LETTERS TO KEY. LOVICK PIERCE, D.D., of the georgia. conference. BEING A REVIEW OF A PAMPHLET, recently published by him, ENTITLED 4 UNIVERSALIS!! EXAMINED AND CONDEMNED, purporting to be THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS REPLIES TO REV. C. F. R. SHEHANE, IN A DEBATE WITH HIM AT AMERICUS, GA., MARCH, 1850. BY REV. JOHN C. BURRUSS. " Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, .that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maHeth intercession for us."—Bom. vih. 34. NOTASULGA, ALA.: PUBLISHED BY J. C. BURRUSS. 1853. 2To all HONEST INQUIRERS AFTER TRUTH, IS THIS LITTLE VOLUME RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR. CONTENTS. LETTER I. Preliminary remarks — cowardly course of Dr. Pierc® — his conscious defeat in the Americus debate — his misrepresentations condemned and exploded.. 13 LETTER II. Dr. Pierce's equivocation — he presumes upon the ignorance of the people — complains of Mr. Shehane's Biblical method of argument —misrepresentation of tlniversalism by the Dr. — injustice of the doctrine of endless torment — destruction of the devil and his works 20 LETTER III. Resurrection of damnation explained — testimony of John Wesley — persons in ignorance and blindness, compared to persons in their graves. (Ezek. Xxxvii. 12, 13,) — " damned " applied to Jesus — damnation said to be greater, which precludes infinity — Dr. Pierce's ex¬ planation of John v. 28, 29 — denies the salvation of in¬ fants, idiots, and such as were never buried.........28 LETTER IV. Dr. Pierce evades the question of endless punishment — he contradicts himself—his comments on 1 Cor. xV. Vi CONTENTS. 22, exploded — the resurrection effects a change in all for the better — Dr. P. garbles the Scriptures — his un¬ christian remarks concerning the Universalists of Geor¬ gia — is satisfied with his faith — absurdity of the idea — testimony of Saurin .35 LETTER V. Explanation of the parable of the rfch man and Laza¬ rus — parables sometimes founded upon impossibilities — remarks on hell, its translation from hades — difficul¬ ties attending the popular interpretation of the parable — testimony of Dr. Benson, a Methodist, concerning hades — destruction of hell — opinions of Drs. Ham¬ mond and Lightfoot — Rev. C. F. R. Shehane quoted — temporal punishments only threatened under the Mo¬ saic Dispensation — testimony of Bishop Warburton, Dr. George Campbell and others — the parable never after referred to 42 LETTER VI. Dr. P.'s error in regard to salvation — because men are wrong now, it is no reason they should always be kept wrong — Justice does not demand continued wrong — good, destined to triumph over all evil — the Law of God requires universal obedience — it shall not pass till all be fulfilled — more misrepresentations of Dr. P. — the original word kolasis, rendered punish¬ ment, signifies reformation — no salvation in sin, but from sin — God the most powerful being in the uni¬ verse— therefore, all other power is subordinate to his CONTENTS. vii LETTER VII. Ezekiel xviii. 26 explained—punishment threatened %n the day of transgression to our first parents — no death beyond the resurrection — all shall be raised im¬ mortal — an immortal being cannot die — absurdity of prevalent notions — death here in sin — the sin unto death — what it is — Clarke and Wesley quoted — no more death — Universalism prayed for by all Chris¬ tians 63 LETTER VIII. Endless never applied to any thing evil — Dr. P.'s misrepresentation, or ignorance, concerning Universal- ist views of hell — his evident dishonesty in argument — four words rendered hell — their meaning — de¬ struction of soul and body in hell. 70 LETTER IX. The destruction of the devil exegetically shown — Universalist views of the devil — the " more tolerable judgment" — its meaning —judgment in this world — never said to be in eternity — Drs. Hammond and Clarke, introduced 77 LETTER X. The case of Judas explained — no evidence that he destroys his own life —he repented sincerely—the phrase, " good were it for him if he had not been born," a common proverb among the Jews — similar language used in reference to Job and Jeremiah — Scripture tes¬ timony showing that all mankind will be saved — Mar¬ shal Berthier — his death caused by grief — Judas far- viii CONTENTS* ther considered — " that he might go to his own place," explained — the language is the voice of prayer! this precludes its application to endless misery ..85 LETTER XI. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost explained — what is meant by " neither in this world, nor the world to come " — God commands us to forgive our enemies — He does not require men to be better than He is — Christ prayed for his murderers — he would not have prayed for an impossibility — facts showing, that the phrases, " shall be," or " shall not be," were common Hebraisms, signifying that one was more likely than the other — testimony of Grotius and Clarke — Isaiah's evi¬ dence 92 LETTER XII. Reply to the false charges of Pierce — Partialism first preached by an African — it thrives in ignorance — farther proof of Universalisrn —the dogma of an endless hell cherished by the most profane — the doc¬ trine founded upon revenge — former persecutions prove this — impossibility of renewing to repentance explained — Macknight and Nizianzen quoted — testi¬ mony of Rosenmuller LETTER XIII. Matthew