obey him.^' (Heb. v. 9.) 
 
 But my opponent says, to say that faith is any part of the 
 condition of the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, 
 *' is the veriest absurdity." He refers to Gal. iii. to show that 
 it is a gospel promise, and I will refer to the same chapter to 
 prove that so far as it relates to us it is conditional. I will read 
 the entire chapter. [See the place.] 
 
101 
 
 What can be plainer than that Paul makes our participatinri 
 in the blessing promised to Abraliani, depend upon the condition 
 of faith ? If there is absurdity in this, is not Paul chargeable 
 with it? The apostle most clearly makes a conditional appli- 
 cation of this promise, showing that none can enjoy the blessing 
 of Abraham, wlio are not imitators of his faith. Let us hear 
 him again, Rom. iv. 11, 22, 23, 24. " He [Abraham] rccei\ed 
 the sign of circumcision, as a sea! of the righteousness of the 
 faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be 
 the father of all thnii that beVuvc. And therefore it was im- 
 puted to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for 
 his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to 
 whom it shall be imputed, if we bklievk o^ niM xclw ralli- 
 ed vp Jrsus ovr J.orfl from the (had." Look again at the 
 testimony of Gal. iii. " So thai, they which he of faith are. 
 blessed n'ith faithful Abraham. For yc arc all the childrrn 
 of God BY F.MTH in Jcsus Christ; and if we in: Christ's, 
 
 THEN ARE YE ABRAHAm's SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE 
 
 PROMISE." These quotations from the apostle clearly show 
 that the promise of God to Abraham was conditional, so far as 
 it related to the salvation of individual sinners, and that none 
 but believers can be Abraham's children, and heirs with him 
 of the promised blessings. 13ut my opponent says the promi- 
 ses are confirmed by the oath of God. This is granted, but 
 it does nothing towards proving the salvation of all men, since 
 no one contends for the doctrine of endless punishment, on 
 the ground that the covenant will be violated on the part of 
 God. The oath of God renders the covenant sure for its true 
 intent and purposes, but we have abundantly shown that it con- 
 tains conditions to be complied with on the part of man; and 
 by a non-compliance with these, the sinner may forfeit his in- 
 terest in it, and come short of the promised blessing, though 
 God remain ever true to his word. He quotes Heb. vi. 17, 18' 
 "Wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs 
 of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an 
 oath ; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible 
 for God to lie, \^e might have a strong consolation, who have fled 
 
102 
 
 for rt!l"u:fo to lay hold on tlie hope set 'jefare- us.'' It caiiuol 
 be overlooked tint this text limits the object of the oath to 
 those who flee to lay hold on the hope set before them ; hence, 
 the oath of God secures the blessincr to no others. We ask, 
 then, have all ineu lied to lay hold on this hope? This can- 
 not be preteuded. True believers in Christ Jesus only have 
 done this. Swearers, liars, drunkards, and infidels have not 
 fled lo lay hold on the hope that is set before tiiem. Until it 
 be proved that all men embrace the gospel, and l)y faith lay 
 hold on the hope it holds out to our fallen race, this text can 
 prove nothing in fivor of universalism ; but this point cannot 
 be proved of many, the words of Christ are as true now 
 as when he uttered them, " Ye will not come unto me that ye 
 n»ight have life." 
 
 I trust it is now shown conclusively that this promise furn- 
 ishes no support to universalism, but when properly understood 
 it presents an unansweraiile argument against the doctrine of 
 the final holiness of all mankind, inasmuch as it makes our sal- 
 vation in Jesus Christ conditional. It will not answer for him 
 to say that the salvation treated of by the apostle relates to this 
 life, for he has already applied it to the future state ; and by 
 that means has put a weapon into my hands with which to de- 
 molish his whole system. 
 
 If he would like to have a little more on conditions, he may 
 reconcile the following texts with his doctrine of unconditional 
 salvation ; and when he has done this, I will furnish him with 
 another chapter : — John iii. 16. " For God so loved the world, 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever bclicvcth in 
 him, should not perish but have everlasting life, — Heb. v. 9. 
 " And being made perfect, he became the author of etcrncd sal- 
 vation to all them thai obey him.'" 
 
 II. His second argument in favor of the final holiness and 
 happiness of all mankind is founded on the will of God, as 
 taught in the New Testament. He takes for his proof text 
 1 Timotliy ii. 3, 4. " For this is good and acceptable in the 
 sight of God, who will have all men to be saved, and come un- 
 to the knowledge of the truth." — 1 cheerfully admit that it is 
 
1 03 
 
 llie will of (jo<l to save ;ill men. 1 rojoico to ackno\vP(l<,ro all 
 that the text asserts. It will not be necessary, therefore, to 
 notice his long argument to prove this* point. The question at 
 issue now, is this : Is God's will done in reference to the hu- 
 man family ? If I can show that the will of (Jod is iiol done 
 voir in reference to the conduct and condition of men, I think 
 it will be rather difficult for my opponent to prove that his will 
 respecting their final salvation will be accomplished. 
 
 In support of the position that the will of God is not now 
 done, I remark, 
 
 1. God has given to man a law, which of course is his will 
 to man; for the law is the will of the law-giver : It is made 
 known to us that God wills our salvation, yea, the salvation of 
 all men, but not irrespectfuUy of their moral agency. He wills 
 the salvation of all men on gospel terms; but all men as moral 
 agents do not comply with the terms of the gospel. My oppo- 
 nent admits that it is the duty of all men to believe in Christ 
 710W. Yes, this is the will of God that all men sliould noiv be 
 saved " and come to the knowledge of the truth." But all do 
 not believe — all men have not come to the knowledge of the 
 truth ; therefore the will of God is not done even in the sense 
 of the text. This text as clearly proves that it is the will of 
 God that all men should " Come unto the knowledge of the 
 truth," as it does that he wills that all men should be saved. 
 Now, it is clear that all men do not " come unto the knowledge 
 of the truth ;" and those who defeat the will of God in this res- 
 pect, will also find it defeated in its purposes of their salvation. 
 
 2. Plain matter-of-fact, both from observation and scripture 
 testimony, shows us that the will of God is not done. 
 
 It is the plain will of God that men shall notvutrder, yet they 
 fJo murder — that men shall not lie, yet they do lie — that they 
 shall do as they would be done by, but they do it not. So we 
 might go through the whole catalogue of precepts, and find that 
 they are all disregarded by men every where. In every instance 
 of transgression the will of God is not done. Here is plini 
 matter-of-fact, and " facts are stubborn things." But the scrip- 
 tures furnish instances in which the will of God, and the wdl 
 of man is in opposition, and the will of man prevails. 
 
104 
 
 The lamentation of Christ over Jerusalem is to tlie point. 
 " How oft ii'ould I have gatliered thy children together, but ye 
 would not." My opponent has noticed this text, in the follow- 
 ing manner : " To this we reply, that there is a manifest diff- 
 erence between saying "I would," and " I will" — the very 
 form of expression denotes that the former is conditional, but 
 the latter positive — the first a mere desire, the other a de- 
 termination." 
 
 In reply to this, I remark, 
 
 1. There is an admission here that the will of God, so far as 
 desire is concerned, has failed. 2. This " manifest differ- 
 ence" does not exist between this text and the one 1 Timothy 
 ii. 4. God does not say that he 7vill save all men, neither does 
 the apostle say that God will save all men. It is evident that 
 it was God's will to save the people of Jerusalem, and he sent 
 Jesus Christ to do his will. He labored for their salvation, ac- 
 cording to the will of God, but they " would not" receive him, 
 though it was the will of God that they should receive him. 
 It was God's will to save them, just as it is his will to save all 
 men, " but the very form of expression denotes it to be condi- 
 tional." So his will may upt be iBjdone, or it may be done. 
 Thus his argument destroys itself 
 
 God wills the salvation of all men — now, and that they 
 should come to the knowledge of the truth, as the means of 
 effecting it, but all men are not now saved. It is said to the 
 Laodiceans, Rev. iii. 15, " f wok Id that thou wert either cold 
 or hot;" but they were neither. Here God plainly declares 
 that they were not what he would that they were ; hence, his 
 will was frustrated in the moral character of this luke-warm 
 church. It is useles.'' to spend time to prove that the will of 
 God is not done in all things by man ; for every sin is a viola- 
 tion of the divine will. God has given us his commands and 
 what he has commanded, he wills that men should do; but men 
 do them not. " The law that speaks in deep toned thunders 
 from the cloudy summit of Sinai, and the gospel that breathes 
 a pardon upon the repenting sinner, in the milder voice of a 
 crucified Redeemer, alike declare that the will of God has 
 been violated." 
 
105 
 
 We will now examine his scripture testimony to prove that 
 all men will be saved, because God wills the salvation of all 
 men. 1 regard what has already been said, a sufficient reply to 
 the arffumcnt draw^n from the will of God, but I wish to notice 
 these texts for the purpose of showing that they furnish no sup- 
 port to his doctrine. In proof that God desires the salvation 
 of all men, (which I readily admit,) he quotes the following 
 passage : " He [Christ] gave himself a ransom for all ;" and 
 adds, "since Jesus ' gave himself a ransom for all,' it must be 
 admitted that all will be restored, or we must come to the ap- 
 paling conclusion that Christ died in vain!" 
 
 My opponent has introduced several texts which speak of our 
 redemption by Jesus Christ to prove that all men will be saved. 
 Indeed, his whole argument drawn from the promises of God, 
 and from the will of God, rests for its support on the doctrine 
 that the death of Christ is the procuring cause of our salva- 
 tion, — a doctrine which he denied in toto but a few weeks 
 since. In a late meeting with my opponent in a certain school 
 house, I presented the doctrine of atonement as an argument 
 in support of the doctrine of endless punishment. I laid down 
 the following proposition : 
 
 The atonement made by Jesus Christ argues that man was 
 in a lost state, and must have remained so for ever without it; 
 and also that the proper penalty of the law of God is endless 
 death. I then introduced scripture to prove that Christ " bore 
 our sins in his own body on the tree" — that he " gave him- 
 self for us that he might redeem us" — that he " tasted death 
 for every man." Then my opponent denied that the sufferings 
 of Christ were vicarious. According to his theory, man never 
 lost the favor of God, never lost his right to heaven, — was 
 never exposed to future punishment, — he must suffer all that 
 his sins deserve here, and yet he talks about Christ's giving 
 " himself a ransom for all ! .'" Here he has given me another 
 weapon with which to overthrow his system. 
 
 The English word ransom, contained in the above text, is 
 thus defined by Dr. Webster. 
 
 Ransom, n. 1. The money or price paid for the redemptioa 
 14 
 
106 
 
 of a prisoner or slave, or for goods eiipturcd bv an enemy. 2. 
 Release from captivity, bondaire or the possession of an enemy. 
 3. In law a sum paid for the pardon of some great offence and 
 the discharge of the offender; or a fine paid in lieu of corporal 
 punishment. 4. In scripture, the price paid for a forfeited life, 
 or tor delivering or release from capital punishment. 5. The 
 price paid for procuring the pardon of sins, and the redemption 
 of the sinner from punishment." 
 
 If then Christ " gave himself a ransom for all," in the above 
 sense there is no room for further controversy. The text teach- 
 es that he has ransomed sinners from the bondage of sin and 
 the punishment to which they are subjected by the divine law, 
 by paying his life a price for theirs. But the ai'gument on the 
 conditionality of salvation will show that the benefits of the a- 
 tonement, so far as the personal salvation of moral agents is 
 concerned, are conditional. 
 
 Now we inquire whose system is it that makes Christ's death 
 in vain.^ On the theory of my opponent, the death of Christ 
 does not save us from sin in this life, any further than 
 his doctrine and example would have done without his death. 
 It does not save us from the punishment of sin, for all must suf- 
 fer all that their sins deserve; and besides it would be unjust 
 for the innocent to suffer in the place of the guilty. Neither 
 does his death save us from endless death, for no one was ever 
 e.xposed to it. From what then does the death of Christ save 
 us ? Wliy , from — nothing ! And thus we are led to ' ' the ap- 
 paling conclusion that Christ died in vain!" 
 
 With these views of the atonement, with what propriety can 
 he argue the final salvation of all men on the ground of Christ's 
 death? until he can reconcile these difficulties his argument de- 
 stroys itself. 
 
 Next in course we find certain objections anticipated and an- 
 swered, which refer to the will of God being done. I have al- 
 ready noticed his remarks on the lamentations of Christ over 
 Jerusalem. — The next objection which he attempts to answer, 
 is the text in Ezek. xxxiii 41. His remarks on this text present 
 such a rare specimen of logic and criticism that I will not deny 
 our hearers the pleasure of listening to them again. Here they 
 are entire: — 
 
107 
 
 " A"ain it may be objected, that God says he has no plea- 
 sure in the death of the wicked; and tliat the wicked. du, nev- 
 ertheless die. We answer, tiiat a person's pleasure may not 
 always be his will — but that Being who is inlinite in wisdom 
 will not loill or determine to do that which lie well knows can 
 never be performed. Besides, the very passage quoted, proves 
 this to be the meaning. As I live, saith the Lord God, I have 
 no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn 
 iVoui his way and live, Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. The word ' but' is 
 from ' be-out,' to leave out, to omit. The plain meaning of 
 the passage is, therefore, ' leaving out' that the wicked turn 
 from his way and live, God has no pleasure in his death, or, in 
 other v/ords, rather than have the wicked reinuin sinful, he will 
 visit them with moral death, in order that they may be turned 
 from their evil way and live. Instead, therefore, of being op- 
 posed to our views, this passage is decidedly in their favor. 
 
 1 don't know how I can better this. I will just present the 
 whole verse, and leave our hearers to judge of its" plain mean- 
 ing." " Say unto them, as I live, saith the Lord God, I have 
 no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked 
 turn from his way and live; turn yc, turn yt, from your evil way, 
 for u'liy iv'M ye die, O house of IsraelV My opponent says, 
 "rather than have the wicked remain sinful, God will visit 
 them with moral death; in order that they may be turned from 
 their evil way and live!" I must confess, this is a neio idea to 
 me. I never before learned that God must first visit the sin- 
 ner with moral death in order that he might live!! Surely, if 
 this is God's method of salvation, I shall be obliged to give up 
 heat, for as all have been " visited with moral death," all will 
 consequently be saved. But the scriptures tell us that " the 
 soul that sinneth it shall die," — " the wages of sin is death,"— 
 " sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." Now it moral 
 death is a visitation from God, and sin is the instrument which 
 efi'ects this death, then it follows that God is the author of sin! 
 Is this according to the law and the testimony } 
 
 To prove that God has purposed to save all men, he introdu- 
 ces Eph. i. 9, 10, " Having made known to us the mystery of 
 his will, according as he had purposed in himself; That in the 
 dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together 
 
108 
 
 in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 
 are on earth; even in him." The plain meaning of this text is, 
 that the Christian Church is not to be limited to the Jews, but 
 that God hath purposed that the Gentiles also are to come to 
 Christ, and share in the blessings of the gospel. This will be 
 seen by turning to chapter iii. 4, 5, 6, " Whereby, when ye 
 read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of 
 Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons 
 of man, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and proph- 
 ets by the spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of 
 the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ. " The same 
 promise is referred to here, that was made to Abraham, and 
 our hearers will remember that it does not prove the uncondi- 
 tional salvation of all men. But it may be urged that the text 
 speaks of gathering " together all things in Christ." I reply 
 that this cannot prove that all will be saved; for my opponent 
 admits that the phrase "all things" does not mean all men. 
 He says it " cannot reter to those that are already in Christ." 
 
 My opponent, in noticing the objection that those in hell are 
 not named in this gathering, i-eplies, that " hell is always de- 
 clared in scripture to be in this earth." This declaration comes 
 with rather an ill grace at this time, for I presume our hearers 
 recollect that I proved on the last evening of the discussion, 
 that the Savior threatened with the punishment of hell after the 
 death of the body; and this argument he did not meet. 
 
 He quotes Eph. i. 11, as proof that God will save all men, 
 but this stands in connection with the preceding verses already 
 noticed, and can mean nothing more. So far as the jjlan of 
 salvation in Jesus Christ is concerned, He "works all things 
 after the counsel of his own will." This salvation has been 
 proved to be conditional. 
 
 I will here make a remark concerning the icill and purposes 
 of God. There is, as my opponent has remarked, a manifest 
 difference between his will as it respects desire, and his abso- 
 bcte purposes. The former is what we have pi'oved may be 
 frustrated, but the latter cannot fail. God's purposes are seen 
 in his law, and in the fundamental principles of the gospel. 
 His law is given to moral agents, as a rule of moral action. 
 He ha;? joined to his law a penalty. This law has been viola- 
 
109 
 
 tod, and coiist.'queiith', iiicn ari" oxijused to its pcMiall) . This 
 penalty is death. Jesus Ciirist has " tasted dcntk tor [or in- 
 stead of] every man;" and the purpose of God in reference to 
 our salvation is now brought to view in this text: " God so lov- 
 ed the world, that he gave his only begotten son, Ikat ivkosoev- 
 er believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.'* 
 He purposes that he that believeth shall be saved — and he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." 
 
 The remarks of my opponent the otlier evening about the 
 signs that follow them that believe, I presume, were apprecia- 
 ted by the audience. All must know that they (the signs) re- 
 lated particularly to apostolic ago, as evidences of the truth of 
 their mission, while tkc text remains as the statute law of the 
 gospel, — "He that believeth sliall be saved, and he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned." Thus it will be seen that the ab- 
 solute purposes of God are opposed to the unconditional salva- 
 tion of all men. 
 
 His quotation from 1 . Cor. xv. to prove the final subjection 
 of all men in a spiritual sense, I think, will be found as fatal to 
 his cause as his other proof texts. I will quote a little more 
 than my opponent has — enough to give the obvious meaning of 
 the passage. 1 will commence with the 2 1st v. " For since 
 by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
 dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
 7nade alive. But every man in his oivn order; Christ the first 
 fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. Then 
 cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom 
 to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule 
 and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath 
 put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be 
 destroyed is death.'' 
 
 On this text I submit the following remarks : — 
 1 . The death and resurrection of the body only is treated of 
 in this chapter. Not one word said in all this " glorious chap- 
 ter" about "the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
 It assures us that all will have a resurrection, but it is not once 
 said that all shall be made holy and happy. I^ut I shall show 
 vou that it teaches the contrary doctrine. 
 
110 
 
 2. The text teaches that Jesus Christ is to make his second 
 advent at the end of this world — a doctrine entirely fatal to 
 the theory of my opponent. Speaking of the order of the re- 
 surrection the apostle says, " Christ the first fruits, afiericard 
 THEY THAT ARE Christ's AT HIS CoMiNG." This, my Oppo- 
 nent says, is literal language. If so the resurrection of the 
 righteous must take place when Christ comes. It is certain 
 that he must make his personal appearance at the time of the 
 resurrection. This is plainly asserted by the same apostle in 
 "plain, literal language," 1 Thess. iv. 16. ''For the Lord 
 HIMSELF shall descend from heavemvith a shout,ioith the voice of an 
 archangel, and tvith the trump of God ; and the dead in Christ 
 shall risefirst.^' Thus his proof text bears on its very face a 
 doctrine which he has positively denied in the course of this 
 discussion, and which destroys his whole theory! Let this be 
 remembered. 
 
 3. At the coming of Christ here spoken of, his enemies 
 shall be " put under his feet." This my opponent assumes is a 
 " spiritual and willing subjection to Christ." This is entirely 
 without evidence. On the contrary, it is plain this subjection 
 is not voluntary, but that it is the subjection of enemies to des- 
 troy them. They are " put under his feet." This does not im- 
 ply their restitution. An enemy may be subdued without being 
 restored to favor. " The apostle," says Mr. Isaac, " here un- 
 doubtedly alludes to the custom of conquerors treading on the 
 necks of their enemies. The captains of Joshua put tiieir feet 
 on the necks of the five kings they had subdued; but it was 
 preparatory to their destruction, not to their restoration." 
 Other scriptures which speak of the transactions to take place 
 at the time of the resurrection will fully confirm this view of 
 the subject. We will introduce Matt. xiii. 3ti — 43. Let it 
 be remembered that this is not a parable, but the explanation of 
 a parable. "And his disciples came unto him, saying, De- 
 clare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answer- 
 ed and said unto them. He that soweth the good seed is th e 
 Son of man: the field is the world: the good seed are the chil- 
 dren of the kingdom; but the tares arc the children of the wick- 
 ed one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil: tlie harvest 
 
Ill 
 
 is the end of tiie world; and the reapers are the luigelrt. As 
 theret'ore the tares aro gatliered and burnt in tlio tire; so shall 
 it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth 
 hi.s angels, and thc\' s'lali "rather out of his kingdom all thinj);fl 
 which offend, and them which <lo iniquity, and sluill cast them 
 into a furnace of fire; tliere shall he wailing and gnashing of 
 teeth. Then shall the righteous shin(^ forth as the sun in the 
 kingdom of their J''ather. Who hath ears to hear, let him 
 hear." 
 
 This is C'hrist's explanation of his own parable, and it clear- 
 ly teaches what the subjection of his enemies will be- at the res- 
 urrection. Mutt. XXV. 31 — 4G, teaches the same doctrine, 
 notwithstanding all that my opponent has said to the contrary. 
 In my first article 1 urged seven objections to his application 
 of it, which were so many arguments in favor of mine, since no 
 one contends for a third application of it. These arguments 
 he did not meet. In my last I repeated four of them at great- 
 er length, which I consider as unanswerable arguments in fav- 
 or of a general judgment, when these events will take place 
 mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. Again, Christ plainly teaches, John 
 V. 28, 29, that all will not come forth to spiritual life at the res- 
 urrection : ' ' 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." This is " plain, 
 literal language." — That God's enemies will be destroyed, 
 and not made holy at the coming of Christ, is evident from the 
 " plain, literal language" of Paul, 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9, " When 
 the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
 angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know 
 not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ; who shall be jmnished ivith everlasting destruction from 
 the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. ^' I 
 must still urge this as one of my proof texts, for my opponent 
 has not proved his application of it. It confirms the doctrine 
 of his proof text in Corinthians, that Christ is to come at the 
 resurrection, while it clearly shows what the subjection of his 
 enemies will be. Thus far his arguments turn against his own 
 ayBtem with resistless force. 
 
112 
 
 I woiilil like to say much more on this chapter, but time will 
 not allow it. Fhiough however, to show this chapter, instead of 
 being sufficient to render "the Bible a Universalist Book," 
 rears its unyielding front against his doctrine, and boldly bids 
 defiance to all his sophistry. 
 
 HI. I must notice his " promiscuous scriptures" very brief- 
 ly, for the want of time. His first text is in John xii. 3'^. 
 " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
 me." My opponent remarks on this text, that Christ " states 
 positively, that he would draw all men unto him, if he should 
 be lifted up from the earth. So soon as the condition was per- 
 formed, the declaration was numbered with the promises of the 
 Lord, which are yva and nmcii. Here we have it again, — the 
 salvation of men depends on the death of Christ." What far- 
 ther proof need we of the falsity of a system, when one argu- 
 ment adduced in its favor necessarily destroys another ? But 
 this text does not prove the unconditional salvation of all men, 
 as the Savior plainly shows, John iii. 14, 15. " And as Moses 
 lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of 
 Man be lifted up ; that whosoever helirveth in him should not 
 perish, hut have eternal life." We will let this testimony de- 
 cide the question. 
 
 2d. His next scripture is Rom. v. " Therefore, as by the 
 offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
 even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon 
 all men unto justification of life." I would be glad, if time 
 would permit, to discuss at large the important doctrines of this 
 chapter, but I must content myself with a very few remarks at 
 this time. In this chapter are clearly and distinctly brought 
 to view doctrines which my opponent will not allow for a mo- 
 ment. For instance, that through the offence of Adam death 
 and condemnation have passed upon all men. Universalists 
 deny that death in any sense is in consequence of Adam's 
 transgression. Now let us look at the last verse, about which 
 he talks so smartly, and on which Dr. Clarke's remarks are 
 made, which he has quoted. " That as sin hath reigned unto 
 death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto 
 eternal life, by Jesns Christ our Lord." Now nothing is plain- 
 
113 
 
 er than that " death" on the one hand is as extensive as *' eter- 
 nal I'lfv'" on the other, consequently, if we do not obtain " eter- 
 nal life by Jesus Christ," eternal death must be our portion. 
 Eternal death, therefore, is the effect of sin. Will he admit 
 this? How can he avoid it with the use he has made of this 
 text ! Let him answer. Dr. Clarke, in the very extract he 
 has read, remarks, that sin " hath reigned, subjected the whole 
 earth and all its inhal)itants, the whole soul, and all its powers 
 and faculties, unto (/rath, icmpnral of the body, spirifzial of the 
 soul, and eternal of both." We might show also, that the vi- 
 carious sufferings of Christ are clearly taught in this chapter. 
 *' Christ died for [instead OF] the ungodly.'''' Indeed, his 
 argument depends on this — Does he admit it 7 We shall 
 see. The chapter teaches us that through " the free gift" the 
 original curse is so far removed, that all men are now justified" 
 in relation to it, — so that those who die in infancy, or, those 
 who do -not involve personal condemnation, are unconditionally 
 saved in Jesus Christ ; and such as are thus condemned, mav 
 be "justified through faith." And also, by means of Christ'3 
 <leath, all shall have a resurrection. That personal offender.s 
 are justified, or saved conditionally, is evident from verse 1. 
 " Being ja.<;tined bij faifh, we h?.\c peace with God, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 If he will risk his system with a full investigation of this* 
 chapter, he can give it a prominent place in his rejoinder. I 
 am apprehensive the result would be fatal to his cause. 
 
 I have now examined his proof texts, as far as my limits 
 would permit, and I will leave our hearers to decide if he has 
 proved that " all mankind will be finally holy and happy," 
 Have I not clearly dcmo7i^trntedi\\n\. his very proof texts are all 
 fatal to his doctrine ? You are the judges. I have;;rotW 
 that the promise made to Abraham is conditional as it respects 
 our salvation. If this is farther disputed, the controversy is 
 with St. Paul — not with me. It has been proved that God has 
 not willod or determined the uneonditionetl sdiU^uon of the hu- 
 man family, but the contrary. Thus, I think, the candid will 
 decide. With tlie prayer that God will guide vie and my op- 
 ponent, with our hearers, to a saving knowledge of the truth, 
 I close these remarks. — Amen. 
 
 15 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 Part II. No. III. 
 
 IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 25, 1843. 
 
 1$ Y E. FRANCIS. 
 
 " / am set for the drffiicp of the gospel.'" 
 
 TEXT — PHILIPPJANS I. 17, 
 
 I HAVE deemed this a fitting motto, for the remarks I have 
 to present to your notice this evening. It was my object, on a 
 former occasion, to produce a few scripture testimonies of the 
 gospel. Those my brother attempted to refute by three argu- 
 ments, namely, (1.) That the promises of the gospel, made to the 
 patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, are conditional ; (2.) That 
 although it is the will of God that all men shall be saved, yet 
 that will, will not be accomplished ; and (3) that the resurrec- 
 tion the Savior taught, and about which the apostles wrote, — 
 to immortality and glory, — was only the raising of the body 
 from the grave to life. 
 
 As, therefore, "I am set for the defence of the gospel," it 
 becomes my duty to notice these arguments, like a true soldier 
 of the cross, wielding " the sword of the spirit which is the 
 word of God." 
 
 It will not be out of place, should I remark — that the word 
 Gospel, signifies good news, glad tidings. 
 
115 
 
 111 order tluil no wrong impression may be lielil by those who 
 listen to this discussion, I wish to remark once more that this 
 discussion was not of my seeking. My brother borrowed for 
 his text the same passage in the Book of Proverbs, that 1 used 
 in my first reply to him. Thus it will be seen that " He that 
 is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh 
 and searchcth him," — applies not tome, in this discussion, 
 but to my brother. 
 
 He complains that he presented arguments in support of his 
 awful sentiment of endless wo, a second time, but I did not so 
 much as notice them. I will notice tliis lamentation no farth- 
 er, than to say that I am willing to submit all I have advanced, 
 to the candid judgments of our honest hearers. I prefer that 
 they should decide this matter for themselves, and not that I 
 should set up mine one notion as infallible ; and for fear that 
 they should not conclude with me, after the subject is before 
 them, take upon myself the bold presumption of telling them 
 just how much I have done ! ! There are some people in this 
 world who are fond of exhibiting the spirit of boasting Jehu, 
 sayincr, " come see what I can do ;" such would do well to 
 learn modesty from those who had charge of their early years; 
 and also to imitate the spirit of him who was "meek and low- 
 ly of heart." 
 
 I. My brother's remarks upon the passage in Acts iii. 21, 
 where Peter speaks of " the times of the restitution of all 
 thincrs, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy 
 prophets since the world began ;" need not be examined, as I 
 did not present it as one of my proof texts. 
 
 The first scripture testimony I quoted in proof of " the final 
 holiness and happiness of all mankind ;" was the promise made 
 by the great Jehovah to Abraham, renewed to Isaac, and con- 
 firmed to Jacob, (Genesis xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14.) that in 
 their " seed shall all the nations, families and kindreds (Acts 
 iii. 25.) of the earth be blessed.^' 
 
 The universaliti/ of this promise, my brother says — " 1 re- 
 joiec to admit.'' So then we agree that edl, every individual, 
 who belongs to any nation, family or kindred, however far gone 
 in heathen rlarkness, suporstifinn ;ind sin he may be, shall he 
 
116 
 
 bkiscd according to the pruiuise ; tor none will argue th;it there 
 are individuals who belong not to some family, to some kin- 
 dred, or some nation ! My brother also agrees with me that 
 the promises are gospel or glad tidings promises. But he be- 
 lieves that they are conditional, or rather he tells us that they 
 are both lajconditional and conditional. 
 
 Before noticing this position I will glance at some remarks 
 he saw fit to make in this connection, in which he attempted 
 to bring in certain views I advanced concerning the atonement 
 previous to this discussion ; by so doing he has clearly exhibit- 
 ed his ignorance of my views of the atonement, or else has 
 grossly misrepresented me. As, however, I have heretofore 
 said nothing upon this matter in the discussion, I will only re- 
 mark, that when the doctrine of a vicarious atonement is the 
 theme of dispute, I shall not fail to sustain my own views from 
 the scriptures. 
 
 My brother says, " I will here ask my opponent one plain 
 question, and request from him a definite answer in his next. 
 In what sense does Christ save us from our sins, ij" not from the 
 commission of sin, or from punishment due for sins already com- 
 mitted? If he assures us that Jesus Christ will save all men, 
 he ought to tell us huiv." 
 
 I reply, that this is not the place to discuss these questions. 
 If I can produce testimony from the Holy Bible that Christ Je- 
 sus shall save his people — all that the Father hath given him — 
 from their sins; it is sufiicient so far as our main question is 
 concerned. If all men are to be saved, we need have no fears 
 but successful means will be put in operation to accomplish 
 this object, by the infinite Ruler of the universe. 
 
 But to the argument for the conditionality of the promises. 
 My brother says, " It is understood of course that the blessing 
 promised here is Christ particularly. So far as the promise of 
 his advent is concerned, I grant it is unconditional. He was 
 to come, and he did come; and by the grace of God tasted 
 death for every man, &.c." " But justification from sin is con- 
 ditional — holiness is conditional, whether present or future. 
 These are the blessings brought to view in this promise in Je- 
 sus Christ, as the .scriptures will plainly show." I reply, that 
 
1 17 
 
 Christ is mducd the blo.s.siiig prciiniscd, au<l the proof ihat hr 
 is the blessing, I before presented from Matt. i. 2 1 , " Thou shiilt 
 call his name Jksus, for he shall save Iiih people from their sins;" 
 and again Acts iii. the apostle testifies to the Jews that in ac- 
 cordance with the promise God sent his son to bless, "in 
 turniuix aicaij every one frosi his iniquities" i. e. in saving 
 EVERY i.NDiviDi: Ai. "FROM HIS SINS." M}' brother will not 
 assert that this ])assage in Acts iii. 26, has reference oahj to 
 the Jewish nation, as being blessed in tliis life, since it cannot 
 be shown that every one of that people were then, or are now 
 TURNED AW AY FROM THEIR iMQ! JiTiKs. The preceding verse 
 answers the question w ho are to be blessed in Chri.st ; which 
 testimony is, that (iod covenanted with Abraham, saying, 
 " ^2;ui in ihrj seed shale ale the kindreds of the earth be 
 blessed." Is there any condition expressed or implied here.' 
 I can discover none. If there is, will my brother point it out 
 distinctly? It teaches that Christ shall bless the whole human 
 family " in turnin<^ evenj one from his iniquities." If it can be 
 shown that one of our race will not eventually be turned from 
 his iniquities, then the argument in defence of the iinal holiness 
 and happiness of all mankind," from the promises, is of no 
 avail. But as saitli the apostle, the promises are not yea and 
 nmj but YEA and amen unto the glory of God, all shall be thus 
 blessed! Yea, even my brother has acknowledged that in ac- 
 cordance with this pi-omise Jesus, "by the grace of God tasted 
 death for every man." And yet, notwithstanding this conces- 
 sion, he is disposed to wrest its simple meaning. He asserts that 
 the promise is the very thing the christian must believe, is only 
 conditionally true. And this he says " the scriptures will plain- 
 ly show." Where do they show this ? The passages he pro- 
 duced from John XV. 5, 6; v. 40; James ii. 19 — 22; Heb. 
 V. 9; Gal. iii; Romans iv. 11, 22, 23, 24. Do not teach us 
 that it is wholly depending on the faith of man whether he shall 
 ultimately be a participant in the blessing promised or not. 
 
 And here 1 remark once for all, that I would thank my broth- 
 er when he attempts to notice one of my proof texts, to give it 
 something more than a mere assertion; and then produce a 
 string of passages that he tiiinks refutes my idea drawn from 
 
118 
 
 the prool" text. In pursuing the course he has in this instuncc, 
 he only arrays scripture in opposition to scripture, and thus 
 leaves the matter no plainer than before. Observe carefully 
 how he attempts to prove his assertions! 
 
 My brother has not appeared to notice the fact that there are 
 two kinds of salvation spoken of in the sci'iptures; namely, a 
 salvation that is enjoyed by the believer in this life, through faith 
 in the gospel, about which none of us disagree; and the ulti- 
 mate salvation, or " final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
 
 Should any desire to know in what the special salvation of 
 believers consists, this is my reply: In believing the glorious 
 truth that God is the Savior of all men, they " enter into rest," 
 Heb. iv. 2; they are filled "with joy and peace," Rom. xv. 13; 
 they " rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory," 1 Peter 
 i. 8. In believing the truth they enjoy the presence of the 
 Comforter, which is " the Spirit of truth," John xv. 26. 
 Their faith works by love and purifies their hearts. Gal. v. 6 ; 
 Acts XV. 9. Enjoying " the full assurance of/aii/f," they pos- 
 sess also " the full assurance of /iope," Heb vi. 11 ; x. 22; and 
 they set their seal to the truth of the record, that "perfect love 
 casteth out fear, because fear hath torments; he that feareth is 
 not made perfect in love," 1 John iv. 18. Theirs is a living 
 /aii/i, because it is a faith in the living God; and in hclievijig 
 that the living God is the Savior of all men, they enjoy the 
 special salvation, I Tim. iv. 10. Blessed, thrice blessed are 
 they who know the joyful sound.* 
 
 It is concerning the future, eternal salvation of the whole 
 human family, that we are discussing. 
 
 It is not necessary therefore, that I should examine his scrip- 
 ture passages that speak of faith or belief here. I will notice 
 however, one, John iii. 18. "For God so loved the world, that 
 he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life." The next verse 
 is — " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
 world; but that the world through him might be saved !" 
 
 This testifies that the believer should " have everlasting life'''' 
 in this woild, it was something to be enjoyed here; his faith in 
 
 * A. C. Tlioinas. 
 
119 
 
 Clivisl as the Messiah wliom God sont nal lo coiiilfuiii llicvorld. 
 hntjo save il accordnig to the promise, was his l)U^ssing here. 
 He was not reqiiii-ed to have faitli in something tliat was not 
 true imtil lie l)elievecl it; it was i\ist as true hefore as after. 1 
 will tliank my brother to discriininate between those scriptures 
 that speak oi' salvation in this lifu, and the [iiture .salvation. 
 But it is not necessary that I should dwell longer upon this 
 subject. The promises are that all the nations, iamilies and 
 kindreds of the earth shall be blessed, in Christ, by being sav- 
 ed from their sins. 1 love to receive the plain testimony of 
 Jehovah where there is nothing of doubt or obscurity connect- 
 ed with it, and rejoice in view of the glory it reveals. 
 
 II. My brother says of 1 Timothy ii. M, 4, "I rejoice to ac- 
 knowledge all that the text asserts." The passage is as follows: 
 •' For this [i. e. supplications, prayers, Stc] is good and accept- 
 able in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to 
 be saved^ and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." My 
 brother says, "T cheerfully admit that it is the will of God to 
 save all men." This is all that I contend for, namely, that he 
 that " doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and 
 among the inhabitants of the earth," Dan. iv. 35, and " Who 
 worketh all things after the counsel of his own will," Eph. i. 11, 
 should be acknowledged as the God ' ' who will have all men to 
 be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Yet, 
 notwithstanding this acknowledgment, my brother asserts that 
 this will not be the case, because he thinks God's will is not 
 done here. He therefore proposes the question, " Is God's will 
 done in reference to the human family now?" The substance 
 of his answer, is, that it is not. And thus he militates directly 
 aganst the testimony before quoted, that God " worketh all things 
 after the counsel of his own will. " He says God's will is not now 
 accomplished, but produces no scripture testimony, save that 
 before noticed. For my part I prefer to believe the plain teach- 
 ings of the record, and let him who presumes to assert the cont- 
 rary j-econcile that with the Holy Book. 
 
 But admit for a moment that God's will cannot be done, that 
 he who is infinite in power, is not able to accomplish his own 
 will and purpose ; (how absurd!) what then? Whose will shall be 
 
1-20 
 
 done ? ^^ tiv, acrordlni; to inv bi-otlier'a arguineat God has creat- 
 ed men Tree moral agents, and has "rivpn them this agency so that 
 he can have no effectual hiHuence over them, and thus, as he 
 thinks, that their will is and will continue to be opposed to 
 (iod's, they c,a?uiot be saved. 
 
 Again, if it is throuiih faith alone, possessed here, that all shall 
 fmally be saved, how will infants, idiots and heathen be saved? 
 Will these all be lost? When do tiiese exercise faith in this 
 life? Will my brother reconcile these questions with his argu- 
 ments? But such is not the testimony of Paul, an Apostle of 
 the Lord Jesus, he says God " will hare'''' — is there any doubt 
 or contingencv here? God " wir.i, have ai.i, 3ien io he saved 
 and come unto the Inwu'leds;^ of the truth.'''' 
 
 To be sure all men may not be saved from sin in this world. 
 I may ask, are tliere any pure and sinless persons of the age 
 of manhood in the earth? Show me such an individual and I 
 will confess mvself to have been in error upon this point till now. 
 I say we may not behold all men freed from sin in this world, 
 but this is no proof that they will not eventually be freed from 
 sin. Paul says (1 Tim. iv. 6) Christ Jesus — " o-ave himself a 
 ransom for am. to be testified i\ due time. 
 
 Upon this passage my brother is under the necessity of bring- 
 ing up again my views of the atonement. They seem to troub- 
 le him greatly, although I have said nothing about it in the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 But allowing my brother's views of the atonement to be cor- 
 rect, viz. that Christ made a vicarious sacrifice, in suffering 
 death upon the Cross, by which he atoned for the sins of men ; 
 how does that effect the argument from the text, that " Christ 
 Jesus gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time?" 
 For if Christ gave himself a ransom for all it is not necessary 
 that it should be experienced here, if it is only proved to be true 
 nlliinulely. This v'ill be the case, for the apostle testifies that 
 the ransom is to be testified in due time. This we believe. If 
 there arc any conditions here, let my brother point them out, I 
 can discover none. No! There are none. Christ Jesus did 
 give himself a ransom for all, and this will be iesiified in due 
 time. Mark those three words iti due time. 
 
121 
 
 It matters not so mucli from what or how men are ransomed, 
 so long as they are ransomed, and that ransom my brother ad* 
 mits is " for all," and to be testified in due time. 
 
 My brother next notices my remarks upon Kzekiel xxxiii. 11. 
 " As I live, saith tiic Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death 
 of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." 
 He has quoted the entire paragraph, and offered comments 
 which virtually amount t(» saying that he cannot comprehend 
 its meaning. Yet he has quoted the scripture testimony, that 
 " the soul that sinncth it shall die," " and the wages of sin ia 
 death," &c. which is in perfect agreement with the remarks al- 
 luded to ; God will visit the wicked with moral death, in con- 
 sequence of their sins, and thus shall they be turned from their 
 evil way and live ; in accordance with the blessing promised 
 in Christ "every one shall be turned from his iniquities;" thus 
 passing from moral death unto life. He next notices Ephes. i. 
 9, 10 — ^^God " Having made knoum unto us the mystery of hia 
 will according to his good plrasurr, which Ac hafh purposed 
 in himself, that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he 
 might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which 
 are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." 
 
