6. If the Bible teaches universalism plainly and positively, it is a wonder that many of the ancient christians who wrote on the Scriptures critically before the third century did not understand it so; and that such men as Campbell, Scott, and Clarke, and a multitude of others of every age, eminent for piety and biblical research, did not discover such a plain interpretation. And in such case it is a wonder, that the common readers of the Bible generally do not understand such a plain sense, without the efforts of such subtle criticisms and explanations, as universalist teachers find necessary, to do away the sense which people are so apt to give it. Not one in a thousand of common readers, would ever suppose the Bible taught the salvation of any more than the good, without the aid of the studied and laboured explanations of universalist teachers. This would be very singular, if the Bible taught universalism plainly.— Indeed, in such case, the common people would depend on a few subtle and ingenious sophists for the correct understanding of what was plainly taught in the Bible. So that a plain revelation would after all depend on the revelation of the few to reveal it to the many!

7. If universalism be not plainly taught in the Bible, but obscurely, it must be because the writers did not conceive the doctrine of any great importance to mankind. And if they did not conceive it important to mankind, then we should not. Why then, make this the subject of everlasting contention and strife? Why, hosts of preachers, periodicals, books, societies, and associations, all set up for the sole purpose of promoting the belief, that all will be saved, whether they lead pious lives or not? Moreover, if we must confess that universalism is but obscurely and incidentally taught in the Bible, we must not only suppose the belief of it not considered important to mankind by the writers, but that we may be mistaken about its being taught therein at all. If the doctrine be not the plain sense of the Scriptures, there is certainly ground for us to conclude that it may not

be taught in the true sense of any passage. And if there be a possibility of our being mistaken, as to its being in reality a Scripture doctrine, we should not attempt to propagate it, as it professedly may be a fatal errour. But who is there that will pretend the writers of the Bible to teach universalism as plainly and fully as universalist preachers now do? Universalist teachers now undertake to show that these writers did, on some occasions, in some particular expressions teach that all men will be saved. This is, howevever, only their interpretation of the sacred authors. But may not these teachers be mistaken? Are they apt to understand writers better than others? They generally insist upon it as a fact, that Watts, Wesley, Clarke, and other eminent divines were universalists. They say that these venerated men clearly advocated universalism! They support the assertion by quoting passages from their writings, and attempting to show that such must have been their meaning! Now every body acquainted with their writings, knows that they did not profess the doctrine, and that they were distinctly opposed to it. Yet such is the imperfection of language, that it is easy to find expressions in their writings, which might be so misapplied as to appear to teach universalism. If criticism and sophistry can turn such men as Dr. Watts, John Wesley, and Dr. Clarke into open thorough universalists, through the vagueness and imperfection of all human language, can we wonder that Paul, and Christ, and all the inspired writers, should be used in the same manner?

8. If the Scriptures teach universalism obscurely and incidentally, and a preacher feels confident of this, he should teach it in the same manner. No one can be justified in teaching universalism differently from what the inspired writers did. Hence, if he teaches it all, it should be as they did, that is, so obscurely and uncertainly that none can understand them to teach it at all, without the aid of much criticism and much explanation; and so that most of their

hearers shall doubt their teaching it at all. Certainly the inspired penmen knew how to teach well enough; and if universalist preachers and writers will teach universalism as they did, (if they teach it all) there will be no occasion to controvert their writings. They would then teach it indeed like Watts, Wesley, and Clarke. But such preacking would never be supported by the opposers of religion, as universalist preaching is now supported; and universalism never did and never will spread by such preaching.— Whoever supposes universalism to be taught in the Bible as a fundamental important doctrine, with the same clearness and in the same manner, that universalist preachers now teach it, is out of his senses, and cannot be reasoned with.

9. No man therefore should preach universal salvation plainer than the Bible does; and they should preach damnation just as plainly as that does. Universalist teachers profess to respect the Bible as much as others; yet they often burlesque others for preaching about "hell torments," the "unquenchable fire," "hell fire," "everlasting destruction," the "lake of fire," "fire and brimstone," &c. Such like expressions were used in the Bible, as that teaches universal salvation. Now if our universalist teachers respect the Bible, and teach universalism just as that does, why do they so often ridicule us for teaching as the Bible does? Why do they not prove, that in such language, we all mean universal salvation, as well as the Bible? Why do they impute to us an opposite meaning, and ridicule us as holding to the being literally roasted in fire and brimstone, &c. barely because we use such language as they say, in the Bible, means universal salvation? Would it not be better for them to teach universal salvation just as the Bible did, "everlasting punishment" and all; and then prove that not only the Bible, and Watts, Wesley, and Clarke, but all other eminent divines of all denominations, and of all ages, who have taught rewards and punishments in just such language as the Bible did, were universalists?

10. A person can never be justified in teaching universalism who has any doubts of its being a Bible doctrine; because if some believing it, would still lead good lives, many others would take indulgence from it, and in case it proved false, would thereby endanger their everlasting welfare.It is not necessary therefore, that the Bible should teach plainly endless punishment, to justify us in not being universalists. Suppose the Bible neither taught certain universal salvation, nor certain endless punishment plainly, but that the good and the pious shall be saved; and its general language would seem to imply, that such only could expect salvation; then we could not be universalists; neither could we be under any obligation to support, or vindicate, or justify endless punishment. When the author first renounced universalism, why then, did the editors of universalist papers, insinuate that, therefore, he was bound to prove and vindicate the doctrine of endless punishment? Why insinuate that he must be dishonest in renouncing universalism? Again, if the Bible teaches that all the good will be saved, and the good only; and as all may be good if they choose; endless punishment could not be taught in the Bible positively and unconditionally, except as matter of pure prophecy; but the evidence of endless punishment would be mainly drawn from the conditional expressions of the Bible in regard to such as might not accept of Christ, from inferences also drawn from biblical representations of the fate of certain characters, compared with the actual existence of such characters in the world.As our theory admits that all will be saved, who will embrace Christ, we are not bound to prove positively that any will be endlessly punished, but only, that none but the penitent and good will be saved.*

*By penitent and good, we mean to be understood in the common acceptation of the terms. And we admit of course the salvation of such as are not accountable, infants, &c. without reference to character.

平

It devolves, therefore, upon universalist teachers themselves, to prove from reason and scripture, that all men will be saved whether they become pious and good in this life or not. Nay-it further devolves on them to prove it so clearly, indubitably, and unequivocally, that we can safely risk everlasting consequences on the proof. And all we need to show, to justify the course we have taken, is, that their doctrine is not susceptible of such clear, positive, and certain proof. Do not understand us, that it would be difficult to prove endless punishment as clearly and as positively as the nature of the subject admits of; but only, that we are under no necessity to do any thing more, than to show, that it is not certain, that any more than the good will be saved. And that the Bible, in its plain and most obvious sense, does not teach the certain salvation of all.

SECTION II.

Some of the fundamental REASONS of universalists examined.

1. Universalists generelly begin their system in what they call sound reason; and having established it in their minds, as a system of philosophy, so clearly and indisputably, as they suppose, that it must be true; they then go to the Bible and search out all those passages, which alone seem to favour it, and commit them to memory so well, as to be able to hand them out fluently on any occasion. They next study out, either themselves, or by aid of their teachers, some subtle way to explain hard passages, (as they call them,) so as not to let them overthrow their favorite theory. Most of common professors of it, however, never consider themselves able to give the curious explanation, (or evasion,) but are always sure their preachers can do it. Indeed, the explanation, or rather, evasion of these hard passages, is the principal business of universalist teachers.