xxv. 46, examined — everlasting punish¬ ment explained— proof that everlasting does not, ab¬ stractly considered, denote duration without end — proof that men are judged in this world—stronger terms applied to happiness than we ever find coupled CONTENTS. ix with punishment—testimony of Donne gan, Pickering, Schleusner, Macknight and Doddridge on the Greek noun aion, and its adjective aionios 106 LETTER XIV. Rev. xx. 12-15 considered — the dead, small and great, explained — hell, the lake of fire — the books — what is meant by the sea giving up the dead — fire a remedial agent — the second death — what it is — proof that ultimately there will be no more death and pain. 115 LETTER XV. Refutation of Pierce's Strictures on Heb. ii. 14 — re¬ ply to the charge of infidelity — how sin entered into the world — Dr. P. complains because Universalists confide in the power of God — proof that God rules in sovereign majesty — Dr. P. defends the devil — is si¬ lenced by the word of God 122 LETTER XVI. Farther .proof of universal salvation — important quo¬ tations from Scripture — Pierce's misrepresentations — all shall sing praise to God — devil's doctrine — Uni¬ versalists charged of preaching it — the scales turned against Pierce and his brethren 129 LETTER XVII. Universalists charged of being influenced by human glory — facts showing that Partialists can be restrained by nothing short of an endless hell, and an omnipotent devil, and not even then — Partialists are eye servants — Universalists accused of not going to church—reply X CONTENTS. — Dr. Pierce and his brethren refrain from going to hear Universalists and Unitarians preach 135 LETTER. XVIII. The charge that Universalism is licentious, repelled <—views of the Sabbath — Universalists respect for it — Dr. Pierce's want of charity — horrid fruits of Partial- ism in Spain, Mexico, California, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama — the Jews, who put Christ and his Apostles to death, believed in endless misery.. .140 LETTER XIX. Universalists accused of being a prayerless people — the charge unfounded — prayer does not consist in words only — it is the yearning of the heart — the Phar¬ isees whom Christ denounced as "hypocrites" and " vipers," were noted for the length and frequency of their prayers — yet, within, they were filled with "all manner of uncleanliness." 147 LETTER XX. Dr. Pierce complains of the liberality of Universal¬ ism — facts showing that he is opposed to the liberality of God — Universalism not identified with Fourierism, Abolitionism, &c. — unfairness of Dr. Pierce — he is opposed to Republicanism, and is an Aristocrat — is advised to leave the American soil, and take shelter under a despotic government 152 LETTER XXI. More misrepresentations of Dr. Pierce — his hostility to the reformation of all sinners—his verbiage — want CONTENTS. •xi of candor—his ignorance of the gospel scheme — far¬ ther proof of universal salvation 157 LETTER XXII. All shall be changed in the resurrection — no pain subsequent to that event — salvation by grace — the new birth will be universal — Arianism, Unitarianism, &c. brought up — John Milton an Arian 163 LETTER XXIII. Incentives to religion considered — Dr. Pierce uses fear — the New Testament writers, love — sin coupled with misery — Dr. P. thinks an endless hell is all that can keep ladies virtuous — Jesus had no fear of a hell in eternity — nevertheless, his life was pure, being in¬ fluenced by love — the charge again refuted, that Uni- versalism is licentious — testimony of Rev. Messrs. Jackson and Dwight — the Boston Olive Branch, a Methodist paper, defends the character of Univer- salists 169 LETTER XXIV. Dr. Pierce thinks Universalism will not do for the ig¬ norant— a tacit acknowledgement that his doctrine will — he appeals to the prejudices of slave holders — near¬ ly all negroes believe in endless misery, witchcraft, conjuration, &c. — Universalism, restraining to all, when understood, being founded on love — licentious¬ ness of vicarious atonement, for which Dr. P. contends — concluding remarks 175 LETTERS. LETTER I. Dear Sir : Before proceeding to an exam¬ ination of the assertion contained in your pam¬ phlet, which, after an agonizing struggle of about sixteen months, you bring forth, it may not be amiss to state just here, for the infor¬ mation of the public, that a proposition was made to yourself at Americus, during the de¬ bate, to write out your own speeches, and join me in the publication of 4,000 copies of the discussion ; the Methodists to take one-half, and the Universalists the other. To this fair and generous proposition, you would not consent; but did your best from the first, to prevent the publication of the debate, under any circumstances. Now, why all this, if conscious of a signal victory ? Let an impar¬ tial and unfettered public decide. Birds are not wont to flutter, unless they are badly wounded. Another thing, that looks very 1 14 LETTER I. suspicious in Dr. P., is the fact that he has had the copy-right of his little pamphlet se¬ cured, according to an act of Congress ; evi¬ dently, with a view of preventing Universal- ists from republishing it with a rejoinder. This clearly proves Dr. P. to be a one-sided man, and that he is determined not to have both sides of the controversy published, if he can help it. But is such a course fair ? is it