 The declaration is, that God hath purposed to gather togeth- 
 er in one all things in Christ. To this my brother replies, 
 f hat " this cannot prove that all will be saved ; because he says, 
 I admit that the phrase " all things''' does not mean all men." . 
 Where did I admit any such idea ? Why, in this language ; I 
 said concerning the whole passage; "This cannot refer to 
 those that arc already in Christ ; for such are already gathered 
 together in one." &,c. Did I admit any thing like what he 
 charges upon me? At the close, I said, "the text must in- 
 clude those nut of Christ, as well as those in Christ — literally 
 " nil things^'' — all intelligent beings in heaven and in earth." 
 I wonder that my brother should thus unblushingly, accuse me 
 of what my manuscript before him, plainly showed to be fal.'^e. 
 
 His remarks about hell, are out of place here, they were no- 
 Jired under the former part of the que.stion under discussion. 
 
 I next notice his remarks upon the will and purposes of God, 
 10 
 
122 
 
 only so far as to observe that he says " tiif. i.attkr [the pur- 
 poses of God] CANMOT FAii..'' Very well, then, we need have 
 no doubts of the fulfilment of the apostle's declaration, God 
 having made unto us [i. e. revealed to the believers] the myste- 
 ry of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he. hath 
 PURPOSED in himself" What hath he ^^ purposed''' that " can- 
 not fail ?" listen ! " he hath purposed," that in the dhpensa- 
 tion of the fulness of times he might gather together in one, 
 ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, both svhicli are in heaven, and which 
 are on earth, even in him. 
 
 I pass now to notice my brother's remarks on 1 Cor. xv. 
 The substance of his argument, is, that only the resurrection 
 of the body is spoken of in this chapter. He says, " It assures 
 us that all will have a resurrection, but it is not once said that 
 all shall be made holy and happy. Bui I shall show you that 
 it teaches the contrary doctrine." Where has he shown 
 this? I suppose he intended to prove it by the 23d verse. The 
 22d verse is as follows : " As in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." The next two verses are, " But 
 every man in his own order : Christ the first fruits ; afterward 
 they that are Christ's at his coming." " Then cometh the end, 
 when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the 
 Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all author- 
 ity and power." Now it is very evident that only the order of 
 time, in which the resurrection is to take place, is spoken of. 
 The apostle testifies, every man in his ouui order, Christ the 
 first fruits, they that are ChrisVs at his coming, then, the end. 
 But my brother rests his strong argument on the words, " they 
 that are Christ'' s at his coming ;" he produces scripture testi- 
 mony to show that Christ's second advent is yet future, part 
 of which testimony has been already examined in the course of 
 this discussion. This, however, is not the place to reply, and 
 even were I disposed to do so, it would not be my duty until 
 my reasoning upon the passages had been successfully refuted. 
 
 But so far as the order of the resurrection is concerned, the 
 time of Christ's second advent does not effect the position I 
 have taken, for the apostle testifies, concerning the ultimate re- 
 
123 
 
 sii/l, which is all 1 am contending for ; he says, verse 24th, 
 "Then the knu, wlien he [Christ] shall have delivered up the 
 kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
 <lown all rule, and all authority and power — 2oth, For he must 
 reign, till he hatli put all enemies under his feet." But I may 
 suppose my [)rothcr will contend that such will not be the case, 
 for although this is the will and purpose of God, yet as man is 
 a moral agent, he will not be raised or made alive in Christ, 
 unless he is disposed to be. Nay, this is not my brother's view, 
 he says, " that .\i.l will have a resurrection." But then, he 
 conceives that it is only our earthly bodies that are to be rais- 
 ed, and in proof of his argument that all men will not be par- 
 tici[)ants of a spiritual life at the resurrection, he quotes among 
 other passages, John v. 28, 29, " Marvel not at this : for the 
 hour is not coming, in the which all that are in the 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." Our inquiry here, is, does this 
 passage have reference to the same resurrection taught in 15th 
 chapter of first Corinthians ? We answer, no ! Does this tes- 
 timony in John v, relate to the resurrection of our mortal bod- 
 ies? No ! and my brother makes no effort to prove that it does ! 
 Similar language occurs in Daniel xii. 2, the connection of 
 which is quoted by Jesus, in Matt. xxiv. 15, 21, and applies to 
 the period of the destruction of Jerusalem. This passage in 
 John refers to the same period. It is true, that being in the 
 graves is spoken of — but in Ezekiel xxxvii, the whole house of 
 farad is represented as being in their graves, which only sig- 
 nified their state of bondage in Babylon, from which the Lord 
 promised to bring them out, and to place them in their own 
 land. The word rcsurrcrtion in the passage in John, affords 
 no proof that the allusion is to a rising into an immortal state 
 — for, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, " this is neither the only, 
 nor the primitive import, of the word arastasis. It denotes 
 simply, being raised from inactivity to action, or from obscuri- 
 ty to eminence, or a return to such a state, after an interrup- 
 tion."* 
 
 * A. <-'. 'J'liomii->. 
 
124 
 
 I do not feel required lo explain the passage in question, as 
 no attempt was made to prove that it had reference to the im- 
 mortal state of existence. 
 
 But in order to show that the resurrection in John v, 28,29, 
 had reference to something long since past, I will quote the 
 24th and 25th verses of the chapter, where Jesus testifies ; 
 " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and 
 believeth on him that sent nie^ hath everlasting life, and shall 
 not come into condemnation : but is passed from death vnto 
 life." What ! had the bodies of the believers in Jesus, passed 
 from mortality, from death, unto immortality, to life ? none will 
 contend thus. Then this portion of the Savior's language 
 cannot refer to the immortal resurrection. But listen to the 
 next verse. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is com- 
 ing, and now is, ivhen the dead shall hear the voice of the Son 
 of God ; and they that hear shall live." The hour is coming 
 and now is when the dead shall hear, S^c. Does this mean that 
 the bodies of those who had been dead and buried in their 
 graves for ages on ages, did then hear and live ? Every one 
 must allow that the resurrection here spoken of was a moral 
 resurrection, I would thank my brother to discriminate in his 
 quotations upon the resurrection ; for, as we have endeavored 
 to show, a different signification is given to the word, by the 
 connection in which it occurs. 
 
 But to the chapter in Corinthians. The testimony in the 
 22d verse is written thus, " For as in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." My brother admits that the 
 word all in each member of this sentence, is expressive of 
 universalitij — for though Enoch and Elijah were translated, 
 they must have underwent a change which was equivalent to 
 death. " By Adam, in the passage before us, I understand the 
 mortal constitution of the first man who was of the earth, ear- 
 thy. All the children of humanity bear this image, as a mortal 
 being : and in that image they must return to the dust whence 
 they were taken. By Christ I understand the quickening spir- 
 it, the Lord from heaven, the heavenly. By being made alive 
 in Christ is signified the resurrection into a state of incorrup- 
 
1-25 
 
 tioi), power, glory ; in a spiriluiil body ; iti ihe image of tlic 
 lieavejily, who is declared to have been " the image of the in- 
 visible God." As it is not optional with man whetlier he will 
 or will not die in Adanj, so 1 judge it to be not a matter of 
 choice with him, whether he will or will not be made alive in 
 Christ. The promise is absolute, and in the fultilment thereof, 
 man is necessarily passive. " For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive. ^' 
 
 Thus far there is perfect unity, I believe, between our views 
 of the resurrection. But my brother's general argument, as- 
 sumes that no renovation is to be effected by the power of the 
 resurrection — or as popular opinion expresses the sentiment, 
 " as death leaves us so judgment finds us; there is no change 
 after death." And hence, he argues concerning the eternal 
 destiny of any individual, from the condition in which he was 
 when he died. He inquires, how he laid down in the grave, 
 and with what feelings and in what estate he departed this life. 
 But in the days of Paul the queries were, " Ilctv are the dead 
 RALSED UP ? a?id with ichot body do they eome ? {1 Cor. xv. 35.) 
 The answer is given in the voice of inspiration : It is raised in 
 ineorrvptiov, poiver, and glory ; a spiritual body, in the image 
 of the glorified Redeemer. " For as in Adam all die ; even 
 so in Christ shall all be made alive.''' And " \{ any man be 
 J7I Christ, he is a new creature," (2 Cor. v. 17.) It is writ- 
 ten, " The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
 changed." It was in prospect of this great and glorious change, 
 that the apostle could hope for the resurrection even of the un- 
 just, Acts xxiv. 15. He surely could not have hoped for the res- 
 urrection of the unjust, if he had believed they would be raised 
 from the dead simply to suffer the unutterable pangs of endless 
 torment! The doctrine of the Messiah was, "In the resur- 
 rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are 
 equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the 
 children of the resurrection," (Matt. xxii. 29, 30.) In pros- 
 pect of a resurrection of this glorious and sublime character, 
 we may truly " rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory."* 
 * A. C. Thomas. 
 
126 
 
 1 will notice a passage my brother cited in his remarks up- 
 on the conditionality of salvation, it will not be out of place 
 here. I refer to John xv. 5, — Jesus said to his disciples, 
 " I am the vine, ye are the branches : If a man abide not in me, 
 he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather 
 them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." The 
 argument drawn from this passage is, that the sinner, he who 
 abides not in Christ, will be cast off, having not been fruitful 
 in good works. Yea, even that some who have been connect- 
 ed with Christ, as the branch is with the vine, i. e. by faith, or 
 belief in him, will be cast away. We admit, as before remark- 
 ed, that the salvation of the believer here, dependeth upon his 
 faith here, and that many who have believed in Christ, have 
 fallen back again into condemnation, a state of unbelief. "But 
 to be in Christ in this mutable state, surrounded by tempta- 
 tion, exposed to the power of deceptive influences, and liable 
 each moment to be led into sin, is a very different matter from 
 being in Christ in an unchanging state, removed from the in- 
 fluence of tempting and corrupting circumstances. He who is in 
 Christ even in this life, is a new creature — for he " has put offthe 
 old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and 
 has put on the new man, which after God is created in righteous- 
 ness and true holiness" — but he may revert to his former es- 
 tate, and be cast off as an unfruitful branch. Now if it can be 
 proved, that any who is a member of one of the kindreds of the 
 earth, who shall be a participant of the blessing promised in 
 Christ, and who may be made alive in Christ, (in the immor- 
 tal resurrection) in incorruption, and in a spiritual body, and 
 who is, therefore, a new creature, will not abide in Christ, or 
 will ever again put on the old man which is corrupt according 
 to the deceitful lusts, then it will be proved that such an one 
 will be cast off — but not otherwise.* 
 
 But we return to Matt. xxii. 29, 30. " Jesus said to the Sad- 
 ducees, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power 
 of God : for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are giv- 
 en in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." In the 
 
 * A. C. Thoinay. 
 
127 
 
 parallel place in Luke xx. IJ4 — -U), it is written : '' The cliil- 
 tlreri of this world marry and arc given in marriage; hut they 
 which are accounted worthy to ohtain that world, and the res- 
 urrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in mar- 
 riage : neither can lliey die any more; for they are equal unto 
 the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of 
 the resurrection." 
 
 IVIy brother perhaps may say to this testimony, that were it 
 not for this clause ' they which shall be accounted worthy to 
 ol)tain that world and the resurrection from the dead,' he could 
 receive it in proof of my position. I will therefore now meet 
 this objection. " The Sadducees did not accredit the doctrine 
 of immortality, and the case they presented [of the woman who 
 had seven husbands,] was merely designed to perplex our Lord. 
 Their inquiry assumed that conjugal affinities must exist in the 
 future life, (if a future life there be) as in the present; and 
 that thrre, men would possess many, if not all, the passions 
 which are here developed. Hence they desired to know whose 
 wife of the seven brethren the woman should be in t!ie resur- 
 rection. The supposition that our Lord evaded the inquiry, is 
 not admissable; and since it will freely be conceded that his 
 replv was pertinent, we conclude that he referred directly to 
 the resurrection state. He contrasts the present state of being, 
 in which matrimonial alliances are contracted, with the incor- 
 ruptible and spiritual life, in which no such ties are formed. 
 If it be alleged that some of our race shall not be accounted 
 worthy to be raised from the dead, the doctrine of endless pun- 
 ishment must be discarded, unless endless punishment can be 
 conceived of, without a resurrection. But since it is granted 
 l)y my brother, that all mankind shall be the children of the res- 
 urrection, he must admit that they will be the children of God. 
 It will not do for him to assert that some of the human family 
 " will be undutiful and rebellious children forever, for this is 
 exploded by Rom. viii. 21, "the [rational] creation shall be 
 delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glot-ious lib- 
 ety of the children of God." 
 
 In his address to the Sadducee?, our Lord simply intended 
 
128 
 
 to correct tlieir error as to the condition of men in the future 
 state. 'JMiey supposed, as previously mentioned, that the pas- 
 sions which men possess in this world, they would possess 
 hereafter ; and they imagined that the difficulties of the case 
 tliey presented, furnished an unanswerable objection to the 
 doctrine of immortality. The promise was false. Hence said 
 Jesus, " Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power 
 of God." Then properly followed a correction of the error 
 referred to. 
 
 In replying to an inquiry pertaining solely to the condition of 
 men, that is their mode of being, in the resurrection state, our 
 Savior did not feel called upon to say how many would be raised 
 from the dead. The doctrine of the Pharisees (some of whoin 
 were present) restrained the resurrection to the just, which re- 
 striction our Lord did not see proper directly to deny on that 
 occasion. Neither did he then deny the Pharisaic notion of the 
 transmigration of souls. Indeed, he did not, at that time, ex- 
 pressly dispute any doctrine of the Pharisees — otherwise the 
 Scribes would not have commended his remarks, Luke xx. 39. 
 But are we to infer that he countenanced their notion, that only 
 a part or portion of our race will be raised from the dead."" Cer- 
 tainly not. He was replying to a question of condition not of 
 number. He certified the Sadducees, and he certifies ns, that 
 as many as shall be raised shall be equal unto the angels; and 
 the assurance that they shall be the children of God, is predi- 
 cated of the fact, that they shall be the children of the resur- 
 rection. Moreover, Chi'istianity teaches that all who bear the 
 imacte of the earthy, and die in Adam, are by the Supreme Be- 
 ing accounted worthy to be made alive in Christ, in the image 
 of the heavenly. Hence Paul could hope for the resurrection 
 even of the unjust, Acts xxiv. 15. He expected it — he desir- 
 ed it; and the conjunction of expectation and desire produced in 
 him a hope full of immortality. He looked in faith " for that fe/es- 
 .sgcZ /to^x^ and the glorious appearing of the great God and our 
 Savior Jesus Christ," Titus ii. 13, " who shall change our vile 
 body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- 
 cording to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things 
 to himself," Philippians iii. '21. He .speaks of change from mor- 
 
129 
 
 tality to immortality as a victory over death — as the means 
 of introducing the whole family of man into a state of ineffable 
 bliss, where "the Lord God will wipe away tears from oft' all 
 faces;" 1 Cor. xv. 54, 56; Isa. xxv. 8. And he enjoyed so clear 
 a view of this sublime consummation of the reign of Christ, 
 that he was enabled abundantly to ' ' rejoice in hope of tlie glo- 
 ry of God," Rom. V. 2. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 28: " And when all things shall be subdued unto 
 liim, then shall the Son, Also himself be subject [or subdued] 
 unto him that put all things under him, [or rather, that subdu- 
 ed all things unto him] that god may be all in all." It will 
 be perceived that the word also in the passage, debars the 
 popular cavil that some will be subdued to God in one way, 
 and the rest in another; and I know of no rational exposition 
 of the language, that God may be all in all, if a part of our race 
 are to be eternally excluded from the enjoyment of his love. 
 
 There are many important considerations connected with the 
 Bible doctrine of the resurrection, which I should be pleased to 
 notice, but I will confine my remarks to three particulars: 1st. 
 The tetimony of Jesus, that " in the resurrection they are the 
 children of God, Being the childi'en of the resurrection," des- 
 troys the popular notion, that the condition of man in the future 
 state, will be determined by his character or conduct in this. 
 Our Savior does not say, " In the resurrection they are the 
 children of God, having been my disciples in the present world." 
 No. The assurance that they shall be the children of God, is 
 predicated of the simple fact, that they shall be the children of 
 the resurrection. 2d. The Holy Spirit does not speak of the fu- 
 ture blessedness of individuals, as such. All the members of 
 the human family constitute the body of which Jesus is the head. 
 "The head of erery in«?i is Christ," 1 Cor.xi. 3. He tasted 
 "death for every man, Heb. ii. 9. " In Christ shall all be 
 made alive." God " will have all men to be saved." " Ev- 
 ery knee shall bow." These and similar forms of expression, 
 plainly show, that the Holy Spirit has revealed the future con- 
 dition of mankind as a whole and not as individuals. 3d. The 
 scripture doctrine of the resurrection, exposes the folly of the 
 inquiries which are so frequently made as to the condition in 
 
 17 
 
130 
 
 which a man has died. Is it sown in corruption? it shall be 
 raised in iuconuption: is it sown in weakness? it shall be rais- 
 ed in power: is it sown in dishonor? it shall be raised in glory: 
 is it sown an animal body? it shall be raised a spiritual body: 
 has the person died in Adam? he shall be made alive in Christ: 
 did he bear the image of the earthy? he shall also bear the im- 
 age of the heavenly. The questions should not be, How do 
 mankind die? in what condition do they depart ? but " How are 
 the dead RAISED up? and with what body do they co>ie? Al- 
 low the scriptures to furnish the reply, and the believer of the 
 record will rejoice in the assurance, that in the resurrection 
 ttniversal humamiy shall walk forth in the beauty of holiness, 
 redeemed and regenerated by the quickeningspiritof the living 
 God."* 
 
 III. My brother's remarks upon my promiscuous proof 
 texts, must be passed by, for want of time, with but a word of 
 comment. What he says on Romans v. amounts to nothing 
 more than telling me, that it is directly opposed to the univer- 
 sal reign of grace distinctly taught in the conclusion of the 
 chapter. Had he shown the fallacy of my argument drawn 
 from that, or attempted to do so, it should be noticed. His ap- 
 parently convicting me, (in a remark made extemporaneous,) 
 of misrepresentation in quoting from Dr. Clarke, amounts to 
 nothing, as any one will discover by examining his commenta- 
 ry. My quotation from Dr. Clarke was made with reference 
 to the extent of the reign of grace, and not to show that he was 
 a Universalist. In order that there need be no misunderstand- 
 ing, I will again quote the same as before, with the words my 
 brother wishes. [The quotation referred to will be found in Part 
 II. No. 1, of the Discussion.] 
 
 Does my brother call his charge against me honest ? Is it 
 Christ-like? Does it become one professing to be a disciple, a 
 minister of the Lord Jesus? It Avas my design to produce 
 much other testimony in support of the glorious gospel, or glad 
 tidings of a world's salvation, but my limits do not admit. 
 "God is admitted by all christians, and declared by the Bible, 
 
 * A. C. Thomas 
 
131 
 
 to be inpnliehj good. There can be, therefore, nuthing too good 
 for hhn to do. Endless sin and endless misery is admitted by all 
 christians to be wfinifely evil. The Bible declares any sin to be 
 an evil. It follows then, that an infinile evil is directly contrary 
 to God's whoie nature and character. On the other hand, uni- 
 versal and endless salvation from sin, and restoration to holi- 
 ness and blessedness, is perfectly in accordance with God's 
 whole nature and character. From these considerations it fol- 
 lows, that Partialism, or the doctrine of endless sin and wo, re- 
 quires more proof to establish it, than does the doctrine of Uni- 
 versalism — because it is less in accordance with God's nature 
 and character, and therefore less probable. 
 
 Again, our Partiahst brethren all admit, (I presume my 
 brother will not deny this.) 1 say they admit that every one of 
 God's attributes and perfections is in iavor of universal salva- 
 tion, except the smgle attribute of justice. Suppose them cor- 
 rect, and you have holiness, mercy, benevolence, wisdom, 
 goodness, love — all testifying one way; and, justice, only, a- 
 o-ainst them. What should you believe — the doctrine of the 
 one, or that of the many? But justice, as imperatively as any 
 other attribute of God, requires endless and universal recon- 
 ciliation to God, purification from all iniquity, salvation from 
 all sin, and obedience to all God's commands. Justice never 
 did and never will require man to be endlessly sinful; for if it 
 did, it never would punish man for sinning. Justice and holi- 
 ness unite with all the other attributes of God in requiring man 
 to be just and holy — and being directed in their efforts to re- 
 claim the sinner, by infinite wisdom, they will succeed — they 
 cannot fail."* 
 
 That God is infinite in goodness, wisdom and power; the 
 scriptures, as well as all nature, plainly teach. This my broth- 
 er will not deny. From these premises then, I make a few sug- 
 gestions, to which I invite his particular attention in his reply. 
 
 Is it possible " that an infinitely wise and benevolent God 
 would bring into existence millions of immortal souls for the 
 express purpose of making them endlessly miserable ? All an- 
 
 "A. 13. Grosh. 
 
132 
 
 swer, no. Then, of course, you believe that He designed to 
 make them endlessly happy, and arranged His plans accord- 
 ingly. Now can you persuade yourself that if God, having in- 
 finite wisdom to devise, and infinite power to execute, did realhj 
 devise and design the happiness of man, He will, nevertheless, 
 be so utterly foiled and defeated, that the very opposite of this 
 will happen? We will not stay to inquire how this happens. 
 It is enough that God, in the creation, designed and planned 
 the happiness of man, and that this plan will be so completely 
 frustrated that the greater part of the human race will be end- 
 lessly miserable, according to my brother's doctrine. I ask, is 
 it possible to believe this, and also believe that God is perfect 
 in power and wisdom.'' But again — if God in his great love 
 designed and sought the happiness of his family; and, after all, 
 the greater part of them shall prove irredeemably vicious, and 
 at last be swung off" from the scaffold of judgment into an eter- 
 nity of sinfulness and suffering, is it possible to believe that 
 God will be satisfied and happy with such a frightful termina- 
 tion of his benevolent plans ? And if he is not satisfied nor 
 happy, will he not be miserable? Is it possible for you, my 
 hearers, to believe a doctrine which involves such terrible con- 
 sequences, and so mars and marks the plans of God with weak- 
 ness, blindness and disappointment? Is it possible to believe 
 that if any of the human race shall be endlessly miserable, God 
 did not know it before he created them? "Known unto God 
 are all his works from the beginning of the world," Acts xv. 
 If he did know it, why did he then create them? Is it pos- 
 sible to believe that a God of infinite mercy and benevolence 
 would calmly and coolly go to work and create millions of beings, 
 knowing all the time that the existence he was giving them would 
 prove an endless curse to them? What would you think of that 
 parent who should suspend his child by a frail thread over a 
 dreadful precipice, with wild and ferocious beasts howHng at the 
 foot of it, uncertain whether the thread would hold or break? 
 Would you not think him a monster? What, then, would you 
 call this menstcr, if you were told that, before he suspended 
 his child over the precipice, he knew certainly that the thread 
 would break, and the little sufferer be dashed down the ragged 
 
133 
 
 rocks, and torn in pieces by the howling brutes below! If the 
 doctrine my brother believes is true, then is endless misery, 
 this dreadful precipice, and devils, the raging beasts at its 
 foot — and God, before He gave being to that portion of His 
 children who are to be irretrievably lost, before He suspended 
 them over the frightful abyss by the thread of existence, knew 
 certainly that that thread would break, and they be hurled down, 
 down amid the screaming and raging fiends below! My hear- 
 ers, it is fearful — can you believe it? 
 
 Again — Is it possible that "free agency" is any apology 
 for these terrible evils? Do you say that man might save him- 
 self if he would? But does that take from the force of the truth 
 that God knew he would notl Was he not perfectly sure, when 
 he gave man free agency, that a part would so abuse it, that 
 it would prove their final and endless ruin? Why, then, did 
 He bestow on these the fatal gift? Do you reply that man 
 must have been either a machine or a free agent? Well, ad- 
 mit that free agency was a necessary part of the mental consti- 
 tution of man; would it not have been better to have created 
 only those who He foresaw would make a good use of it, and so 
 be endlessly happy ; and have left those who He foresaw would 
 make it the cause of their destruction, uncreated, so to speak? 
 We press the question — why give existence at all where it 
 was necessary to connect with that existence a principle which 
 would certainly through all coming time fill it with indescriba- 
 ble wo and pain ? Is this benevolent or merciful ? Is it possi- 
 ble to believe that God, our God would do it ? 
 ' But again — It is acknowledged that God in creating man, 
 designed to make him endlessly happy. Now is it possible to 
 believe that, this being His real purpose. He would at the same 
 time bestow on man a principle which he foresaw would cer- 
 tainly defeat the very object of his creation? What would you 
 think of that man who should make a watch to keep the time, 
 and then introduce into the work a wheel which he knew would 
 prevent the watch from keeping time, and forever render it use- 
 less?" Now, if my brother's doctrine be true, this is precisely 
 the course pursued by God — creating man to be endlessly hap- 
 py, and then inserting in his spiritual machinery tlie wheel of 
 
131 
 
 free agency, which he knew at the time would make him end- 
 lessly miserable! Is it possible to believe this? Can you, can 
 niv brother believe i;? 
 
 My brother has acknowledged that it is God's will that all 
 men should be saved. If then, God would save all mankind, 
 but cannot, is he iniinite in power? If God can save all man- 
 kind, but will not is he infinite in goodness? I will thank my 
 brother to carefully examine these questions, drawn from the ac- 
 knowledged character of God, as revealed in the scriptures, in 
 his rejoinder They are athrmative arguments with me. 
 
 We have already shown in what the special salvation of the 
 believer consists, and desire attention to the argument thence 
 deducible in proof of Universalism. " Since the spirit of truth 
 is styled the ' Comforter,' there can be nothing tormenting in the 
 Christian faith. On the contrary, he who believes " the ti'uth 
 as it is in Jesus," enters into rest; is filled with joy and peace; 
 yea, he rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Now, 
 I ask, will my brother contend that, " laith in the doctrine of 
 endless wo, in any of its modifications, can fill the soul with 
 the peace of God? Will he contend that the prospect of inter- 
 minable wretchedness for any of our race, can cause the be- 
 liever to rejoice with unutterable joy. To what heart is the 
 spirit of eternal v/rath the comforter. 
 
 Let me come a little nearer those of our hearers who are 
 parents; you love your children. He who touches fhem, in the 
 way of injury, touches the apple of the father's and the moth- 
 er's eye. You rejoice in their happiness. Your heart is in- 
 clined to them in all the tenderness of parental love. Can you 
 bear the thought that any of them shall be the subjects of end- 
 less damnation? Can you rejoice in believing that a son or 
 daughter shall be sentenced to the doom of darkness and de- 
 spair forever? Pardon me for asking these questions. You 
 have parents' hearts, and I know that rejoicing is a stranger to 
 vour souls, whenever you mentally grant that some of your off- 
 spring mnij be eternally lost! But even supposing you to be 
 satisfied that youi-self, your companiijn, your children, your pa- 
 rents will certainly be saved, is there not still an aching void in 
 your heart? Are yon Jill ed with joy and peace? Believing that 
 
135 
 
 any number of ni;uikind will he niisenibU^ world wiiimut fiul, 
 can you rejoice with jo ij unspeakable and /)/// oi" gluiyr Incon- 
 toinplating the endless ruin, the undying agony, of millions of 
 your brethren in the human race, do you experience the celes- 
 tial influences of the comforter? But why should 1 press these 
 questions? Arc you not, and d) you not possess the feelings of 
 men and women? Yet " if you are not comforted by faith in 
 the doctrine of endless hell torments — if you rejoice not with 
 unspeakable joy in believing that a part of manlciiid will be 
 doomed to unutterable wo, — either the doctrine in (juestion is 
 false, or your heart is not right in the sight of God! The alle- 
 gation that you expect hereafler to rejoice in the damnation of 
 the impenitent, is nothing to the purpose — for, in the first place, 
 if you believe the truth you will be comforted now, you will re- 
 joice in believing; and in the second, I have yet to learn that 
 the resurrection will change man into a fiend! 
 
 But I gladly turn from the contemplation of a doctrinal sys- 
 tem devised in the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness 
 with God — a system fraught with the most blasphemous and 
 revolting conclusions; and with feelings of love invite you to 
 take a careful and full view of the doctrine of illimitable grace. 
 " Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin o/" the 
 WORLD," John i. 26. Behold in faith the triumphs of redeeming 
 love! Behold the issue of the reign of Christ! 
 
 " Then the end ; beneath his rod, • 
 
 Man's last enemy shall fall ; 
 Allelulia ! Christ in God — 
 
 God in Christ is all in all!" 
 
 In dwelling on this glorious theme the heart grows warm in 
 gratitude and love, and the kindling glow of the Comforter, the 
 spirit of truth, is felt in the soul. Truly the living can " re- 
 joice with joy unspeakable and full of glorij," in anticipation of 
 the blissful era, when the hand of the believing God shall wipe 
 the tear from every eye, and hush in every breast, the rising 
 sigh forever. And here consists the special salvation he enjoys. 
 It is a salvation from the fear that hath torment — it is a deliv- 
 erance from the bondeige of the fear of death, Heb. ii. 14. It 
 
136 
 
 is the result of unwavering confidence in the fulfihrient of the 
 absohite promise of the Almighty, that all the nations, families 
 and kindreds of the earth, shall eventually be blessed in 
 Christ."* Amen and Amen. 
 
 * A. C. Tliomas. 
 
DISCUSSION, 
 
 Part II. No. IV. 
 
 IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRII- 25, 1843. 
 
 U V F. V A T E S 
 
 " But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the 
 gospel of Chrift.*' galatian.s, i. 7. 
 
 It would seem that there were those in the days of the apos- 
 tles, who were not satisfied with the pure gospel of Christ, but 
 who differed very essentially from the plain truths it inculcated. 
 Some of these had found their way into the church at Galatia ; 
 and in order that they might the more successfully palm their 
 false notions off upon the Christian Church, they came as gos' 
 pel ministers. " We, (say they) are set for the defence of the 
 gospel — hear us.'' But the apostle Paul met these self-made 
 ministers, and faithfully exposed them. In every age of the 
 church, the robe of the sanctuary has been stolen, with which 
 to propagate the most absurd and dangerous errors. 
 
 My opponent thinks he is set for the defence of the gospel, 
 and he says " the gospel is good news," &:-c. So say we, the 
 gospel is good tidings of great joy, but not so on the hypothe- 
 sis that universalism is true. To be sure, its advocates tell ua 
 that all is well, no danger, no one lost, no one can be lost. 
 The gospel, which is such good news, only assures us that we 
 18 
 
138 
 
 were never in d.mger of the wrath to come, never in d mger of 
 hell fire, and never can be lost. This is glorious news ! A 
 man runs through the country in time of peace and quietness, 
 when no one imagines any danger, and cries " good news ! 
 good news ! glorious tidings!" and when inquired of what it 
 is ; " O, there is no war — no danger of war." The people 
 would laugh at his folly. But here is another case: A famine 
 was prevailing to a great extent in the city of Samaria. 
 The people were dying with hunger by multitudes. The four 
 leprous men who stood at the gate, went to the camp of the 
 Asyrians, which, to their great joy and astonishment, they found 
 in their quiet possession, with an abundance of provisions. 
 " This," said they, " is a day of good tidings — let us declare 
 it to the king's household." Now if Samaria had been full, 
 and there was no danger of want or starvation, this would not 
 have been a day of such good tidings. Again, if any in the 
 city had been disposed to doubt the message, and had perished 
 in consequence, it would have been a true message, and good 
 tidings still, notwithstanding their unbelief So the gospel. It 
 comes to a guilty and perishing world, with offers of pardon 
 and salvation. These offers are made to all people, and it is 
 good news, wh.ether men receive it or reject it. On the sup- 
 position^lhat^men have exposed themselves to endless punish- 
 ment by transgres.sion, and have no means of saving themselves 
 from this awful doom, the gospel, which brings to view a plan 
 of salvation] through Jesus Christ, is indeed good news. My 
 opponent thinks I had better let our hearers decide whether my 
 arguments have been answered or not, and not presume to set 
 myself up, &.c. I reply, that when my principal arguments are 
 passed by a second time without even a notice, I have a right 
 to remind him, and our hearers of the fact ; and I shall not 
 sit at his feet to learn lessons of modesty. I presume our hear- 
 ers will recollect that my arguments presented and repeated to 
 prove my application of Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, to the future state, 
 were not even noticed, though his attention was called to them 
 especially. Other prominent ones might be named. 
 
 I. He thinks he is under no obligation to notice my re- 
 
139 
 
 marks on tlie text he quoted from Acts iii. concerning the " res- 
 titution of all things," as' he did not produce it as one of his 
 proof texts. If he did not introduce it as a proof text, he re- 
 garded it as teaching that all men will be finally holy and hap- 
 py, and has quoted it frequently in the course of this discus- 
 sion. Now that I have met it, and proved from the text and 
 its connection, that it '\s fatal to his theory, he drops it by say- 
 ing he did not introduce it as ii proof text. Would he have 
 passed by in silence, the two arguments I raised against his 
 doctrine from one of his own texts, if he could have done any 
 better. 
 
 The promise made to the ancient patriarchs, he still contends 
 must prove the unconditional salvation of all men, but he has 
 used no new argument to prove this, neither has he reconciled 
 this idea with Paul's application of the promise. 
 
 Although I consider the remarks made in my first reply suf- 
 ficient on this point to satisfy any one who is willing to receive 
 the plain testimony of God's word, yet I will here add a few 
 remarks to show our hearers again, the obvious import of the 
 promise in question. 
 
 It is admitted that it is universal and unconditional in some 
 respects. 1. So far as it relates to the advent of the Savior, it 
 is unconditional, and his death has procured blessings which 
 are universal and unconditional, such as our temporal bles- 
 sings, for " in him we live and move and have our being." 
 And blessings of a spiritual or gospel character — deliverance 
 from the original curse^ — " For as by the offenCe of one judg- 
 ment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the 
 righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justi- 
 fication of life." In this we see how infants and idiots can be 
 saved, and those heathen too, who obey the law that is written 
 on their hearts by the " Spirit that enlighteneth every man that 
 cometh into the world." But 2. It is perfectly clear, that so 
 far as it relates to individuals who have involved personal con- 
 demnation, and who are capable of receiving the gospel, and of 
 embracing its terms, it is conditional. We say those who are 
 capable of receiving the gospel, for the word of God addresses? 
 
140 
 
 itself to no others. It regards mun as a moral agent — a volun- 
 tary being. It addresses him as such. This must be self-evi- 
 dent to every man. To such the gospel comes with its condi- 
 tions. 
 
 But I must notice again his arguments to prove uncondi- 
 tional salvation. I will present his principal one, and try to 
 meet it. " Acts iii. the apostle testifies to the Jews that in accor- 
 dance with the promise God sent his Son to bless in ' turning 
 away every one from his iniquities, i. e. in saving every indi- 
 vidual from his sins.' — "The preceding verse answers the 
 question, Who are to be blessed in Christ 1 which testimony 
 is, that God covenanted with Abraham, saying, * And in thy 
 seed shall all the hindreds of the earth he blessed.' Is there any 
 condition expressed or implied here? I can discover none. If 
 there is, will my brother point it out distinctly ?" This, I 
 think, presents the strength of his argument; and for the satis- 
 faction of our hearers I will submit the following remarks : 
 
 1. Let it be remembered that this scripture, containing the 
 promise, is produced by my opponent in proof of ^'future, and 
 eternal salvation." This he contends is the salvation brought 
 to view in the promise. Bear this in mind. 
 
 2. I will now prove to you, from this very text and its con- 
 nection, that the salvation it treats of is conditional. Hear the 
 testimony : " for Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet 
 shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, 
 like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he 
 shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul 
 which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from a- 
 mong the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and 
 those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise 
 foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, 
 and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying 
 unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
 earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his 
 Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of 
 you from his iniquities." How clearly does this bear on its 
 very face conditions of salvation. — (1.) Jesus was sent to the 
 
141 
 
 Jews, according to the promise, nuide to the fathers, that he 
 iniglit turn them from their iniquities. Mark, he was sent for 
 this purpose ; hut they were not all turned from their iniqui- 
 ties. It does not assert that he will turn them in the future 
 state. He " icas sent" to do it in the days of hi? flesh, and the 
 fact that he did not do it proves at least a condition implied. 
 (2.) It is positively asserted that " every soul v)hicli will not 
 hear'"' the Son Jesus, " shall be destroyed from among- the peo- 
 ple." Thus the salvation spoken of in the text, which my op- 
 ponent says is future and eternal, is made to depend on tlie 
 condition of hearing Christ, which implies faith and obedience. 
 I trust I have now " distinctly pointed out" the condition, 
 which is not only " implied," but " expressed." 
 
 I will introduce once more, Paul's application of the promise 
 in Gal. iii. Still bear in mind that the salvation promised em- 
 braces the future and eternal salvation. So says my opponent. 
 " So then they which he of faith, are blessed with faithful A- 
 braham. For ye [believers] are all the children of God by faith 
 in Christ Jesus ; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise." — The same apostle 
 speaks again of the heirship on this wise, Rom. viii. "Now if 
 any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. For 
 as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of 
 God. If children then are heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs 
 with Christ." What can be plainer ? But my opponent tries 
 to evade the force of this reasoning, by saying that all that re- 
 lates to the condition of salvation refers to the special salva- 
 tion of believers in this life. But he is a little too late, having 
 applied the very scriptures to future salvation, which we have 
 seen proves salvfition to be conditional ! 
 
 He has undertaken to tell us what the special salvation of be- 
 lievers is. He says, " should any desire to know in what the 
 special salvation of believers consists, this is my reply : In be- 
 lieving the glorious truth that " God is the Savior of all men," 
 they " enter into rest," &c. By this he means, that to believe 
 in universalism is the condition of the special blessings prom- 
 ised in this life ! I beg leave to dissent from this. Mv hear- 
 
142 
 
 ers will pnrdoii me if I spe;ik plainly. It is a fact too well 
 known to be contradicte 1, that many of the most vicious among 
 us are among the loud proclaimers of this faith. Do they " en- 
 ter into rest?" Do they " rejoice with joy unspeakable and 
 full of glory ? ' Yes, according to the theory of my opponent. 
 It requires no wora/ change, only " believe this glorious truth. " 
 I will notice this no farther. — I think it must now be conclu- 
 sive to every candid mind, that if Paul and Peter were capable 
 of understanding the promise made to Abraham, nay, if the 
 Holy Ghost, by whom they wrote, understood it, the salvation 
 of which it treats is conditional. This salvation my opponent 
 says is future and eternal ; consequently, future and eternal 
 salvation is conditional. So " saith the scripture." 
 
 Before leaving this point I will say one word about the a- 
 tonement. I observed in my last, that he made the salvation 
 of men depend on the merits of Christ, — this must have been 
 apparent to all. To show his inconsistency, I stated that he 
 did not believe that the death of Christ saves us from a single 
 pang of deserved punishment, or from hell in another world ; 
 neither does he save us from the commission of sin in this life. 
 He says, that by so doing I have exhibited my ignorance of his 
 views of the atonement, or else have grossly misrepresented him. 
 I reply, that I am not ignorant of his views, for he frankly a- 
 vowed them at the time alluded to. Neither have I misrepre- 
 sented him in the least. Now let him produce his manuscript 
 which he used on that occasion, and convict me of false- 
 hood if he can. If he had given a definite answer to my plain 
 question, and told us in what sense Christ does, or will save us, 
 it would have set the matter right. Why did he not do it ? 
 Because, forsooth, "this is not the question under discussion." 
 This appears somewhat strange to me. Through his whole dis- 
 course to prove universalism, he made the death of Christ the 
 ground of his faith, which, of course, embraces the doctrine of 
 atonement. Christ " .^are hi.mself a ransom for all." "He 
 tasted death for every man." When I compared his course 
 of reasoning with the well known views of universalists, he 
 lia|)pened to discover that the atonement had nothing to do 
 
143 
 
 with tliis discus?ioii ! If this is not ^luiffliiifi, 1 am iiii;;hle to 
 (Ictenniiie what is. 
 
 II. It will bo iiece.s.saiy to say but little at this time in rej)!/ 
 to his argument drawn liom the will of (iod, inasmuch as it 
 was proved in my last that the will of God in the sense of his 
 proof text is not done; and further, that his tiual, and absolute; 
 purposes are opposed to the unconditional salvation of all men. 
 
