Page images
PDF
EPUB

tween the amount of his exertions and the vastness of his object. On the other hypothesis, his whole history is a history of quixotic adventures.

Suppose Paul had actually devoted his life to the spread of the gospel, that held out universal immunity from punishment beyond the grave. How different would have been the course of his life, and preaching? Those who preach such a gospel now, do it with some consistency. Their leading doctrine is foremost in all their preaching. To convince men that hell is a chimera, and heaven the sure portion of the sinner and the saint-that whatever distinctions are here made between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not, will be obliterated by the hand of death, that sin and holiness are tending to one result,-that both the river of life and the river of death that pour through this world, are at last to disembogue into the same ocean of eternal glory, are the points, towards which their main labors are directed. "Heaven for all and hell for none" are doctrines, the absence of which in any universalist sermon would be deemed unpardonable. But was Paul in this sense a universalist preacher? Was he so anxious to disburden the sinner's conscience of every fear of hell? Were all the energies of his soul bent to the purpose of persuading the world, that every course of sin was sure to end in heaven? Was he all careful to make it appear that the dread damnation of which he sometimes spoke, meant nothing more than temporal evils? When in the presence of Felix, he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, did he carry the idea that this judgment to come, was only some unpleasant results of man's irregularities of life experienced in this world? Was this the doctrine that made the judge on the bench tremble before the prisoner at the bar? And when he thundered in the Grecian senate, and was hissed from the floor because he came down upon them with overbearing demonstrations of the resurrection, think you that the Senators were so offended because he did, or because he did not mention the resurrection to damnation? Every way the life of Paul is a standing re

futation of the doctrines of the Universalists. This source of proof is capable of being advantageously expanded, but I will not pursue it further.

Again I consider all the earnest warnings in Scripture against heresy and the adoption of ruinous doctrines as virtual refutations of Universalism—inasmuch as if that system be true, no doctrines can be ruinous. There is such a thing frequently spoken of in the Scriptures as heresy. 2 Peter 2: 1, Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and shall bring upon themselves swift destruction. In Gal. 5: 20. Heresies are set down in a list of the "works of the flesh," and in company with such things as "witchcraft, idolatry, murders, drunkenness," &c. In Titus 3: 10, A man that is a heretic is represented as one who should be excluded from the communion of christians. In 2 Peter 3: 16, those who wrest the Scriptures are said to do it to their own destruction. In Gal. 1: 8, a curse is pronounced on those who should bring a different gospel than that preached by Paul; as though heresy were a serious matter. Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Jude exhorts to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, against those who have crept in unawares, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Now I am not inclined to assert that Universalism is the only and the specific error on which the writers in all these cases had their eye. But I would here ask two or three questions. In the first place, is there one system of religious error, has there ever been one, the belief of which is more fatal to man's immortal interests, than Uuiversalism, if that be erroneous? This question answers itself: there can be but one opinion about it. If a man believes there is no hell, he will, unless all the laws of mind are reversed in his case, shape his heart and conduct according to that belief and neglect God's appointed means of escaping eternal perdition. It is as true as that there is a hell, that he that believeth not-believeth not what?-the great facts revealed

in the gospel, the perdition of the wicked among the rest-shall be damned. If any wresting of the Scriptures can be to a man's destruction,-if any strong delusion and believing a lie is a prelude to damnation, the delusion of the Universalist surely must have that character.

