« PreviousContinue »
also weighed it in the balances of the sanctuary, and here
then not to trust your soul another day upon the delusive hope that you shall go to heaven, because there is no hell. One sinner will make a hell in any part of the moral universe, where he way chance to be. There is no running away from self or sin. Your sin will find you out.
Yours as ever."
- As I well knew that Universalists could not meet and
disprove the arguments of this little volume by sound reasoning, I expected they would do as they have long been accustomed to do when pressed hard with the absurdities of their system, viz. cry out misrepresentation.' This they have done; but when required to particularize wherein, they have to my knowledge, referred to only two instances; and the following letter, written and published soon after the first edition of this work appeared, is a sufficient refutation of this charge.
UNIVERSALISM NOT MISREPRESENTED. My Dear Sir:- ..
You tell me that a Universalist Preacher in your neighborhood, to whom you presented a copy of my letters, complains that Universalism is misrepresented in the work. This is the cry I expected to hear. This is the note of retreat which Universalists are always wont to sound, when they are pushed with irrefragable argument. I know Universalists so well, and have been so long acquainted with their mode of reasoning, that I was fully satisfied that they never would attempt, face to face, to meet the arguments and expositions contained in the letters. I expected they would attempt to dispose of the whole matter, by charging me with misrepresentation. And the fact that Universalists are so wide apart among themselves in their views, renders it extremely difficult to meet them on any given question, involved in the controversy, without being charged by some of them with misunderstanding or misrepresenting
the doctrine. John Murray believed in a judgment to come ; he admitted that future and even endless punishment was the just penalty for sin, but in connection with this, he believed that by virtue of a mystical union of Christ with all men, that all men suffered this punishment in Christ, their substitute. This is Murray Universalism. Take up this system of error, and expose its fallacy, and you will hear the cry from every direction, 'misrepresentation,'' misrepresentation!! and yet, the Universalists continue to call John Murray, the father of Universalism in America !' He has not, however, at this time, a legitimate child among them all. They all reject his system of faith, as superstitious and nonsensical.
Elnathan Winchester preached Universalism on the hypothesis that sinners, who are brought to repentance in this life, are justified and taken to heaven through faith in the meritorious death and sufferings of Christ; and that those who die in sin, will be arraigned in general judgment, and condemned to ages of torture in literal fire and brimstone, then pardoned and received to glory. Take up this system of Universalism, and refute it, and the Universalists will cry out misrepresentation !
Hosea Ballou predicates his hopes of Universalism, upon the hypothesis that the animal part of man is the sinful part, and that the spirits of all men are inherently and universally iinicaculate. Deatb dissolves the connection between the body and the spirit, (the saint and sinner in the same man,) and thus introduces the spirit into the society and regions of the blest. This is Ballou Universalism. Take up this system of error, and refute it, and show up its absurdities, and you will find your antagonist flying over to Balfour Universalism.
Mr. Balfour believes that man has no immortal soul or spirit, which survives the death of the body. Death with him is a launch into unconsciousness or nonentity. Here memory and moral character are lost in oblivion. At the consummation of all things, he thinks an event will take place, which he calls the resurrection, but which should be denominated a new creation. He predicates his hopes of future, universal happiness, upon the hypothesis that man has no immortal soul, and that there will be a new creation. This is Balfour Universalisni. Take it up, and refute the arguments by which it is supported, and expose its infidelity, and if you are successful, you will find your Universalist opponent on his retreat to Ballou Universalism, shouting misrepresentation!' Follow him into Ballou Universalism, and he will retreat back again cross-lots to Balfour Universalism or Restorationism, and make doleful lamentations, that is he so shamefully misrepresented. Some foxes are said to have two holes; drive them from one, and they burrow in the other.
But your Universalist neighbor has instanced two particulars, in which he says, I have misrepresented Universalism. · 1. In my preface, I speak of the infidelity of Universalism ; this is no misrepresentation. It is admittted throughout the book, that Universalists profess to believe in the authenticity of the Scriptures. This every one will see by reading it. No one would get any other idea. The word infidelity is not used in the preface in an absolute sense, nor would any candid mind so understand it. While Universalists profess to believe in (divine revelation, I cannot but regard their system as a species of infidelity. This opinion I entertain in common with many others, (1) Because it denies several of the niost prominent and fundamental doctrines of Christianity. (2) Its moral results are the same as those produced by deism. (3) Infidels freely associate with Universalists as good brethren, attend their meetings, contribute to support their ministers, and not unfrequently are appointed officers both in their churches and societies. But as the word ' infidelity,' as it occurs in the preface of the letters, is not important to sustain any argument, if it suits my Universalist readers any better, I will expunge that word, should another edition of the work be published.
2. But I am accused of misrepresentation again in regarding the Universalists generally, (not all) as denying the free moral agency of man. Your friend says, he does not know of a Universalist minister who does not believe in the moral agency of man. - I have been familiarly acquainted with Universalist preaching, and have read their books and papers for fifteen years, and I am confident that I do not misrepresent them, when I say, they are generally fatalists or necessarians. . This seemed to be generally regarded as the strong hold of the system in this village one year ago. That a portion of the Universalist denomination as it now exists,-and that portion I think will embrace a large majority of the bodydo not believe in what is called the moral agency of man, may be proved,
1. By oral confession. Introduce the subject to the first Universalist you meet with,—sound him on this point, and you will most likely find him a fatalist. Nine out of ten will be found on this ground. Try it and see.
2. By an appeal to their standard authors. A few years ago, an English work, by Dr.T.S.Smith, called Smith on the Divine. Government,' was re-published, and extensively circulated in this country, by the Universalists of Boston. The grand foundation stone upon which the superstructure of Universalism is here reared up, is the fatality of the divine government. Dr. Smith, I am told, has since become an avowed infidel.
3. I have frequently heard the doctrine of moral agency assailed by Universalists. While in Lynn, I heard the Pastor of the Universalist Society there preach a sermon, in which he attempted to prove that all men were controlled in all their acts, by the impulses of the divine will.
4. The Universalist Trumpet, of Feb. 19, 1842, confirms my statement as to the views of Universalists on this point. Mr. Whittemore says, “ Some [Universalists] believe in free moral agency and OTHERS DO NOT.” In the same paper, Mr. H. Ballou, the father of modern Universalism, says: “ Some of our good and faithful brotherhood differ in their opinions, respecting what! is termed the