 He has avowed his sentiments of fatalism a little more fully 
 on this occasion. He quotes my admission that it is the will ol 
 C«od to save all men, and says, " This is all we contend for, — 
 namely, that he that doeth according to his will in the army of 
 heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and who work- 
 eth all things after the counsel of his own will, slionld be ac- 
 knowledged to be the God who will have all men to be saved 
 and come unto the knowledge of the truth." My opponent re- 
 ceives these texts which speaks of God's doing " according to 
 his will,", and working "all things after the counsel of his own 
 will," in their broadest and unlimited sense. If they prove any- 
 thing to his purpose they prove that God's will is done in every 
 particular. Now let us see what kind of a God he has got. 
 God has commanded that man should not murder his fellow 
 man. This is according to his wdll. But a murder is commit- 
 ted. This too, is according to his will. And then this poor 
 man, who has been doing the will of God, in taking the blood 
 of his neighbor, is condemned for wilful murder and hung. 
 This too is according to the will of God ! ! In the first place 
 God binds him by his law, " thou shalt not Aj7/," then he takes 
 hifn contrary to this law, and compels him to slay his neighbor, 
 and then, by the same resistless will, he dooms him to the pun- 
 ishment of death! O, wretched man! hast thou fallen into the 
 hands of such a vascillating and cruel tyrant ? then hope not 
 for future salvation; for if it be proved to-night that he wills 
 the salvation of all men, to-morrow he may doom all men to 
 endless punishment. If this be so, then all the wars and blood- 
 sheds, all the cruel persecutions of his children, all the outrage 
 that has ever been committed upon the innocent and harmless, 
 
144 
 
 yea, all the sin, wretchedness, and suffering for these 6000 
 years is according to the will of God! Are you, my hearers, 
 prepared tor such a conclusion? And yet you cannot avoid it 
 if you adopt the sentiments of my opponent. The simple mean- 
 ing of these texts is, tliat God will execute his purposes in the 
 administration of his government. The subjects of his govern- 
 ment are free agents, — and he has purposed that those who 
 are obedient and loyal subjects shall be saved, and those who 
 refuse and rebel shall be damned. With this view, there is 
 harmony in the divine attributes, and consistency in tiie divine 
 administrations, and in no other light. 
 
 We will glance once more at his proof texts, and will take 
 our leave of this argument. God " will have all men to be sav- 
 ed, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." Nothing can 
 be plainer than that the text teaches that it is God's will that 
 all should now be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the 
 truth now. But this is not the case. This I argued at length in 
 my last, and raised an argument from his proof text against the 
 certainty of God's will being done. This argument has not 
 been met. All will admit that God wills the salvation of all 
 men from sin in this life. Yes, this same apostle declares that 
 " it is the will of God, even our sanctification," a state of grace 
 which my opponent thinks no one enjoys in this life. Thus it is 
 plain that God's will is not done in the sense of this text, and 
 how can it prove that all men will be finally holy and happy ? 
 This text must be given up. 
 
 (Perhaps I ought to notice one thing more. In my remarks on 
 his proof text in Eph. I said that the phrase " all things" could 
 not mean all men, for my opponent remarked that it could not 
 mean those already in Christ. He wonders how I could thus 
 nnblushingly accuse him of what his manuscript plainly show- 
 ed to be false. I ask, did he not say that it could not mean 
 those already in Christ? Yes, he admits it now, and his man- 
 uscript will show it. How is it then, that I accused him of what 
 is false? Suppose he did remark that it embraced " all intelli- 
 gent beings," after saying thut it could not refer to those alrea- 
 dy in Christ, — am I bound to reconcile his inconsistencies and 
 
145 
 
 contradictions. If I were I should have a liarder task than he 
 has given me yet.) 
 
 He next attempts to reply to some, of my remarks on his proof 
 text in I Cor. xv. cha[)ter. He says " the substance of liis [my] 
 argument, is, that only the resurrection of the body is spoken 
 of in this chapter. It assures us that all will have a resurrec- 
 tion, but it is not once said that all shall be made holy and hap- 
 py. But I shall show you that it teaches a contrary doctrine." 
 My opponent asks, " where has he shown this?" I suppose he 
 intended to prove it by the 23d verse." Thus it seems, that in 
 his estimation, I offered no proof to sustain my position that 1 
 Cor. XV. was opposed to " the final holiness and happiness of 
 all mankind," but he was left to conjecture what I intended to do. 
 This is a very convenient way of getting rid of the arguments I 
 presented. But he could not find out where I had shown this, 
 or attempted to show it, notwithstanding he was present when 
 the following arguments were presented from this desk, and 
 had my manuscript which contained them for a week afterwards. 
 Nor is this the first time I have been under the necessity of re- 
 peating my arguments before he could see them. Here they 
 are, and our hearers can judge whether they sustain the point 
 or not. 
 
 On this text. (1 Cor. xv: 21 — 25,) I submit the following 
 remarks: — • 
 
 1 . The death and resurrection of the body only is treated of 
 in this chapter. Not one word said in all this " glorious chap- 
 ter" about "the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
 It assures us that all will have a resurrection, but it is not once 
 said that all shall be made holy and happy. But I shall show 
 you that it teaches a contrary doctrine. 
 
 2. The text teaches that Jesus Christ is to make his second 
 advent at the end of this world — a doctrine entirely fatal to 
 the theoiy of my opponent. Speaking of the order of the re- 
 surrection, the apostle says, Christ the first fruits aflerward 
 they that are Christ's at his coming." This my opponent says 
 "is plain, literal language." If so the resurrection of the 
 righteous must take place when Christ comes. It is certain 
 that he must make his personal appearance at the time of the 
 
 19 
 
M8 
 
 resurrection. This is plainly asserted by the same apostle, in, 
 "plain, hteral language," 1 Thess. iv: IG. ''For the Lord 
 Hi>isELF shall di'scciul J'foin Juucen mlh a shout, u-i(h the voice of 
 the archangel, and tcilh the fnunp of God, and the dead in Christ 
 shall risefrsi.'" Thus his proof text bears on its very face a 
 doctrine which he has positively denied in the course of this dis- 
 cussion; and which destroys his whole theory! Let this be re- 
 membered. 
 
 3. At the coming of Christ here spoken of, his enemies " shall 
 be put under hisftet." This my opponent assumes " is a spirit- 
 ual and willing subjection to Christ." This is entirely without 
 evidence. On the contrary, it is plain that this subjection is not 
 voluntary; but that it is the subjection of enemies to destroy 
 them. They are to be " put under his feet.'''' This does net 
 imply their restitution. An enemy may be subdued without be- 
 ing restored to favor." The apostle, says INlr. Isaac, "here 
 undDubtedly alludes to the custom of conquerors treading on 
 the necks of their enemies. The captains of Joshua put their 
 feet on the necks of the five kings they had subdued; but it was 
 preparatory to their destruction, not to their restoration. Other 
 scriptures which speak of the transactions to take place at the 
 time of the resurrection fully confinns this view of the subject. 
 We will introduce Matt. xiii. 38 — 43. Let it be remembered 
 that this is not a parable, but the e.rplanalion of a parable." 
 " And his disciples came unto him, saying, declare unto us the 
 parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto 
 them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man; the 
 field is the world; the good seed are the children of the king- 
 dom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The 
 enemy that sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of 
 the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the 
 tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in (he 
 end of this world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, 
 and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things which offend, 
 and them which do iniqtiity, and shall cast them into a furnace of 
 fire: there shall b:: ivailing and gnaslwig of teeth. Then shall 
 the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their 
 Father. Who hath ears to hear let him hear." This is Christ's 
 
147 
 
 explanation of his own parable, and il clearly teaches what the 
 subjection ol" his enemies will be at the resurrection. iMatt. xxv: 
 31 _ 4G, teaches the same doctrine, notwithstanding all that my 
 opponent has said to the contrary. In my first article 1 urged 
 seven objections to his application of it, which are so many argu- 
 ments in favor of mine, since no one contends for a third appli- 
 tion of it. These objections he did not meet. In my last I re- 
 peated four of them at greater length, which I consider as un- 
 answerable arguments in favor of a general judgment, when 
 those events will take place mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. Agam, 
 Christ plainly teaches, John v. 23, 29, that all will not come 
 fbrth to spu-itual life at the resurrection. 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 resurrec- 
 tion of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection 
 of damnation." This is " plain, literal language." That God's 
 enemies will be destroyed, and not made holy, at the coming of 
 Christ, is evident from the " plain, literal language of Paul, 2 
 Thess. i. 7 — 9. " When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
 from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, laking vtn- 
 p-eance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished ivilh everlast- 
 ing destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the g/ory 
 cf his power.'' I must still urge this as one of my proof texts, 
 for my opponent has not proved his application of it. It con- 
 firms the doctrine of his proof text in 1 Cor. that Christ is to 
 come at the resurrection, while it clearly shows what the sub- 
 jection of his enemies will be. Thus far his arguments turn 
 against his own system with resistless force. 
 
 These are the arguments that were put tbrth to show that his 
 proof te.xt in Cor. not only fails to prove the final holiness and 
 happiness of all mankind, but it teaches the opposite sentiment. 
 You can judge whether they were of sufficient importance to 
 deserve his notice, and if they were why did he not meet them? 
 Is it not plain that he felt unable to answer them, and therefore 
 thought it best to let them pass? So I judge. 
 
 One of the passages quoted in the foregoing arguments, he 
 hA.s noiiced, namely, John v. -33, 29. " M:\rvel not at thiu for 
 
14S 
 
 the hour is coining 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 ot^ life, and they that have done evil unto 
 the resurrection of damnation." I shall object to his disposal 
 of it altogether. He asks, " Does this passage have reference 
 to the same resurrection taught in the 15th chapter of 1 Cor. ?" 
 and answers " nay," " Does this testimony in John 5tli relate 
 to the resurrection of our mortal bodies?" He answers, " no !" 
 What convenient arguments ! He applies it to the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, but how it was then fulfilled in that event he does 
 not tell us. The Jews being in their moral graves at that time, 
 means, I suppose, thai they were in a state of moral death. 
 Now all that were in their moral graves at the time Jerusalem 
 was destroyed, came forth; they that had done good, i. e. the 
 righteous, those that were already alive in Christ, and conse- 
 quently had, already, eternal life, they came forth to the resur- 
 rection of life ! And they that had done evil, i. e. the wicked, 
 who were already morally dead, came forth to the resurrection 
 of damnation, or condemnation ! ! Who ever heard of a guilty 
 sinner who is condemned already, having a moral resurrection 
 to condemnation before ? I need say no more to notice the 
 absurdity of this application. 
 
 My opponent says, " the word resurrection, in the passage 
 in John, affords no proof that the allusion is to a rising to an 
 immortal state, — for as Dr. Campbell jms^/^^ observes, this is 
 neither the only, nor the primitive import of the word anasasUs." 
 For my part, I do not consider myself stijicientlt/ learned, as 
 yet, to sit in judgment upon the criticisms of such a learned man 
 as Dr. Campbell, so I am not so well prepared to decide wheth- 
 er the Dr. remarks '^justly"" or ?</?justly concerning the Greek 
 Language. So you see, my learned opponent has the advantage 
 of me in this respect; and it becomes me as a young man, to 
 learn modesty." It would, however, have afforded me much 
 greater satisfaction, had my opponent, instead of giving a gar- 
 bled quotation from Dr. Campbell, have given his remarks on 
 the definition of anastasis, and its application in the scriptures 
 entire ; for then our hearers could have judged better of the 
 strength of his argument. 
 
M9 
 
 But our business with lliis word is its meaning as used in the 
 scriptures, and its application by the sacred writers. " Anas- 
 tusis,''' says President Dwight, " as used iw the New-Testament, 
 properly means the future existence of man. Its original and 
 literal meaning is to stand up, or to stand again. It is transla- 
 ted in our English Bible Resurrection, which implies both the 
 act of being raised, and the state of the risen." Dr. Dwight 
 was one of the best Greek scholars of his day, and the learned 
 President of Yale College. Dr. Robinson, the Greek Lexicog- 
 rapher, and one of the most distinguished scholars of the pre- 
 sent age, says, " Anastcfsis, which means to be risen up, from 
 anistemi, to come, to rise up, is used in the scriptures in rela- 
 tion to the resurrection of the body from death. It is si)oken 
 
 1. of individuals who have returned to life. Heb. ii. 35, women 
 re>:eived their dead, ex aiieifta.<eos, from resurrection, i. e. rais- 
 ed again to life. This same word is used in speaking of the 
 resurrection of Jesus in Acts i. 22 ; ii. 'il ; iv. 33 ; xvii. 
 18; Rom. i. 4; vi. 5; Phil. iii. 10; I Peter i. 3; iii. 21. 
 
 2. It is used in speaking of the future and general resur- 
 rection at the end of all things. Acts xvii. 42. " And when 
 they heard of the (anastasin nckro/i,) the resurrection of the 
 dead." In Acts xxiv. 15 ; xxvi 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, 
 the phrase anastasis ton nekron, resurrection of the dead, oc- 
 curs. The same phrase is in Heb. vi. 2, and is connected 
 with eternal judgment. Anastascos te nekron kai krimatos 
 aioniou. Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. In 
 John V. 29, (the text in question) anastasin is used in speaking 
 of the resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked. They 
 that have done good, (cis anastasin zoes) resurrection unto 
 life, i.e. eternal happiness. And they that have done evil, 
 (eis anastasin kriscos,) resurrection unto condemnation, i. e. 
 eternal misery." — So much for his criticism on the word res- 
 urrection. The same word that is translated resurrection in 
 my proof text, and which my opponent says does not refer to 
 the resurrection of the body, is the same word which occurs in 
 all his proof texts which relate to the resurrection. Now I ask, 
 what evidence is there to support his bold as-sertinn, that the 
 resurrection in John v. is nut the same as that in 1 Cur. xv ? 
 
150 
 
 not llie least. All we hiive is his bare assertion ; against this I 
 place the united testimony of the scriptures, and the decision of 
 the p.'.ost distinoruished scliolars, and will let our hearers decide 
 who is entitled to the arcrument. He thinks that the same is 
 meant by coming to life in the 29th verse of John v, as is meant 
 in the 25th verse. But a few remarks will settle this question. 
 I will try " to discriminate." 
 
 Throughout the New Testament, wherever the literal resur- 
 rection of Christ or the bodies of men is spoken of, the word 
 anastasiii is invariably used. In John v. 24 — 29, both a spir- 
 itual and a literal resurrection are spoken of. The first is from 
 a death in sin, in which sinners are destitute of spiritual life, 
 verse 25. In this verse the word cmaslasia is not used. As 
 the transformation is merely from spiritual death to zocn, (life,) 
 which word is used here. In verses 28, 29, the Savior says, 
 Marvel not at what I have said unto you, of bringing the dead 
 in sin to life, for the hour is coming in which you shall see a 
 more visible and amazing proof of the power and ability of the 
 Son of man ; for all who are in their graves shall hear his 
 voice, and shall come forth. Here we have for the first time 
 in the paragraph, graves, and in verse 29, the terras annstasin 
 zoi s, and annstasin kriros, resurrection of life, and resurrec- 
 tion of damnation ; which most clearly show that two different 
 things are referred to in the different sentences in the passage. 
 I trust it is now proved that this text treats of the literal resur- 
 rection of the righteous and wicked. The one to eternal life, 
 and the other to eternal damnation, consequently, utiivers.ilism 
 is proved to be false. Yes, this one text is enough. 
 
 The subject of cha]). xv. of I Corinthians, is the resurrec- 
 tion of the human body ; and the text so much relied on by my 
 opponent, " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
 be made alive," is to be understood of the natural death and 
 resurrection of the body alone. And as we have "borne the 
 image of the earthly, Adam in a frail and corruptible body, 
 so shall we bear the image of the heavenly Adam, Christ Je- 
 sus, in his spiritual and incorruptiide body. In Luke xx. 
 IJ4 — 36, our Savior answers the question of the Sadducees, 
 
151 
 
 rpspecing tlie ri^fht of seven brethren to one \voii!;!i in llie res- 
 urrection, lie says, " In tiie resurrection they neither marry, 
 nor are given in in .rriage ; neither can they die any more ;" 
 bnt in botii these respects are like the " angels," and are the 
 children of God,*^ not because t!iey are holy, but because 
 they are "the children of the resurrection." There is notliinn; 
 in this text or context, that fivors universalism in tlie least. 
 
 III. He is obliged to p:'.ss by my remarks on hi.- promis- 
 cuous scriptures, for the want of room, " with but a word of 
 comment." As his " word of comment" <]eserves no reply, I 
 will pass on. It is sufficient to show that his proof texts con- 
 tain doctrines which are fatrd to his theory. This was shown 
 in my last to be true of Romans v. and he has made no at- 
 tempt to show to the contrary. 
 
 I have now examined ail my opponent's principal passages, 
 but do not fmd universal salvation in one of them; and how 
 anv person who retlects seriously, and thinks closely, can satis- 
 fy himself that the doctrine is true, on so slight grounds, is not 
 easy to conjecture. Indeed, it has been shown that his very 
 proof texts are against his doctrine. He says, " it was iny in- 
 tention to produce much other testimony in support of tlie glo- 
 rious gospel, or glad tidings of a world's redemption, but my 
 limits do not admit." Just look at this. He had no room for 
 further scripture testimony, but has occupied a long space with 
 matter entirely foreign to the discussion. Why has he left the 
 plain testnuony of the Bible, when our question confines us to 
 the scriptuns, and labored to prove his doctrine from the 
 perfections of God, and an appeal to human sympathies? The 
 question is, " Do fhc scnjiturts teach the doctrine of the final 
 holiness and happiness of all mankind !" Would he have left 
 the question, if he had been .<atisfed that the scriptures teach 
 his doctrine ? I think our hearers must regard this as yielding 
 the point — the scriptures arc not sufficient to support his doc- 
 trine. He can offer no excuse for this departure, for he him- 
 self remarked in his first discourse on the affirmative, " As my 
 time IS very brief, and I am wholly confined to the scriptures, 
 you will perceive that I am ohn^<d to omit the thousand argu- 
 
152 
 
 menls I iniglit derive from reason, from the workings of God's 
 spirit on the renewed heart, and from God's teachings in na- 
 ture." But he is forced to call in some of his " thousand ar- 
 guments" after all. He has left the question, has left the Bible, 
 and gone oft' in a tangent, to find somthing to support a sink- 
 ing cause. How true it is, " a drowning man will catch at a 
 straw." 
 
 I am under no obligation to reply to his arguments drawn 
 from the perfections of God, and the feelings of earthly parents, 
 as they have nothing to do with the question we agreed to dis- 
 cuss. But for the sake of showing that his cause can find no 
 support from these new sources, I will give them a passing 
 notice. 
 
 1. I shall take ground that the attributes of God, aside from 
 revelation and matter of lact, do not furnish suflicient data from 
 whence to deduce conclusions concerning man's future desti- 
 tiny. In support of this position, I offer the following con- 
 siderations. 
 
 " (1.) God cannot make a full revelation of himself to us, 
 in view of our want of capacity to comprehend infinity. The 
 attributes of God can be fully known only to himself; hence 
 any conclusions drawn from the divine perfections, are deduc- 
 tions drawn from premises we do not understand, and our con- 
 clusions must be as uncertain as our knowledge of the premi- 
 ses is imperfect. We do not say that Ave do not know what 
 some of the divine perfections are; God has revealed to us that 
 he is almighty, wise, just, holy and good; but we cannot so un- 
 derstand these perfections as to be able to determine from 
 them, aside from scripture and matter of fact, what is, and what 
 is not consistent with them. We can determine what is, and 
 what is not, consistent with the attributes of God, only by what 
 we see actually exist, or from what God has said in the 
 scriptures. If my opponent will prove from the Bible that 
 all men will be saved, we shall be bound to admit that it is con- 
 sistent with the divine perfections, to save, in a future world, 
 those who only abuse his mercies in this,and die in unbelief and 
 contempt of his authority ; and if I can prove from the scrip- 
 
153 
 
 lures, as 1 trust I liavo, that some men will be endlessly miis- 
 ciable, he will be bound to admit t/iat endless punishment u 
 consistent with the divine attributes, though he may not be a- 
 ble to see any reason in the divine attributes why it should be 
 so. That we cannot discover what is, and what is not, consis- 
 tent with the divine perfections is clear, from the simple fact, 
 that providence has already developed many things for which 
 we can see no reason in the divine perfections. I presume my 
 opponent can see no reason in the divine goodness, why a holy, 
 devoted and useful minister should be put to the rack, and 
 caused to sufter a most painful death b>j the hand of an ungodly 
 sinner ; and I can see no reason in the divine justice why God 
 should take ihc murdered and the murderer to the same heaven. 
 
 " ('2.) The perfections of God do not enable us to deter- 
 mine what the desert of sin is; a point that must be settled be- 
 fore it can appear that endless punishment is not consistent 
 with the divine justice and goodness. Can my opponent, from 
 m\y knowledge he has of the divine perfections, clearly deter- 
 mine the extent of the evils of sin, and what and how much 
 punishment the sinner is liable to endure? If he can, he will 
 confer a favor on the world to speak out, and say just what and 
 how much the sinner must endure, to answer the claims of the 
 divine law; and if he cannot determine from the divine perfec- 
 tions, what and how much the sinner deserves, he cannot know 
 Imt that a punishment worse, ajad much longer than he has im- 
 agined, may be consistent with the perfections of God. We 
 believe these points must be settled by the law and the testi- 
 mony of God's word, and not by some rule of consistency, in 
 our own imaginations, by which we would direct the attributes 
 of God in the government of the world. 
 
 " (3.) The perfections of God in our opinion, do not of them- 
 selves, so far as we are enabled to understand them, prove the 
 immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body. What 
 js there discoveralile in tlie perfections of God, that proves 
 that the spirit of man, that goeth upward, is any more immor- 
 tal than the spirit of the beast that goeth downward' or that 
 <^«r bodies will be raised any moi^ than theirs.' And if a future 
 
 70 
 
154 
 
 state is not clearly discoverable in the perfections of God, they 
 cannot, independently of direct revelation, prove the final sal- 
 vation of all men. 
 
 " (4.) If the future destiny of man can be determined from 
 the perfections of God, no good reason can be given why every 
 other point in theology cannot be proved in the same way. 
 Now, will my opponent contend that he can discover what is 
 truth, and what is error, from his knowledge of the divine per- 
 fections.'' If he can, then all those portions of the scriptures, 
 which do not relate to the attributes of God, are not necessary 
 in order to a correct theory of religion; and if he cannot deter- 
 mine from the attributes of God, what is, and what is not re- 
 ligious truth, it cannot appear that he can prove from this 
 source, what will be the punishment of sin, or the sinner's final 
 destiny. It must be perfectly plain ; that if we have a view of 
 the perfections of God sufficiently clear, to enable us to deter- 
 mine what is, and v/hat is not, consistent with them, we can 
 need no further revelation than that which relates directly to 
 God and his other attributes; for whatever is consistent with 
 the divine attributes must be true, and does or may exist; and 
 whatever is not consistent with the divine attributes, does not, 
 and cannot exist. 
 
 *' (5.) So far as any thing can be proved, from the perfec- 
 tions of God, on this subject, the argument is in our favor. 
 Though we cannot discern what is consistent with the perfec- 
 tions of God, from any view we have of his perfections; yet we 
 can determine that some things are consistent with them, from 
 the actual existence of the things themselves. We know that 
 whatever does exist must be consistent with the divine perfec- 
 tions; hence, when we behold the existence of any thing and 
 infer from thence that such thing is consistent with the perfec- 
 tions of God, we reason from matter of fact, and not from the 
 divine perfections. We cannot prove from the perfections of 
 God that the existence of sin and misery are consistent with 
 such perfections, yet this point can be proved from matter of 
 fact; for sin and misery do exist, and therefore, we know, from 
 their actual existence, that their existence is consistent with 
 the perfections of God. This throws the wciglit of the argu- 
 
155 
 
 mciit into our side of the scales, for matter of liict says it is 
 consistent witli the divine perfections that sin and misery should 
 exist, while matter of llict cannot be brought to bear on the 
 other side of the question. Matter of fact cannot prove that 
 it is consistent with the divine perfections to save all men, 
 whatever may be their conduct, for all men are not saved. 
 Not only so, but it is now consistent with the divine perfections 
 that sin and misery should exist, and as these attributes arc un- 
 changeable, the inference is a fair one that it may always be 
 consistent with the divine perfections that sin and misery should 
 exist. I think I have now removed the entire foundation of 
 every argument drawn from the perfections of God, in favor 
 of universalism; hence, the arguments must fall."* 
 
 I will here notice one or two inquiries, to which my atten- 
 tion is particularly called. He says, " my brother has ac- 
 knowledged that it is God's will that all men should be saved. 
 If then, God would save all mankind, but cannot, is he infinite 
 in power? If God can save all mankind, but uill noi, is he in- 
 finite in goodness? I will thank my brother to carefully ex- 
 amine these questions— drawn from the acknowledged char- 
 acter of God, as revealed in the scriptures, in his rejoinder. 
 They are aflSrmative arguments with me." 
 
 I reply, that it is acknowledged that God is infinite in good- 
 ness and benevolence ; consequently, he must desire the hap- 
 piness of all his creatures at all times. But this world has 
 been full of sin and misery for GOOO years. Now to show the 
 fallacy of my opponent's reasoning, I will adopt it in this case. 
 If then, God would make all mankind holy and happy in this 
 state of existence, but cannot, is he infinite in power? If God 
 can make all mankind holy and happy now, but will not, is he 
 infinite in goodness?"— Thus it is seen how easily all his 
 questions which relate to the power and goodness of God, 
 might be turned round, and demand an answer of him which 
 , he cannot give without destroying his own arguments. Into 
 what labyrinths of inconsistency and absurdity is a man thrown, 
 when he denies the free agency of men, and the conditionality 
 of salvation! Admit these and there is no difliculty in harmo- 
 * Lutlicr Lcc. 
 
156 
 
 nizing the divine attributes with God's deaUngs with men, and 
 the doctrines of the Bible. And -whutfoUij, not to suy bkisphe- 
 my, for pooi", finite man to sit in judgment on the government 
 of Ahnighty God, and undertake to tell what would, and what 
 would not be consistent for God to do! O, Presumption! 
 wli^re is thy shame ? Teach me, thou Sovereign of the uni- 
 verse, to sit at the foot of the cross, with a submissive spirit, 
 willing that iJiou shouldest reign! 
 
 2. My opponent has made an appeal to human sympathies, to 
 prove that all mankind will be finally holy and happy. He 
 wants to know what would be thought of a parent who would 
 do so and so with a child. I ask what would you think of a pa- 
 rent who would drown his children, as God drowned the anti- 
 deluvians? or who should burn them as God did the inhabitants 
 of Sodom? 
 
 The conduct and feelings of earthly parents are no rule for 
 the administration of the divine government. God will not be 
 governed by sympathy, but by his own eternal and immutable 
 justice. 
 
 Thus much for his new arguments. I think this brief notice 
 is sufficient to show that they jyrove nothing to his purpose. 
 
 I have now done with the arguments of my opponent. Our 
 candid hearers are left to decide in reference to the arguments 
 which have been offered on both sides of the question, tt has 
 been my objoct in the course of this discussion, to present, and 
 defend truth. God is my judge, to him I must give an account. 
 The feelings I have indulged, the spirit 1 have manit'ested, the 
 course I have pursued, is all open before him with whom I have 
 to do. The result of the discussion on my own mind has been 
 to increase my confidence in the doctrine I have advocated. I 
 fullij believe it to be the doctrine of the Bible, and unless I seek 
 a refuge in the merits of Jesus Christ by a living faith, 1 shall 
 expect to share, and thai justly too, the torments of the damned. 
 
 I respectfully request our hearers to call to mind the argu- 
 ments which have been presented on both sides, and see if they 
 can be satisfied beyond a doubt, that the arguments in favor of 
 endless punishment have been fully met and satisfactorily an- 
 swered. Also, if the })osition that all mankmd will be finally 
 
157 
 
 holy aiul happy, has bfcii liilly sustuiruMl by phiii) scriptnro 
 testimony. Are you fully satisfied that eternal salvation is imt 
 conditional? If so, how do you reconcile it with Heb. v. ;>. 
 Jfsus Christ " became the author of ErF.ii.VAL salvalion lo all 
 Hum that oi?ev him?" Are yon fully salisfed that God has uh- 
 solnteli/ purposed to make all men finally holy and happy? If 
 so, whei-e is it recoi'ded? Mas my opponent produced any such 
 passage? Are yon fidlij s(iiif[l'u'd that at the resurrection all 
 will come forth to spiritual life? Are you not rather satisfied 
 that I have proved to the contrary this evening ? The argu- 
 ments are before you, and you can decide. May the Spirit of 
 truth lead you to a right decision! If you are not perfectly sure 
 that all will be saved, let their moral character here be what it 
 will, let me invite you to Christ, where you may find rest to 
 vour souls. I ask you not to believe in my peculiar sentiments 
 as the condition of salvation, — but " believe on the Lord Jesvs 
 Christ ii'ith ell thy heart , and thou shall be saved." So the 
 
 SPIRIT TESTIFlETIi. AmEN, 
 
 Errata. As I had not the o|)porlunity of seeing; all tlie proof sheets of my 
 tliscourscs, several slight errors in punctuation, quotation marks, <?j'C, have csca])cil 
 without correction. 
 
 On page 104, 18 lines from llie boliom, rea<l, " so his will may he flonc, or it 
 jnav not be done."' F. YATES. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following communication was received at the Trumpet office, 
 in Boston, shortly after it was written. It was from a res[)ectable in- 
 dividual in Danvers, well known to the editor of the 'Trumpet ;' and 
 is given in this place, that the public may see the cause which called 
 forth the article in the ' Trumpet,' of August 31st, headed ' Opposilion 
 at Danvtrs^ which immediately follows this article in these pages. 
 
 [For tho Trumpet.] 
 
 Danvers, August 17th, 1833. 
 Mr. Whittemore : 
 
 If you think the following is not too disgusting for the public to 
 read, you are at liberty to publish it. Last Sunday, August 11th, 
 the Rev. Mr. Braman gave notice from the pulpit, that he should 
 attack Balfour's Inquiry, on Thursday evening, at a school-house in 
 his vicinity. Accordingly, on that evening, the school-house was filled 
 at an early hour, and we were obliged to wait some time, before the 
 speaker arrived. At last he made his appearance. After waiting a 
 few monjents, he commenced the exercises in the usual manner, 
 singing, praying, &c. He then commenced his attack. He stated 
 that Balfour believed, that the soul, after death, went into an uncon- 
 scious state, till the resurrection. He also stated the views of the Or- 
 thodox, in relation to this subject, viz .: The soul immediately after 
 death went to happiness, or misery ; but the happiness was not so 
 great, nor the misery so severe, as after they liad passed through the 
 great and final judgment. By the way, it appears strange to me, that 
 the Orthodox will contend, that there is need of a judgment, to decide 
 whether they shall be happy, or miserable, when they say that our 
 fate is fixed, the moment we enter upon another state of existence. 1 
 did not intend to comment upon his remarks, but merely, to show their 
 style and manner. He began, by selecting different parts of Balfour's 
 system, and misrepresenting them. He made out to talk a few mo- 
 ments, heaving into every sentence a slur, or ridiculing Mr, Balfour's 
 competency as a writer. But, as it was his element to blackguard, 
 &c., he soon ceased confining himself to any of Mr. B.'s arguments, 
 but run on in the most disgusting manner possible, te misrepresent 
 the doctrine, and practice of Uiiivcrsalists. Had I not known the 
 object of the meeting, I should at once have concluded, that lis was 
 some insane person, with a crowd collected round him, exerting him- 
 self to the utmost, to produce laughter and disturbance. I never saw 
 uor heard, out of the pulpit, or in any place whatever, any thing that 
 
. 4 
 
 vrns so disgusting to the better feelings, or to common sense. 1 will 
 give you a specimen of some of his arguments, (which were pro-^ 
 nounced by some of liis followers to be mianswerable and conclusive.) 
 Collect all the drunkards in the United States together, says he, and 
 get them sober, and try the vote, wliether Universalism, or Orthodoxy 
 is true, and ninety-nine out of a hundred would vote in favor of the 
 former. He said he did not mean that all Universalists were vicious 
 and immoral, but what few there were that had any good qualities, de- 
 rived them from the Orthodox doctrine. He acknowledged that there 
 were some good points of doctrine in Universalism, but they were 
 taken wholly and solely from the Orthodox. He says that people who 
 embrace Universalism are like the bird called a quail, that when hunt- 
 ed by gamesters will run and hide its head under a leaf, and think that 
 his whole body is safe. So people, when there is a revival of religion, 
 will run and hide their heads under Universalism, thinking their souls 
 are safe. In order to show his hearers the manner Universalists quote 
 scripture, he related a story about Parson Moody, in York, who hap- 
 pened one day to meet the devil, and held some conversation with 
 him. His friends, hearing of it, wished to know what the subject of 
 conversation was. Why, says he, it was altogether about re'igion. 
 Religion! say they, somewhat surprised! did he quote scripture? 
 Yes, quote scripture, yes! but mind ye, he quoted it in a devilish 
 manner. I do nor say Universalists do, says Braman, but will leave 
 my hearers to draw what inference they please. He had much rather 
 a i)erson would be intemperate, and a real sot, than that he should be 
 a Universalist ; and, says he, if I was going to commit murder, I should 
 not know which to do, whether to drink a glass of rum, or hear a ser- 
 mon from a Universalist, but he had little rather hear a sermon. He 
 could commit murder with less restraint of conscience, after hearing 
 a Universal sermon, than after drinking a glass of rum. The above 
 Is a fair and correct statement of a small [)art of his ranting. He con- 
 tinued his harangue, in the foregoing siyle, an hour. I cannot remem- 
 ber all, as I did not take notes at the time; but what is stated above, 
 is correct, and can be substantiated. I think he could do nothing, 
 which would build up our cause, and tear down his, half so fist as his 
 school- house warfare ; and it will be the means of confirming those 
 who have already embraced the truth, and causing those who are 
 ignorant of it, to go and 'see whether these things are so.' 
 
 P. S. Here are a few more items which have come to mind since 
 I wrote the above. The Warden of the State Prison in Connecticut, 
 stated to me, (says he) that almost all of the convicts in prison were 
 Universalists when they first came. And after having been there a 
 while, and reflected and read the Bible, they become Orthodox. You 
 go to a Universal Meeting, says Braman, and hear a good moral ser- 
 mon, and you will go away disgusted, because you did not hear your 
 beloved doctrine vindicated. Again, the reason, says Mr. B., why Uni- 
 versalists were opposed to Cholera-fasts was, because it carried so 
 many to heaven. And moreover, he believed, that the Cholera was 
 checkcdin its progress, on account of the Orthodox fasts. That a 
 number who had lately left his meeting, and gone to the Universalist, 
 had cursed and swore about him, and complained of his hot preach- 
 
ing. 'I don't like his hot preaching, and I have as good a right to 
 damn the Orthodox to hell as they have me.' All this was spoken by 
 a preacher of the gospel. 
 
 [From tho Trumpet, of August 3Ist.] 
 
 OPPOSITION AT DANVERS. 
 
 We have received from a gentleman, in Danvers, Mass. a comrnu- 
 nication in regard to a low and slanderous attack on the denomination 
 of Universal ists, maile a week or two since by JMr. Braman, a clergy- 
 man of that town. The communication is well written, and evinces 
 more than usual ^lent in its author; hut wc judge it expedient, for 
 several reasons, not to give it publication. 
 
 If Mr. Braman desired to be an honorable antagonist, and was wil- 
 ling to let Universalists know what he has to say against them, he 
 would furnish arguments for the press. We have heretofore solicited 
 him, and even pressed it upon him to publish them ; but he will not. 
 His reasons will very readily be perceived by our readers. We now 
 say to him, (and we call on our readers to bear witness to the offer) 
 that if he will furnish us with the discourse to which we have referred 
 we will publish it exactly as he writes it, (except it should be obscene) 
 without aiiy expense to him whatsoever. Or, if he prefers not to pub- 
 lish it in the Trumpet, we will [)uhlish it in a pamphlet on the same 
 conditions. We will read it carefully before it is printed, and if it con- 
 vinces us that Universalism— the doctrine of 'the resiitution of all 
 things,' is false, we will jjublish our recantations side by side with the 
 sermon ; if it does not convince us, we will endeavor, so far as our fee- 
 ble abilities may permit, to vindicate the character of God, and the doc- 
 trine of his universal and efficient mercy. Should Mr. Braman decline 
 these offers, we urge him to publish his discourse himself, in any way 
 that best pleasos him, and to send us a copy. Let us have no more of 
 this bush fighting, but let us contend in an open field. If this doctrine 
 of endless misery will not stand in open combat, let it fall, and we say 
 the same of Universalism. 
 
 In regard to an oral discussion, so far ,is we are concerned, we have 
 no objection to it in this ciise. But we are not the individual that 
 ought first to throw the gauntlet to Mr. Braman. Nevertheless, if Mr. 
 Braman will bind himself to observe the rules of proi)riety and decen- 
 cy, we will meet him in any meeting-house in the town that he lives, 
 and discuss the question whether the doctrine of endless misery is re- 
 vealed in the Holy Scriptures — the unerring standard of divine truth. 
 After hearing the discussion, the audience can decide for themselves, 
 whether that doctrine has been established. 
 
 We never had a desire to defend the doctrine of Universalism, any 
 further than it appeared to us true, and to bo calculated to advance vir- 
 tue and lia|)piness among men. But we cannot si^e with Mr, Bra- 
 man's eyes, nor respond to his voice, where our own reason does not 
 approve what he says. But if he will lay scrii)tural proof before us 
 that we are wrong, — if he will establish from the true sense of the di- 
 
6 
 
 vine word that God will torment his creature man through time with- 
 out end, as we bow implicitly to that authority, we will become his 
 co-adjutor, and cease our opposition to his doctrine. 
 We shall wait his answer to our propositions. 
 
 [From the Boston Recorder.] 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRUMPET. 
 
 Sir — A few weeks since, I undertook, in a public meeting, in the 
 place of my residence, a review of a treatise on the Intermediate state, 
 written by a Universalist, accompanied with some ^neral remaik.s on 
 the subject of Universaiism. I was informed, some time afterward, 
 that a communication had appeared in the Trumpet, making some re- 
 marks on my proceeding, and inviting me to a public discussion with 
 yourself on the subject of Eternal Punishment. My views of the 
 character of your jiaper, being such that I am accustomed to pay but 
 little regard to its contents, the inlbrmation made but a slight impres- 
 sion on my mind, and was beginning to be scarcely thought of, when 
 a conversation with a friend revived the subject; and being led to 
 think that under present circumstances, an acceptance of your offer 
 might perhaps tend to promote the interests of truth, I took pains to 
 procure a paper, in order to satisfy myself more fully in respect to the 
 nature of the proposal, and the conditions on which it was made. I 
 am a little sur|>rised that the paper in which your challenge is found 
 was not sent to me, as you know I am not one of your subscribers. 
 
 I find that you style my review a 'low and slanderous attack on 
 Universaiism.' I have only to say in resjjectto this, that I endeavored 
 to describe Universaiism as it is. If in suiting the remarks to the sub- 
 ject, I was ' low,' the fault certainly lay in the system, not in myself. 
 Although I freely admit that there are believers in the doctrines of 
 Universaiism, who sustain fair reputable characters, yet I just as firmly 
 believe that the genuine tendency of the doctrine is to produce a most 
 low and degenerate state of society ; and that all who are found in the 
 ranks of Universaiism, of moral and correct habits, owe those habits to 
 other influences, which are most fortunately strong enough to coun- 
 teract the effects of its false doctrines on the heart. Are there not to 
 be found among the atheists of this country, unexceptionable j)ropriety 
 of character ? But who, except its advocates, believes in the j»urifying 
 influence of atheisn) ? Whatever virtues any of them may possess, are 
 not the growth of their abominable [)rinciples. When I acknowledge 
 that your sect embraces those who can be charged with no vice, I am 
 fully persuaded that by far the greater portion of the most abandoned 
 in the community, would prefer, and actually do ])refer, when occasion 
 is afforded for the exercise of choice, Universaiism to Orthodoxy. It is 
 a doctrine which exactly suits their feelings. I am suspicions of that 
 doctrine which the great body of wicked men love. 
 
 If! understand you rightly, you intimate a possibility that some of 
 
the observations of my review might have been 'obscene. That ob- 
 scenity is anionf,' the .lirect bad consequences which often flow from 
 the doctrines of your denomination, is unquestionable lact. 1 did not, 
 however, view them in tiiis aspect. . /. , i 
 
 As to the charge of ' slander,' — it used to be a maxim of the law 
 that the uttering of truth, which tended to injure a person, was slan- 
 der ; and the greater the truth the greater the calumny. This maxim 
 is now, I believe, out of date. If it were in vogue, and applied to doc- 
 trines as well jis persons, I should have to acknowledge myself a slan- 
 derer : though not so great an one as I wish I had power to be. 
 