hon¬ orable ? If you really believed Mr. Shehane's arguments were sophistical, and unscriptural, as you would have the ignorant to understand, why did you not publish Mr. Shehane's speech¬ es, and then reply to them ? There can be but one legitimate answer given, and that is, you felt conscious in your own mind, that they could not be candidly met and fairly answer¬ ed ; hence, the pitiful subterfuge is adopted of keeping his arguments behind the curtain, ex¬ cept occasionally introducing a garbled ex¬ tract. A cause that cannot be kept up without resort to such means, needs no farther evi¬ dence to convince a candid and enlightened public of the base falsity of its pretensions. But this is not the only thing of which I have just cause to complain, at the very threshold of the argument. You attempt to throw LETTER I. 15 dust in the eyes of your readers, at the outset, by asserting that the reporter of the debate, which was myself, did not do you justice — that I did not report you correctly. The plain truth is this : I sent you the substance of your first and second speeches, before they were put to press, with the request that you would revise them according to your own notion, and transmit them back to me. After keeping the manuscript more than three weeks, you finally returned it, unrevised, complaining of the want of time ; and also declared that the de¬ bate should not be published with your con¬ sent. You also told me in a private letter, which I now have by me, that if I did pub¬ lish the debate, you would avail yourself of " any advantage" which you might be en¬ titled to use. Well, what next ? Why, some¬ time after the debate was published and cir¬ culated broadcast through the country, you kept portentous silence, evidently waiting to see what public opinion would say. To your sorrow and mortification, you found that the current had turned in favor of Universalism, and that for your unmerciful doctrine, was written, " mene tekel upharsin." What did you next do, in order to raise your fallen 16 LETTER I. plumes ? Something had to be resorted to, and that speedily, for " Ichabod " was legibly inscribed upon your forehead. True to the instinctive consciousness of a sore defeat, at length you came out in the papers of Colum¬ bus, and elsewhere, yet burning with the blush of a signal failure, and endeavored to state, in a very confused manner, that Mr. Burruss had not reported you fairly ! And notwithstand¬ ing this, yet, in the same published letter, now lying before me, you say, in speaking of my report, " It was, so far as I saw it, pretty correct, but could not be corrected, simply be¬ cause it was a brief, and could not be filled up." Now, if the report was " pretty cor¬ rect," as you acknowledge, in the name of " common sense," your favorite, what cor¬ rection did it require ? Correct that which is already correct! The idea is ridiculous, , and only evinces the desperation to which some men are driven in a bad cause. Now, after the above acknowledgment, in the precise words of yourself, how can you have the effrontery to come before the public with your little pamphlet, and affirm that you have not been reported correctly ? Here we have Pierce versus Pierce. Our " common LETTER I. 17 sense" brother also speaks of the brevity of his speeches ; that they were so condensed by the reporter, that they could be read in thirty minutes. Now, the true state of the case is this : all who know you, know very well that you are rather a slow speaker. This will, in part, account for the alleged brevity of your speeches, as reported by me. Another fact to be noticed is, that you read copious ex¬ tracts from a book called the " Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," attempting to show that Universalists are Unitarians, Sabellians, Arians, &c. As all this was by no means rel¬ evant to the point under discussion, such cumbrous"and foreign matter was left to take care of itself. In the name of " common sense," what had the Trinitarian question to do with the point under discussion, -which was, " Do the Scriptures teach the doctrine of end¬ less torment for any portion of the human race ? " Now, I ask any candid mind, what had the doctrine of the Trinity to do with the subject ? We challenge you to adduce one argument, or quotation of Scripture, used by yourself, at the Americus debate, that has not been put down in the controversy, as published by me. 1# 18 LETTER I. If the thing can be done, do it, and be par¬ ticular to give the argument, chapter, verse, &c. Until you can do this, cease your in¬ significant grumbling. It is sometimes very convenient to make general and wholesale declarations, but when particulars are called for, they are not always at hand. For the truthfulness and impartiality of my report, I appeal to the large audience that heard the debate. By such a verdict, I am willing to abide, for all that were there present, and who have read the debate, as published, will at once recognize your language almost verba¬ tim. Such, however, cannot be said for your pamphlet, entitled " Universalism Examined and Condemned;" for, although it purports to be the substance of your speeches at Amer- icus, yet, in the work, I hardly recognize the least resemblance of the original speeches as delivered. It is, therefore, unjust to call it the substance of said speeches. But, as you have