If this be admitted, I ask in the second place, is there not ground for all the warnings against heresy which appear in scripture, in the nature and tendency of this one system, if it be an erroneous system? All the warnings against the receiving of erroneous doctrines, and all the earnestness and solemnity with which they are put forth have a solid basis, if the embrace of that system draws after it a train of consequences so tremendous. If there be an eternal hell, and the not believing of the truth be the highway towards it, all the strenuousness with which apostles insisted on the belief of the truth, and the avoidance of heresy, was the proper dictate of Christian beneyolence. But if there were no such perdition the apostles were beyond the occasion when they so exhorted men to contend earnestly for the faith-in levelling their curse at even the angel from heaven who should bring another gospel. If the most false and pernicious doctrines that man or even the angel of the bottomless pit ever put forth, are limited in their mischiefs to this world, there is no occasion for such flaming reprobation of them. If universalism be the truth there are no doctrines further from the truth, than those in this community called orthodox. But let the most bigotted Universalist take the arithmetic of the evils which flow from orthodoxy, and tell how much is lost in respect to individual and public happiness, and how much evil is brought in by the spread of so damnable a heresy as these must be in his esteem-how much the force of conscience is abated, by the expectation of a future judgment, how much licentiousness is gendered, by perpetually thundering in the ears of men, that the unbelieving and abominable of every class, shall have their part in a lake which burns with fire and brimstone-let him tell how orthodoxy weakens men's attachments to reading and studying the word of God, abates the religious zeal of men, dries up the fountains

of public charities-let him tell how much more corrupt in morals are Orthodox than Universalist communities,―let him recount the names of every apostate or impostor, that has had a place in the church from Judas down to the last silenced minister, and hold them up as the pure specimens of orthodox character, and the pure results of orthodox doctrines. In short make the difference as wide as you can, the advantage in favor of universalism as great as you can, and hold them up and let any man of common sense say if he dare, that these advantages were valued so highly by the apostles that they stigmatized the opposite doctrines as damnable heresies, as wresting the scriptures to men's own destruction, a strong delusion, preparing the way to damnation. Who can look at facts as they are, and claim for universalism any advantages over other systems as to results seen in this world, especially as to holiness or happiness, which would justify such emphasis of denunciation of opposite doctrines? The sum of the whole is thisthe doctrines of the gospel are such that the doctrines opposed to them are ruinous and destructive to men. But the doctrines opposed to Universalists have no such destructive tendency, even allowing the truth of Universalism. Therefore Universalism cannot be the gospel system.

Another fact which has a serious bearing on the question before us, is, that while many men have been known to renounce Universalism on a dying bed, the instance never was known of one giving up a belief of future punishment in a dying hour. This proof is not relied on as of equal force with evidence from the bible, and yet it is worth considering in connexion with this evidence. With regard to the fact I think there is no mistake. I do not say that all Universalists find their foundations fail them in the near prospect of death. I know there are those who are given up to believe a lie, those of course who really believe it, and believe till the light of the world to come dispels their delusion. And suppose we admit that a great majority of Universalists, find their faith firm in a dying hour, it will not be disputed that there are frequent cases of those, who through life have been confident and as

And

sured, that there was no punishment after death, who have been deserted by all this confidence, when death approached, and left to a fearful looking for of judgment. This fact might be attested by a thousand witnesses. Then the universalist is challenged to point us to one instance of a man, who lived all his days in the belief of the doctrine of future punishment till his dying scene arrived, and then was convinced and avoided his conviction that he had been deceived. I think I am warranted in assuming that such cases do not occur. if so, here is a serious fact which the Universalist is interested to explain. How happens it that in that honest hour when real and apparent are the same, that the conscience so often makes a shift from the one position but never from the other. If you resolve the fact that Universalists abandon their ground in a dying hour to the fickleness of the human mind, why. should not that cause equally lead to a change in case of the others? Do you say those Universalists who renounce their faith in the hour of death never really embraced it? Well, but are there not instances of those who pretend to believe in future punishment without really believing it, and why do not they confess their hypocrisy also, in the hour of death? I know of no satisfactory solution of this fact, consistent with the truth of Universalism.

Again, Universalism cannot be true, because it goes to invalidate the divine threatenings. This it does in two ways. First by adopting a system of interpretation which applies many of the most impressive comminations which appear in the bible to the men of one age and nation, and excluding them from all bearings upon the rest of the world. Most of the expressions in the New Testament in the shape of threatenings, however general may be the subject, and extensive the ground and reason of the threatening, are made to point to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the chorus to every song. Of course so much of the bible is divested of its bearings upon us. And then in the second place those threatenings which are admitted to be addressed to all mankind, such as "the soul

« PreviousContinue »