 You call upon me for a publication of my discourse. This request 
 you have a right to make. But when it is urged with an intimation, 
 that I should not be an ' honorable antagonist,' and shoul.l be guilty of 
 ' bush-fi"htiiig, to refuse, it has rather too much an air of authority. 1 
 would fust remind you that I am a Protestant, and as I do not ac- 
 knowledge subjection to a Roman Catholic Pope, I shall not submit to 
 the domination of a Popish spirit in any form. Such requests have 
 been made of me in a high tone by Universalists before. And the or- 
 thodox cler<ry have frequently been called upon in a peremptory man- 
 ner to give up for publication what they have dared to utter agamst 
 Your doctrine. Universalists may write and send forth their publica- 
 tions into every village in the country, but if an orthoc ox clergyman 
 presumes to canvass their arguments, he must be called before their in- 
 quisitoral tribunal, to give an account for his audacity. If things pro- 
 ceed attliis rate, there will soon be so much of the spirit of popery here 
 that the believer in eternal retribution, cannot converse with an indi 
 vidual in his own dwelling on the subject of Un.versalism, without 
 having it reported at Boston ; and a mandamus being sent forth to de- 
 mand the heretical words. Permit me to say that I have no fears of 
 exposing my opinion and arguments to public scrutiny through the 
 Dress This I have already done, to some extent. But then I c aim 
 the ri"<-ht of self-control. I shall publish what, and when, and where 
 I please I have not the vanity to think, while so many orthodox men, 
 some of them of the most distinguished talents and learning, have giv- 
 en to the world their examinations of Universalist sentiments, that it is 
 necessary for the ptu'iioses of free discussion and an honorable warfare, 
 to proclaim to the whole country, all that I may have occasion to say 
 to my own people, in the discharge of my official duties. 
 
 Whv am I bound to publish every thing which I utter m the school- 
 houses in Dan vers, in relation to the sentiments of your denomination .? 
 Are not Universalist preachers bound to do so likewise ? In the very 
 same houses where I have opposed Universalism, they have argued 
 against Orthodoxy. Why do they not publish, 'and let us know what 
 they have to say against our doctrine ? ' 'Let those come as honora- 
 ble antagonists.' 'Let us have no more of this bush-f^gluing.' Why 
 have you not given from the press the sermons which you have 
 preached in Danvers, and everywhere else ? ' Let us have no more of 
 TOUR ' bush-fighting.' I can ask questions as well as the Editor of the 
 Trumpet. And while about it I will ask one or two more. 
 
 What is it that makes Universalists so extremely sensitive at every 
 attack that is made on their faith ? Are they really afraid to trust their 
 
8 
 
 writings, inculcating truths so reasonable, so purifying, so scrij»tural, so 
 perfectly demonstrable in respect to argument, as they boast them to 
 be, and withal so extremely comforting, as they would be to ever> heart 
 where they should find a comijlete reception ; so entirely divesting 
 every bosom of that tormenting fear of what may come after death, 
 which troubles the guilty mind, — are they afraid to trust such writings 
 to the review of one who feels so weak that he dare not fight except 
 he finds a ' bush,' — unless their champions can stand by to repel the 
 assault ? I acknowledge there is much weakness and ignorance among 
 men, but not quite so much as these fears would imply ; and I cannot 
 admit that all the mental darkness and imbecility in the United States 
 are accumulated in the North Parish of Danvers. 
 
 You mean to be understood by certain declarations in your coramu-^ 
 nication, to be possessed of an unprejudiced, candid spirit. 'If I will 
 lay scri|jture proof before you that you are wrong, you will cease your 
 opposition to my doctrine.' Similar sentiments you have uttered be^re. 
 Proof to your own mind, is doubtless intended. Very safely said. 
 Who on earth, Jew, Mahomedan, Papist or Atheist, that did not mean 
 to avow himself a base hypocrite, but might say this! Such expi'es- 
 sions are at this day well enough understood. No intelligent person 
 attaches any sort of value to them. Not only the assertions them- 
 selves, but the feelings which dictate them, are perfectly consistent 
 with the most bigoted spirit under heaven. The Jews professed the 
 same sort of candor in relation to the Mess-iahship of our Savior. I have 
 no doubt, but if yon were convinced of the truth of my opinions, you 
 would cease to opjwse them. But the word if, in this case, is full of 
 significance. No argument merely will ever touch that. If you are in 
 a fatal error, as I firmly believe, you must sutler the dreadful and eter- 
 nal consequences of embracing it and circulating it, in spite of all that 
 evidence solely can do for you. If the Spirit of God does no change 
 your heart, and thus open your mental eye to see what you are doing, 
 it will not open until you find yourself in the presence of your Judge, 
 when it will be too late to avert your own ruin, and the death of many 
 souls caused by the poison which you are weekly distilling throughthe 
 country. 
 
 I how declare my acceptance of your proposition for an oral discus* 
 sion on the following conditions, viz. : 
 
 1. The discussion shall take place in the house where I preach ; 
 and on the 31»t of October next, if agreeable to you. 
 
 2. The subject of discussion shall be divided into two propositions, 
 viz.: first. Will any of the human race be jiunished after death ? (which 
 question shall come under consideration first, independently of the sec- 
 ond ;) — and second. Is this punishment eternal. 
 
 3. As you intimate some fears that I shall not keep within the 
 bounds of propriety and decency, there shall be a Moderator, one on 
 ■whom we both can agree, and as imjiartial as can be selected. I have 
 in my eye a Unitarian gentleinan of ability and known candor, who 
 perhaps might he induced to sustain the office. Under the direction 
 of this Moderator, and with the example and assistance of one who has 
 always bee;i such a perfect pattern of decency and propriety as the Ed- 
 itor of the Trumpet, I shall perhaps be kept within tolerable limits on 
 the occasion. 
 
4. The continuance of the discussion shall be limited to a definite 
 time. Each of us shall speak a certain number of minutes till the 
 allotted time is exhausted, 
 
 MILTON P. BRAMAN. 
 
 Danvers, Mrih Parish, Sept. 27, 1833. 
 
 [From tlie Trumpet.] 
 
 TO REV. MILTON P. BRAMAN. 
 
 Rev. Sir: — A copy of the Boston Recorder, accidentally fell into 
 my Iiauds a few days since, in which I perceive you have noticed the 
 proposition I made in the Trumpet of Aug. 31st, to discuss with you 
 Hhe qucslion whether the doctrine of endless misery is revealed in the 
 Holy Scripliires.' The following is the paragraph in which the [)rop^ 
 osition was originally made : 
 
 « In regard to an oral discussion, so far as we are concerned, we have no 
 objection to it in this case. But we are not the individual who ought first 
 to throw the gauntlet to Mr. Braman. JNeverlheless, if Mr. Brarnan will 
 bind himselflo observe the rules of propriety and decency, we will meet 
 him in any mocting-house in the town in which he lives, and discuss the 
 question whether Ihe doctrine of endless misery is revealed in the Holy 
 Scriptures — the unerring standard of divine truth. After hearing the 
 discussion, tlie audience can decide for themselves, whether that doctrine 
 has been established.' 
 
 Of this you say, it is an invitation ' to a public discussion with your- 
 self on the subject of Eternal Punishment.' This shows us plainly, 
 how you understood the proposition. 
 
 I am sorry. Sir, that in your first address to me, you should mdulge 
 at all an ungenerous spirit. Some of your remarks are personal, and 
 satirical. They are not calculated to beget good feelings in others, 
 and to carry us into the discussion with a sincere and unmingled de- 
 siie to know, ' what is truth ? ' It begets in me the suspicion that you 
 are not, for the sake of truth, willing to lay asperities aside, and go to 
 the inquiry with a brother's heart, aud an untramelled charity. I will 
 not, my dear Sir, retaliate. Now that I am about to meet you face to 
 face, and pursue an inquiry with you on the important subject of reli- 
 gion, I pray that if your opposition to Universalism heretofore has 
 created in me any hard feelings, they may pass entirely away, and I 
 may meet you in the spirit of that gospel which brings ' peace to 
 earth and good will to men.' 
 
 You com[)lain of me for assuming rather too much 'an air of author- 
 ity,' when I asked your discourse for the press. You speak of the 
 ' pope,' and a ' popish spirit,' ' high tone of Universalists,' ' their peremp- 
 tory manner,' &c. &c. Sir, I hate popery, and domination, and pre- 
 sumption as .strongly as you do. I am willing to acknowledge, that of 
 all popery, Protestant popery is the most ridiculous. But it strikes 
 me, you have taken umbrage where there was no cause of offence. 
 Do not magnify difficulties. I intimated that we should be glad to 
 2 
 
10 
 
 have your arguments against Universalisni furnished for the press. I 
 said, if you desired to be an honorable antagonist, and was willing to 
 let Universalists know what you have to say against them, you would 
 let them see your arguments. How easy a thing it was to prove your- 
 self honorable by publishing them. I said, ' if he will furnish us with 
 tlie discourse to which we have referred, we will publish it exactly as 
 he writes it (except it should be obscene) without any expense to him 
 ■whatsoever. Or, if he prefers not to publish it in the Trumpet, we 
 will publish it in a pamphlet, on the same conditions. We will 
 read it carefully before it is printed, and if it convinces us that Univer- 
 salisni, the doctrine of 'the restitution of all things' is false, we will 
 publish our recantation side by side with the sermon ; if it does not 
 convince us, we will endeavor, so far as our feeble abilities may j)er- 
 niit, to vindicate the character of God, and the doctrine of his univer- 
 sal and efficient mercy. Should Mr. Branian decline these ofiers, we 
 urge him to ])ublisli his discourse himself, in any way that best pleases 
 him, and to send us a copy. Let us have no more of this bush fight- 
 ing, but let us contend in an open field. If this doctrine of endless 
 misery will not stand in open combat, let it fall ; and we say the same 
 of Univcrsalism.' Is this the language of a 'Roman Catholic Pope ? ' 
 Does it betray a ' jiopish spirit?' Does the Pope use such language 
 when he addresses heretics.^ Does he say to them, if you will furnish 
 us your heresies, we will i)ublish them to the world, exactly as you 
 write them, witliont any expense to you whatsoever? Should you. de- 
 cline these offers, pubii&h them yourselves, in any way that best 
 pleases you. We will read them; and if they convince us, we will 
 publish our recantation side by side. Is this popery, or the spirit of 
 popery r God forbid. Such a spirit as that I wish were more com- 
 mon. The Pope burned the heretic, with his heresies chained with 
 him to the stake; he did not encourage their publication. For what 
 purpose then have you raised the cry of popery ? 
 
 You seem called on to indite a paragraph, because I said, ' if you 
 will lay scri|)ture proof before me that 1 am wrong, I will cease my 
 opposition to your doctrine.' Well, Sir, although it seems so strange 
 to you, I said precisely what I felt, and what 1 now repeat. ' Proof 
 to your mind, is doubtless intended,' you add. Certainly, })roof to my 
 own mind. I cannot use other people's judgment, any more than I 
 can see with their eyes. The feelings which dictated such expression 
 you think are consistent with the most bigoted spirit under heaven. 
 If this be bigotry, I wish we had more of it. I hope Universalists will 
 always be governed by the principle which I laid down. You are 
 consistent with the position you take, in not fiunishing proof, but in re- 
 sorting to threats. You tell me that I am in a. fatal error, and that I 
 must suffer the dreadful and eternal consequences of embracing it and 
 circulating it, in spite of all that evidence solely can do for me. Will 
 this sathfy me ? Will it convince me that I am in error ? Will it not 
 rather couHrm me in my sus{)icion, that you are jealous there is a lack 
 of evidence on your own part? That God who has made it my impe- 
 rious duty to ' i)rove all tilings, and to hold fast that which is good,' 
 and who has so formed me that my convictions are entirely obedient 
 to the force of evidence, must act contrarUy to his own nature to con- 
 demn me for not believing that for the truth of which I see not the least 
 
11 
 
 proof. The God whom I adore, so far from this, ' lias compassion on 
 the ij^noraiit and those who are out of the way.' 
 
 You propose that the discussion shall take place in the meeting- 
 house in which you preach, on the 31st of this month. To this I do 
 not object. 
 
 You propose, iii the second place, that there shall he two propositions 
 for discussion, viz. first, Will any oftlie human race be puiiislied atler 
 death, (which question shall cotne under consideration first, independ- 
 ently of the second,) and second. Is this punishment eternal ? I made 
 but one simple proposition to you, Sir, and that was, (to give you 
 again the precise words) ^loliether the doctrine of endless misery is re- 
 vealed in the holy scriptures.' Nothing else can be obtruded into this 
 discussion by my consent. Why do you propose to discuss with me 
 the question oi' future limited punishment"? Do you believe in I'uture 
 punisiunent in d-stinction from eternal punishment? If you do not, why 
 should you and 1 discuss it ? and if you do, you are a Universalist, and 
 there is no ground of dispute. There is no need that two persons shall 
 debate if there is no subject of diflerence. If there is a subject of dif- 
 ference, they should debate that subject. Now the subject of ditierence 
 between you and me is not whether/u/itre limited punishment is true, for 
 you do not believe that doctrine. The two opposmj^ doctrines are, end- 
 less misery and Univt'rsal Salvation. You hold the tbrnier and 1 the lat- 
 ter. I proposed to discuss the question whether the former doctrine is 
 revealed in the word of God, and no other question. You now bring 
 up another question concerning future limited j)unishment, which 
 you think I do not believe, and you know you do not believe your- 
 self. Why then should we discuss it, on tha supposition that neither 
 of us believes it ? 1 repeat, we should not debate, unless there is a 
 subject of difference. If there be, we should debate that subject. 
 You affirm the doctrine of endless misery, as a scripture doctrine, and 
 I deny it; and this doctrine is what I proposed to you to discuss. 
 If you will come out and openly and frankly confess that you believe 
 in future punishment in distinction from endless, then there will be a 
 propriety in discussing that question ; but then it will not be an ortho- 
 dox clergyman and a Universalist in debate ; it will be two Universal- 
 ists debating on a minor point. When you acknowledge this, I shall 
 publish j'ou in the Trumpet, as having renounced orthodoxy. 
 
 I said in the first place, 'if Mr. Braman will bind himself to observe 
 the rules of propriety and decency, we will meet him, ' &c. I mean 
 by this tltat you shall pledge yourself so to do, as one of the written 
 conditions. I will do the same. Debate is worse than useless, unless 
 the parties are governed by this rule. As to the length of the debate, 
 I will give you the liberty to state the time of its continuance, giving 
 me notice in your next. 
 
 It would be my wish that a place should be provided for a 
 reporter. 
 
 Moderators generally do but little good. I will make, however, no 
 objection to one, two or three. If the latter, we can each choose one, 
 and the two choose the tliird. 
 
 I have thus laid my sentiments before you. Sir. I shall wait to hear 
 from you again. You may address me through the Recorder, or send 
 directly to my office. Yours, respectfully, 
 
 THOMAS WHITTEMORE. 
 
12 
 
 [From the Boston Eecorder.] 
 
 UNIVERSALISM. 
 
 [We have received a communication from the ReV. Mr. Braman, on the 
 Bubject of the proposed discussion with Mr. Wliittemore, which we very 
 much regret our inability, on account of its length and the late hour in 
 which it came to hand, to insert entire. We take the liberty, without hav- 
 ing an opportunity to consult with Mr. B. to select such parts as seem to 
 us most essential. The whole will be published next week, should he at an 
 early day express a wish to that effect.] 
 
 A copy of the Recorder, containing a reply from me to your com- 
 munication of August 31st, you say ^accidentally fell into yoar hands.' 
 I requested the editor to send you a paper, which he engaged to do. If 
 it escaped his recollection, I am clear of all liability to the charge of 
 uncourtesy. 
 
 I am exceedingly, at a loss to understand why you are unwilling to 
 have tiie proposed subject of discussion divided. Are you not an ad- 
 vocate for the doctrine that none of the human race will exj)erience 
 any suffering after death ? Have you not preached and published this 
 doctrine for several years .' Does not your paper advocate it ? Do you 
 not profess to believe that the very prevailing opinion, that there will 
 be punishment of any degree or duration in a future state, can be 
 proved to be an error, by the most irrefragable arguments from the 
 Bible ? Why then, let me ask, do you decline to meet me on that 
 point ? 
 
 [Here Mr. Braman replies to Mr. W.'s objection to the proposed decision 
 of the question, viz. that he [Mr. W.] made but one simple proposition — ■ 
 that Mr. Braman does not believe in limited punishment after death — and 
 that the distinction between no retribution and a limited one, is a minor 
 point ; and then proceeds.] 
 
 I will now give my reasons for insisting on a division of your propo- 
 sition, as first contemplated. 
 
 1. The first question, viz. whether any of the human race will be 
 punished after death, is one, on which I suppose there is an entire dis- 
 agreement between us ; you maintain the negative, and I the .iffinn- 
 ative. You ask, indeed, if I do not believe in a ZtVuVec? retribution, and if 
 you do not, why should we dispute a point on which there is no differ- 
 ence ? But you have misstated the question entirely, by adding a very 
 significant word, limited. — We both agree in the point, that there is no 
 temporary suffering in the world to come, but are wholly at variance on 
 the question whether there be any at all. 
 
 2. I consider it a question of great im])ortance. 
 
 3. The sentiment of no suffering after death is the prevalent one in 
 both the Universalist societies in this town, and is taught by both the 
 stated preachers, as I am informed. It is of vital consequence, there- 
 
13 
 
 fore, to both your denomination and my own, to have this subject taken 
 distictly into consideration, in our proposed debate. 
 
 4. The very discourse which gave occasion to your challenge was 
 directed ])rincipally, wholly, I may say, against wiiat is sometimes call- 
 ed ultra-Universalism, — that which denies all retributory distinctions 
 in the future world. I believe 1 said not a word on the duration of 
 the punishment, which I attempted to prove was denounced in the 
 Bible upon the finally impenitent. This discourse you wished me to 
 publish, that you might have an opportunity to refute its arguments, if 
 deemed, as they doubtless would have been, inconclusive. Now if you 
 was willing, if you was very desirous to discuss the question whether 
 there be any future retribution, on paper, why do you object to discus- 
 sing it orally ? I confess this is a very strange and inconsistent proce- 
 dure on your part, and calls for some explanation. 
 
 Now just consider the above reasons, and I think you will see them 
 to be cogent. In my conditions of acceptance, I have not, as you inti- 
 mate, substituted two propositions for one, upon which you challenged 
 me to debate; but merely proposed a division of the question, and that 
 too, for reasons which I think every candid person will esteem proper 
 and weighty. I see, therefore, no propriety in receding from the 
 ground which I have taken. I am anxious that the debate, in the form 
 I proposed should go forward. If you will not accede to this, then I 
 consent to confine myself to the question as you stated it, on the 31st 
 of October, P. INl., connnencing at half past three o'clock — provided 
 you will accept a challenge from me to debate the point whether any 
 of mankind will sufier after this life, at two o'clock, one hour and a 
 half previous , or if you choose, any day and hour preceding this, which 
 may better suit your convenience. 
 
 If you will neither discuss with me on the conditions proposed in 
 my rei)ly of the second, nor accept of my challenge; then if you will 
 come before the audience on the 31st, and declare, publicly and audi- 
 bly, that you have renounced the doctrine of no retribution after death, 
 or that you have such doubts res{)ecting it, that you are unwilling to 
 incur the risk of attempting to establish it ; then I will most freely 
 waive the point, and proceed to debate with you, whether the doctrine 
 of endless misery is revealed in the Scriptures. 
 
 If you will not consent to either of my proposals, which I think 
 every enlightened and candid person in the conmiunity will deem per- 
 fectly reasonable and fair, I wish you to consider in what attitude you 
 place yourself before the public. All who are acquainted with you, 
 know that you are a strenuous defender of ultra- Univei-salism. Those, 
 who attend to these communications which pass between us, will ap- 
 preciate my reasons of making that a distinct and separate branch of 
 the discussion. They will see that I do not shrink from a debate with 
 you on the proposition embraced in your challenge, in the precise 
 words and form in which you state it. — Will you hazard your reputa- 
 tion with the public, your credit wiih your own party, the interests of 
 the cause which you advocate, so much as to refuse a compliance with 
 my request ? If so, one thing I claim a right to expect of you — that 
 whenever 1 attack, in this place, the doctrine of ultra-Universalism, or 
 no retribution in the world to con)e, as I shall do, and a complaint is 
 entered in your office at Boston, that you will not charge tne with be- 
 
14 
 
 ing a dishonorable antagonist, or being guilty of biish-fighting. If you 
 do, I shall take the liberty to siiift these in^putations from n>yself, to 
 the person to whom theo most properly belong. 
 
 [Here we omit some remarks on Mr. Whittemore's Popish spirit, and one 
 or two other points in Mr. VV.'s article.] 
 
 A word in respect to the Moderator. I think it important to have 
 one, both on our account, and that of the large and promiscuous audi- 
 ence wliich will probably be assembled. But one will be doubtless 
 sufficient. I do not however make that an indispensable condition. 
 
 As to binding ourselves by a written agreement to observe the rules 
 of propriety and decency, to what will it amount.^ Supposing we 
 should understand these terms in a widely different manner, as applied 
 to particular cases, who is to decide ? The Moderator ? But the Mod- 
 erator can decide as well without this obligation as with it. I shall 
 however make no objection, if you insist on it. 
 
 On the 31st of October, then, at 2 o'clock, P. M. If you consent, we 
 will commence the discussion, to continue not more than three hours. 
 The first hour and a half to be devoted to the consideration of the for- 
 mer question, the remainder of the time to the latter. As the period 
 draws near, I shall expect a speedy reply to this, and will return a 
 speedy answer. MILTON P. BRAMAN. 
 
 Boston, Odoher 12th. 
 
 [From ihe Trumpet.] 
 
 TO REV. MILTON P. BRAMAN. 
 
 Sir : — I am sorry it is necessary for me to write you another long 
 letter on the subject of the proposed discussion at Danvers. I en- 
 deavored, in my last, to be explicit. I wanted you to know my real 
 feelings, that you might determine at once whether you would discuss 
 with me the question I proposed. But where are we now.' Just 
 where we were when we commenced. You have not acceded to my 
 proposition, except on such conditions as you knew I should reject 
 when you put them on paper, and as I suppose you intended I sliould 
 reject. 
 
 You profess to be unable to understand why I will not consent that 
 you shall thrust in another question, to take the precedence of the ques- 
 tion which I proposed to discuss. I will, then, try to show you. In 
 the first place, however, you regard these questions, I regard them, as 
 two, and am more inclined to act in reference to my own convictions, 
 than the conviction of others. I cannot \e\.you decide for me. I can- 
 not judge with your reason any better than I can see with your eyes, or 
 hear with yoiu- ears. I.-i this sufficiently plain, Mr. Braman ? 
 
 Second. I not only regard the question of future punishment in dis- 
 tinction from endless, as a different question, but I regard it to be of 
 
15 
 
 minor importunce. 11' you do not agree witli ine, 1 cannot help it. 
 But I think we do not differ on this point. Do you not hold, tiiat the 
 doctrine of a strictly endless putiishtnent in distinction from punish- 
 ment in any other sense, is a doctrine of paramount im])ortance ? If 
 80, you hold the question you ])ropose to be of minor in)portance, as well 
 as myself; and if not so, I have been deceived iii regard to your reli- 
 gious o])inions. 
 
 Third, you do not hold the doctrine etnbraced in your question, in 
 any sense, in distinction from the doctrine embraced in mine. You 
 hold to strictly endless mi.sery. Whether that is a doctrine of the 
 scriptures, is the (jue.stion I |)roposed to discuss. You do not hoid to 
 misery in the state of the resurrection, in distinction from endless mis- 
 ery ; and you are one of the last men who ou<;ht lo thrust in the n)inor 
 question, when challenged to discuss a doctrine which it is the labor of 
 your life to establish. 
 
 Foiutli, 1 dill not propose to discuss with you any other question 
 than this — Is the doctrine of endless misery revealed in the scriptures .' 
 If 1 had wished to discuss any other question, 1 should have i)ro|)osed 
 it. 1 adhere, I shall adhere, to my original proposition. You cannot 
 move me from it. I did not make the proposition in the spirit of defi- 
 ance, but solierly and undcrstandingly, 1 think. 
 
 As to what you say of the religious sentiments of the two Universal- 
 ist societies in Danvers, I do not think it has any thing to do wiih the 
 question. I did not make my proposition with reference to their o|)in- 
 ions, inif to yours. MMjatever they believe, I have no doubt they are 
 willing to defend. I am accjuainted with both the clergymen. They 
 aVe, I believe, very good men, and will not suffer in comparison of char- 
 acter with the clergy of any denomination. 
 
 Yovi tell me that the discourse you preached ^in Danvers, and of 
 which I asked a co|)y for the press, although against Universalism, was 
 not in favor o( tlernal [lunishment, for you 'said not a word on i\\c du- 
 ration of punishment.' I thank you for that information, for I did not 
 know it before. It seems, therefore, that you kept the question of 
 endltss misenj, which is the main point of the difference between you 
 and the Universalists, entirely out of siglit. It strikes my mind, that 
 this is yoiu" whole object in your letters to me ; for you aim, as Ijudge, 
 that the discussion shall tiuii on the minor point, and not on the prin- 
 cipal doctrine of your own creed. But why do von bring u|) that .ser- 
 mon .' I did not frame my question in reference to that particular!}'. 
 I endeavored to get it out, in some way, before the eyes of the public, 
 but I have not as yet been able to persuade you 'to let the light of it 
 shine before them.' You assume it for granted, that in asking that dis- 
 course for the press, which I had never seen, or lieard, 1 did thereby 
 show that I was very desirous to discuss the question whether there be 
 .any future retribution. Now is this a just conclusion from your prem- 
 ises ? Is it worthy a man who has studied logic all his days ? Are you 
 willing that I should receive this as a specimenof the manner in which 
 you generally arrive at your conclusions.? I never knew till you in- 
 formed me in the Recorder, that you did not defend the doctrine of 
 endless misery, in that sermon. And, moreover, you are here, in effect, 
 chargeable with misrepresenting mc ; for in the very article in wliich I 
 
16 
 
 gave the challenge, I spoke of your sermon in such a way as must have 
 convinced you, that I supposeJ that it was aimed against Universalism in 
 the broadest sense. I said, ' we will read it carefully, and if it convinces 
 us that Universalism (and here I explained the word — the doctrine of 
 the restoration of all things, — is false, we will publish our recantation side 
 by side.' To this I added, in the same paragraph, 'If this doctrine of 
 endless inisery will not stand in open combat, let it fall ; and we say the 
 same of Universalism.' Universjilism is but in contradistinction to 
 endless misery, and my words plainly show that I regarded your ser- 
 mon as a defence of endless misery. Do you not see plainly thatyeu 
 have misrepresented me ? Confess it, like an honest man. 
 
 In one of your paragraphs you swagger a little. I do not on my 
 own account complain very deeply of this, since you seem to be satis- 
 fied with it; for I am confident, if it does not injure you, it will do no 
 hurt. You wish me to consider in what attitude I place myself before 
 the public. 'Attitude is every thing,' I know. But I am perfectly 
 content, Mr. Bramaii, with the attitude 1 hold. I have no wish to 
 change situations with you in this matter. God forbid. You say again, 
 'Those who attend to these communications which pass between us, 
 will appreciate my reasons for making that a distinct and separate 
 branch of the discussion.' They will, Sir, appreciate your reasons — 
 there is no doubt of that; I mean those who read the communications 
 on both sides. But the orthodox editors who have published your ad- 
 dresses to me, have very carefully neglected to publish my replies. It 
 does not surprise me, for, with a few exceptions, such has been their 
 invariable course. However, under these obvious tlisadvantages which 
 your brother editors, as I su})pose to help you along, have imposed 
 u})on (ne, I think there are but few who will not appreciate your rea- 
 sons for thrusting in,£mother question to take precedence of the one I 
 proposed. You seem too to have a tender regard for my reputation, 
 my credit with Universalists, and the interest of the cause I advocate. 
 You put it to me to know, if I will hazard tl;ese things. Well, what if 
 I will ? You will be glad of it. You need have no solicitude there- 
 fore on that account. I vv'ill be wholly responsible for the consequen- 
 ces to myself, and to the cause wiiich I love and labor for. I wish you 
 to know that I understand your object in this manoeuvring f be, to 
 push out of sight the main question pending between us. I think yoii 
 will have no occasion just at present, Mr. Braman, to shift the imputa- 
 tion of 'bush fighting.' 
 
 You wish to know, whether I will accej)t a challenge from you to 
 debate the point, 'whether any of mankind will suffer after this life,' 
 at any time prei^iows to the discussion I proposed. No, I will not. It 
 is time enouj^h for you to make challenges, when you have accepted 
 the one I made at first. This is but another attemi)t to push out of 
 sight tlie main question 1 proposed. You jnofess to believe in endless 
 torment; and if you will prove that doctrine in the debate, we shall be 
 saved the necessity of debating the minor question. At present I have 
 no desire to debate that question with any body — at any rate, I will 
 not be driven or wheedled into it. If discussed at all, it is a more 
 proper question for Universalists to discuss among themselves ; and I 
 will not set the example of permitting «in orthodox clergyman, a 
 
J7 
 
 staunch and undoubted believer in endless misery, to put his own dar- 
 ling doctrine of eternal torment aside, and give precedence to the doc- 
 trine of torment in any other shape ; for tlie sentiment wliicli you call 
 ' ultra' is not osseniial to Uiiiversalism, but tlie doctrine of endless tor- 
 ment is essential to Orthodoxy. 
 
 Anticipating that I would |)ersist in keeping the question which I 
 proposed separate from every other, you then come forward vyiih a 
 proposition which you knew 1 would not arcede to, and which of 
 course you did not niake seriously, for the sake of bringing on the dis- 
 cussion. You say, if I will come before tiie people, and declare pub- 
 licly and audibly that I have renounced the doctrine of no retribution 
 after death, or that I have such doubts respecting ii that I am unwilling 
 to incur the risk of attempting to establish it, you will proceed to de- 
 bate with me whether the doctrine of endless misery is revealed in the 
 scriptures. Now I have only a word or two to say in relation to this, 
 and I shall speak very jdainly. \You have here Imsed your acceptance 
 of my proposition on a conditir)n which you knew 1 would not accept. 
 You have failed altogether in your object, for it does not give you even 
 the appearance of having acceded to my pro|)osition./ Suppose you 
 had said. ' Mr. Whittemore, I agreo to your proposal to debate the 
 question whether endless misery is revealed in the scriptures, on this 
 condition : You shall declare publicly and audibly that you have 
 doubts whether George Washington was ever President of the United 
 States, and that you are unwilling to incitr the risk of attempting to es- 
 tablish it.' Would this be accepting my proposition in any way that 
 could possibly bring on the discussion? No, it would he mere trifling 
 or evasion; and such I think is the proposition you made me. This is 
 what you say is not shrinking from a debate with me, on my proposi- 
 tion, in the precise words and form in which I stated it. 
 
 1 have stated to you, that I will debate no other question with you, 
 than that which embraces the great point on which we differ. I said 
 in my former letter, there would be no propriety in it, unless you 
 avowed yourself a believer in ptmishment in distinction from endless. 
 Novv you turn on me, and in effect refuse to debate the main point, un- 
 less I will make a concession in regard to the minor. 1 hold all men 
 to he Universalisis who sincerely believe in the Jinal salvation of all 
 mankind, though they may hold to future punioliment in distinction 
 from endless. 
 
 But I now come to what I call the most remarkable point in your 
 communication, and that is your proposition to discuss the important 
 question I submitted to you, in a time limited to one hour and a half, 
 and thiit just at night. 1 am astonished. It is now eight weeks since 
 I made tny proposition to you, anil we have not yet got through the 
 preliminaries; and yet you propose to limit the discussion to one hour 
 and a half. I do not make the eight weeks a rule to regulate the time 
 of the discussion ; but if we slioidd get along no faster with the main 
 question than we do with preliminaries, think you we would finish in 
 an hour and a half .^ I am persuaded novv that you do not intend, if 
 you can avoid it, to go fanlyand honorably into the discussion. — You 
 manifest in my judgment a disposition to be trickish. Is this your 
 habit? The discussion of Messrs. M'Calla and Kneeland, in Philadel- 
 phia, in 1824, occupied/our days steadily, forenoon and afternoou. The 
 3 
 
18 
 
 discussion between Cambell and Owen, in Cincinnati,occupied ns much, 
 if not more time. 1 do not desire to create an excitement to no purpose. 
 If you commit errore, n)ake false statements, misapply the scriptures, 
 wander from tlie point in debate, or substitute slander and rant for argu- 
 ment, I tell you plainly, and I tell my readers, that 1 want time to point 
 all tliis out, and make the people notice it ])articularly. I grant the 
 same opportunity to yourself, if occasion require. — It is reasonable to 
 suppose, if the debate takes place, that the meeting-house will be filled 
 in every part as full as it can be crowded ; and if it is a fair day, there 
 will be more around the house than in it. I know the interest the pub- 
 lic feel, so far as I associate with them, in debates of this character. — 
 Now I will not consent so far to inijmse on them, as to bring them to- 
 gether under these circumstances to hear a discussion of an Jiour and 
 a half, or three hours, or a half a day. I want nothing sham about it; 
 but a sober, thorougii, matter-of-fact discussion. 
 
 At the close, you press me for a speedy answer. Why Iiave you not 
 taken measures to iiave your answers more s])eedy ? It is your own 
 fault that you did not have this answer one week earlier. If you had 
 sent yonr last directly to the 'Trumpet,' instead of sending it round 
 via 'Recorder,' this had been published in my last number. I endeav- 
 ored to get a copy of the Recorder in season to notice it last week ; but 
 Mr. Willis, the jiublishcr, j)revente(l it. JMy messenger asked for the 
 proof-sheet which he hapj)ened to see thrown aside, and which they 
 had done using, but Mr. W., showing himself destitute of common civ- 
 ility, denied me even that. That number of the Recorder in which 
 your first letter a|)peared, and which I used in my reply, I obtained 
 merely by accident ; for the copy we received from the Post Office 
 did not arrive till one or two days after my reply was written. 
 
 Tiie question for discussion, must be the one I pro])osed, — ' Is the 
 doctrine of endless misery revealed in the Holy Scriptures?' 
 
 Three Moderators must be appointed, one choson by you, one by 
 me, and the third by tliese two. 
 
 The discussion must continue until broken offby mutual consent. 
 
 If you will accede to these conditions, well. — If not, nothing further 
 need be said about the discussion. 
 
 So much time has already been consumed, that it is in vain for me 
 to expect the debate will commence on the 31st inst. If it goes on, 
 some other day must be appointed. 
 
 I remain, very respectfully. Yours, &c. 
 
 THOMAS WHITTEMORE. 
 
DISCUSSION, ifec. 
 
 The Meeting-House of Rev. Mr, Braman, in which the 
 discussion took place, was filled at an early hour in the morn- 
 ing. The singing gallery and the wall pews below, were re- 
 served for ladies. A few minutes before 9 o'clock, the mod- 
 erators, with Messrs. Braman and Whiitemore, and a large 
 number of orthodox clergymen, proceeded from the house of 
 the Rev. Mr. Braman to the Meeting-House. The modera- 
 tors sat in the pulpit with the speakers. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Taylor arose, and stated the propriety of open- 
 ing the discussion by prayer, when he addressed the throne of 
 grace in a fervent supplication. Rev. Mr. Streeter then read 
 the rules of debate, which provided that the discussion sliould 
 commence at 9 o'clock, and continue till noon*"; to be renew- 
 ed at 2 o'clock, and continue until 5 : that the discussion 
 should be commenced by Mr. Braman, and each speaker 
 should occupy thirty minutes alternately : and that the parties 
 should observe the rules of fair and honorable debate. 
 
 Wednesday, JVov. 6th, 1833, 9 o'clocJc, A. M. 
 
 Mr. Braman commenced by saying, that he felt himself 
 called upon to state the circumstances under which this debate 
 originated. He wished to have it understood that he was the 
 receiver, not the giver of the challenge. He did not know 
 that he could be induced on any account to give a challenge 
 of this kind — he could not bring his feelings to consent to it. 
 He had strong doubts of the expediency generally of discus- 
 sions of this character ; but although he could not be brought 
 to give a challenge of this kind, yet under certain circumstan- 
 ces he might be willing to accept one. 
 
20 
 
 The debate took its rise in the following manner : Some^ 
 time in the last summer, he undertook to review, in a sermon 
 delivered in his parish, a certain Universalist publication, in 
 which review he endeavored to expose the fallacy of that 
 Universalist author's reasoning, and put his people on their 
 guard against such erroneous doctrines. It seemed that some 
 person, some Universalist who was present, wrote to Mr. 
 Whittemore, the editor of the ' Trumpet,' and gave some ac- 
 count of the sermon, and urged him to give the challenge for 
 this debate. Mr. Whittemore, thereupon, addressed a letter 
 to me in the columns of the ' Trumpet,' and proposed to me 
 that I should publish that discourse ; and being, as I suppose, 
 urged by his iriend in this town, he gave me a challenge to an 
 oral discussion. I afterwards addressed to -iiim a letter, in 
 which I proposed to accept of his proposition for a discussion 
 of the doctrine of endless misery, stating that in my judgment 
 the question ought to be divided as follows : 1. Is there any 
 punishment in the future state ? 2. Is that punishment end- 
 less ? Mr. Whittemore objected to this division, and refused 
 to discuss the question separately whether there is any punish- 
 ment in the future state. 1 had no objection to discussing 'the 
 doctrine of endless misery which I believed, and I did not see 
 why he should object to discussing the doctrine which he be- 
 lieves. He does not believe in any future punishment, and he 
 ought to come out and defend his doctrine. Here Mr. Bra- 
 man remarked, that he would not enter the reasons Mr. W. 
 gave for declining to divide the questions, but would proceed 
 directly to the subject under consideration. 
 
 The question was one of solemn and awful interest. He 
 hoped the parties would maintain a proper spirit, and discuss 
 it, with decorum worthy of the subject. He was aware that 
 much excitement Jiad been produced already, and this was 
 one reason why discussions of this character were generally 
 unprofitable. Controversy on paper produces less excitement 
 than oral discussions ; people come to listen under excitement,, 
 with a desire for victory rather than a desire for truth. They 
 can read more coolly than they can hear. But he hoped all 
 bad feelings would be laid aside — he hoped that every one 
 would lay aside his prejudice, and endeavor to judge impar- 
 tially of tl)e evidence that should be offered. 
 
 He believed in the endless punishment of the wicked, and 
 those who forget God. Although future punishment was not 
 
 
21 
 
 the subject of discussion at that time, yet for the sake of con- 
 venience he would first stale his reasons for believing in fu- 
 ture punishment. 
 
 Retribution was not equally rendered in this life, as is evi- 
 dent from a proper observation of society. Some good men 
 suffer more here than the wicked. The wicked are some- 
 times more prospered of God than the righteous ; some wick- 
 ed men are more happy than some saints. This accords with 
 our experience, and also v/ith the holy scriptures. 
 
 He called the attention of the audience to the 73d Psalm, 
 where David maintained the same opinion he had expressed. 
 (Reads.) ' But as for me, my feet were almost gone ; my 
 steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, 
 when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no 
 bands in their death ; but their strength is firm. They are 
 not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like oth- 
 er men.' Here the Psalmist is describing the prosperity of 
 wicked men. He says he followed them until death at first, 
 until they ceased to exist, and they were continually prosper- 
 ed. But he afterwards understood their end. (Reads.) 
 ' When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me, until 
 I went into the sanctuary of God ; then understood I their 
 end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places ; thou 
 castedst them down into destruction.' Here it will be seen 
 that the Psalmist followed them to their rfea^A, and said 'there 
 are no bands in their death.' Their end was after this — 
 God cast them down into destruction, and this must have re- 
 lation to future punishment. It cannot mean death itself, for 
 that would make the Psalmist contradict what he had said be- 
 fore. He went into the sanctuary, and learned that the wick- 
 ed were cast into destruction and future punishment. 
 
 Mr. Braman next adduced Matt. xi. 22. ' But I say un- 
 to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, (i. e. 
 the people in these places) in the day of judgment, than for 
 you.' Here a day of judgment after death is plainly taught. 
 The people of Tyre and Sidon had long been dead when 
 these words were spoken. Now as they were to suffer in a 
 day of judgment which was future, it must have been a day 
 of judgment after death, for they could not have been brought 
 up at any future judgment on the earth. 
 
 The Jews were familiar with this language, and they would 
 have understood Christ as teaching the doctrine of future pun- 
 
22 
 
 ishment ; for they believed in a future day of judgment, and a 
 future punishment themselves. Josephus tells us, in his dis- 
 course on Hades, that these were their opinions — that they 
 held to the punishment of the soul after the death of the body. 
 Now how could they possibly understand Christ otherwise ? 
 He spoke of a future day of judgment and punishment for 
 Tyre and Sidon, and yet the inhabitants of these cities were 
 all dead. They believed in a judgment and punishment for 
 mankind after death ; and now how could they possibly under- 
 stand Christ otherwise, than that he taught a future punish- 
 ment? Suppose I (said Mr B.) should say, it shall be more 
 tolerable for certain persons in the day of judgment than for 
 others, would you not understand me to speak of future pun- 
 ishment ? Surely. So I say of the Jews — they must have 
 understood Christ to teach that doctrine. 
 
