« PreviousContinue »
"I can fully confirm the above statement to be true."
“My understanding of Mr. Hall's belief fully corroborates the above statement."
I understand, Sir, that these men are all occasional preachers in your church; but if their evidence is not acceptable, perhaps it would interest you to know that I have more on hand, amply sufficient for any emergency. And, Sir, I wish our readers to observe, that while the above affidavit bears date May 8, 1847, your book bears date June 15, 1846! A plea, therefore, that you have changed your opinions on the subject, will not
It just occurs to me, that some persons who have not seen your book, may doubt my veracity in sayiag that you advocate therein the doctrines of endless punishment. But, Sir, I can prove even more than that:
You advocate INFINITE punishment! Here is the proof: “Punishment must be INFINITE—for such is the case with sin”! “Man is not finite, only as regards his natural body. His soul or spirit is an infinite principle, and will endure AS LONG AS GOD HIMSELF''! And dare you say, Mr. Hall, that the soul will exist as long as God himself, and at the same time be ANNIHILATED?That the soul will be annihilated, and at the same time suffer INFINITE PUNISHMENT? No, Sir, not even your celestial impudence and almost miraculous hardihood, will carry you that far!!
I charge you in the next place, with uttering a downright FALSEHOOD on Universalists as a sect! Among a multitude of proofs, all involving liigh moral obliquity, I select the following:—"It is evident that nineteen twentieths of all Universalists are infidels at heart, neither WISE, GOOD, SINCERE, nor LOVERS of CHRIST'S CAUSE''!!
Do you recognise those capitals? They, Sir, are your own! And does not your shameless face grow pale, when your foul sin, like the ghost of withered murder,
stares you in the face, and writes upon your forehead the name of SLANDERER!! How dare you, Sir, print; much less stereotype, so base a calumny? And you a follower of Christ; you GOOD-SINCERE-HONEST?--'0! shame! where is thy blush”!
But I tire, Sir, of pursuing your tortuous course further your offences rise in mountain height before me; Ay, they become rank and smell to heaven! Among candid men you will be little less than a by-word and a mark of infamy. Your course, Sir, will become one of the surprising phenomena of the age. Men will wonder and marvel much, that one like yourself, with but few of the advantages of a common education, and possessing none of its real graces, should be so inflated with vanity and self-consequence, as to imagine that you were able to refute and destroy a system of doctrine, which wiser and better men than yourself have labored in vain to overthrow, and from a discussion of which no opposer ever yet came off the victor! If the mystery is ever solved, it will doubtless be on the prin ciple, that “Some snakes must hiss, because they're born with
stings." Sir, I leave you to the company of your own conscience: you cannot well have amore disagreeable companion.The effects of your miserable book will develop themselves day by day, until the power which has thrown it upon the public is neutralized or destroyed. The evil which it will do-unless its very excesses should cause immediate reaction-will be felt long after you are forgotten in the minds of men: unless they should remember you as an odious and detestable thing -a phantom of dread and a warning of evil!
For the severity, Sir, of this Epistle Prefatory, I make no apology. Those who have read your book, will not require any; and as for those who have not, they must rely on the representations which I have given.
That the God of Love may eventually lead you to see the error of your ways; and that you may live to be
come a better and happier man, is the sincere wish of your Humble Servant,
G. T. FLANDERS.
Note.--In the composition of this work we have drawn freely from the following works: Ely and Thomas' Discussion: Cobb’s Compend: Universalist Book of Reference: Streeter's Conversations: Paige's Commentary: Balfour's Works, and a few others.
SECTION I. Gen. xxii. 18. In thy seed shall all the NATIONS of the
earth be blessed. Gen. xxviii. 14. In thee and thy seed shall all the
FAMILIES of the earth be blessed. Acts iii. 25. In thy seed shall all the KINDREDS of the
earth be blessed.
If want of harmony and congruity in a system is an evidence of its rot'enness and falsehood, then is the opposition to Universalism most signally condemned.-Never, since the foundations of the earth were laid, was any thing more disjointed and conflicting. It sets at defiance every law of harmony and affinity, and utterly defies all rules and classification. In nothing is it more characterized, than by "confusion worse confounded,” and a conglomeration of the most antagonistic materials, which distribute through the whole system the elements of destruction. In a word, it verifies the old adage: “Whom the gods purpose to destroy they first make mad."
Nor does this variety and conflict of opinion pertain only to the general movement and transactions of the opposition. It extends through every detail to the minu. test particular. Antagonism characterizes its views of the system of Universalism. No two are agreed in what it really is. One author avers that it is an old doctrine; another exclaims it is a new doctrine. One is confident that it is the doctrine of the devil, another is equally confident it is a doctrine of Hosea Ballou. One asserts it makes God all mercy, another it makes God all justice, &c., &c., to the ead of the chapter.The blind literally lead the blind; and as a necessary consequence, they all fall into the ditch of defeat together.
As a necessary concomitant to these conflicting views of our system of doctrine, a great diversity of opinion characterizes the mode and means of attack. It is a work of no difficulty to put Partialism against itself in a thousand particulars—literally compelling it to dash out its brains against the walls of its own citadel.
In the section under review we have an illustration in point. Our author takes the position that the promise to Abraham is conditional; and, per-consequence, its literal fulfilment depends on the conduct of men in this life. Furthermore, he asserts: “There cannot be such a thing as an absolute or unconditional promise involving the happiness of man.”
This is definite and plain. The promise to Abraham is conditional. There cannot be such a thing as an unconditional promise involving the happiness of man !Is this the position of Partialists generally? By no
It is the simple opinion of a CAMPBELLITE Partialist; and, so far as we are informed, in said opinion he stands alone in his glory.
Mr. John H. Power, a Methodist opponent of Universalism, says: "That none of the promises of God are absolute (unconditional) we presumt no one will contend! That some of the promises of the Almighty are absolute we readily admit.” Exp. p. 75.