 Mr. B. said he would now prove the doctrine of future 
 punishment from another passage in the twelfth chapter of 
 John. (Reads.) ' He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not 
 my words, hath one that judgeih him : the word that 1 have 
 spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.' John, 
 xii. 4S. Here the time of this judgment is fixed to the last 
 day. I know that some Universalist writers have endeavored 
 to make this passage mean something else ; but the phrase 
 
 * last day ' is applied to the general resurrection, and therefore 
 men must be judged after the resurrection. Here Mr. B, 
 quoted the language of Martha to Christ. Jesus told her that 
 her brother Lazarus should rise again ; to which she replied, 
 
 * I know that he shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last 
 day.' Now this shows us how the Jews understood the ex- 
 pression ' last day ' — they applied it to the general resurrec- 
 tion. And therefore Jesus must be understood as saying, my 
 word shall condemn the world at the last day, the day of the 
 general resurrection. I think the doctrine of future retri- 
 bution is sufficiently established from scripture. Suppose I 
 should speak of punishment at the last day, you would under- 
 stand me to mean future punishment, because of the sense 
 you affix to the words ' last day;' and as the Jews understood 
 the words in the same sense, they would suppose Christ to 
 teach future punishment. 
 
 Mr. Braman said lie would adduce another passage. [Here 
 he hesitated, and turned round and asked the persons in the 
 desk, where the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was ; to 
 
2S 
 
 which Mr. Whittemore replied^ that it was in the sixteenth 
 chapter of Lvke. He turned to it, and read portions of the 
 passage.'\ This parable was designed to convey some im- 
 portant truth. The rich man died, and went into a state of 
 torment. This was evident, for after he was dead, 1)6 lifted 
 up his eyes, being in torment, and asked for relief. Tiiis is 
 wholly inconsistent with the idea that hell is the grave. He 
 coidd not obtain relief. Abraham told him he could have no 
 relief. Between Abraham and the rich man there was a 
 great gulf fixed, that could not be passed, therefore he must 
 suffer endlessly. If his punishment were not strictly endless, 
 Abraham would have given him some intimations that he 
 should be delivered. The Universalists are ready enough to 
 tell people they shall be delivered from their punishment, and 
 all be saved. Now, if Abraham had believed that the punish- 
 ment of the rich man would ever end, as a benevolent person, 
 he wotdd have told him so. But he knew the punishment of 
 the rich man must be endless, and therefore he could not, like 
 the Universalist, give him encouragement of deliverance. 
 I have other passages here the half hour expired. 
 
 Half past 9 o^clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore commenced : The gentleman who is 
 engaged with me in this discussion, has seen fit to open the 
 debate with an account of the circumstances under which it 
 originated ; and as it appears to me that the audience will not 
 obtain a strictly correct view of those circumstances from his 
 representation, I must be permitted to say a few things touch- 
 ing this point. He informs you that he was the receiver and 
 not the giver of the challenge. T have not much objection to 
 this. I acknowledge, what you all quite well know, that I did 
 make a proposition to my friend Mr. Braman, (he may call it 
 a challenge, if he pleases) to discuss with me the question, in 
 any meeting house in this town, whether the doctrine of endless 
 misery is revealed in the holy scriptures'^ I have no wish what- 
 ever to deny this. He tells you, that he could not be induced by 
 any consideration to give a challenge to an oral discussion — 
 these discussions generally have a bad influence — they excite 
 passion — they beget a wish for victory rather than truth, &ic. 
 
24 
 
 &to. I do not myself know why such discussions may not be 
 conducted with as much propriety as written ones. It only 
 requires that the parties should observe the rules of propriety. 
 It should however be remembered, and I beg the liberty of 
 calling the attention of the auditors to this fact, that I did not 
 prefer an oj'al discussion, as I proposed it only in the event of 
 every thing else failing. He had, as he has told you, deliver- 
 ed a discourse against Universalism, of which fact I was in- 
 formed. I signified to hiir) publicly, that if he would furnish 
 me with the discourse, I would very cheerfully publish it ex- 
 actly as he wrote it, without any expense to liim. If he pre- 
 fered that it should not appear in the 'Trumpet,' I offered to 
 publish it in a pamphlet on the same conditions. If it con- 
 vinced me that endless misery was revealed in the Scriptures, 
 I would publish my recantation of Universalism, side by side. 
 If my friend objected to all these methods, I pro|)osed that he 
 should publish his discourse himself, in any manner he pleased, 
 and send us a copy. After all this, and as a last resort, I 
 spoke of an oral discussion, saying that I had no objection to 
 it in this case. Nou' how stands the matter ? which of the two 
 chose the oral discussion ? Most certainly, it was Mr. Bra- 
 man himself, because of the different propositions I made him, 
 he saw fit to reject all but the one which provided for an oral 
 discussion. 
 
 This matter being thus setded, let me speak a few words 
 touching the division of the question. The question I pro- 
 posed was a plain and single one, viz. Is the doctrine of end- 
 less misery revealed in the Scriptures ? My friend tells you, 
 that he at first accepted uiy proj)ositlon, on condition I would 
 consent to the division of tlie question, as follows : ist. Will 
 any of the human race be punished after death? 2d, Will 
 that punishment be eternal } ' The fact is, he did not accept 
 ray propositions at all, until his last letter. He aitempted to 
 thrust in another question, in regard to limited future pun- 
 ishment, which was to he brought up first, and independently 
 of the other. I objected to it for several ref sons, which to 
 my m-nd appear to have much force. Mr. Brauian does not 
 believe in a limited future punishment, neither does he believe 
 in future punishment in any sense in distinction from endless. 
 I could not consent that he should assume the defence of a 
 doctrine which he did not believe, in a controversy with me. 
 I thought it belter to hold hitn to a defence of his avowed sen- 
 
26 
 
 timent, that of endless misery. Again, let it be remembered 
 that the great point of difference between Universalists, as 
 such, and their orthodox opponents is, whether the doctrine 
 of endless misery is true. On the question of a future limit- 
 ed punishment, Universalists are divided among themselves. 
 Some hold it as a matter of probability ; some regard it as a 
 revealed fact ; and others do not hold it at all. Now whether 
 the doctrine of future punishment in distinction from endless is 
 true, is a question not to be settled between the Universalists 
 and their brethren the orthodox ; for the question pending be- 
 tween them is in regard to strictly endless punislimenl. These 
 are some of the reasons which induced me to adhere, with a 
 degree of inflexibility, to the proposition that I originally 
 made. Is the doctrine o( endless misery revealed in the Scrip- 
 tures ? 
 
 This question you are told is one of solemn and awful in- 
 terest. It is so. I hope you will remember these two words. 
 I agree to them in this instance in their full extent. We are 
 about to inquire whether God hath told us in his word, that 
 he will torment some of his rational offspring without design- 
 ing their good .? What question can be more important than 
 this? I join with the gentleman in the hope that we shall 
 maintain a proper spirit. There is every reason why we 
 should lay aside all prejudice, and let the desire for victory be 
 lost in the desire for truth. If God has not threatened endless 
 misery in his word, — but if he has assured us there, that all 
 mankind shall at last be made holy and happy, you certainly 
 all desire to know it. And why need prejudice interfere in 
 this case ? If my brother, engaged with me in this debate, is 
 in an error in supposing God to have revealed endless misery 
 in the Scriptures, he will be happy, unquestionably, to be ap 
 prized of it, and to learn that God hath better things in store 
 for his creatures than he has anticipated. And I may say the 
 same of the orthodox friends among the auditors. They are 
 willing that all mankind shall be saved; yea, they desire it. 
 When they prostrate themselves before God in prayer, they 
 entreat that all mankind may be saved. And if you prayed, 
 my friends, last night when you went to your pillows in refer- 
 ence to this discussion, you prayed that Mr. Braman might 
 not succeed in establishing his point ; but that I might be able 
 to show that the supposed proofs of this doctrine, when prop- 
 erly understood, do not give any support to it, but rather that 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the Bible furnishes sufficient reason to believe, that all man- 
 kind shall finally be restored to the enjoyment of holiness and 
 happiness. 
 
 Tl)e gentleman has told us, that he believes in endless pun- 
 ishment. Well, this is the point for him to make out. But 
 here he departed so far from the question in debate as to say, 
 that he should proceed to establish the doctrine of future ret- 
 ribution. He does not come up to the question, by attempt- 
 ing to establish the doctrine of future retribution. I have 
 my opinions on that point, but I shall not force them upon 
 you in a debate on the question, whether the doctrine of end- 
 less misery is revealed in the Scriptures. However, as my 
 friend has seen fit to obtrude this subject upon your notice, 
 no fault certainly can be found with me, if I follow him so 
 far as to examine his evidences ; though I do not int^d by 
 this to say, that I will pursue the course of argumentation to 
 any considerable extent. He must keep to the point in de- 
 bate, or he j-pends his time to no purpose. 
 
 He attempted to infer the doctrine of future punishment 
 from the supposed unequal distribution of rewards and pun- 
 ishments in this life. He told us that good people frequently 
 suffer more than the wicked in this life. The wicked are 
 sometimes prospered of God, while the righteous are cast down 
 in distress. Is the gentleman willing to preach such a doctrine 
 as this ? I should not dare preach it myself, through fear that 
 I should encourage men to sin. It is certainly better to per- 
 suade them to a love of holiness, by insisting on its loveliness, 
 and to convince them of the evil of sin, by declaring faithfully 
 its dreadful consequences, than to preach the doctrine which 
 my friend has now preached. What do the sacred writers say 
 on this point ? Do they not declare, ' the way of the trans- 
 gressor is hard ' — ' there is no peace, saith my God, to the 
 wicked ' — 'the wicked are like the troubled sea which cannot 
 rest, whose vpaters cast up mire and dirt.' 'Behold the 
 righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more the 
 wicked and the sinner.' Is not this what they say ? But Mr. 
 Braman thinks that the wicked have somewhat of an easy life 
 in the practice of sin. Look on the other hand. What do 
 we read in the Scriptures in regard to the consequences of 
 wisdom and virtue ? O let every one listen to the language 
 of the sacred writers on this topic : ' The ways of wisdom 
 are pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.' ' Great peace 
 
27 
 
 have they which love thy law, and nothing shall offend them. 
 * Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I 
 will give you 7-est. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of 
 me, for I am meek and lovvl)'' in heart, and ye shall find rest 
 unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' 
 
 These are the effects which are ascribed in the Bible to 
 righteousness. 
 
 But my friend has brought forward the 73d Psalm, in order 
 to make out that God has given his sanction to a doctrine so 
 plainly opposed to the Scriptures. He certainly has misunder- 
 stood the intent of that Psalm. David, it is true, once thought 
 that the wicked were prosperous, and he came near being led 
 astray by that false impression. ' My feet,' said he ' were al- 
 most gone, my steps had well nigh slipped. Fori was envious 
 at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.' But 
 these views he afterwards confessed to be false. He thought the 
 wicked prosperous only when he labored under a mistake ; and 
 when he went to the sanctuary of God, and ascertained that this 
 imagined prosperity was mere deception, that they stood in 
 slippery places, he confessed his mistake. Let me read you 
 a portion of the Psalm, (Reads.) 'If I say I will speak thus, 
 behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children 
 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me, until 
 I went into the sanctuary of God ; then understood I their end. 
 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places : (this was what 
 he had before denied ;) Thou castedst them down into destruc- 
 tion. How are they brought into desolation as in a moment ; 
 they are utterly consumed with ten-ors.' It seems perfectly 
 evident, that David in the first place thought the wicked were 
 prosperous, and it made him envious. It turned out at last, 
 however, that this view was incorrect. When he went to the 
 sanctuary of God, and took counsel of divine wisdom, he saw 
 and confessed his ignorance. ' So foolish was I and ignorant,' 
 said he, ' 1 was as a beast before thee.' The appearance of 
 prosperity was mere deception. Their end was destruction 
 and desolation, not afar off, but it came upon them as in a 
 moment. I think these remarks will show, that this Psalm, 
 so far from affording Mr. Braman any support, is, in fact, op- 
 posed to his hypothesis. 
 
 The next passage adduced by him is Matt. xi. 22 ; 'It shall 
 be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, at the day of judgment, 
 
28 
 
 than for you.' This he says, must be a day of judgment after 
 death. But I wish to know where he finds anything said in 
 the Scriptures about a day of judgment after death ? The 
 Bible speaks of a judgment, and a day of judgment, but it flo 
 where tells us that this judgment is to take place in the future 
 state. Let us see what the sacred writers say dhoin judgment, 
 whether they describe it to be in this world or in the next. 
 
 * Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.'' Ps. Iviii. 11. 
 
 * He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have se{ judgment 
 in the earth.^ Isaiah xlii. 4. ' For the Father judgeth no 
 man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.' John v. 
 22; and compare with this, ix. 39. 'For judgment 1 am 
 come into this world.^ This world, and not the future state, 
 was the scene of the judgment. Listen again : ' Now is the 
 JUDGMENT OF THIS WORLD.' Johu xii. 31. So in 1 Pctcr, 
 iv. 17 : ' For the time is come that judgment must begin at 
 the house of God ; and if it first begin at us, what shall the 
 end be of them that obey not the gospel of God .'" And lastly, 
 see Rev'. xiv, 17 : ' Fear God, and give glory to him, /or the 
 hour of his judgment is come.^ Was not this judgment in this 
 world ? How can any person say, without doing manifest 
 violence to the word of God, that the judgment was in the 
 future state ? ' It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon 
 at the day of judgment than for thee.' In this passage a 
 judgment which God was about to send upon the earth was 
 spoken of; and we must interpret it by what God says of his 
 judgments in other places. 
 
 The judgments which fell on Sodom and Gomorrah and 
 Tyre and Sidon, were events well known to mankind, pardcu- 
 larly the Jews, as unusual displays of God's justice revealed 
 against sin. The prophets frequently compared the judgments 
 which would fall upon the Jews, to the judgments of Tyre, 
 Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah, to convince the rebellious house 
 of Israel, that their punishment should be greater. They had 
 a lively sense of the punishments of these cities ; and to tell 
 them that theirs should be greater, was to magnify it to the 
 utmost in their minds. Thus Jeremiah said, ' For the punish- 
 ment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater 
 than the pimishinent of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown 
 in a moment, and no hand stayed on her.' Lam. iv. G. He 
 here compares the two judgments together, that of Sodom, 
 and that of Jerusalem, and declares that the punishment of the 
 
29 
 
 Sodomites was more tolerable than that of the Jews. This 
 was what Jesus did in the case before us. He followed the 
 example of Jeremiah in comparing the two events, and making 
 one to be more tolerable than the other. So he said in another 
 place, ' For then shall be a lime of trouble, such as was not 
 since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall 
 be.' IMait. xxiv. 21. It is here represented, that all other 
 judgments should be more tolerable than that which fell on the 
 Jews ; their punishment, it was declared, should be greater 
 than any that had preceded it, or that should ever come after 
 it ; but Mr. Braman, notwithstanding, has conceived of a greater 
 punishment hereafter. We see then that the sacred writers 
 were in the constant habit of comparing these events together. 
 Jesus did so in the passage produced by Mr. Braman ; and as 
 the greater judgment had not then taken place, the future tense 
 was used, ' it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in 
 the day of judgment than for thee.' 
 
 I haste to apprize Mr. Braman of the fact, if he is ignorant 
 of it, that the best and most approved of the orthodox com- 
 mentators, interpret this passage precisely as Universalists do. 
 Bishop Pearce says, ' J/j the day of judgment, i. e. in the day 
 of the destruction of the Jewish stale.' — See on Matt. x. 16. 
 Dr. A. Clarke says, 'the day of judgment of Sodom and Go- 
 morrah, was the time in which the Lord destroyed them by 
 fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.' — Com. on 
 Matt. X. 15. Dr. Hammond may be quoted with great pro- 
 priety : ' I assure you,' says he, ' the punishment or destruc- 
 tion that shall light upon that city shall be such, thai the de- 
 struction of Sodom shall ap[)ear to have been more tolerable 
 than that.' — Par. on the verse. Again he says, in another 
 place, ' shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day, (i. e. not 
 in the day of judgment to come, for that belongs to each par- 
 ticular persoji, not whole cities together) but in that day of the 
 kingdom of God, than for that refractory city. God's dealing 
 with Sodom in the day of their destruction with fire and brim- 
 stone, shall be acknowledged to have been more supportable, 
 than his dealing with such contumacious, impenitent cities of 
 Judea.' — Com. on INlatt. iii. 2. I shall now leave Mr. Braman 
 to settle the account with his own authors. He supposes that 
 the Jews would have understood this judgment lo be in the 
 future state, because they believed in a judgment in the future 
 state. This argument is totally void of force. Did not these 
 orthodox commentators believe in future punishment? Yet 
 
30 
 
 they did not, as we see, understand the passage before us 
 as teaching it, nor is there the least proof that the Jews so 
 understood it. In fact, as they had been in the habit of hear- 
 ing their prophets use the same comparison of the temporal 
 destruction of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah with the de- 
 struction of their own nation, there is no probability whatever that 
 they understood it to apply to future punishment, nor is there 
 any probability that Jesus intended it should be so applied. 
 
 Mr. Biaman also adduced John xii. 48 : ' The word that I 
 have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.' But 
 because the phrase, last day, is used, does it therefore furnish 
 proof of future punishment ? By no means. The expression 
 last days, and last times, was applied to the end of the Jewish 
 law, the destruction of the nation, and the establishment of the 
 Gospel. It was then that men were judged according to the 
 words of Christ — '■ JVow is the judgment of this world.' It 
 was for judgment that Jesus came into this ivorld ; and why 
 should he come into this world for judgment, if the judgment 
 was to be in some other world ? On the expression last days, 
 see Heb. i. 1,2: ' God, who at sundry times and in divers 
 manners, spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
 last days spoken unto unto us by his Son.' These last days 
 here do not refer to the future state. The testimony of John 
 agrees with this: I John, ii. 18, ' Little children, it is the 
 last time ; and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even 
 now are there many Antichrists ; whereby we know that this 
 is the last time.'' The two apostles should certainly be re- 
 garded as competent to explain the language of Christ. Old 
 Dr. Lighlfoot has much on this point, and explains this class 
 of texts in this manner. 
 
 Lastly, Mr. Braman has brought forward the noted para- 
 ble of the rich man and Lazarus. He allowed it to be a parable, 
 if I understood him. It must be a parable; for no one sup- 
 poses tliat Abraham's bosom, literally, is the resting place of 
 the blessed, A parable is designed, I allow, to convey some 
 important truth ; but the literal sense is not the truth : it must 
 be sought under the figure. So we ought to seek carefully 
 for the truth Jesus intended to convey in this instance. One 
 of Mr. Braman's distinguished commentators informs us that 
 ibis parable may be explained as Universalists explain it. I 
 refer to Theophylact, who wrote several hundred years ago. 
 He speaks as follows : 
 
SI 
 
 ' But this parable can also be explained in the way of alle- 
 gory ; so that we may say that by the rich man is signified the 
 Jewish people. For they were formerly rich, abounding in 
 all divine knowledge, wisdom and instruciion, which are more 
 valuable than precious stones. And they were arrayed in 
 purple and fine linen, as they possessed a kingdom, and a 
 priesthood, and were themselves a royal priesthood to God. 
 The purple denoted their kingdom ; and the fine linen, their 
 priesthood. For the Levites were clothed in sacerdotal vest- 
 ments of fine linen ; and they fed sumptuously and lived 
 splendidly, every day. Daily did they offer the morning and the 
 evening sacrifice ; which they also called the continual sacri- 
 fice. But Lazarus was the Gentile people ; poor in divine 
 grace and wisdom, and lying before the gates : for it was not 
 permitted to the Gentiles to enter the house itself, because 
 they were considered a pollution. Thus, in the Acts of the 
 apostles, we read that it was alleged against Paul that he had 
 introduced Gentiles into the temple, and made that holy place 
 common or unclean. Moreover, those people were full of 
 fetid sores of sin, on which the impudent dogs or devils, 
 fed, who delighted themselves in our sores. The Gentiles 
 likewise desired even the crumbs which fell from the tables of 
 the rich ; for they were wholly destitute of that bread which 
 strengthens the heart of man, and wanted even the smallest 
 morsel of food; so that the Canaanite woman (Matt. xv. 27,) 
 when she was a heathen, desired to be fed with the crumbs, [n 
 short, the Hebrew people were dead unto God, and their 
 bones which could not be moved to do good, were perished. 
 Lazarus also, I mean the Gentile people, was dead in sin. 
 And the envious Jews who were dead in sins, did actually 
 burn in a flame of jealousy, as saiih the apostle, on account of 
 the Gentiles being received into the faith, and because that 
 those who had before been a despised Gentile race, were now 
 in the bosom of Abraham, the father of nations. And justly, 
 indeed, were they thus revived. For it was while Abraham 
 was yet a Gentile, that he believed God, and turned from the 
 worship of idols to the knowledge of God. Therefore, it was 
 proper that they who were partakers of his conversion and 
 faith, should rest in his bosom, sharing the same final lot, the 
 same habitation and the same blessedness. And the Jewish 
 people longed for one drop of the former legal sprinklings and 
 purifications to refresh their tongue, that they might confidently 
 
32 
 
 say to us that the Law was still efficacious and availing. But 
 it was not, For the Law was only until John. And the. 
 Psalmist says, Sacrifice and oblations thou wouldst not, fee' 
 
 Tlieophylact then briefly observes, tha{- we ought to make a 
 moral use of this Parable, and not despise our servants who 
 stand at our gates. Theophylacti in ^uatuor Evangelia 
 Enarrationes, p. 119, Edit. Basil, 1 525. 
 
 Mr. B. has told you that the punishment of the rich man 
 must be endless, because it is said that a great gulf is fixed. 
 All the argument that can be founded on ihis parable in sup- 
 port of endless misery, is swept away at once by the fact, that 
 the hell (hades) in which the rich man is represented as being 
 tormented, shall be destroyed. The word of God declares 
 it — it shall be destroyed; and if it is destroyed, it cannot 
 remain as a place of punishment. Hear what the prophet 
 Hosea says on this matter : ' I will ransom them from the 
 power of the grave [hell) ; I will redeem them from death : 
 O death, I will be thy plagues : O grave (i. e. hades, hell,) I 
 will be thy destruction.' We repeat it, if hades is destroyed, 
 it cannot remain as a place of punishment. St. Paul announ- 
 ces the same glorious fact of the destruction of hades, when 
 speaking of the resurrection of the dead : ' O death, where is 
 thy sling .'' O grave, [hell) where is thy victory ? Thanks be 
 to God who giveth us the victory (over hell) through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ.' 1 Cor. xv. 55, 57. If this Scripture be true, 
 hades cannot remain as a place of punishment; and therefore 
 it cannot be adduced in the parable as a place of endless 
 misery. The Revelator asserts the same fact, xx. 14 : ' And 
 death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the 
 second death.' Here we have three testimonies to prove the 
 entire and total destruction of hades. If hades is destroyed, 
 the gulf passes away also ; and therefore, we repeat, that 
 whatever interpretation this parable shall bear, it cannot be 
 alleged in favor of endless misery. It fails Mr. Braman al- 
 together. 
 
 10 0^ clock. 
 
 Mr. Braman rose, and after a little hesitation, proceeded to 
 say, that this question of future punishment was not a question 
 on which Universalists were divided among themselves : he 
 must contradict Mr. Whittemore in this particular. [He here 
 
33 
 
 quoted from a hook, which it is understood was Whitman's 
 Jjetters to a Universalist, to prove thai Universalists are not 
 divided among themselves on this point, but that they concur in 
 rejecting the doctrine of future punishment.] 
 
 He denied that he asked Mr. Whittemore to discuss the 
 question of limited punishment ; he never made such a prop- 
 osition. He proposed to discuss the question whether 
 there is any punishment after death, and was surprised Mr. 
 Whittemore could not come out under his own colors. He 
 was willing to discuss both questions — he was willing to dis- 
 cuss Mr. Whittemore's and his own too, but Mr. Whittemore 
 was unwilling to discuss iiis (Mr. B's.) Mr. Whittemore does 
 not believe in any future punishment; he, (Mr B.) believed in 
 future endless punishment. He did not wish to shrink from 
 an investigation or defence of his own sentiment ; and he did 
 not see any propriety in Mr. Whittemore's declining to discuss 
 a doctrine which he was well known to believe. 
 
 Tt is not correct, he maintained, that believers in endless 
 misery wish that universal salvation were true. If it were con- 
 sistent with the universal good of God's kingdom, then they 
 should wish it ; but as it is not, they cannot be said to wish it. 
 If it were consistent with God's will, they would acquiesce; 
 but as it is not consistent with the will of God, nor with the 
 universal good of his kingdom, they do not wish for it. God 
 consults the glory of his own name, in the salvation of man- 
 kind, and we must be reconciled to whatever tends to promote 
 it. As God does not will the salvation of all men, therefore 
 under present circumstances they did not hope to have all 
 mankind saved. They did not, therefore, as Mr. Whittemore 
 stated, pray last night, that he (Mr. B.) might not succeed in 
 establishing his point in this discussion, because they did not 
 wish that all shall be saved. If Mr. Whittemore will prove the 
 doctrine of Universal Salvation fairly, from the Bible, they 
 would rejoice ; but as it is, they must desire and believe the 
 endless misery of the wicked in conformity with the will of 
 God. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore has declared that he (Mr. B.) has not at- 
 tended to the questions in debate. This is a misstatement. 
 He had attended to the question. The duration of future 
 punishment cannot be proved, until future punishment be 6rst 
 proved ; and therefore by proving the doctrine of future retri- 
 bution, he did not depart from the question. He wished to 
 
34 
 
 establish two things — first, the doctrine of future retribution, so 
 that he might afterwards show that other scriptures which 
 have reference to it [here the Reporter was unable to get the 
 argument. Somewhere in this connexion, Mr. B. appeared 
 embarrassed — he m,ade a long pause, and at last said, in a 
 subdued voice, ' I made a mistake.^'\ 
 
 Mr. Braman then referred again to the 73d Psalm. He 
 saw no reason to alter his opinion of it. The result of David's 
 observations was, that the wicked were not plagued, nor pun- 
 ished, as other men ; but they had prosperity and happiness. 
 David did not, as Mr. Whittemore alleges, acknowledge his 
 mistake — his only mistake was in not first taking into con- 
 sideration their future punishment. Future punishment is not 
 very clearly revealed under the Old Testament ; it is spoken 
 of figuratively and under shadows. This might be the reason 
 why David did not understand it at first. If David did not 
 speak of future retribution, then the Psalm contradicts itself. 
 
 Mr. Wimiemore has alleged certain opposite scriptures, to 
 show that I have misapplied this Psalm, such as speak of the 
 way of the transgressor being hard, and the ways of wisdom 
 being pleasantness and peace. We must seek a true expla- 
 nation of these passages, and judge of truth with all the texts 
 in mind. David meant that some wicked men were more 
 prosperous than tlie saints. Generally it is true that pious and 
 righteous persons are more happy than the wicked ; but some- 
 times the wicked are more prosperous than the righteous, even 
 through the whole of their life, and in their death. This clears 
 up the whole difficulty, and shows that the passages brought 
 forward by Mr. Whittemore do not overthrow my position. 
 
 He did not think Mr. Whittemore had done away the pas- 
 sage in Matthew, so far as it applied to a future retribution. 
 Jesus said, ' it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in 
 the day of judgment than for thee.' This was the passage be 
 referred to. As Christ said, ' it shall be more tolerable,' he 
 meant punishment in the future state. The verb is in the 
 future tense, and the punishment therefore must be future. 
 Mr. Whittemore has brought forward certain orthodox com- 
 mentators. He says they are against me — that they have 
 explained this passage as the Universalists do, and he takes 
 confidence from that circumstance. But what if they have 
 explained this passage in this manner, it does not prove that 
 they are right. They are not right — they are wrong, as wrong 
 
35 
 
 as Universalists. No one can make out such a sense of this 
 passage. They must add to the scripture, in order to make 
 it out. Christ did not say it shall appear to be more tolerable 
 for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for thee, but it 
 shall be more tolerable, &-c. The punishment had not been 
 already experienced, but it was punishment in the day of judg- 
 ment. There is no reference in this place to the temporal 
 punishment of Sodom, but to the future punishment of Sodom, 
 and Tyre and Sidon, and others equally wicked. 
 
 As to God's judging men in the earth, it does not prove that 
 he will not judge them in the next life. He allowed that God 
 judges men in the earth; but he also believed that he judges 
 them in the future world. These texts therefore do not op- 
 pose a future judgment. God punishes men in the earth, and 
 in the future world too. 
 
 Mr. Bra man referred here again to the phrase last day. It 
 referred he said to the resurrection, which was proved by the 
 words of Matthew, ' he shall rise again in the last day, at the 
 resurrection.' This was an argument which Mr. Whittemore 
 had not noticed. The last day and the last days were differ- 
 ent expressions altogether — they did not signify the same 
 thing, neither did they refer to the same events. One refers 
 to time on the earth, and the other to the general resurrection. 
 Last time and last day are different expressions, that are very 
 far from having the same meaning. Jesus says, ' I will raise 
 him up at the last day,' meaning undoubtedly the general res- 
 urrection. John did not speak of this period when he said, 
 * it is the last time,' because the resurrection had not then taken 
 place. 
 
 He would call the attention of the people to the parable of 
 the rich man and Lazarus. Mr. Whittemore has brought for- 
 ward certain orthodox commentators against the interpretations 
 he had given of the parable. But if orthodox commentators 
 were against him, they were the o/c? commentators, not the new 
 ones. The orthodox are now wiser than they were before, for 
 not one commentator of note now gives this interpretation. 
 They are all the other way ; they all now apply it to future 
 punishment ; and if Mr. Whittemore can adduce orthodox 
 commentators on the one side, I can adduce them on the other. 
 They are not proof. Now, he said, he must have the 
 word of God, not orthodox commentators. He could not be 
 put down by authority. He had noticed that Universalists 
 
36 
 
 differ among themselves as much as the orthodox — they dif* 
 fered endlessly, i. e. exceedingly. On the passage, * Fearnot 
 them that kill the body,' there is an endless difference oi 
 opinion among them. It" they can differ so much without af- 
 fecting their doctrine, so may the orthodox differ without 
 affecting their sentiments. There is no difference in the two 
 cases. 
 
 Mr. Braman proceeded to notice the passage quoted from 
 Hosea by Mr. Whittemore, ' O hell, 1 will be thy destruction.' 
 This passage of scripture has no reference to the punishment 
 of the wicked in another world ; it refers to the people of 
 God, and to the circumstance that God would deliver them 
 from sin, and preserve them alive. It was a mark of favor 
 shown to the righteous, that they should be delivered from 
 their sufferings, and this is what was meant by the destruction 
 o[ hades. Hell and death signify great calamities under which 
 men were suffering. This passage, therefore, does not invali- 
 date the argument for endless misery, founded upon the para- 
 ble of the rich man and Lazarus. In Corinthians, Paul speaks 
 of the destruction of death, by the resurrection, and this was 
 the destruction of hades. He, (Mr. W.) tells us that death 
 and hades were cast into a lake of fire. Will this put an end 
 to the punishment, to cast hades and the rich man into a lake 
 of fire ? This a singular way to put an end to the rich man's 
 misery ! As a great gulf was fixed between Abraham and the 
 rich man, the latter must suffer endlessly, — the gulf could 
 not be passed. If Abraham had known that the rich man 
 should be delivered, would behave been silent on this point? 
 Would he have kept the rich man entirely ignorant of it ? The 
 Universalists are fond enough to tell of it — they tell every 
 body. Do not be afraid, you shall all be saved. What would the 
 Universalists have said, if they had been there to talk with the 
 rich man? What would the Restorationists have said ? They 
 would have told him, ' Now, be patient, be patient ; your suf- 
 ferings will come to an end ; death and hell will certainly be 
 destroyed ; you shall be delivered ; you shall get over this gulf; 
 you shall get out.' Abraham might have given him some com- 
 fort, if the patriarch had been a Universalist ; he might have 
 talked as the Universalists do, and told him all his punishment 
 .should result in his good, and exhorted him to patience and 
 reconciliation ; but as he did not, he could not have believed in 
 his deliverance ; and, therefore, endless misery must be con- 
 sidered true. 
 
37 
 
 Half past 10 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore. I am sorry thai I am obliged to wander 
 from the question in debate, in order to reply to my friend. 
 He does not keep to the question as he ought. When I was 
 up before, I stated that Universalists are divided in their opin- 
 ions on the subject of a future retribution. Tliis he had 
 made it necessary for me to say, by his reference to that de- 
 nomination. But he has undertaken to deny it, and has at- 
 tempted to sustain himself by a perverted quotation which he 
 has given you, second-hand, from the Trumpet. What I 
 have stated to you, in regard to this subject, I know to be mat- 
 ter of fact ; and I certainly have advantages for obtaining in- 
 formation on this point, superior to those of my friend, and 
 the author whose work he held in his hand. 
 
 Mr. Braman has told you, that he was willing to discuss 
 both points, viz. endless punishment, and a future punishment 
 in distinction from endless. This does not belong to the point 
 before us ; but 1 am compelled to reply. Suppose we had 
 agreed to discuss, in the first place, the question of future pun- 
 ishment simply, without reference to its duration, the other 
 question would not have come up at all — the great point in 
 dispute between Universalists and their orthodox opponents 
 would have been kept out of sight altogether ; and Mr. Bra- 
 man would have been obliged to leave the doctrine of endless 
 misery which he does believe, in order to defend future pun- 
 ishment in distinction from endless, which he does not believe. 
 Moreover, I was not willing to assist in widening the distinc- 
 tion between those who hold to Universalism, but who difFer 
 on the question of future punishment; nor would I consent 
 to set the example of permitting an undoubted believer in 
 endless misery, to set his favorite doctrine aside, for the pur- 
 pose of disputing a point with me, to which neither of us was 
 supposed to hold. I proposed to discuss one simple plain 
 question, and to that I adhered, as I think, with the utmost 
 propriety. 
 
 In my first reply to Mr. Braman, this morning, I happened 
 casually to state that the orthodox prayed for the salvation of 
 all mankind, from which I inferred that they really desired 
 that that glorious event might ensue. This circumstance 
 seems to have given my friend some considerable anxiety, and 
 put him to no small labor. I did not suppose before, it could 
 
38 
 
 be possible that any body should wish to have the doctrine ol 
 endless misery true ; and so far from intending to give any 
 offence, I thought 1 was paying a compliment to the benevo- 
 lence and generosity of my orthodox friends, in expressing 
 my opinion on this subject. But am I in error here ? Is it 
 possible they wish to have the doctrine of endless misery 
 true? Can it be possible ? If so, why do they pray that all 
 mankind may be converted, and come to the knowledge of the 
 truth ? But Mr. Braman attempts to maintain that the doc- 
 trine of Universalism is inconsistent with the universal good of 
 God's kingdom. Universal good of God's kingdom ! I wish 
 you would remember these words — I am pleased to hear 
 them uttered — there is something of Universalism in them — 
 let them not be forgotten. The universal good of God's 
 kingdom ! And is it possible that the doctrine of endless mis- 
 ery is consistent with the universal good of God's kingdom ? 
 Does the universal good of God's kingdom require that a 
 part of the human race never shall be prayed for ? never shall 
 be converted ? never shall feel hope springing up in their bo- 
 soms ? never shall forsake their sins ? but shall be sentenced to 
 be sinners through endless duration, and to suffer the pains of 
 an endless hell ? Is this what is consistent with the universal 
 good of God's kingdom ? Beloved friends, look on the other 
 side — look at the doctrine of universal holiness and happi- 
 ness — is not this alone consistent with the universal good of 
 God's kingdom ? Is it not consistent with universal good that 
 all mankind shall be prayed for.'' that they shall all come to 
 the knowledge of the truth, and be regenerated, and made holy, 
 as God is holy, and happy, as God is happy .'' — I say, is not 
 this doctrine consistent with the universal good of God's 
 kingdom ? most certainly ; and I must be permitted to say, 
 that, in my opinion, it is the only doctrine which can in truth 
 be said to be so. But after all, my opponent, [forgive that 
 expression, it does not express my meaning,] my friend and 
 brother, I should say, is reluctant to confess, that he and his 
 brethren of the orthodox faith wish to have all mankind saved. 
 If it is agreeable to the will of God, he tells us they will ac- 
 quiesce ; but on the whole, as matters are now, he rather de- 
 clines to say they either desire or pray that all mankind may 
 be saved. He said God consulted the ' honor of his own 
 name,' and we creatures must submit to whatever he shall 
 will. Surely it is more for the honor of God's name that all 
 
39 
 
 his creatures should love and serve him forever, than that a 
 part of them should exist in endless rebellion, and be the sub- 
 jects of sin and suffering. It would be well for my friend, Mr. 
 Braman, to be convinced of this fact ; for I have no very high 
 opinion of his [)resent sentiments, which seem to have had an 
 effect to make him view endless evils with complacency. It is 
 the will of God, as Paul says, 'that all men shall be saved, 
 and come unto the knowledge of the truth,' so that Mr. Bra- 
 man may both wish and pray for the salvation of all men with 
 safety. I was surprised to hear him bring up again the sev- 
 enty-third Psalm, as a proof of future punishment. The 
 plam facts in regard to this Psalm, as I understand it, and as 
 I endeavored to explain it, are these : David labored under a 
 mistake at first in regard to the situation of wicked men. He 
 supposed that they were prosperous and happy, and that they 
 were not plagued like other men. He did not say that they 
 were sometimes happy, not frequently, but that the rigliteous 
 generally enjoyed peace. No; he says, 'I saw the prosper- 
 ity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death ; 
 but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other 
 men ; neither are they plagued like other men.' Now here 
 was David's mistake, in the fact itself. What he here says of 
 the wicked is not true. The voice of human experience de- 
 clares that it is not true. And the effect which the preaching 
 of such a doctrine has in society, may be learned from the ef- 
 fect it had on David's mind : ' As for me,' says he, ' my feet 
 were almost gone ; my steps had well nigh slipped ; (Why .'') 
 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of 
 the wicked. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and 
 washed my hands in innocency.' These sentiments David 
 expressed while, as he confessed, belabored under deception. 
 Now mark, — ' when I thought to know this, it was too pain- 
 ful for me, until I went into the sanctuary of God ; then un- 
 derstood I their end. (He had not understood it before.) 
 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places : thou castedst 
 them down into destruction. (Not, thou wilt cast them down 
 into destruction into the future world.) How are they brought 
 into desolation, as in a moment! They are consumed with 
 terrors.' This has not the least reference to future punish- 
 ment, that I can see. And David again confesses his foolish- 
 ness and mistakes, when he says, ' So foolish was I and igno- 
 rant, 1 was as a beast before thee.' Now, however my brother 
 
40 
 
 Braman may feel, I am not disposed to receive as proof of 
 the strange doctrine he has preached, the vvoi-ds which David 
 uttered, when he confessed he was as foolisl> and ignorant as 
 a beast. I prefer to abide by the wise decision of Solomon, 
 backed up by all human experience, *' the ways of wisdom are 
 pleasantness, and all her paths are peace,' but ' the way of the 
 transgressor is hard.' 
 
 I must notice again the passage concerning the judgment 
 of Tyre and Sidon, because my friend does not think 1 con- 
 vinced him. I gave him the testimony of the sacred writer*, 
 and the testimony of his own commentators, and really I 
 think he ought to be satisfied with this. 1 nmst rather believe 
 them than him. The commentators certainly could have no 
 sectarian bias to lead them to their interpretations in this case. 
 Tliey explained the passage in a way radier opposed to their 
 own sentiments ; which would lead us to judge, I should ap- 
 prehend, that the case was so evident, the truth was so plain 
 and forcible, that they gave the correct interpretation against 
 the force of system and creed. The commentators 1 quoted 
 all agreed with my friend in believing the doctrine of endless 
 misery. Their interpretation of these passages was against 
 the bias of their religious systems, but his interpretation goes 
 to favor his system. Under these circumstances, I leave the 
 judicious hearer to decide, which would be the more likely to 
 be impartial, and to be governed by the true scope and intent 
 of the passage. What more then is it necessary for me to 
 say ? What more can in reason be required of me ? Did I 
 not show that the judgment was in this world ? Did I not 
 quote the passages to prove it ? ' Verily he is a God that 
 judgeth in the earth.'' Christ says, ' For judgment I am come 
 into this world.' And then there is the notable passage in 
 the twelfth of John, about which Mr. Braman has not said one 
 word, ' NOW is the judgment of this world.' But Mr. Bra- 
 man says, that God punishes on tins earth, and in the future 
 world too. Ah ! that is the very point to make out ; but his 
 word is not sufficient to establish it. We do not say this by 
 way of disrespect, — the word of no man is sufficient here. 
 We must have the work of God — we must have a ' thus 
 saith the Lord.' Now I call on him to bring forward the pas- 
 sage to sustain his assertion. He framed the sentence very 
 well, I have no fault to find in this respect : * God punishes in 
 this earth, and in the future world too.' This language of his 
 
41 
 
 shows precisely what kind of a passage he wants, if he can 
 but find it. Let him bring the passage which says, ' God pun- 
 ishes in this earth, and in the future ivorld too.'* Then we 
 will beheve, but we cannot believe without it. We must, as I. 
 have said before, have a 'thus saith the Lord.' 
 
 Mr. Braman brought up again the phrase ' last day.' He 
 brought forward one passage to prove that Martha, the sister 
 of Lazarus, connected the phrase ' last day ' with the resur- 
 rection of the dead ; and I brought up two or three to show 
 that the apostles regarded the last day, and the last times, as 
 the times at the end of the Jewish dispensation, or beginning 
 of the gospel. Which is the best authority, Martha, or the 
 apostles of the Lamb ? I do not know but Martha expected 
 the resurrection to take place at the end of the Jewish state, 
 for it is said this opinion prevailed quite extensively in those 
 days. It is enough for my purpose, that Paul said, ' God 
 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.' He called 
 the days in which he lived — the last days — and said that 
 in those days God spake unto men by his Son. So John 
 said, ' Little children, it is the last time. As ye have heard 
 that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Anti- 
 christs, whereby we know it is the last time.' But my friend 
 says, the last day, and the last days, were different expres- 
 sions, they did not refer to the same events. No, in his mind, 
 I suppose they do not. He thinks one refers to things of this 
 earth, and the other to a day of judgment in eternity. But 
 what vast difference is there in the expressions, that there 
 should be this vast difference in their significations? There 
 is tljis difference, — in the one case the word is singular, day^ 
 and in the other it is plural, days. In the words of Christ, 
 John vi. ' I will raise him up at the last day,' the sense is 
 the same as that which I have given. Jesus did then raise 
 up his followers from their persecutions and distresses. This 
 passage confirms,, rather than disproves, the view I have ad- 
 vanced. 
 
 I adduced a very reputable commentator, who flourished 
 many years ago, to show that the parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus, might be very rationally explained, without supposing 
 it to teach the dreadful doctrine of endless misery. This 
 commentator was an orthodox divine. My friend says that 
 he was an old commentator, that the orthodox do not explain 
 Scripture so now. He was disposed to be a little pleasant on 
 6 
 
42 
 
 the occasion, and added that the orthodox are growing wiser, 
 and that not one commentator of note now gives that interpre- 
 tation. Well, I will not disturb his complacency ; I will not 
 contradict what he sa)'s. I am willing to allow that they are 
 growing wiser, and are getting rid of many of their old errors. 
 What is orthodoxy now would have been heresy fifty years 
 ago. Formerly they believed in infant damnation ; but they 
 have grown wiser, and given that doctrine up. They once 
 believed in material hell fire ; but in the increase of their 
 wisdom they have banished that tenet also. Fifty or an hun- 
 dred years ago, they held that very few persons comparatively 
 would be at last saved. Some thought that not more than one 
 in a hundred would be brought in. Now the scale is reversed 
 exactly. The orthodox believe that not more than one in a 
 hundred will be lost. Dr. Beecher, in one of his sermons, 
 represented hell as the prison of the universe ; and whoever 
 knew a prison, said he, to cover half a country, and contain 
 half the inhabitants? He maintained that the number of those 
 who shall be finally lost, when compared with the whole num- 
 ber of the saved, shall be no more than the convicts in the 
 States' prison are, when compared with the whole mass of the 
 population. This is coming up very close to Universalists : 
 the orthodox have got to take only one step more, and they 
 will stand u()on the broad ground where we are ourselves, and 
 acknowledge the glorious doctrine of universal love and salva- 
 tion. So you see I am freely willing to acknowledge, that 
 the orthodox are now wiser than they were formerly. 
 
 The gentleman told us, that the Universalists differ endlessly 
 among themselves. I notice this only to show you, that he is 
 willing, in common conversation, to use the word endless in 
 an accommodated sense, not strictly to signify an endless dura- 
 tion. Bear this in mind, because I am expecting that he will 
 soon bring up some passage in which the word everlasting is 
 applied to punishment ; and this remark of his it -will be well 
 for you to remember, in the course of the argument on the 
 signification of that word. 
 
 The passage which I quoted from Hosea, to prove the de- 
 struction of hell, Mr. Braman applies to the people of God. 
 If the people of God ever were in hell, I am very happy to 
 have Mr. Braman undertake to get them out. If he will take 
 due care, and see that the righteous are extricated from hell, 
 
43 
 
 I will endeavor to do something for the wicked. If people 
 may be delivered from hades according to Hosea, what shall 
 hinder his relieving the rich man ? But the fact is, Mr. Bra- 
 man has stated what is not true. This deliverance from hell 
 had reference to wicked men, not to the righteous, as any one 
 may know, who will read the chapter in which the passage 
 occurs. (Let the reader, at his leisure, peruse the whole of 
 Hosea xiii., particularly verses 1, 2, 6, 9, 12.) This is all it 
 is necessary for me to say, on this point. Mr. Braman re- 
 marked, and very justly I thought, that hell and destruction 
 signify great calamities under which men were suffering. Here 
 he is perfectly correct. Let him apply this remark to the 
 parable of the Rich Man, and his great difficulty in regard to 
 that passage will be removed. 
 
 Here again we heard about the gulf between Abraham 
 and the rich man. Universalists have studied this parable ve- 
 ry particularly, and have made up their views with great delibe- 
 ration ; but it is not proper to bring them into this discussion, on 
 the question of endless misery. The parable furnishes not 
 a particle of proof of endless misery. We hold the rich 
 man* to be a representation of the Jewish nation, and Laza- 
 rus of the Gentiles. We not only confess that this is a para- 
 ble, but we explain it as a parable. Mr. Braman thinks that 
 the gulf must remain endlessly; but how can the gulf re- 
 main, after hell is destroyed. A valley between two hills could 
 not remain, after the hills were removed, so neither can this 
 gulf remain, after hell ceases. This is an entire refutation 
 of all argument Mr. Braman can found upon this parable, in 
 proof of endless misery : for men cannot be punished in hades 
 after it is destroyed, any more than they can be confined in a 
 house after it is burned down. The gentleman closed by tell- 
 ing us, that Abraham was not a Universalist ; for if he had 
 been of that faith, he would have told the rich man many fine 
 things that he undertook to specify. It seems then that Mr. 
 Braman means to prove his doctrine by what the Bible does 
 not say. It happens that the Universalist is not left to con- 
 jecture on this point ; for he knows, his Bible has informed 
 him, what Abraham believed. He believed what God hath 
 
 * Mr. Whittemore has been informed, that, in this case, instead of the 
 rich man, he used the name Abraham. It was a slip of the tongue, in the 
 warmth of the debate. The rich man was intended. 
 
44 
 
 promised, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, 
 God promised him, ' in thee shall all families of the earth be 
 blessed.' Gen. xii. 3. Again. ' Abraham shall surely be- 
 come a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the 
 earth shall be blessed in him.' Gen. xviii. 18. Once more. 
 Mn thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' 
 Gen. xxii. 18. The same promise was repeated to Isaac. 'I 
 will perform the oath which I svvare unto Abraham thy father, 
 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' 
 Gen. xxvi. 3, 4. Jf this passage does not convey the idea of 
 Universal salvation, no language can. This promise was like- 
 wise confirmed to Jacob. It was at the time he had his vision, 
 when he saw heaven opened, and a ladder reaching from 
 earth to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descend- 
 ing upon it. He heard a voice above it, saying, ' I am the 
 Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac, Stc. 
 and in thee, and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth 
 be blessed.' Gen. xxviii. 13, 14. Let this setde the ques- 
 tion in regard to the sentiments of Abraham ; for there can be 
 no doubt, if he believed God, that he was a Universalist. 
 
 We have another glorious testimony to the truth of Univer- 
 salism in Isaiah xlv. I will show you what God says by this 
 prophet. ' Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of 
 the earth ; fori am God, and there is none else. I have 
 sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righ- 
 teoiasness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee 
 shall bow, every tongue shall swear, surely, shall one say, in the 
 Lord have I righteousness and strength.' This is the oath of 
 God, and God has pledged himself for the performance of it. 
 He swore by himself, because he could swear by no greater, 
 and his unchangeable word stands pledged for the accomplish- 
 ment of his oath. In the 25th chapter of the same prophecy, 
 there is more proof on this point. 'And in this mountain 
 shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat 
 things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of mar- 
 row, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in 
 this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, 
 and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow 
 up death in victory ; and the Lord God will wipe away tears 
 {voiwoS all J aces, and the rebuke of his people shall he take 
 away from off all the earth, for the Lord hath spoken it.' 
 Sometimes you are told that this is the devil's doctrine, which 
 
45 
 
 the serpent preached at first, to Adam and Eve in the garden 
 of Eden. But you learn from this passage it is the doctrine 
 of God ; for it is stated that ' the Lord hath spoken it.' 
 
 One other argument and 1 have done for tliis lime. I wish 
 to bring three passages of scripture together, to illustrate and 
 prove the sentiment which I am defending. See John iii. 35. 
 ' The Faiiier loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his 
 hands.' Observe the fact here, that God hath given all things 
 into the hands of Christ. Now let us see what Christ will do 
 with what the Father hath given him. In John vi. 37, we 
 read as follows : ' All that the Father giveth me shall come to 
 me.' Here are two facts, 1st, all things are given to Christ, 
 and 2d, they shall all come to him. Now, does this not prove 
 Universalism ? No, says the objector, for they do not all 
 come to him to be saved ; they all come to be judged, and a 
 part shall be cast into endless misery. But, my friends, you 
 now omit an important part of the passage ; for in the 3d 
 place you ought to read what Christ says in the same verse, 
 ' and him that cometh to me 1 will in no wise cast out.' Here 
 let us put the three propositions together. 1st, All things are 
 given to Christ, 2d, All that the Father hath given him shall 
 come to him, and 3d, Him that cometh shall in no wise be cast 
 out. This drives the nail through, and clinches it. The ar- 
 gument is irrefutable in favor of Universalism. 
 
 I have many more of these cheering testimonies to bring 
 forward ; but as my half hour has expired, I must delay them 
 till I rise again. 
 
 11 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Bkaman began by observing, that he should offer fur- 
 ther remarks in regard to what brother Whittemore said of the 
 orthodox wishing and praying for the salvation of all mankind. 
 He was willing to allow that the orthodox, in a certain sense, 
 wish for the salvation of all mankind, and that they are com- 
 manded to pray for it, but they must pray according to the will 
 of God, and in submission to the will of God. 
 
 Brother Whiiiemore says, that God will have all men to be 
 saved, and Universalists generally are very fond of stating this 
 circumstance. But how does God will that this shall take 
 
46 
 
 place ? It is an important consideration to know how God has 
 determined that it shall be done. We read, ' God will have 
 all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.'' 
 There is no other way in which men can be saved, but by com- 
 ing to the knoioledge of the truth. But in this sense God's 
 will does not take place. It is evident that it does not. He 
 wills all men to know the truth now ; but all men do not know 
 the truth now, and therefore the will of God in the salvation of 
 men is not now done. God wills now that all men should for- 
 sake their sins and become holy ; but they do not forsake their 
 sins and become holy ; therefore, the will of God, in this re- 
 spect, is not done. 
 
 Do not Universalists pray in submission to the will of God ? 
 Does not brother Whittemore pray in submission to the will 
 of God ? Do they not pray that all may now come lo the knowl- 
 edge of the truth and be saved ? God wills that all should be 
 saved, but his will does not take place. The Universalists 
 say, that all misery contributes to happiness. Does not broth- 
 er Whittemore pray for the removal of misery ? Does he not 
 pray for the recovery of the sick, and for the comfort of mourn- 
 ers, and for the sancliGcation of bereavements .'' Why does 
 he do this, if these pains and afflictions are for good .'' Why 
 does he pray for the removal of that which is beneficial? We 
 pray for the salvation of al! men, as he does for the removal of 
 suffering, i. e. we pray in submission to the will of God. If 
 it is consistent with his will, we pray that all mankind may be 
 saved. We pray for the endless good, the greatest good of 
 mankind. But God may promote the endless good of men by 
 eternal suffering. In some way which we do not now know, 
 the endless misery of some may be consistent with the end- 
 less good of the universe, and if so, it is our duty to submit to 
 it. If God shall glorify himself, and promote the best possible 
 sum of good on the whole, by making some endlessly misera- 
 ble, it is our duty to submit to it. We pray therefore, for the 
 salvation of all men, if it is consistent with the will of God. 
 So Mr. Whittemore prays for the recovery of the sick, if it i§ 
 consistent with the will of God ; and we pray for the salvation 
 of all men, on the same principle. 
 
 Mr. Braman again introduced the subject of a future judg- 
 ment. If Mr. Whittemore proves that there is a judgment in 
 the earth, it will not prove that there shall be none in the future 
 world, and he here challenged Mr. Whittemore to prove that 
 
47 
 
 there will be no judgment in the future state. That was the 
 point for him to make out, and if he did not prove it, he failed 
 on his part. Mr. Branian said that he had brought a passage 
 to prove that there will be a day of judgment after death, 
 which, in his opinion fully proved that event. Mr. Whitte- 
 more has noticed it. ' It shall be more tolerable for Sodom 
 and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for you.' Now 
 because there is a judgment here, it does not show that there 
 is no judgment hereafter. If 1 prove that there is a judgment 
 here on the earth, and again that there is also a judgment here- 
 after, it is enough, for I have made out my point. Let Mr. 
 Whittemore prove that Sodom and Gomorrah, and Tyre and 
 Sidon, are not punished after death, if he can. We want 
 proof of it, not from orthodox commentators, but from the 
 word of Christ. Brother Whittemore had said, that the ortho- 
 dox have improved. He was glad of h. He wished he could 
 say the same of Universalists. He hoped the orthodox would 
 continue to improve — it was a good thing in them. 
 
 Reference was here made again by Mr. Braman to the pas- 
 sage in Hosea — ' O hell, I will be thy destruction.' This, he 
 repeated, leferred to the people of God, not to the wicked in 
 the future state. It meant that they should be delivered from 
 death to which they were exposed, and to the trials and suffer- 
 ings which they had endured. We believe hades or sheol indi- 
 cates here, figuratively, that the people of God were in darkness 
 or misery ; and the destruction of hades was the removal of 
 this misery, and their deliverance from it. But the hell in which 
 the rich man was, was a very different hell. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore informs us that Abraham is a type of the 
 Jewish nation : but in his book, on the parables, he describes 
 the rich man as the type. Is this the way Universalists ex- 
 plain Scripture ? There is a strange contradiction here. 
 
 Mr. Brafuan said he wished Mr. Whittemore would come 
 out, and give his views particularly of the Rich Man and Laza- 
 rus. He wanted Mr. VVhittemore's views in full on that para- 
 ble. Why does he keep them back ? Why will he not let us 
 have them ? He has not showed, that this parable does not 
 mean punishment after death. Until he does this, I shall claim 
 the passage as proof of eternal punishment. Mr. Braman 
 said, If Abraham had been a Universalist he would have giv- 
 en the rich man consolation. Mr. Whittemore would have 
 done differently from what Abraham did do, and so would the 
 
48 
 
 tTniversalists. We have nothing to the contrary but his own 
 assertion. He will not give his reasons for his own views. I 
 have his Notes on the Parables, and his exposition is in the 
 highest degree absurd, and opposed to the Scriptures. 
 
 The Jews believed, he said, in rewards and punishments in 
 the future life. They held that there was a gulf which none 
 could ])ass. If Christ did not mean to countenance this doc- 
 trine, w4iy did he frame this parable on the views of the Jews? 
 The Jews believed in endless punishment, and therefore Christ 
 must have intended to teach the doctrine of endless punishment, 
 for he must have known that they would so understand him. 
 If he did not intend to teach it, he deceived them and led them 
 astray. If endless misery be so horrible a doctrine as Mr. 
 Whittemore represents it to be, t^is parable would make Christ 
 a blasphemer — it would make him declare sentiments which 
 dishonor God, and injure mankind. No Universalist would 
 thus countenance endless misery ; such an instance was never 
 known. The Jews believed that mankind were divided into 
 two divisions in the future state. There was no passing from 
 one to the other. An eternal gulf was placed between them. 
 Christ framed this parable on this belief which they cherished ; 
 and was it not rational to suppose that he intended to counte- 
 nance their views ? 
 
 Mr. Braman remarked, that Mr. Whittemore had brought 
 forward some scriptures to prove the doctrine of endless uni- 
 versal salvation, and among others had adduced certain decla- 
 rations made by the Almighty to Abraham, that ' all the na- 
 tions should be blessed.' But he inquired, did the declarations 
 to Abraham mean that all, strictly speaking, should be blessed 
 in Christ ? No. The language did not respect all mankind, 
 but a part of them. Paul says {rends) 'neither because they 
 are the seed of Abraham, are they all children ; but in Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called, that is, they which are the children of 
 the flesh ; these are not the children of God : but the children 
 of the promise are counted for the seed.' And again we learn, 
 {reads) ' that the promise that he should be the heir of the 
 world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but 
 through the righteousness of faith/ Therefore, we see, that 
 the promise to those of the faith was not to all — it was not to 
 all even of the descendants of Abraham, much less to all man- 
 kind. The promise means that the time will come, when all 
 who then exist on the earth, shall know the truth and be sav- 
 
49 
 
 ed. Suppose he should say, that at some future time all shall 
 enjoy the blessings of liberty, it would not prove that he meant 
 all who ever did exist should enjoy that blessing. In the mil- 
 lennium all shall be l)lessed ; but these does not prove that all 
 mankind shall be saved. Mr. Braman said, that the passage 
 in the 45ih chapter of Isaiah refers not to the fumre state, but 
 to a state of things that shall finally transpire upon the earth. 
 We read in connexion with this passage, that ' all who are in- 
 censed against God shall be ashamed.' Will any be incensed 
 against him in the future state ? The passage means, the time 
 will come when all shall submit tolGod, who then may exist 
 upon the earth. The passage in the 25th of Isaiah also refers 
 to temporal aflairs, as tlie context shows. See the succeeding 
 verse. ' For in this mountain shall the hand of the Lord rest, 
 and mould shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is 
 trodden down for the dunghill.' This passage refers to the 
 millennium, when death will be destroyed, and tears be wiped 
 from all faces, and the veil that is spread over all nations be 
 taken away. If Mr. Whittemore will not dispose of the para- 
 ble of the Rich Man and Lazarus, if he will not come out aijd 
 tell us what that parable means, my argument is good and fair, 
 and overthrows his scheme. 
 
 Mr. Braman proceeded to notice the passages Mr. Whitte- 
 more had brought forward to show that all men belong to 
 Christ. Mr. Whittemore has quoted the text, ' all that the 
 Father hath given me shall come to me,' &:c. This does not 
 prove Universalism, for there is a great difference between the 
 expressions, giving to Christ all things, and all things given to 
 Christ. But what is meant by the Father giving all things to 
 Chrjst.'' Does it mean that he hath given him all mankind? 
 No — the passage does not refer to mankind, it refers to doc- 
 trines. Thus you perceive that it was ivords, or doctrines 
 vvhich were the ' all things' that were given to Christ. Now 
 if Mr. Whittemore cannot show that the parable of the Rich 
 Man and Lazarus is consistent with Universalism — if he can- 
 not invalidate the arguments which I have deduced from it, 
 then the doctrine of Universalism, cannot be revealed in the 
 scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Braman then proceeded to adduce a passage frorn Thes- 
 salonians, vvhich he said was directly to the point, in proving 
 that the doctrine of endless misery was revealed m the Scrip- 
 tures. (Reads) ' Who shall be punished with everlasting desiruc- 
 7. 
 
50 
 
 tion from tRe presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
 power.' The passage he thought, would be better understood, 
 if be read the context. [Reads.) ' Seeing it is a righteous thing 
 with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ; 
 and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Je- 
 sus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
 flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall 
 be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of 
 the Lord, and from the glory of his power ; when he shall 
 come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them 
 that believe.' 2 Thess. i. 6 — 10.. Here observe, that the 
 word everlasting is used with reference to the punishment of 
 the wicked, which proves that it is endless. He was aware, 
 he said, that some refer the passage to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem. Here the half hour expired. 
 
 Half past 11 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore. I am somewhat surprised that my 
 friend should occupy so much of his time, in speaking of the 
 prayers of the orthodox for the salvation of all men. Jt is 
 rather a difficult subject for him to manage ; for he must either 
 acknowledge that he does desire to have all men saved, and 
 thus allow what I said to be true ; or he must confess that he 
 does not wish to have all men saved, and then he is in trouble 
 to reconcile his feelings with his prayers for universal salvation. 
 On the whole, he is rather inclined to the latter position, and 
 endeavors to account for his prayers by saying that he prays 
 according to the will of God. God has commanded that we 
 must pray for all men, and he therefore prays for all men ; 
 but he does not intend you shall infer from that, that 
 he has the least hope that all mankind shall be saved. 
 His prayers are in submission to the will of God. If God 
 wills the salvation of all mankind, he will submit and acquiesce. 
 When he prays that all men may be saved, it is always with 
 this restraint, with this saving clause, that he desires it, if it is 
 the will ol God. He believes it is the will of God that all men 
 should be saved, in some such way as shall admit that they will 
 not all be saved. To such a will as this he is reconciled, he 
 is submissive, he prays accoiding to it ; and therefore ; by his 
 own reasoning, he does not really desire that mankind may all 
 be saved. 
 
51 
 
 My brother Braman has told you, that we learn that do 
 pray, and what is more, we pray as well as the orthodox do. 
 I pray in the same way. The orthodox sometimes say that 
 the Uniyersalists do not pray at all ; but now Universalists pray 
 in submission, or. agreement, with the will of God, because 
 they beheve it is the will of God effectually that all men 
 shall be saved. We are reconciled to the will and pur- 
 pose of God, because we believe they secure infallibly the 
 eternal good of all men. To all afflictions, to all sufferings, to 
 all apparent evils we are reconciled, because we believe God 
 will overrule them for good to those who suffer; and that none 
 of his creatures will ever bear afflictions which he shall not 
 sanctify to their highest good. On the subject of eternal sal- 
 vation, we hold that ihe will of God is absolute. We believe 
 with all the heart, 'that God will have all men to be saved.' 
 We pray therefore in faith — we endeavor "to 'lift up holy 
 hands without wrath and doubting,' on this greatest of all sub- 
 jects of human petition ; we give our desires the fullest scope. 
 We know tliat these desires are good, they are benevolent, 
 they are kind; they came from God. We indulge them to 
 the utmost extent ; and in our prayers the faith and the desire 
 are mingled together. Thus we pray in faith, nothing doubting. 
 This is the greatest blessing man can have, the blessing of 
 eternal salvation. Without this, nothing is a blessing, and 
 nothing can be sanctified to man. Existence, resulting in end- 
 less misery, is a curse, altogether, from the beginning of it 
 through endless duration; but existence, resulting in endless 
 happiness, in immortal and incorruptible life, is a blessing under 
 all circumstances of affliction ; for all these afflictions will be 
 overruled for good. JMy friend Mr. Braman has seen fit to 
 say, that I sometimes pray for things which I do not believe, 
 will take place, or that I do not know will take place; and 
 and that in such cases I pray in submission to the will of God, 
 that what I ask for may be granted if it be God's will. He in- 
 stances recovery from sickness, and conversion from sin. I 
 pray that the sick may recover, when T do not know that they 
 will, and they often do not recover. I pray that men may be 
 brought to the knowledge of the truth ; but rjiany, a great many, 
 remain in error. I have answered this already. The Univer- 
 salist always prays, and always desires, that the will of God may 
 be done, because he believes that the will of God is consistent 
 with the highest good of every individual. We pray that the 
 
52 
 
 sick may recover, if consistent with the will of God, because 
 we know, if it is not consistent with God's will, it is not best 
 they should recover. So we pray for the conversion of the 
 world in God's time. That is the best time. But my friend 
 cannot desire the salvation of all mankind, and submit to the 
 will of the God in whom he believes ; for he thinks God will 
 cause some of his creatures to suffer, without any reference to 
 their good; yea, even to suffer endlessly ; and if he submits his 
 heart and desires to this will, he cannot wisii for the good of 
 all men, and cannot desire the salvation of all men. If he is 
 a benevolent man, therefore, he cannot desire the truth of his 
 own doctrine. Some how or other, he says, he does not know 
 how, endless misery is consistent with the good of mankind. 
 We think he would find it difficult to make this appear in any 
 sense. 
 
 My friend calls on me to prove, that there is to be no future 
 judgment. He will pardon me, I trust, if I tell him this does 
 not belong to me to do. It is for him to prove that the doc- 
 trine of endless misery is revealed in the Scriptures. The 
 labor of proof does not lay on me, but on him. When a man 
 is on trial for an alleged offence, it is the duty of the govern- 
 ment to prove him guilty. The labor of proof, in this case, is 
 on the government ; and if they cannot show that he is guilty, 
 he is adjudged to be not guilty. So in tlie case before us. It 
 devolves on my friend to prove the affirmative of the question 
 in debate. Ifhe cannot do it, 1 cannot help him; he must 
 give it up. He must not call on me to take the labor of proof 
 into my hands. I follow him up, and show that his evidences 
 are altogether insufficient to establish the point at which he aims. 
 If I succeed in this, I do all is that necessary for me to do. I beg 
 of him, then, not to call on me again to take the lead in the 
 'proof. He has not as yet furnished a particle of proof, that 
 endless misery is revealed in the Scriptures. The Scriptures 
 which he has produced to prove a future judgment, fail him 
 entirely, as I have shown that his own commentators confess. 
 But he says he does not wish proof from these commentators. 
 No, I will warrant you that he does not. The orthodox he 
 says are wiser now, and they do not explain Scripture in this 
 way. I allowed to him that they were wiser — that they were 
 growing wiser every day — that they were fast advancing to- 
 wards the sentiments of Universalism — that they had given 
 up infant damnation, and would even now acknowledge that 
 
53 
 
 many more people would be saved than lost — that not more 
 than one in a luindied would be finally lost. But what does 
 my brother say to this ? I am sorry to be obliged to declare, 
 that he endeavored to aiFeci it, by casting a reflection on the 
 denomination of Universalists. He said he was glad to hear 
 that the orthodox are improving, and he wished he could say 
 the same of the Universalists. 1 was sorry to hear this, because 
 it is the first thing which has come out to day which looks any 
 way like a slant, an ungenerous reflection on either of the de- 
 nominations. I have endeavored to be careful, and to speak 
 in respectful terms of the denomination to which my friend be- 
 longs, and 1 regret that he has given us this small occasion to 
 remind him of a want of courtesy. He wished he could say 
 the Universalists improved as well as the orthodox. We need 
 not do this in order to agree with them ; for they are coming up 
 with us so fast, that if we will but stay where we are a little longer, 
 they will soon stand on the same ground with us. As ninety- 
 nine is to a hundred, so near are they now to being Universal- 
 ists, if Dr. Beecher may be believed, and he is not one of the 
 old commeniators. 
 
 My brother Braman referred again to the passage in 
 Hosea, * O hell, I will be thy destruction.' This text 
 seems to stand amazingly in his way ; he stumbles against 
 it every time he rises. Let me beseech him now to give 
 himself no further trouble about it, for he has acknowledged 
 every thing in regard to hades, or hell, that I ever con- 
 tended for. He says it indicates darkness or misery, and that 
 the destruction of Aac/e5 is deliverance from this darkness or 
 misery. Very well ; 1 agree with him exactly. Now let him 
 apply this sense oi hades in the parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus — this is all I ask, and all I contend for. I brought 
 up the passage in Hosea to show that hades shall be destroyed. 
 He acknowledges tliat it shgll, so far as the passage in Hosea 
 is concerned. Now let him apply the same sense to the 
 word in the parable, and we agree. But he says again, that 
 the word in Hosea was used to describe the afflictions and 
 trials under which the righteous suffered, and that the destruc- 
 tion of hades, was their deliverance from those afflictions. On 
 this point he is wrong. Hosea was not speaking of the right- 
 eous, but of the wicked, and any one who will read the chap- 
 ter, will see that this is the case. I need not spend time to 
 talk any longer about this passage. 
 
34 
 
 But we are called once more to the parable of the Rich Matt 
 and Lazarus. My frietid*, (for so I prefer to call him) wishes 
 me to come out and give my particular views in full on that 
 parable. What need is there that 1 should do this? He says 
 he has my Notes on the Parables. There is no need that I 
 go into that subject. It is not necessary to a proper discussion 
 of the question before us, thai 1 should do so ; it would only 
 cumber the discussion by bringing in matter that cannot bear 
 upon the point rn dispute ; and I have been desirous from the 
 beginning to confine the gentleman to the naked question be- 
 fore us. 1 wish it were printed in large characters, and put in 
 some conspicuous place in the house, that your minds might 
 be fixed upon it through the discussion. If he will prove that 
 the hell spoken of in the passage is to endure through endless 
 duration ; if he will make out that the account is not a parable; 
 if he will show that the rich man is to suffer in hades without 
 end, then he accomplishes what he proposed to do. But this 
 he has not done, and this he cannot do ; and when 1 show 
 that the passage is a parable, and of course is not to be under- 
 stood in the literal sense ; when I show that the rich man can- 
 not suffer in hades endlessly, because it is to be destroyed, 
 (' O hades, where is thy victory') I do every thing that is 
 necessary to take that passage out of my friend's hands, as a 
 proof of endless misery. From the commencement of the 
 discussion in the morning, he has called this a parable, but he 
 has invariably explained it as a literal account. 
 
 [* But Mr. Braman maintains, that as the Jews believed in 
 endless punishment, the}' would certainly have understood 
 Cln-ist to teach that doctrine in the parable.. Why, he asks, 
 did Jesus frame a parable on the views of the Jews, if he did 
 not intend to countenance them ? To this I reply; 1. That 
 the parable was framed not so much on the Jewish notions, as 
 on the heathen notions concerning hades. Abraham, the rich 
 man, and Lazarus, are all represented as being in hell, (hades,) 
 together, which is divided into two apartments by the great 
 gulf: they are there with their bodies, and all their bodily 
 powers, and the rich man applied for water, which seen)s to 
 have been at hand, to quench his thirst. The heathen believed 
 
 * Tlie argument here enclosed in brackets was much limited in the de- 
 bale, because it was thought the passage was entirely taken away from 
 Mr. Braman so far as endless misery was concerned. It is here somewhat 
 extended. 
 
66 
 
 the river Acheron to be in those regions. This parable is 
 founded on the heathen rather than Jewish notions of hades. 
 The Jews had inibibed them in part ol ihe heailien. It is not 
 reasonable to suppose that Jesus intended to adopt the old 
 heathen notion of hades, as a part of the system ofChristianiiy. 
 2. It should bo remembered, that Christ put his disciples on 
 their guard against embracing those Jewish notions, which dif- 
 fered from the doctrine he had taught them. He had taught 
 them that he came to save all men, that he was the friend of 
 sinners, and could restore the lost. The disciples, therefore, 
 would not understand, that Jesus intended to recognize as truth, 
 the heathen notions of hades which the Jews brought home 
 with them from Babylon. See Matt. xvi. 6 and 12. 'Take 
 heed and beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees .and Saddu- 
 cees.' 3. The Jews could not have supposed Christ intended 
 to countenance their notions concerning the endless misery of 
 sinners, for they opposed him bitterly because he was the 
 Iriend of publicans and sinners, and showed them favor. This 
 was, in their view, one of the most offensive features of the 
 conduct of Christ ; audit would have been very natural, if 
 they had thought Christ believed in endless misery, to have 
 pointed out the inconsistency of his showing peculiar favor to 
 sinners on earth, when he taught them that God would torture 
 them endlessly after death. 4. There is no proof that the 
 Jews ever did suppose Christ lo teach the doctrine of endless 
 misery, but the contrary, as we have shown under figure three. 
 5. The apostles do not appear to have understood Christ as 
 intending to teach the doctrjne of endless misery in hades, for 
 they never afterwards one of them spoke ofhades as a place 
 of future punishment. 6. Christ taught a doctrine directly- 
 contrary to that of endless misery. He declared that the 
 Father had given him ail things, that all which the Father had 
 given him should come to him, and that whosoever came, he 
 would in no wise cast out. He said, ' I, if I be lifted up from 
 the earth, will draw all unto me,' he. he. Now, as he 
 evidently taught the doctrine of universal salvation, he cannot 
 be su[)posed to have taught endless misery. The phrases 
 Jesus used, were understood by the Jews to signify all intelli- 
 gent beings. When he said the Father had given him all 
 things, and all that the Father had given him should come to 
 him, and should not be cast out — ihat if lifted up from the 
 earth, he would draw all things to himself, he used expressions 
 
OD 
 
 which the Jews applied to all intelligent beings. I put Mr. 
 Braman's argument back upon liim. Christ must have de- 
 ceived them, if he did not mean to teach universal salvation; 
 for they certainly must have understood him so. They could 
 not have understood him otherwise. They applied the terms to 
 all mankind, and as he gave no intimation that he used the 
 words in a difterent sense, he must have deceived them, and 
 his own apostles, if he did not mean to teach universal sal- 
 vation.] 
 
 1 have before said, that Mr. Brarnan, although be acknow- 
 ledges the account of the rich man to be a parable, explains it 
 always as though it were a liter-il account — a plain, and not 
 metaphorical, relation of matter of fact. I repeat again, that 
 the gulf in hades, of which the gentleman says so much, will 
 be destroyed. Jf hades may be destroyed in one case, it 
 may be destroyed in another. i\Ir. Biaman allows, as the 
 prophet Hosea says, that hades was destroyed when applied to 
 the people of God. Let him apply the same interpretations to 
 hades in the parable — this is enough. We will refute him by 
 himself. O ! I love the triuniphant exclamation of the proph- 
 et more and more, ' O death ! 1 will be thy plagues; O 
 hades ! I will be thy destruction.^ 
 
 I\Ir. Braman supposes that tiie promises God made to Abra- 
 ham, did nothave respect to all mankind. God promised to 
 bless all the nations, and all the fainilies of the earih, in ihe 
 seed of Abraham, which was Jesus Christ. When Peter 
 quotes this promise, (Acts iii. '25,) he varies the phraseologj^, 
 and says, '■all the kindreds of the earth.' This is rather sin- 
 gular language to employ to signify only a part of mankind. 
 Mr. Branjan interprets it to mean, that at son;e future time on 
 the eardi, all shall then know God, and shall be saved. But 
 will he be pleased to inform us, if he applies all the promises 
 of salvation in this way, how he will prove that any who die 
 before that time sliall be saved. Paid quotes the passage 
 (Gal. iii. 8.) in such a way as to show that it had respect to 
 the heathen, and to all mankind ; and it is my humble opin- 
 ion that he intended to apply it to all mankind. He says also 
 that the fulness of the Geniiles shall come in, and that all Is- 
 rael shall be saved. These terms must mean all maid<ind. 
 David has language of the same import ; in the 22d Psalm, 
 ' all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the 
 Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before 
 
57 
 
 biin.' This is a precious testimony in favor of universal sal- 
 vation. And again we read, in the 66ih Psalm, ^ All nations 
 whom thou hast made sliall come and worsliip before thee, O 
 Lord, and shall glorify thy name.' Are there any nations that 
 God has not made? If not, all without exception will come and 
 worship before the Lord. What a pleasing consideration is 
 this ! O ! I rejoice that it is my happy lot to preach this doc- 
 trine. 1 rejoice too, that 1 have an opportunity of preaching 
 it to-day within these walls, and of making this arch echo with 
 the joyful sound. God grant that this may not be the last time 
 it shall be preached in this house. 
 
 The glorious testimonies of universal grace, recorded in the 
 45ih and 25lh chapters of Isaiah, my friend passed by as 
 well as he could. He applies them also to this world. It is 
 a little singular, and quite worthy of remark, that if he finds a 
 promise of universal grace, he applies it to this world, and 
 will not allow that it has any application to final salvation ; 
 but every threatening of punishment which lie can discover, 
 is applied with great zeal to the future slate. Wlien Isaiah 
 says, in the 45th chapter, 'and all that were incensed against 
 him shall be ashamed,' we understand him to mean, that men 
 would be made humble and penitent for their sins, previous to 
 their salvation ; and all this is certainly natural enough. So 
 in the 25th chapter, because it is said, 'And Moab shall be 
 trodden down under him, &,c,' my friend wishes to make out 
 that the fine passages in the 6 — 9 verses of that chapter, has 
 no reference to the final salvation of all men. I see not the 
 least force in his remark. He says the passage applies to 
 the millennium ; but, in the name of reason, I want to know if 
 Moab shall be trodden down in the millennium ? I pray the gen- 
 tleman to inform himself on this subject. The apostle Paul, 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 54, applies this passage in the 25th of Isaiah 
 to the resurrection from the dead. It is at the resurrection 
 from the dead, that death shall be swallowed up in victory, and 
 tears shall be wiped from all faces; and though my friend may 
 dispute as to the primitive import of this passage, it is certain 
 Paul was willing to adopt it, and apply it to the resurrection 
 from the dead, 
 
 I quoted a class of texts to prove that all things were given 
 
 to Christ, and that all that God had given him should come 
 
 to him, and no one should be cast out. What measures has 
 
 the gentleman taken to do away the force of this arguaieot .'' 
 
 S 
 
58 
 
 I am astonished at the weakness of his position. He tells us 
 that these passages do not have respect to mankind ; but to 
 the doctrines which were given to Christ. This is wonderful, 
 truly ! Do let us try it, and see how the new sense will hit up- 
 on the passages. Matt. xi. 27. ' All doctrines are delivered 
 unto me of my Father.' John iii. 35. ' The Father loveth 
 the Son, and hath given all doctrines into his hands.' John 
 vi. 37. ' All doctrines that the Father hath given me, shall 
 come to me. and the doctrine that cometh to me I will in no 
 wise cast out.' Harmonious ! But if all doctrines are given 
 to Christ, and all doctrines shall come to Christ, and no doc- 
 trine that cometh shall be cast out, then Universalism will un- 
 questionably come among the rest, and be accepted. But, 
 my friends, you know that the passages I quoted do not refer 
 to doctrines, but to men. Take a passage from the 2d 
 Psalm. ' The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son, 
 this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give 
 thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for thy possession.' What think you now .'' 
 Does this mean doctrines ? 
 
 Towards the close of his half hour, Mr. Braman brought 
 forward a passage from 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9. ' And to you who 
 are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be reveal- 
 ed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking 
 vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the 
 gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with 
 everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
 from the glory of his power.' This passage has no reference 
 to the future state whatever. It was fulfilled at the coming of 
 Christ, as the passage itself would lead you to suppose. 
 ' Rest with us, ivhen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from 
 heaven, &:c.' Now when was the Lord Jesus revealed from 
 heaven? See Matt. xvi. 27, 28. Here it was declared, that 
 this coming of Christ should take place, before the persons 
 tasted death to whom he was speaking — it took place during 
 the natural lives of some who were present on that occasion. 
 How then can my friend Braman apply it to the subject of 
 endless misery. But he tells you that the word everlasting 
 is here applied to the punishment of the wicked ; and now 
 he boasts that he has got a passage which applies directly to 
 the question in debate. Everlasting ! Almost every body 
 knows that no dependence is to be placed on the force of this 
 
59 
 
 word, lo prove the endless duration of punishment. It is fre- 
 quently used in the scriptures in reference to things which 
 long ago came to an end — such as the Jewish possessions of 
 the land of Canaan, the Levitical priesthood, the mountains 
 and hills, and even to the length of the service of a slave. 
 Habakkuk says, ' the everlasting mountains were scattered, 
 and the perpetual hills did bow.' If you scatter a mountain, 
 it ceases to be a mountain ; but these everlasting mountains 
 were scattered, and, of course, the word everlasting must be 
 used in a limited sense. The fact which I state about the 
 word everlasting, is allowed by all the orthodox critics : 1 nev- 
 er read one Who denied it. I wish to quote you three or four 
 authorities on this point. I will begin with Prof. Stuart of 
 Andover, a giant in theological learning. I quote him, be- 
 cause I suppose his authority will be good in this house, and 
 among this people. The Professor says, the word translated 
 everlasting, ' is sometimes applied, (as in common life,) to 
 things which endure for a long time, lor an indefinite period. 
 So it is applied to the Jewish priesthood ; to the Mosaic or- 
 dinances ; to the possession of the land of Canaan ; to the 
 hills and mountains ; to the earth ; to the time of service to 
 be rendered by a slave ; and to some other things of a like 
 nature.' Exeget. Essays, p. 50. 
 
 This is from Professor Stuart, one of the modern commen- 
 tators ; and if he is now in this house, he will not deny that 
 I have quoted him correctly. 
 
 The next author whom I quote is Prof. Robinson, also of 
 
 the Andover Institution but the Moderator tells me 
 
 my time is out ; I cannot say any more about Professor Rob- 
 inson now. 
 
 2 0^ clock. 
 
 Mr. Braman commenced by referring again to the subject 
 of prayer. He was solicitous, he said, to have this subject 
 understood. He was confident he was right when he was up 
 before. He must repeat that the Universalists prayed like the 
 orthodox — that their prayers might be answered, if it were 
 consistent with the will of God. Mr. Whittemore believes that 
 God wills the salvation of all men now, as much as he ever 
 
60 
 
 will, and he brings what he thinks is proof of it, from the scrip- 
 ture?. God wills now, according to Mr. Whiitemore, that all 
 men should embriice Universiilism ; but ihey do not all embrace 
 it, very few oi them embrace it. Jusilook abroad, and see bow 
 many believe in the doctrine of endless misery ■ — that dread- 
 ful error which the Universalists would persuade you to aban- 
 don. Just see how few Univeralists there are in the world ; 
 and thus you can judge whether Mr. Whittemore's prayers are 
 answered, when he prays that all men may become converted 
 to his doctrines. He says, Universalists pray in faith, noth- 
 ing doubting, when they pray that all mankind may be saved. 
 Indeed ! then their faith must be exceedingly small, like a 
 grain of mustard seed, for it seems to accomplish very 
 little. 
 
 Here Mr. Braman again referred to the passage in Hosea, 
 (O keU, I will be thy destruction.) How is hell to be destroy- 
 ed .'' said he. By being cast into a lake of fire, Mr. Whiite- 
 more tells. Is this the way hades shall be destroyed ? Shall 
 the rich man be delivered from hades by being cast into a lake 
 of fire ? This is a singular way enough to deliver a man from 
 hades. The rich man was in torment after death, and that was 
 enough — that settled the point ; and the Jews believed in fu- 
 ture punishment, and must have understood Christ as teaching 
 that doctrine. He cared, he said, nothing about the word 
 translated hell ; hades is cast into another fire, and this is all t 
 want to prove. He repeated the remark, that hades in Hosea 
 referred to the people of God. It was used to describe their 
 afflictions and trials, and the destruction of hades was their de- 
 liverance from those troubles. Hades sometimes means the 
 grave, sometimes calamities and troubles in this life, and some- 
 times future misery. The argument derived from Jewish 
 opinions was again repeated. The Jews believed in future 
 punislnnent — they believed that hades was a place of future 
 punishment ; this was a common opinion among them, as Jose- 
 phus informs us. They must have understood Christ as teach- 
 ing the doctrine of endless misery. They could not have un- 
 derstood him otherwise, with the opinions they entertained, 
 and Jesus knew this, and Jesus must Imve intended to deceive 
 them, if he did not design to teach them the doctrine of end- 
 less misery. And as he could not have intended to deceive 
 them, he did intend to teach them the doctrine of endless 
 misery. 
 
 He said, as Mr. Whittemore declined to give his particular 
 
61 
 
 views of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he would quote from a work 
 
 of his, called ' Notes and liliistraiions of the Parables.' [Here 
 J\Ir. Brnmnii read passages Jrum this btok at some considerable 
 length.] Here Mi. VVliilleaiore sa) s ihai llie rich iiiiiu r»;(jre- 
 senls the Jews, and Lazarus represents the Gentiles. Well, 
 let us examine this. The rich man saw Lazarus in Abrahani's 
 bosom. Well, this means, according to Mr. Whittemore, that 
 the Jews see the Gentiles in the faith of Abraham. Now this 
 does not agree with fact. The Jews do not to this day ac- 
 knowledge that the Gentiles are in the faith of Abraham, and 
 Mr. Whiltemore's exposition, therefore, does not agree with 
 matter of fact. It is ajalse representation. Mr. Whittemore 
 interprets some parts ot this parable, of the Jews asking infor- 
 mation of the Gentiles; but the Jews do not seek inlormation 
 of the Gentiles; and therefore the representation of the Jews 
 thus seeking is false. The gulf, according to Mr. Whiitte- 
 more, is the purpose of God that the Jews sliall not believe the 
 gospel until the Gentiles are converted. Then, according to 
 this, God has placed a bar to prevent the Jews from embracing 
 the gospel. Do you believe that God has done this, that he 
 has set up a bar to prevent the Jews from believing the gos- 
 pel ? Then the gulf does not represent this subject. Mr. 
 WHiittemore tells us that the rich man represents the Jewish 
 nation. Well, he had five brethren, to whom he wished Abra- 
 ham to send Lazarus, that he might warn them and prevent 
 them from coming into that state of torment. Now, said Mr. 
 Braman, we want to know who these five brethren were ? It 
 would seem from Mr. Whittemore's representation, that only 
 one sixth part of the Jewish nation was rejected. Is this cor- 
 rect.*' Is it not false "^ If the death ol Lazarus represented 
 his renouncing paganism, then his resurrection nmst represent 
 his renouncing Christianity to embrace paganism again. A 
 very singular exposition, that Lazarus must renounce Chris- 
 tianity to go and preach to those who yet remain in idolatry, 
 and they would not believe an apostolic Christian, if he should 
 thus preach ! Mr. Braman wished now to call Mr. Whitte- 
 more to the point. Here was the point. Christ made an im- 
 pression on the minds of the Jews, that he intended to leach 
 endless misery by speaking of the gulf. The gulph was never 
 to be removed, it was never to be done away, it could not be 
 jiassed, and is therefore a decisive proof of endless misery. 
 Mr. Whittemore's construction of the parable does not hold ; 
 
62 
 
 and if he cannot make a better one, the passage is to my pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Mr. Braman then brought up again the passage In 2 Thes- 
 salonians, on which he was speaking when his last half hour 
 expired, Mr. Whittemore, he said, refers this passage to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, It is a remarkable fact, and ought 
 to be noticed, that Universalists refer all threatenings to the 
 same subject. They make the destruction of Jerusalem a 
 kind of ' scape goat' to bear the sins of all mankind. It is 
 enough for the Jews to bear their own punishment ; they ought 
 not to bear the punishment of others. 
 
 He had said the Universalists applied the passage to the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. But who were those that troubled 
 the Christians ? If Mr. Whittemore says it was the Pagans, 
 his construction will not bear, because the Pagans were not in- 
 volved in the destruction of Jerusalem. He cannot say it was 
 the Jews, for the Thessalonians did not reside in Judea, they 
 were at a great distance from it. So it could not have been 
 the Jews, and therefore Mr. Whittemore's view of this passage 
 is not correct. Mr. Braman maintained that it was the Gen- 
 tiles who troubled the Thessalonian Christians. [Here he quot- 
 ed a passage which he intended should show that it was the 
 Pagans, but it is out of the power of the reporter to recollect 
 it.'\ The passage in Thessalonians, he maintained, referred to 
 the future state, to the coming of Christ at the resurrection. 
 Paul says, ' to you who are troubled rest witht/5.'. Now Paul 
 was dead when the destruction of Jerusalem took place. If he 
 meant the Christians should rest with him at that time, he meant 
 that they should all be dead. A singular kind of a rest this ! 
 Could this rest com.fort the Christians much ? This would be 
 the same destruction which came upon others. 
 
 As to the word everlasting, Mr. Braman said he agreed 
 with Mr. Whittemore in all he had said. Mr. Whittemore had 
 labored to prove that the word everlasting was sometimes used 
 in a limited sense. There was no need of quoting authorities 
 on this point, for the fact was not denied. Mr. Whittemore 
 had quoted the authority of Professor Stuart, whom he called 
 a giant in theology. But Prof. Stuart says this word means 
 endless in many cases, and will he allow that the Professor 
 is right there ? liCt him show, as the word sometimes signifies 
 endless, that it must be restricted in this case. He must 
 prove this. Let him show when the punishment will stop. 
 
63 
 
 When things are said to be everlastino-, which ai-e limited 
 in their duration, it is said in other places that ihey shall end. 
 Now let Mr. Wliittemore show the proof that everlasting de- 
 struction shall cease. As the Jews themselves believed in 
 endless misery, they would understand these words, particu- 
 larly the word everlasting, to signify destruction without 
 any end. 
 
 Mr. Wliittemore brings up passages to show that all man- 
 kind are to be blessed. He tells us that it is his humble opin- 
 ion, that these passages have reference to all mankind. Well, 
 it is the humble opinion of the apostle Paul that they do not 
 have reference to all mankind ; and here we will put the hum- 
 hie opinion of the apostle Paul against the humble opinion of 
 the editor of the Trumpet. We will offset one against the 
 other, Mr. Wliittemore also quoted from Paul, that 'all Is- 
 rael shall be saved.' Does this refer to the future state ? It 
 is a quotation from Isaiah, and it is stated in the verse pre- 
 ceding that ' the enemy shall come in like a flood, and the 
 Lord shall lift up the standard against him.' Are the enemy 
 to come into heaven like a flood.'' He supposed the enemy 
 were the orthodox, for Mr. Wliittemore calls them the enemy 
 frequently, and he did not know of any other enemy that would 
 come in. Mr. Whiltemore also quotes from the Psalms, that 
 all nations shall worship God, and that all the ends of the 
 world shall turn to the Lord. Does this refer to heaven .-' 
 Does it mean tliat all men shall go to heaven ? It s«ys in the 
 context, ' all they that be fat upon the earth, shall eat and 
 worship.' [^Mr. Braman here spoke personally of Mr. Whit- 
 temore, in regard to his size. The intention seemed to be to 
 excite laughter and ridicule in the congregation. It is not 
 thought necessary to preserve the offensive words in the printed 
 report.^ 
 
 The passage, said Mr. Braman, which Mr. Whittemore ad- 
 duced from the 2d Psalm, will not prove the salvation of all 
 men, for it is said in the next verse, ' thou slialt break them 
 with a rod of iron, thou shall dash them in pieces like a pot- 
 ter's vessel.' Will this take place in heaven ? Mr. Whitte- 
 more probably supposes that it has reference to the ortho- 
 dox ; and means tliat their orthodoxy shall be dashed out of 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Braman here brought up the passages which declare 
 that ' all things ' are given to Christ. He said if this meant 
 
64 
 
 literally all things, it proved by far too much. For if the phrase 
 had no liinitaiion, llion the stones and the trees, &;c. must be 
 admitted into heaven, and all animals of every kind. It must 
 therefore be restricted. Here the half hour expired. 
 
 Half past 2 o^clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemoue. I deeply regret that I am obliged to 
 refer, by way of censure, to the manner and spirit of the gen- 
 tleman on the other side — but the audience wiH witness that 
 lie has rendered it necessary for me so to do, by what he has 
 said, since the intermission.* He told us, when he spoke 
 first in the morning, that the subject to be discussed was one 
 of solemn and awful interest. The remark appeared so just 
 on his part, and was so congenial to my own views of what is 
 proper in a person defending endless misery, that I could not 
 refrain from noticing it in a particular manner. And you will 
 remember, respected auditors, that I called your attention to 
 these two words soltmn and awful, and endeavored to show 
 you, that, if the doctrine Mv. Braman defends is true, it is in- 
 deed, and in the fullest sense of the expression, a solemn and 
 awful thing ! and that a person who attempted the affirmative 
 of the question before us, ought to treat it as a solemn and 
 awful subject. But how has the gentleman treated it now ? 
 What kind of feeling has he manifested? What kind of feel- 
 ing has he endeavored to beget in you ? He seems to h^ve 
 been meditating tlie best way to get up a laugh. And what 
 is the subject before him, in the discussion of which he is so 
 ready to be merry ? Plainly, he stands here to prove that a 
 
 * We have heard of two circumstances wliich tend in some measure to 
 account for the change in Mr. Braman's style from what it was in the fore- 
 noon. It has been stated to ns, that Mr. M'Clure, advised him, during the 
 intermission, to resort to satire and ridicule. It has been added, moreover, 
 tliat Mr. iTaman received a letter from Boston during the intermission, 
 saying to him, ihat there would be no way for him to get along, but to re- 
 sort to blackguard and ridicule. We do not vouch for the truth of these 
 reports; we state only what we hear. It was perfectly evident, that .Mr. 
 Braman was prepared to devote the afternoon to billingsgate and black- 
 guardism ; but being disappointed in tliis, he was obliged to resort, in the 
 want of something better, to a repetition of what he had said in the fore- 
 noon, which, in our judgment, had been i horoughly refuted, so far as it bore 
 the least upon the question of endless misery. T. W. 
 
eb 
 
 part of his fellow-creatures, perhaps some of his friends and 
 neighbors, are to suffer endlessly in hell. Is this a proper sub- 
 ject to be merry about ? In the defence of so dreadful a doc- 
 trine, shall a man study to mal<e his hearers laugh''} And, 
 while on this topic, there is one thing which it gives me pain 
 to mention, but which can no longer be withheld. In the 
 course of his remarks, when he has quoted a passage which he 
 supposed would sustain the doctrine of endless misery, I have 
 seen a smile come upon his countenance, as though he were 
 pleased ; but I have not seen him shed a tear. I was 
 horror struck ! He does not believe the doctrine of endiess 
 misery for himself; but if his doctrine be true, let him be in- 
 cluded among the damned, and he will laugh on the other 
 side of his face. What should you think, if a criminal were 
 on the way to execution, and you were to see Mr. Braman at 
 the head of the crowd, swinging his hat, huzzaing, and doing 
 all in his power to excite merriment and laughter ? You 
 would think it was highly indecorous and improper. But it is 
 a thousand times more so on this occasion. He is here en- 
 deavoring to prove, not that one man shall die, but that count- 
 less milHons shall sutfer endless misery, and he is disposed to 
 be merry, and to laugh at it. O ! that he would take an ex- 
 ample from the conduct of his divine Master. When Jesus 
 beheld the temporal sufferings of men, he was moved to pity. 
 He wept over Jerusalem, and said, ' O Jerusalem ! Jerusalem ! 
 how often would I have gathered you as a hen gathereih her 
 chickens under her wings, and ye would not.' Jesus did not 
 laugh at the miseries of men, but my friend laughs at the idea 
 of their endless sufferings. Is this pity ? is this love .'' is this 
 compassion ? is this kindness ? is this benevolence .'' Let me 
 now proceed to notice the gentleman's argument. 
 
 I am not able fully to understand Mr. Braman's views in re- 
 gard to the will of God — whether he holds that it will be done, 
 or will not be done. If the will of God will not be executed 
 in regard to saving men, we can have no proof that it will in 
 damning them ; so that the argument derived from God's will, 
 in this case, affects neither the one side nor the other. 
 
 Once more the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has 
 come up. The argument about hades is gone over with again, 
 and 1 thought enough had been said about this subject to sat- 
 isfy any reasonable man. I have proved that hades shall 
 
66 
 
 BE DESTROYED, 30(1 my friend acknowledges it, and what more 
 is it necessary for me to do ? The gulf, whatever it means, 
 cannot remain after hades is destroyed. How many more 
 times will it be necessary to repeat this ? Because the rich 
 man was in hades, my friend supposes he must have been de- 
 stroyed wiih it.* There is no force in this, that I can see. He 
 tells us, furthermore, the Jews believed that hades was a place 
 of future punishment ; and therefore, they must have under- 
 stood Christ, as inculcating that idea. I have answered this 
 argument already, but the Jews did not regard hades to be a 
 place of future misery, any more than a place of future happi- 
 ness. They supposed it to be the receptacle of ghosts of the 
 good and bad; and so Christ spake of it, Abraham, and Laz- 
 arus, and the rich man, all being in hell together. Did Christ 
 intend to recognize this heathen notion ? 
 
 The gentleman read your extracts from a work of mine on 
 the parables, in which he endeavored to point out some dis- 
 crepancies in the interpretation. I am as well satisfied with 
 that interpretation, as 1 ever was, and belter, by far, than I 
 ever was with any other. I have shown you thatTheophylact 
 countenanced it. But whether my particular interpretation of 
 that parable, be correct, or not, does not touch the point be- 
 tween us ; because it would not prove, that the true interpre- 
 tation of that parable favors endless misery, if I were to admit 
 the incorrectness of the common interpretations given it by 
 Universalists, which I have certainly no disposition to do. 
 
 I did not understand the remarks of Mr. Braman touching 
 the resurrection of Lazarus — there appeared to be a confu- 
 sion attending his statement of his views. He seemed to 
 think that the Jews would be converted by the resurrection of 
 Lazarus, notwithstanding I made the gulf an obstacle, or bar; 
 and that some of them had been converted. I an) not so sure 
 on this point as he seems to be ; for one Lazarus [the brother 
 of Martha] was raised literally from the dead, and it did not 
 convert them, and the Saviour said they would not be convert- 
 ed, though one rose from the dead. What my friend meant 
 by insisting that Lazarus literally died, and then changing im- 
 mediately, and saying he died figuratively, I could not under- 
 stand. 
 
 He insisted again on the argument founded on Jewish opin- 
 
 * Death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, heforehadea 
 was cast, into the lake of fire. Rev. xx. 13. 
 
67 
 
 ions. [I could wish he had as much respect for the opinions of 
 the sacred writers.] How many of the idle notions of the 
 Jews did our Saviour refer to, without intending to recognize 
 their truth. ' If I hy Beelzebub cast out devils,' said he, ' by 
 whom do your children cast them out } ' Did he intend to 
 recognize the sentient existence and power of this idol of the 
 Philistines .'' The Jews believed, thai, in hades, the ghosts of 
 the faithful would recline on Abraham's bosom. Is it to be 
 supposed Jesus Christ intended to countenance such notions ? 
 
 In the next place, in Mr. Braman's argument, came up 
 again the passage in 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9. This, he said, had 
 received the common fate of passages explained by Univer- 
 salists, — it had been referred to the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. He told us that Universalists refer all threatenings to the 
 same subject, which, by the way, is not correct. Universal- 
 ists he added, make- the destruction of Jerusalem a kind of 
 ' scape-goat' to bear the sins of all mankind. It was enough 
 for the Jews, he thought, to bear the punishment of their own 
 sins, &;c. Now what does all this amount to ? It is a mis- 
 representation. Universalists never contended that the Jews 
 were to suffer for any but their own sins, and they never refer- 
 red any passages of scripture to that event of their destruc- 
 tion, to which the sacred writers had not given that reference. 
 Well, what is there wrong in following the word of God ? 
 Are we to be found fault with for this ? Many passages of the 
 New Testament, it is true, have unquestionable refererice to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem ; — and why ? Because it was 
 an event big with momentous consequences ; — because it was 
 an epoch in the history of the church, as well as of the Jew- 
 ish nation ; because the Christians were all directed to keep 
 their eyes upon it ; and because it was a most tremendous dis- 
 play of the judgments of heaven. It was 'a time of trou- 
 ble such as was not from the beirinnins of the world to that 
 time, no, nor ever shall be,' notwithstanding my friend thinks 
 there will be a greater time of trouble hereafter. 
 
 In reference to the passage in Thessalonians, Mr. Braman 
 contended that it could not refer to the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. Those who troubled the Thessalonians could not have 
 been Jews, and therefore they could not have been ])unlshed 
 and destroyed. Thessalonica was remote from Judea, and 
 could not participate in its destruction. I was surprised at these 
 statements. I know, and every body who reads the Bible at- 
 tentively must know, that it was the Jews who troubled the 
 
68 
 
 Thessalonians. They were the very agents and ringleaders 
 in the persecutions.* What more is it necessary to say here ? 
 Then again he tells us, the passage could not have reference 
 to tiie destruction of Jerusalem, because the troubled Christ- 
 ians were exhorted to rest with Paul, (rest with us,) and Paul 
 was dead before the destruction. I say, of this, as I said of 
 the previous argument, there is no force in it. The troubled 
 Thessalonians would rest with the Christians in that time of 
 general calamity ; and that was enough to justify the language 
 of Paul. Besides, Mr. Braman must make out, in order to 
 sustain his argument, that Paul knew, when he wrote his epis- 
 tle, that he should not live to see the destruction of Jerusalem 
 But he did not know that he should die before that time. 
 
 We now come to the word everlasting. Mr. Braman was 
 obliged to confess that all 1 had said about the use of this 
 word was correct. He must then abandon entirely the use of 
 this word, as a proof of endless misery. When 1 was up be- 
 fore, I gave the testimony of Professor Stuart to this point, 
 and promised that of other eminent orthodox critics. I will 
 now proceed to the work of quoting them. Prof Robinson, 
 of the Andover Institution, says, in his edition of Calmet, 
 ' Eternal, Eternity. These words often signify a very long 
 time, and therefore must not always be understood literally ; 
 so we find ' eternal mountains,' to denote their antiquity. Gen. 
 xlix. 26. Deut. xxxiii. 15. God promises to David an eter- 
 nal kingdom and posterity ; that is, his and his son's empire 
 will be of long duration.' Robinson's Calmet.-f 
 
 In the next place hear what Cruden says on this point, — a 
 man sufficiently orthodox on the subject of endless misery, as 
 we should think, to satisfy any body, however orthodox. ' The 
 words eternal, everlasting, forever, are sometimes taken for a 
 long time, and are not always to be understood strictly : for 
 example, it is said. Gen. xvii. 8, ' 1 will give to thee, and to 
 thy seed, the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.' 
 
 * Let the reader consult Acts xvii. 1 — 8, 13, and see whether the Jews 
 were not the persecutors of the Tliessalonians. It is somewhat astonish- 
 ing that Mr. Braman should make the stateniont he did, in the face of this 
 testimony. 
 
 f Mr. Whittemore was not able to discover from his notes, whether these 
 quotations were given in this, or in his succeeding half-hour. Being ex- 
 tracts, no note of them was made at the lime. They are here given with 
 the scriptural illuslrations that follow, verbatim as they were delivered. 
 
69 
 
 And in chap. xiii. 15, ' I will give it to thee and to thy seed 
 forever; that is, foralong space of time. And in Gen. xlix. 
 ii6, we find everlasting /tills, so called lo denote their antiqui- 
 ty, stability and duration ; and this expression is used to show 
 the long continuance and durableness of Joseph's blessing. 
 God promises a throne to David, an eternal kingdom, a pos- 
 terity that will never be extinguished ; that is, that his and 
 his son's empire will be of very long duration, 2 Sam. vii. 16. 
 1 Chron. xvii. 14. Thus, thou shalt be our guide, from this 
 time forth, even forever, that is, during our vvliole life. And 
 in many other places of scripture, and in particular where the 
 word forever is applied to the Jewish rites and privileges, it 
 commonly signifies no more than during the standing of that 
 commonwealth, or until the coming of the Messiah.' See his 
 Concord, on word Eternal. 
 
 Hear the great Whitby also on this point. * Nor is there 
 anything more common and familiar in Scripture, than to repre- 
 sent a thorough and irreparable destruction, whose effects and 
 signs shall be still remaining, by the word aionios, which we 
 render eternal ; * * * * and this specially is threatened where 
 the destruction of a nation or people is likened to the over- 
 throw of Sodom and Gomorrah.' Com. on Jude 7. Here he 
 tells us that there is nothing more common than to find the 
 word eternal, and the concomitant expressions, used in a limit- 
 ed sense ; and this is true, particularly where the punishment 
 is likened to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. I hope 
 this orthodox testimony may be remembered, for we have had 
 a great deal said here about the punishment of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. 
 
 1 shall now bring forward several passages of scripture, to 
 prove what I allege, and what these orthodox critics have 
 conceded, that these words are used in a limited sense. And, 
 
 1. Ever. 
 
 Lev. vi. 13. ' The fire shall ever be burning on the altar.' 
 John xviii. 20. 'I ever taught in the synagogue and tem- 
 ple.' 
 
 2. Forever. 
 
 Gen. xiii. 15. ' For all the land which thou seest, to thee 
 will I give, it and to thy seed forever.' 
 
70 
 
 Exod. xii. 14. 'You shall keep it (the passover) a feast 
 by an ordinance forever.^ 
 
 Lev. XXV. 46. ' Tliey shall be your bondmen forever,^ 
 spoken of the Jewish slaves. 
 
 Jonah declares, when swallowed by the fish, ' I went down 
 to the bottoms of the mountains ; the earth with her bars was 
 about me forever ; yet hast thou brought up my life from cor- 
 ruption, O Lord my God.' Jonali ii. 6. Here forever sig- 
 nified the time of Jonah's remaining in the fish's belly. 
 
 Philemon, 15. ' That thou shouldst receive him (Onesi- 
 raus) forever.' 
 
 3. Everlasting. 
 
 Gen. xvli. 8 ; xlviii. 4. ' I will give thee the land of Ca- 
 naan for an everlasting possession.' 
 
 Gen. xlix. 26. ' The utmost bound of the everlasting 
 hills.' 
 
 Exod. xl. 15. Numb. XXV. 13. ^ An everlasting priest- 
 hood.' 
 
 Lev. xvi. .34. ' An everlasting statute.' 
 
 Hab. iii. 6. ' The everlasting mountains were scattered.' 
 
 Now, as it regards these words, it makes no difference how 
 often they are used in an unlimited sense, though they are 
 used much less frequently in that sense than it is generally 
 supposed that they are. If they are ever used in a limited 
 sense, it is enougfi for our purpose j it shows that the mere 
 force of the word cannot be depended upon to prove the end- 
 less duration of any thing. Now, as the only alleged proof of 
 endless punishment in the passage in 2 Thess. is that the de- 
 struction is said to be everlasting, by siiowing that the word is 
 used by the sacred writers in a limited sense, we entirely de- 
 stroy that proof — entirely destroy it. For the word everlast- 
 ing will no more prove that the Jews said destruction is end- 
 less, than it will prove that the Jews had endless possession 
 of the land of Canaan, or that the hills were endless, or the 
 priesthood endless, or the Levitical statutes endless, or the 
 mountains endless. 
 
 Mr. Braman has endeavored to found an argument on the 
 opinions of the Jews, to show that the word everlasting must 
 signify endl(?ss duration. He says, as the Jews believed in 
 endless punishment, they would understand the word everlast- 
 ing to signify endless duration, and therefore they would be- 
 lieve this destruction to be endless destruction. An unfortu- 
 
71 
 
 nate argument this for a believer in endless misery. Suppose 
 we giat)t liiat ilie Jews believed in endless punishment in the 
 time oC Christ. Now we know that they did apply the words 
 rendered everlasiinf^, eternal, &;c. to leniporal things, (such as 
 the fire on the aliar, the possession of Canaan, the continu- 
 ance of the passover, the term of a slave's service, the time 
 of Jonah's being in the fish's belly, the priesthood, the stat- 
 utes of the law, the hills, the mountains, eic, etc. and particu- 
 larly the temporal judgments the nations suffered) then, accord- 
 ing to INIr. Braman's argument, Paul must have known that 
 they would apply the phrase everlasting to temporal things, 
 and, of course, if he did not mean to deceive them, he must 
 have meant a temporal judgment. 
 
 But Mr. Biaman calls on me to show, as the word is some- 
 times used in an unlimited sense, that it must be restricted in 
 the case before us. This is a very singular demand. Have I 
 not shown him, tliat it does not belong to me to lead in the 
 proof. I entirely destroy the argument founded on the word 
 everlasting, by showing that it is frequently used in a limited 
 sense. Now, if he cannot show that there is some peculiar 
 reason, why the word should be understood as implying end- 
 less duration, when connected with punishment, lie fails al- 
 together. And that he cannot, is perfectly evident, because 
 he calls on me to take the lead in the proof. 
 
 I am prepared, however, to say, (though it cannot be required 
 of me) that if there is any thing under heaven which we shoOld 
 naturally suppose could not be endless, it is punishment. 
 Can the eternal God, the great and good Jehovah, whose na- 
 ture is love, whose ' tender mercies are over all his works ' — 
 can he punish creatures without intending their good ? Cer- 
 tainly he cannot, and he has told us in his word that he will 
 not. In the ep-stle to the Hebrews (xii. 11,) we read, 
 ' Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, 
 but grievous ; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peacable 
 fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.' 
 This is the principle on which God punishes men, and it is 
 worthy of his nature. The punishment certainly cannot be 
 endless, for if it were, how could it afterwards yield the peace- 
 able fruit of righteousness to those who suffered it? Is there 
 any afterward to eternity ? 
 
 jVlr. Braman has stated that he will offset the humble opin- 
 ion of the apostle Paul against the humble opinion of the edit- 
 
72 
 
 or of the Trumpet. I repeat, that by the phrase ' blessirrg 
 all the nations of the earth in Christ,' particularly taken in 
 connexion with what he says in other places on this subject, 
 he must be understood to mean all mankind, as we will yet 
 show. 
 
 The attempt made by Mr. Braman to refer certain passa- 
 ges to a lime he calls the millenium, is, in n)y mind, worthy of 
 but little attention. I read nothing about any future milleni- 
 um in the Bible, and 1 must regard this as an awkward attempt 
 to get rid of the natural sense of the Scriptures. 
 
 I have before quoted certain passages of Scripture, by which 
 I have proved, thai the doctrine of Universal Salvation is re- 
 vealed in the Bible. Oihers are now to be adduced. The 
 passage in Gal. iii. S, remains in full force as I explained it. 
 All nations shall be blessed in Christ Jesus, by being turn- 
 ed away every one of them, as Peter says, from his iniqui- 
 ties. In Ron), xi. we read, as 1 have already hinted, that 
 'the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in. and all Israel shall 
 be saved.' Paul says to the Ephesians (i. 9. 10,) that God 
 hath made ' known to us the mystery of his will, which he 
 hath purposed in himself, that, in the dispensation of the ful- 
 ness of times, he might gather together in one all things in 
 Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, 
 even in him.' The same apostle declaies to the Philippians, 
 (ii. 9 — 11,) that God highly exalted Jesus, and gave liim ' a 
 name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
 and things under the earih, and that every tongue should con- 
 fess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.' 
 This proof of Umversalism is irresistible. Prof. Stuart has 
 frankly acknowledged concerning this text, in his Letters to 
 Channing, ' things in heaven, earth; and under the earth,' is 
 a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament 
 writers for the the universe.' What can be meant by things 
 in heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, 
 if spiritual worship be not meant? What other worship can 
 heaven render.^ Again, the same blessed apostle in his epistle 
 to the Romans, (v. 18 — 21,) speaks as follows : ' Therefore, 
 as by the ofTer.ce of one judgment came upon all men to con- 
 demnation ; even so by the righteousness of one, the iree gift 
 came upon all men unto juHtijicotion of life. For as by one 
 man's disobedience many were made sinners j so by the obedi- 
 
73 
 
 ence of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law 
 entered that the offence might ahound, but where sin abounded 
 grace did much more ahound, that as sin hath reigned unto 
 death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto 
 eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord,' The apostle here 
 teaches that all who are sinners shall be made righteous, and 
 that death shall reign co-extensively with sin. The many 
 (ver. 19) that were ' made sinners,' are by the Saviour * made 
 righteous.' And the remarks of Parkhurst and Macknight 
 are both to our purpose here. The former was a highly or- 
 thodox critic, the author of several lexicons. The phrase ren- 
 dered the many in ver. 19, is hoi polloi. He says it signifies 
 * the many, i. e. the multitude, or whole bulk of mankind. 
 See Rom. v. 15, 19, in which texts hoi polloi, (the many) 
 are plainly equivolent to pantas anthropous (all men) ver. 12, 
 18.' So far Parkhurst. See his Greek Lexicon, under the 
 word polus. Let us read the passage as he renders it. ' For 
 as by one man's disobedience, many, i. e, the many, the multi- 
 tude, the whole hulk of mankind were made sinners, so by the 
 obedience of one shall many, the many, i. e. the multitude, 
 the whole hulk of mankind, be made righteous.' Is not this 
 Universalism } Macknight is of the same opinion in regard to 
 the extent of the signification of this phrase. I am happy to 
 close this half hour with so full an exhibition of Scriptural 
 proof in favor of the Salvation of ALL MANKIND ; I regret 
 I have not now time to quote more. 
 
 3 o'clock 
 
 Mr. Braman commenced by saying that Mr. Whittemore 
 
 complained of him because he turned the subject into a laugh. 
 He said Mr. VVliiitemore had provoked him to do it, or he should 
 not have done it ; and if he provoked him again, he would do 
 it again [with much emphasis, and a blow on the desk with his 
 fit.] He repeated that he had been provoked to turn the sub- 
 ject into ridicule, or he should not have done it. He wished 
 to be solemn, and to treat the subject in a solemn manner, 
 and he would, if Mr. Whittemore would be solemn also. He 
 was willing to allow, that it was a solemn and awful subject to 
 treat upon, that men must be endlessly miserable. He laughed 
 10 
 
74 
 
 not at that, but at the absurd interpretations which Universal-* 
 ists give of the sacred Scriptures. These were proper sub- 
 jects of laugiiter. If he could laugh men out of error which 
 led their souls to destruction, he was doing them good, and 
 there was nothing unkind and unmerciful in it. 
 
 Mr. Braman proceeded to speak upon the parable of the 
 Rich Man and Lazarus. Mr. Whittemor« had allowed that 
 Lazarus was raised literally from the dead. He makes the 
 resurrection of Lazarus both literal and figurative. He said, 
 if the death of Lazarus represented his conversion to the gos- 
 pel of Christ by a renunciation of Paganism, then his resur- 
 rection proved that he had renounced Christianity and turned 
 pagan again. The argument remains strong and unobviated. 
 It is not done away. He had said the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem was a scape-goat to bear the sins of the world, and he 
 said so now. Universalists do refer passages which relate to 
 the destruction of the Gentiles to that subject. This had 
 been said to be false, but it was not false ; for they did refer 
 passages which related to the punishment and destruction of 
 the Gentiles in that way. 
 
 Nothing, he observed, had been said to shake his interpre- 
 tation of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Mr. 
 Whittenwre had given the opinion of some orthodox commen- 
 tators in favor of his interpretation ; but that interpretation 
 was ridiculous, and if any commentators adopted it, they were 
 ridiculous commentators. His, (Mr. B.'s) opinion of it re- 
 mained unchanged. Abraham's bosom was a figure — it was 
 not to be understood literally — it could not be. But it can- 
 not mean Christianity, as Mr. Whitternore interprets it, because 
 the Jews considered it as a representation of heaven. So Dr. 
 Lightfoot states in his works. They regarded it as a figure of 
 glory, of heaven, and to go to Abraham's bosom was to receive 
 a crown of happiness. 
 
 The passage from the 2d of Thessalonians was introduced 
 in this place : ' Who shall be punished with everlasting des- 
 truction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his 
 power.' He said Mr. Whittemore had persisted in applying 
 this passage to thedestruction of Jerusalem, but it cannot have 
 reference to that event. 
 
 1st, He said, the Thessalonians and tho-e who troubled 
 them lived at a distance from Jerusulem, and could not there- 
 fore be involved in the destruction of the Jews. He told Mr. 
 
76 
 
 Whittemore that the Gentiles also troubled the Christians, and 
 quoted him a passage of Scripture to prove it : 1 Thess. ii. 14. 
 
 2d, As to tlie time: ' To you who are troubled rest with 
 us.' At what time were they to enjoy this rest ? If it be 
 said, at the destruction of Jerusalem, the application will not 
 do. Paul was then dead. Now how was it possible for them 
 to rest with him at that time ? Then they must have been all 
 dead ; but this the Universalists will not allow. They could 
 not at any rate have been dead ; for Christ was to be glorified 
 in them that believe ; and the individuals spoken of, therefore 
 must be alive at the coming of Christ. 
 
 Mr. Braman here remarked again, that the Jews believed 
 in endless punishment — there can be no dispute of that fact. 
 Now how would the Jews understand Paul ? Would they not 
 understand him as teaching endless punishment ? Could they 
 possibly understand him otherwise ? He wished this might 
 be noticed. For his part, it convinced him, that the passage 
 in question taught absolutely that the wicked shall be made 
 to suffer endless punishment. 
 
 Mr. Braman then proceeded to a consideration of the word 
 EVERLASTING. There were some facts in regard to this word 
 he wislied to have stated. There could be no doubt, that it 
 was used oftener for unlimited duration, than it was for limited. 
 As this would not be disputed, he inquired by what rule we 
 should determine what it means in the passage before us. 
 There were many cases, he knew, where the word everlasting 
 was applied to things of a temporary nature, and where it 
 could not mean endless duration. But in respect to these 
 things, it was developed in other passages of Scripture, that 
 they should come to an end ; and the word everlasting was 
 known from this circumstance to signify limited duration in those 
 cases. Now, he said, let Mr. Whittemore show that this pun- 
 ishment shall end, and let him show when it shall end. This 
 it was his duty to do ; for it must be unlimited, unless it is prov- 
 ed by certain circumstances that it is limited. 
 
 Again : This word is applied to the existence of God, and 
 to the happiness of the righteous. Why is it applied to these 
 subjects, if it does not mean endless duration ? It certainly 
 does mean endless duration ; and we know it does, because it 
 is applied to these subjects. If it will prOve the endless exis- 
 tence of God, and the endless happiness of the righteous, why 
 will it not also prove the enless punishment of the impenitent 
 sinner .'' 
 
16 
 
 Mr. Whittemore, said Mr. B., has quoted the 12th chapim* 
 of Hebrews, 8ih, 9th, and I2th verses, by which he endeav- 
 ored to prove that punishment afterward yieldeth the peacea- 
 ble fruit of righteousness unto all them which are exercised 
 thereby. But here we must inquire who was the apostle 
 speaking of? and who Was he speaking to? He was speaking 
 to Christians, not to all men ; he was not speaking to those 
 who do not love God. All things work together for good to 
 those who love God. God does not punish all men for their 
 good. The force of this example rests on the word chasten^ 
 ing. The meaning of this word should be ascertained. It 
 means a chastisement which results in good as the effect of it* 
 But all punishments are not of this character, for afflictions do 
 not always produce good in this life. If the passage in He- 
 brews has reference to all men, then the Bible contradicts it* 
 self; for Isaiah, i. 5, says, 'Why should ye be stricken any 
 more, ye will revolt more and more.' 
 
 He referred again to the passage in Gal. iii. 8 — * In thee 
 shall alienations be blessed. ' None were included in this ex- 
 pression, he said, except those who possess the faith of Abra- 
 ham. (Reads.) * Even as Abraham believed God, and it 
 was counted to him for righteousness ; know ye therefore, that 
 they which are of faith, are blessed the same as the children 
 of Abraham. So, then, they which be of faith are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham.' Verses. 6, 7, 9. 
 
 The passage ' all Israel shall be saved.' This does not 
 prove Universalism. It means all Israel who shall then exist 
 in the world. It does not refer to the glory of the righteous 
 in heaven. It refers to this world, not to the future state. If 
 it refers to heaven, how will you understand the words — 
 ' turn away ungodliness from Jacob .'' ' Will there be ungodli- 
 ness in heaven ? Will Jacob be turned away from ungodliness 
 in heaven ? ^11 must evidently be restricted to a part here. 
 
 The passage which Mr. Whittemore has quoted from Ephe- 
 sians does not prove Universalism : ' That he might gather 
 together in one all things in Christ.' Who evidently are in- 
 tended here ? Not all men, but all who are in Christ. All 
 things in Christ. It means all on earth and in heaven who are 
 interested in Christ; and thus you see this passage does not 
 answer Mr. Whittemore's purpose. It is limited — it does not 
 mean all mankind. 
 
 Mr. Braman next referred to the passage in Philippians: 
 
77 
 
 * Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.' Mr. Whitte- 
 more has quoted Prof. Stuart to show that this passage means 
 all mankind. Mr. B. once asked Prof. Stuart what his views 
 of this text were, and he said it had reference to the suprema'^ 
 cy of Christ, and not to their voluntary worship. He believ- 
 ed that all would bow, but some would do it voluntarily, and 
 some involuntarily. The apostle asserts in another place, 
 that the meaning of this passage is, that all shall give account 
 at the tribunal of Christ. All did not give account at the 
 judgment seat of Christ, when the destruction of Jerusalem 
 took place, nor at any other time. The unavoidable conclu- 
 sion is, therefore, that the judgment is not in this world. When 
 Mr. Whittemore quoted the passage, — ' every knee shall bow 
 and every tongue confess,' he was careful to add the word 
 sincerely ; he said, every tongue shall confess sincerely. This 
 word is not in the passage. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore has quoted a passage from the epistle to 
 the Romans : ' As by the offence of one, judgment came up- 
 on all men to condemnation,' &ic. This passage will not answer 
 Mr. Whittemore's purpose, because it proves too muck. Mr. 
 Braman here quoted Professor Stuart, who explained the pas- 
 sage to mean, all have the offer of salvation, not all shall actu- 
 ally be saved. As by the sin of Adam all are exposed to 
 eternal misery, so by the sufferings and death of Christ, all 
 are put into a salvable state. But they must accept the prof- 
 fered righteousness, or they perish. If it prove anything like 
 what Mr. Whittemore would wish to have it, it proves that all 
 men have eternal life now, and therefore it proves too much. 
 It does not answer his purpose at all. 
 
 Mr. Braman here recapitulated his argument on Thessa- 
 lonians. He had shown that it could not be those who perse- 
 cuted and troubled the Thessalonians that were destroyed at 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. It must be others, and there- 
 fore the passage could not refer to the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. Moreover, Paul died before the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. The rest, therefore, of which he spoke, and which 
 they were to enjoy with him, could not be rest at the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, unless they were all dead. 
 
 He should now bring forward another passage to prove end- 
 less misery. It was Matt. xxv. 46. 'These shall go away 
 \mo everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternaK' 
 This spoke of the endless misery of the wicked, and of the 
 
'78 
 
 endless happiness of the righteous, the duration of which 
 was in each case denoted by the same word. Here he 
 was obliged to speak again about the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 for the Universalists applied this text also to that event. It is 
 true — this text also they apply to that event. He would ex- 
 amine this. It was said in the passage, ' and before him shall 
 be gathered all nations.' Now this proves that others besides 
 Jews were involved in the judgment, and therefore the passage 
 could not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Notice also, 
 that this everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his an- 
 gels. It was not prepared for men at the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, but for the devil and his angels. He knew the answer 
 that would be returned to this. Mr. Whittemore says that the 
 devil means the Jewish hierarchy. Now, the Jews believed 
 in the existence of a being called the devil, and how would 
 they, therefore, have understood Christ.'' They could not 
 have understood him, as Mr. Whittemore does. He acknowl- 
 edged that some of the names applied to the devil, were at 
 times applied to human adversaries. But the devil cannot 
 always mean human adversaries, or evil passions. Christ was 
 tempted of the devil, and he surely, in this case, could not be 
 said to be tempted by human personal adversaries, or by hu- 
 man passions. St. Paul exhorted the Christians to stand 
 against the wiles of the devil. And then he adds, ' For we 
 wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, 
 against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this 
 world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.' Here hu- 
 man adversaries are distinguished from the devil. As all na- 
 tions were to be gathered together, and judged and separated, 
 this passage cannot be referred to the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. And another difficulty to this interpretation was, — how 
 could the devil suffer then in the fire that was prepared for 
 him ? This passage of scripture must refer to future punish- 
 ment. 
 
 Moreover, everlasting punishment, and eternal life are, in 
 this passage, set against each other by contrast : ' These shall 
 go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into 
 life eternal.' Nov^^ if the word bears the signification of end- 
 less, in the one [)art of the verse, why not in the other ? If 
 it means endless when applied to life, why not when applied 
 to punishment? But if, on the other hand, the word -does not 
 signify endless duration in either case, then the happiness of 
 
79 
 
 the saints cannot be proved to be endless. And if the happi- 
 ness of the saints cannot be proved to be endless, they may 
 become sinners, or perhaps be annihilated. 
 
 [Here Rev. Mr. Taylor, the principal Moderator, arose and 
 saia', that it was hoped the gentlemen disputants would ob- 
 serve the rules, and maintain dignity in all their remarks.! 
 
 Half past 3 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore. We have once more had the parable 
 of the Rich Man and Lazarus brought forward, and I meet it 
 with the arguments which I have been compelled to repeat so 
 often. The gentleman relies upon the eternal continuance of 
 hades and the gulf'in order to prove the endless misery of the 
 rich man. What proof is there that these things are to con- 
 tinue endlessly? Has he given you any proof? Is there any 
 thing said in the parable, from which you can learn that Aarfes, 
 or whatever is represented by it, is to continue endlessly? 
 There is not. On the other hand, I have given you proof that 
 hades will be destroyed, as Hosea says, ' O hades, I will be thy 
 destruction.' Mr. Braman has acknowledged, that this means 
 the complete destruction of hades, but. he says that /<ac/eA is used 
 as a figure of the trials of the people of God in this life. Very 
 well ; 1 explain I^es in th^ parable, as he explains it in Hosea ; 
 and if he will explain it in the one case, as he does in the other, 
 we are agreed, and the dispute about the parable is ended. 
 
 The passage in 2d Thess. has also been brought up again, 
 and the former arguments, and the former mistakes, have been 
 repeated. The gentleman alleged that it was not the Jews, 
 who persecuted the Thessalonians, but their own countrymen. 
 It is enough for me simply to deny this statement, for the Jews 
 were the- movers and instigators of the persecutions in Thessa- 
 lonica. [Mr. Whittemore gave a broad denial to Mr. Braman's 
 statement as far as it conceined the Jews, and there he left it, 
 with no very faint impression that Mr. Braman must have known 
 his own statement was incorrect.] 
 
 As it regards the argument that Paul was dead at the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, I shall answer it as I did before. This 
 rnakes no difference at all. Paul did not know that he should 
 die, and it was evident from some parts of his writings, th^ he 
 
80 
 
 knew not but he might live until the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem.* 
 
 Mr. Braman has again brought up the subject of the word 
 everlasting. He concedes, as he did before, all I have at- 
 tempted to prove concerning this word, viz. that it is very fre- 
 quently used in the Scriptures in a limited sense. It behoved 
 him therefore to bring forward the proof, that it must signify 
 endless duration in the passages which he adduces as proof of 
 endless misery. That proof he has not given. But he tells 
 us, that the way in which we know that some things to which 
 this word is applied are of limited duration, is this — they are 
 said in other places to be limited. Well, then, it is certain, 
 that the word everlasting is applied to things, which it was no- 
 torious, were of limited duration. But Mr. Braman adds, that 
 this word is applied to the existence of God, and the happi- 
 ness of the righteous ; and he infers from this, we suppose 
 
 * It would have been well for Mr Braman to have inquired, what sense 
 the Jews put upon this expression — ' the presence of the Lord and the glory 
 of his power.' These terms were applied by the Jews to God's dwelling 
 with them in the Ark, and in the temple upon mount Zion. When Moses 
 went out of Egypt, God said, ' My presence shall go with thee, and I will 
 give thee rest.' Exod. xxxiii. 14. And Moses said, ' if thy presence go not 
 with me, carry me not up hence.' 15. When Jehoshaphat stood in the house 
 of God at Jerusalem, he said, ' If when evil come upon us, as the sword, 
 judtrment, pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house and inthy preS' 
 ence (for thy name is in this house) and cry unto thee in our affliction then 
 thou wilt hear and help. ' 2 Chron. xx. 9. So, to come into the temple, ' was 
 to come before his presence,' Psalms xcv. 2, and c. 2. And Jonah is said 
 to have fled from the presence of the Lord.' Jonah i. 3. The temple also, 
 was regarded as the repository of God's glory and power. What then did 
 the Jews understand by being destroyed from the presence of God, and the 
 glory of his power.' Most evidently, not being punished in the future 
 state. This was not the way 'they understood it. To be deprived of the 
 presence of God they understood as being driven out from Zion, from Je- 
 rusalem, and as losing their privileges as the highly favored people of God. 
 The passages we have quoted show this. Here we apply Mr. Braman's ar- 
 gument, founded on Jewish opinions. Paul knew how the Jews under- 
 stood this matter, and unless he meant to deceive them, he must have given 
 to his language the sense they themselves put upon it. Ergo, Mr. Braman, 
 he did not speak of punishment in the future state. 
 
 The above argument was included in the notes on this passage in Thess. 
 which 1 had with me at Dan vers \ but in the hurry of the debate it was un- 
 intentionally ommitted. As I am always pleased to oppose the arguments 
 for endless misery by sound orthodox authority, I will just add, that Dr. 
 Hammond says of this passage, ' it belongs to somewhat then approaching 
 and wherein those Thessalonians were thus concerned, {not to the general 
 judgment yet future.) T. W, 
 
81 
 
 that the word in itself is sufficient proof of the endless duration 
 of punishment. But here let us make an inquiry. We wish 
 to know how he determines that the word in these instances 
 must have an endless signification ? He seems to talk with 
 some considerable confidence here, as though, he felt quite 
 sure ; how does he know, we inquire again, that the word has 
 an unlimited signification, in these instances ? This is the an- 
 swer; he infers the extent of duration for the word everlasting 
 from the nature of the subject to which it is applied. ^ Well, 
 this is a good rule. I do not object to it. If the subject to 
 which the word is applied be one that must be supposed to 
 have endless existence, such as the nature and glory of God, 
 then the word everlasting would be interpreted to signify end- 
 less duration ; but if the subject be one which is known to be 
 limited in its duration, as the hills, the mountains, the priest- 
 hood, the statutes, he. he, we know the word must have a 
 limited signification. Apply this rule to the case before us. Is 
 there any thing in the nature of punishment itself which requires 
 that it should be endless ? Certainly not. If we may infer 
 from the benevolence of the Deity, what he will do to his crea- 
 tures, we have the best of reasons for supposing that he will 
 punish them for their good. What other motive is there in 
 administering punishment that is worthy of the great and good 
 God, ' who is good to all, and whose tender mercies are over 
 all his works.' Every one must be sensible at once, that it is 
 not the dictate o^ goodness to punish merely for the sake of 
 punishing. Who can ascribe such a purpose to the God of 
 heaven ? What good parent is there on earth, who punishes 
 his children only for the sake of tormenting them ? You will 
 submit that they may sufFer pain, if you believe it will result in 
 their good ; but for no other reason ever thought of would you 
 consent to it. To relieve your child from pain, you will have 
 a tooth extracted ; to save its life, you will have a limb ampu- 
 tated ; but if it was believed that the operation would not re- 
 sult in the child's good, who has a heart hard enough to consent 
 to it ! Now has not God as much love, as much mercy, as 
 much goodness to every individual he has created, as earthly 
 parents have to their children ? I say again, then, that if there 
 is any thing which must be limited in its duration, under the 
 government of God, it is punishment. 
 
 We have heard once more that the word all is restricted to 
 a part. I have quoted the expressions, ' all nations,' 'all 
 11 
 
82 
 
 kindreds,' and 'all families,' of the earth. Are all these terms 
 used in regard to one promise, and all this to signify a part ? 
 All shall know me from the least to the greatest.' Can this 
 mean a part ? 
 
 Mr. Braman has attempted to do away the force of a pas- 
 sage in Eph. i. 10, which declares that God 'will gather to- 
 gether in one all things in Christ.' But says Mr. Braman, 
 this does not mean God will gather all men, but only those 
 who are in Christ. Reply, the gathering was to be to Christ 
 of those who had not been brought to him. ' Unto him shall 
 the gathering of the people be.' ' If I be lifted up from the 
 earth, I will draw all men unto me? 
 
 The passage which next troubled Mr. Braman was Phil. ii. 
 9, 10. ' Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.' 
 This only implies subjection, says Mr. Braman, in some volun- 
 tary and some involuntary. Does Paul say any thing of this 
 kind .'' Does he say a port are to bow in one way, and a part 
 in another? The same blessed apostle says, no man can say 
 that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.' 1 Cor. xii. 
 3. Are men forced to acknowledge Christ, who do it by the 
 sweet influences of the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Braman endeavored to set aside Rom. v. 18. ' The 
 free gift came vpon all men unto justification of life.' He 
 told us this signified an offer, and he added that Professor Stu- 
 art said so. Well, vvlratever it was, offer or gift, it was effec- 
 tual ; it came upon all men unto justif cation of life. Are 
 those who possess the justification of life to be punished for- 
 ever .'' To be justified unto life is to be made righteous. 
 This is explained in the succeeding verse : ' As by the offence 
 of one, many were made sinners, so by the righteousnesof one, 
 shall many be made righteous. 
 
 At last the gentleman has brought up, Matt. xxv. 46 ; 
 ' These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
 righteous into life eternal.' Mr. Braman flatters himself that 
 he can prove, by this passage, his favorite doctrine of endless 
 condemnation. But this will fail him, as all the rest have, 
 which he has attempted. The passage is part of a parable 
 commencing at the 31st verse of the chapter; and the para- 
 ble is part of a discourse delivered by Jesus to his disciples, 
 which commences at the begiimingof the 24ih chapter. The 
 24th and 525th chapters both belong to the same subject, and 
 are a continued discourse. But to go no further back than the 
 
83 
 
 3 1 St verse, the beginning of the parable itself : * When the Son 
 of man shall come in his glory, and all his holy angels with 
 him, then shall he sit upon tlie throne of his glory,' &.c. &,c. 
 Tlien t!iis parable wns all to be fulfilled at the time, wken the 
 Son of Mill came in his glory. And here we inquire, whtn 
 <lid the Son of Man come in his glory? I will give Christ's 
 own answer to this question : ' For the Son of Man shall come 
 in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall 
 reward every man according to his works. Verily, I say unto 
 you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, 
 till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' Matt, 
 xvi. 27, 23. Here then we see, that the event called the com- 
 ing of Christ took place during the natural lives of the gF;nera- 
 aiion which was on the earth, at the time the Saviour spake ; 
 and as this parable was to be fulfilled, token he came in his glory, 
 it was then fulfilled. But the genileman urges upon us the 
 expression^' before hicn shall be gathered all nations,^ as a proof 
 the parable was not then fulfilled. It was nations that were 
 separated. There was then a gathering of the nations against 
 Jerusalem. Zechariah uses similar language, though perhaps 
 in reference to a different period: 'And in that day will I 
 make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people : all that 
 burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, tliough all the 
 people of the earth be gathered together against it.' [Compare 
 chap. xxiv. 9, 14.] But Mr. Braman alleges very truly, that 
 he fire was said to be prepared for the devil and his angels, 
 and of course it could not be a punishment in this world. But 
 the answer is, the word devil was used by the New Testament 
 writers to signify the enemies of the Christians, for whom this 
 punishment was prepared. See Rev. ii. 10. (Reads.) ' Fear 
 none of those things which thou shalt suffer : behold, the devil 
 shall cast some of you into prison,* that ye may be tried : and 
 ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto 
 death, and I will give thee a crown of life.' What was meant 
 by the devil in this passage } Those certainly who cast the 
 Christians into prison, viz. their opposers and persecutors; or 
 
 * How would the argument founded on Jewish opinions apply here ? We 
 see by this quotation, (and many others might be made, if necessary.) tiiat 
 the Jews used the word devil to signify humin adversaries. When Christ 
 therefore spoke of tiie ' devil and liis angels ' in the parable, unless he 
 meant to deceive the Jews, he must have intended human adversaries. 
 Mr. Braman cannot complain against his own argument. 
 
84 " 
 
 the Jewish hierarchy, if Mr. Braman is better pleased with that 
 phrase. The devil and his angels in the parable, we under- 
 stand to be those who persecuted Christ and his apostles. 
 :' The gentleman told us, in the course of his ren)arks, that 
 the happiness of the saints and the misery of the wicked are 
 set forth, in the passage he h?s quoted from Matt, by way of 
 contrast. The one is set against the other, and they evident- 
 ly mean the two opposite things, eternal punishment and eter- 
 nal happiness. Does this gentleman need now to be informed, 
 that Universalists suppose that neither the one nor the other 
 refers to the future state of existence ? ' They do not apply 
 the life to one world, and the punishment to another. ' Eternal 
 life ' is a '^ew Testament phrase, used to signify that state of 
 knowledge, purity and peace which is enjoyed by the believer 
 in Christ here on the earth. Jesus said, in reference to this 
 subject, ' Verily, verily 1 say unto }ou, he that heareth my 
 word, and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life^ 
 and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death 
 unto life.^ John v. 24. The life here spoken of was a bles- 
 sing which the believer in Christ enjoyed in the faith which 
 he cherished. The Saviour says again, ' and this is life eter- 
 nal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ whom thou hast sent.' Here the knowledge of God is ex- 
 pressly called 'life eternal.' Again the apostle John declares, 
 ' we know that we have passed from death unto life, because 
 we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideih 
 in death.' 1 John iii. 14. These quotations are sufficient to 
 show, that the sacred writers used the phrases ' life ' and ' eter- 
 nal life,^ or as it sometimes is translated ' everlasting life,' to 
 signify that moral, spiritual, happy condition, which believing 
 in Christ conferred upon the soul ; and ignorance of God, and 
 hatred of men, they describe as a state of death. Hence in 
 the parable, as the Jews were in that state of death, and were 
 about to be punished with great severity for their hatred of 
 Christ, and his followers, their condition is set in contrast with 
 the happy condition of the believer : These shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. . 
 
 But we are required to tell, what proof there is of the end- 
 less happiness of the righteous in heaven, if it is not proved by 
 this word ? Universalists do not depend on this word to es- 
 tablish the fact of a luiure existence ; they are aware that the 
 mere force of this word would be no proof at all of that impor- 
 
86 
 
 tant fact. And so the apostle Paul seems to have supposed ; 
 for he has endeavored to add to the force of the vvoid when 
 he applied it to the future glory of mankind. The passage 
 which I refer to, is 2 Cor. iv. 17 : ' For our light affliction, 
 which is but for a moment, shall work out for us, a far more 
 exceeding eternal weight of glory,' not a far more exceeding 
 and eternal weight of glory, for the conjunction ' and ' in this 
 place is supplied by the translators. We are told by the best 
 of critics, tiiat the phrase which occurs here in the Greek, is 
 a peculiar one, and that it is almost impossible to translate it. 
 Our translators have rendered it — 'far more exceeding.' 
 But however it may be rendered, the object of it was to des- 
 cribe an excess over and above the force of the word render- 
 ed eternal. ' Far more exceeding eternal weight of glory.' 
 It was a weight of glory which far exceeded what might with 
 propriety be called everlasting. Now if St. Paul's views of this 
 word agreed with those of the opposers of Universalism in the 
 present age, what necessity was there for the extraordinary 
 method of speech which he on that occasion employed .-' 
 
 I have thus noticed the arguments of Mr. Braman, so far 
 certainly as it seems to me to be necessary, and shall now pro- 
 ceed to adduce more evidence to show, that the sacred wri- 
 ters believed in the glorious doctrine of universal holiness and 
 happiness. Take, in the first place, the expression of John 
 the Baptist concerning Christ, 'Behold the Lamb of God, who 
 taketh away the sin of the world.' If the sin of the world 
 shall ever be taken away, universal holiness and happiness 
 must ensue. 
 
 I cannot see that the vision which Peter had, of the vessel 
 like a sheet let down from heaven, can be explained and car- 
 ried out in all its parts, without teaching the doctrine of Uni- 
 versalism. This vessel like a sheet was knit together at the 
 four corners ; and when Peter had fastened his eyes upon it, 
 he saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and 
 creeping things and fowls of the air. They w-ere a represen- 
 tation of all classes and characters of men. The voice said, 
 ' Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' ' Not so Lord,' he cried, and 
 rendered as a reason, that nothing common or unclean had ever 
 entered his mouth. The voice replies, ' what God hath cleans- 
 ed, that call not thou common.' ' This was done three times, 
 and all ivere drown vp again into heaven.' Peter understood 
 this collection of animals to represent all mankind ; for he says 
 
86 
 
 he learned from this vision ' to call no man common or unclean,' 
 which he could not have learned, ifihey had not all been rep- 
 resented there. They all came down from heaven, and so all 
 mankind came from God ; — they were all preserved in the 
 vessel knit carefully together at the four corners, so that none 
 were lost, and thus all mankind are constantly preserved in 
 the kind care of God while they are on earth ; and as every 
 thing which was contained in this vessel like a sheet, went up 
 agaio into heaven, (for ' all were drawn up again into heaven,' 
 Acts xi. 10,) it must have represented the salvation of all 
 mankind. It strikes me. that if a part of the human race are 
 to be lost forever, this vision should have been so framed, that 
 a part should have been lost from the vessel whde it was be- 
 fore Peter, so that the whole might not have been drawn up 
 again into heaven. 
 
 Paul was a Universalist. He says 1 Cor. xv. 22, ^ As in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.^ Here 
 all men are represented as being made alive in the sr.me man- 
 ner, and in the same condition. They are all made alive in 
 Christ, even as many as die in Adam. 
 
 The same apostle, in his epistle to the Colossians, teaches 
 the ' reconcili;ition of all things to God.' Hear hitn :- ' For 
 it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all fulness 
 dwell ; and (having made peace through the blood of his cross) 
 by him to keconcile all things unto himself ; by him, 1 
 say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.' 
 Here again is Prof. Stuarf's periphrasis for the universe. All 
 things, in this place, he interprets to signify all intelligent be- 
 ings ; who render honor and glory to Christ ; and Paul declares 
 they shall be all reconciled to God. There is no forced sub- 
 jection here, no compulsory bowing to, and, confessing of Jesus 
 Christ ; no, it is all sweet subjection to his will, and reconci- 
 liation to God the Father. The phrase, all things in earth 
 and in heaven, signifies, as we should naturally suppose, and 
 as the orthodox critics allow, all intelligent beings ; and they 
 are all to be reconciled to God in due time. This it pleased 
 the Father to do ; this work Jesus the Saviour has undertaken, 
 and all power is committed unto him for that purpose, and this 
 work Paul decliires shall be done. God will ' reconcile all 
 
 THINGS UNTO HIMSELF.' 
 
 The opinion of the apostle John is expressed in the follow- 
 ing language : ' We have seen and do testify, that the Father 
 
87 
 
 sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.' 1 John iv. 14. 
 Connpare this with the tesiirnony of Paul last quoted. There 
 it is stated, it pleased the Father that in Christ all fiijncss should 
 dwell, and by him to reconcile all things unto hinisell'; and 
 here it is declared that the Father sent the Son to be the Sa- 
 viour of the world. ^ This agrees precisely with what Jesus 
 says ol himseli, in refercMice to the effect ol his crucifixion. 
 He seems to have anticipated ' the time when all mankind shall 
 be reconciled to God, as he has expressed it in that cheering 
 snd glorious assurance, ' and I, if I be lilted up from the earth, 
 will draw all men imio me.' John xii. 32. 
 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Braman proceeded to remark on the parable of the 
 Rich jMan and Lazarus. He inquired, how shall hades be de- 
 stroyed ? As it shall be cast into a lake of fire. Does it 
 prove that the Rich Man's punishment will cease because 
 death and hell shall be cast into a lake of fire — another 
 fire ,'' 
 
 If the passage referred to limited punishment, he asked why 
 Abraham did not say .?o. Why did he not tell the Rich Man 
 that his sufferings should end .-' The Jews, it was well known, 
 believed in the doctrine of future punishment, of endless pun- 
 ishment He wished to know wheiher they ever disputed 
 with Jesus on this point. They certainly would have disputed 
 with him on this subject, if he had taught the doctrine of Uni- 
 versal salvation. It is evident from Luke xx. 35, 36, that 
 Christ (lid not teach the doctrine of LTniversal salvation. If he 
 had taught it, ihe Jews would have disputed with and opposed 
 him on this point. If a Universalist of the present day were 
 to preach to a congregation of believers in endless misery, and 
 should not contradict endless misery, it would be very strange 
 — very strange indeed. Now if Jesus did not believe in endless 
 misery, benevolence required that he should say more. If he 
 believed in LTniversal salvation, he ought to have said more, 
 and put people on their guard against endless misery, which 
 then prevailed extensively in the world. 
 
 Mr. Braman said he should offer some further reinarks on 
 the word everlasting. Mr. Whiiteinore has brought forward 
 
88 
 
 repeatedly certain orthodox writers and critics, as he says, who 
 acknowledge that ihe word everlasting is used in the Scripiures 
 in a limited sense. Now, ]\lr. Braman admitted it all and 
 more. He was very willing to acknowledge, that the word is 
 often used to signify a limited duration, but it is often used also 
 to signify an unlimited duration. There could be no dispute of 
 what is here said, either on the one side or the other ; aiKl 
 Mr. VVhittemore need not have given himself the trouble to 
 have adduced the authorities on this point. He did not know 
 that it had ever been denied. But if the orthodox do use the 
 word in a limited sense, as it was confessed they some- 
 limes do, may they not also use it in an unlimited sense ? In 
 conversation, he said, he might use the word in a limited 
 sense, and in preaching, in an unlimited sense. And 
 because the word is sometimes used in the Bible in a 
 limited sense, it does not prove that it is not often used there 
 in an unlimited sense. Mr. Braman said, that when the word 
 everlasting was used in connexion with an object which is to 
 have an end, something of the kind is mentioned, and we are 
 told that the thing is not endless ; and he wished Mr. Whilte- 
 more to notice this argument. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore does not seem to deny, that the passage in 
 Thessalonians refers to a future state of punishment — he ap- 
 pears to have given this up. 
 
 Mr. Braman would proceed to notice the passage in Matt. 
 XXV. ' These shall go away into everlasting punishment, bvt 
 ihe righteous into life eternal.^ Universalists apply this whole 
 subject to the destruction of Jerusalem — all that is said in the 
 24ih and 25th chapters of Matt. He believed that two com- 
 ings of Christ were spoken of, and that the disciples had two 
 different events in their view when they inquired, ' what shall 
 be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? ' They 
 had two different events in view ; they connected the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem with the end of the world. Mr. Braman 
 believed, he said, in two comings of Christ, — the one at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and the other at the end of the 
 world. The last is proposed by the passage in 2 Thess. 
 
 The word everlasting, said Mr. Braman, is applied to hap- 
 piness and misery antithetically. Professor Stuart had shown, 
 (where two words were used by way of antithesis, that the sig- 
 nification of the one, must be governed by the signification of 
 the other ; and if eternal signified endless duration when ap- 
 plied to life, it certainly must when applied to punishnaent. ] 
 
89 
 
 Mr. Balfour had acknowledged the justness of this rule in somo 
 of his works, that if a word is used in two parts of a sentence 
 antitheiically, it must have equal force on each side, the bal- 
 ance of signification must be" preserved — what it means in 
 one branch of the antithesis it means in the other.; Balfour 
 contends that the passage refers to a state of things in this life 
 — both the punishment and the life are to take place in this 
 world. Mr. Whittemore has attempted to prove the same 
 thing. He has endeavored to show, that the life is enjoyed 
 by the believer in this world. This may be. Mr. Braman 
 would not deny it ; but because it was begun to be enjoyed 
 here, it would not prove that it did not extend into the future 
 life. It did extend into the future life, and was endless. To 
 show that the Universalists' views of the 25ih of Matthew are 
 false, Mr. Braman alleged diat all nations shall be gathered 
 together. This could not mean nations collectively, as Mr. 
 Whittemore imagined ; for there were no nations, as such, to 
 whom the words of Jesus could apply, and who were worthy 
 of the eternal life promised in the passage. Universalists con- 
 cede that individuals are intended, and not nations collectively. 
 Mr. Braman adduced the authority of Dr. Lighifoot to show it 
 was the general opinion, that when Christ should come, the 
 nations should be destroyed, the world should be destroyed, 
 and Christ should reign over the saints. Mr. Braman refer- 
 red to the 24th chapter of Matt. The language of this chap- 
 ter must be interpreted with reference to the opinions of the 
 Jews — those who heard it. Certain German writers had put 
 their finger on the very place where Jesus left off speaking of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and proceeded to speak of the end 
 of the world ; and he supposed he himself could do the same. 
 It was evident, a part of this scripture referred to the end of 
 the world, and the future judgment. 
 
 The wicked are represented in the account before us, as 
 knowing Christ. This cannot mean the Jews, who went into 
 a state of darkness and of ignorance ; for at the destruction of 
 Jerusalem the Jews did not know Christ. As the wicked are 
 represented as knowing Christ, it cannot mean that they went 
 into a state of darkness and ignorance merely. Mr. Braman 
 had abundance of proof from Dr. Lightfoot to show what the 
 opinions of the Jews were on the subjects that had been refer- 
 red to ; and it seems Jesus must have referred to the opinion of 
 the Jews. There can be no question that everlasting punish- 
 12 
 
90 
 
 ment shall remain as long as eternal life ; and i as eternal life 
 has been proved to be endless, by antithesis, the punishment 
 must be endless also, ; The Jews certainly understood the 
 word aionios to signify endless duration, and if Jesus did not 
 so intend to use it, he ought to have been more guarded, for 
 they would have supposed him doubtless so to have used it.;, 
 Here too Mr. Braman remarked, that if we could not prove 
 the endless happiness of the righteous, then indeed, for any 
 thing we know, the saints might all become sinners, and all 
 be annihilated. 
 
 He would notice the argument of Mr. Whittemore founded 
 on the passage in 2 Cor. iv. — ' shall work out for us a far 
 more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.' He denied the 
 argument of Mr. Whittemore. The expressions translated/ar 
 more exceeding, might be translated, very great, very astonish- 
 ing ; and the passage furnished no such proof as Mr. Whitte- 
 more endeavored to gain from it. 
 
 He should proceed to notice the passages of Scripture which 
 Mr. Whittemore had advanced, for the purpose of proving 
 universal salvation. Mr. W. had adduced the text, ' As in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' 
 Christ is here speaking of the resurrection of the dead, and not 
 of the salvation of the soul. The Corinthians had disputed the 
 resurrection, and Paul was endeavoring to prove it — that all 
 should be made alive from the grave at the resurrection. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore had brought forward the passage, ' Behold 
 the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.' la 
 what sense did Jesus take away the sin of the world ? He 
 made an expiation for the sins of all mankind. In Mr. W.'s 
 view of the passage too much is proved, for the sin of the world 
 are not all taken away. 
 
 It was next alleged by Mr. Whittemore, that Jesus was the 
 Saviour of the world, and was so acknowledged by the Samari- 
 tans. But the Jews and Samaritans both believed that Christ 
 would save a part of mankind only ; and they spoke in pefect 
 agreement with this, when they said that Christ was the Sa- 
 viour of the world. Mr. Braman proceeded to illustrate in 
 ihe case of General Washington. He was called the Saviour 
 of his country, yet he did not save every individual. Some 
 died, and were killed in battle. He was called the Saviour of 
 his country on general principles. 
 
 Here the half hour expired. 
 
91 
 
 Half patt 4 o^clock. 
 
 Mr. Whittemore would lake the liberty to remark, before 
 he commenced his argument, that he would endeavor to be 
 brief. The shades of evening are beginning to fall, and although 
 I am entitled to the half hour, yet I shall not find It necessary 
 to occupy all my time. The last speech of the gentleman on 
 the other side was, with a few exceptions, precisely what 
 he had said before ; and time need not be spent in replying 
 again to arguments which had been fully refuted. It should 
 also be observed, that Rev. Mr. Taylor will close the occasion 
 with prayer ; and it was hoped the congregation would remain, 
 and give diligent attention to ihe service. 
 
 The gentleman very grossly misrepresented me, when he 
 told you I had given up the passage in Thessalonians, and ac- 
 knowledged it to refer to the subject of future punishment. I 
 have done no such thing, I have made no such concession. 
 My views of that passage are not altered in the least ; nor 
 have I seen the shadow of a reason for altering them. 
 / As it regards what I said about eternal life, the gentleman 
 has conceded it — he allows it is the life enjoyed by the 
 believer in this world. If so, and if it be used by way of an- 
 tithesis, what is the inference ? / 
 
 We have been told that the German critics can lay their 
 fingers on the passage at which Jesus left oft' speaking of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and commenced to speak of the fu- 
 ture state. It is very evident these men have not the faculty 
 to see what is not to be seen. I recollect once to have had a 
 conversation with Dr. Beecher on this subject. I requested 
 him to point out to me the place where the Saviour ceased to 
 speak of this world, and commenced to speak of a future 
 judgment. He put his finger at the beginning of the 24th 
 chapter, and run down column after column, until he came to 
 the end of the 25th, withont finding the dividing line. He 
 went immediately back again, and run his finger along until he 
 came to the- begining of the 2.5th chapter, when he insisted 
 that the division was there. I showed him that the 25th chap- 
 ter began with the word then which referred to the same time 
 of which the Saviour had been speaking in the 24th ; but he 
 said the word then was sometimes used without any particular 
 application. Some of the orthodox critics, and Bishop 
 Pearce particularly, I recollect, apply the 24th and 25th chap- 
 ters to one subject, vii. the destruction Jerusalem. 
 
92 
 
 As to the renewed assertion that the Jews believed aionios 
 to signify endless duration, it needs that nothing be said. 1 
 have shown repeatedly here this day, that the Jews were in 
 habit of using this word to signify limited duration ; so that 
 the argument of the gentleman, founded on the opinions of 
 the Jews, is altogether against him, and in favor of the appli- 
 cation of this word to temporal subjects. 
 
 The gentleman said a very few words in regard to the pas- 
 sage I quoted from 2 Cor. ' For our light affliction which is 
 but for a moment, shall work out for us a far more exceeding 
 eternal weight of glory.' 'Far more exceeding eternal,' not 
 far more exceeding and eternal ; for, as I have said, the con- 
 junction was supplied by the translators, and should be omitted, 
 as it destroys the force of the text. The gentleman has giv- 
 en a very strange construction of the passage. It was evi- 
 dently the intention of the apostle, to prove that the present 
 afflictions of men would have a glorious result— and although 
 they would endure comparatively but for a moment, yet they 
 would be instrumental in producing a far more exceeding 
 aionios, or eternal, weight of glory. Thus we see, that the 
 word was insufficient of itself, to describe the glories resulting 
 in the purpose of God from the afflictions of men. 
 
 When Mr. Braman came to the consideration of 1 Cor. xv. 
 22, ' ^s in Adam, all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
 alive,^ he maintained that it referred to the resurrection Jrom 
 the dead. So let it be ; 1 do not dispute it; but you will re- 
 member that the gentleman had told you before, that to be in 
 Christ, was to be believers, to be new creatures. If the 
 same number that died in Adam, are to be raised from the 
 dead, new creatures, believers, what does it avail in favor of 
 the gentleman's theory of endless misery ? And if you will 
 but read the context, you will perceive the apostle was teaching 
 the future glory and blessedness of all the human race. The 
 last enemy, death, he said, should be destroyed ; and all 
 THINGS should be subdued unto the Son, even as the Son him- 
 self shouuld be subdued unto the Father, that God n)ay be 
 ALL IN ALL. This is the glorious prospect that opens to us, 
 after the resurrection from the dead : God shall be ALL IN 
 ALL. 
 
 Having thus briefly shown you the insufficiency of the gen- 
 tleman's arguments, and the futility of his attempts to destroy 
 the force of the texts which support the doctrine of universal 
 
93 
 
 salvation, I shall call your attention to other scriptures, whicli 
 go to establish the same point. Jeremiah says, Lam. iii, 31 
 — 33, ' For the Lord will not cast off forever ; but though he 
 cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the mul- 
 titude of his mercies, for he doth not afflict willingly nor 
 grieve the children of mea.' If God will not cast off men, if 
 he will have compassion upon therrt, if he will not afflict wil- 
 lingly nor grieve the children of men, does not this show 
 that affliction is not the object, but that all our trials shall result 
 in our good? The superabounding benevolence of the divine 
 nature is expressed by the prophet Micah : ' He retaineth not 
 his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy.^ 
 
 Let me quote also what Paul says in his first epistle to Tim- 
 othy concerning the salvation of all mankind. He had ex- 
 horted Timothy to pray for all men, when he goes on to say, 
 ^ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Sa- 
 viour, ivho will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the 
 knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one me- 
 diator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave 
 himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.' If Jesus 
 gave himself a ransom for all, because God will have all men 
 to be saved, and if God has the power to execute his own will 
 what shall hinder the salvation of all mankind? If God wills 
 it in any sense, it is enough. 
 
 The apostle John also furnishes us with a striking testimo- 
 ny to the same point, when he says, (1 John iv, 14,) ' We 
 have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the 
 iiaviour of the ivorld? and Jesus cannot be the Saviour of the 
 tvorld, if the world is never saved. 
 
 The testimony of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
 is full and can hardly admit of a misapplication : * For this is 
 the covenant that I will make with the children of Israel ; af- 
 ter those days, saith the Lord, 1 will put my laws into their 
 minds, and write them in their hearts : and 1 will be to ihem a 
 God, and they shall be to me a people : and they shall not 
 teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother 
 saying, know the Lord, /or all shall know me, from the least 
 vnto the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unright- 
 eousness, and their sins, and their iniquities, will I remem- 
 ber no more forever-,' If all are to know the Lord, from the 
 least to the greatest, certainly every one without exception shall 
 know him ; and as the Gentiles are to be fellow-heirs with the 
 
94 
 
 Jews of the grace of Christ, the doctrine of universal grace 
 and salvation must be true. 
 
 In Paul's testimony concerning the resurrection, nothing is 
 said of endless misery afterwards: 'It is sown in corrup- 
 tion, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonor, it is 
 raised in glory ; it is sowa in weakness, it is raised in power ; 
 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.'' Be- 
 hold what is raised up from the dead ! * For this corruplible,' 
 he continues, ' must put on incorruption, and this mortal must 
 put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put 
 on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, 
 then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death 
 is swallowed up in victory. O death ! where is thy sting ? 
 
 grave ! where is thy victory ? Thanks be to God who 
 giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' I Cor. xv. 
 What triumph ! what transport is here ! If Paul had believed 
 endless misery is to succeed the resurrection, would it have 
 excited this transport and joy ? 
 
 I will close with the testimony of the Revelator who is des- 
 cribing the consequences of the introduction of the gospel 
 amongst men : ' I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, 
 behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell 
 with them, and they shall be his people ; and God himself shall 
 be with then), and be their God. And God shall wipe away all 
 tears from their eyes : and there shall be no more death, 
 
 NEITHER SORROW, NOR CRYING, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE ANY 
 
 MORE JPAIN.' Rev, xxi. 34. If the time shall ever come, 
 when death shall be no more, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor pain, 
 the doctrine of endless misery cannnot be true. 
 
 My friends, I now recommend you to compare what has 
 been said on both sides, with the word of God. , Believe what 
 
 1 have told you, no farther than it agrees with that unerring 
 standard ; and I say the same of what has been said on th<i 
 other side. ' Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.' 
 If it appears to you that the doctrine of endless misery has not 
 been proved, but that on the contrary it has been shown, that 
 the doctrine of universal grace and salvation is revealed in 
 God's word, O receive that glorious doctrine, and rejoice in it. 
 I rejoice in the opportunity I have had this day of proclaiming 
 this sentiment in this house ; and 1 render my thanks to Mr. 
 Braman, and his friends, for the privilege with which they 
 have now indulged me. I hope this is is not the last time 
 
_;•• •*•■«•■ /*;•■ 
 
 this doctrinaprnl be preached here. May It prevail ovei- all 
 the eartjv-t^nd iijay it be received by all mankind. "And now 
 may the»gi*ace of Gr^ be »'ith us, and with all men, forever. 
 Amen. ^ *«4iJ^ 
 
 Rev. M^i^^irL^R closed the services with prayer, and dis 
 missed the audience with the custont^y benediction. 
 
.96 
 
 
 '*{7%e1fwo following Utters should have been inseiied a£%i^idoftht 
 latrodudion, pa^t 18, but were inadv&tmiUj omitt0.] ^^/i 
 
 '^V.v^c^'^^'^^^^^ October?n8S3. 
 
 i Sir, — I must say'lbatl am surprised at' the course which 
 you are taking, and I arill^ot alone in rny feelings. 1 had in- 
 tended, if yoi3 would notrai any rate debate the proposition in 
 separate parts, to accept of your conditions ; and now to 
 sweep away all difficulty at once, I grant you your modera- 
 tors, to fix the day for debate yourself, and the hour ; only 
 that I will not consent to occupy more than a day, unless by 
 nnnual "consent. 1 have sent a comgiunication to ihe Soldier 
 — if anything appears there contrary to these conditions, you 
 are to consider them null and void. I shall send to the editor. 
 I hope you will appoint an early day, and send me word. I 
 select Rev. William Williams, of Salem, for Moderator. I ex- 
 pect to hear from you immediately. Yours, 
 
 ^ Milton P. Braman.' 
 
 V (Duplicate.) 
 
 ' Boston, October 28, 1833. 
 
 « SiB., — I received your letter on Samrday, and in reply, I 
 observe, that as I understand you to accept the proposition I 
 made, viz , to discuss the quesuon, whether the doctrine of end- 
 less misery is revealed in the Scriptvres, I appoint Wednesday, 
 the 6ih of Nov. as the day of discussion, to commence at 9 
 o*clock, A. M. 1 have chosen Rev. Sebastian Streeter, of 
 Boston, as the Moderator on my part. He is ready at any 
 time, to confer with Mr. Williams. 
 
 ' 1 am, Sir, respectfully yours, 
 
 ' Thomas Whittemore, 
 
 ' Rev. M. p. Braman. 
 
 * P. S. You will pardon me for saying, that I hope every 
 measure will be adopted to render the house secure. There 
 will be, no doubt, a great concourse of peo|ile. I have no 
 obiection to any other house, il it be thought more safe. 
 
 'T. W,' 
 
 .^^.A-^ 
 
 h ♦=a 
 
M 
 
 *•*'•