been fixing your props in support of the immortality of sin and satan for many years, and at last, with a desperate effort, bring them to view, planted in the depths of eternal cruel¬ ty, we may reasonably suppose that you have taxed your brain to its utmost tension, in de- letter i. 19 vising a plan to keep up the devil's kingdom, world without end. Should I, therefore, by the hammer of truth, succeed in demolishing the gloomy prison-house of endless cruelty, which you have sought to construct for the offspring of God, it will be seen at once, that such a theory, as is attempted to be palmed off for the gospel, is, in reality, nothing more nor less than " the doctrine of devils," which is condemned by our Lord. Paganism, new¬ ly vamped. Another item to be noticed at this juncture, is, that prior to the appearance of your pamphlet, it was advertised, that it would contain 107 pages. Since the prodigy has made its appearance, however, it contains, as we find, but ninety-nine meagre pages. A query here presents itself to the reflecting mind. If your arguments in defense of an endless hell, have fallen short of what you ex¬ pected, may not hell itself, for which you so warmly contend, fall far short of your extrava¬ gant expectations ? Yours, truly, J. C. Burruss. LETTER II. Dear Sir : Before proceeding immediately to a dissection of your arguments against Universal righteousness, I shall pay a little farther attention to your prefatory remarks, in order that the reader may see, that it was with a trembling step, and a fearful heart, you consented to defend the doctrine of eter¬ nal rascality, with Mr. Shehane ; and that even now, since the clash of arms has taken place, you feel that you have not succeeded in establishing your hell-founded plans. On page 4, you say : " Challenged, first by the Universalists, and then requested by a number of respectable citizens to ac¬ cept, I could not consistently with my sense of honor and duty decline." It is quite evident from such a confession, that you did not like to assail the views of Universalists, in an open contest; that you would gladly have evaded the discussion if possible: for why manifest so much reluct¬ ance, if, as you say, Universalism is an un- scriptural, soul-destroying doctrine, and one LETTER II. 21 that can be easily refuted ? Why all this, I say, if your pretensions be true ? There is one thing true, however, and it is this : Prior to the discussion, you had, more than once, been through Sumpter county, Ga., preaching long and loud against Universalism; but since your Americus rencounter, if I am correctly informed, you have not preached in Sumpter. All this I look upon as a favorable omen, which goes to show that you are not too old to learn yet. On the page above named, you say: " And being desirous to submit the question of truth or falsehood to the unsophisticated common-sense meaning of Scripture terms, I accepted the challenge only on that ground, and have faithfully adhered to it. Mr. Shehane did as he chose. He utterly failed to keep the agreement, denounced common sense as fickle and false, and rushed into a, sea of fathomless depth, with no definite line to measure it, or infallible compass to navigate by. And, as I had previously imagined, when a text sounded favorably, he forced it into his ranks; but when its plain easy sense lay against him, he endeavored to criticise it out, and thus defeated my plans." So you got " defeated," in the contest with Mr. Shehane, did you ? Verily, this is just what Universalists, Baptists, and even some Methodists, have contended; but I was not aware that you had got so far along, as to confess your defeat. 22 LETTER II. But, " with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation." So says the Bible, and I am pleased to know that you, in that particular, at least, have fulfilled it. You say, in the extract just quoted, that you un¬ dertook the debate on the principles of com¬ mon sense. Could you define, infallibly, what common sense is, such a position might be tenable. As it is otherwise, the phrase is vague, and chameleon-like. Your common sense teaches you endless misery, while Mr. Shehane's, teaches him Universal salvation. To the Baptist, common sense teaches immer¬ sion— to the Methodist, sprinkling or pour¬ ing. Now, one thing is certain, all these theories cannot be true. Yet, ask the adhe¬ rents of them, and they will declare, that, to them individually, common sense teaches all these things. On this very principle, the ancient Jews spurned, rejected, and finally crucified the Saviour. Common sense, when vitalized and directed by the power of the gospel, is good ; but to take up any extraneous notion, how¬ ever absurd, and dub it " common sense," is the wildest phantasm imaginable, and is, in LETTER II. 23 fact, the quintessence of nonsense; which is surely a poor criterion, by which to decide a disputed point in theology, for " the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." Mr. Shehane, however, did not, as you sweeping- ly assert, denounce the rationality of man. What he protested against, was, the mount¬ ing of superstition, and with the whip and spur of bigotry and prejudice, attempt to ride rough-shod over the pearls of truth, hallooing " common sense! " Such a course, Mr. She¬ hane condemned, and sure am I, all candid men will unite with him in the same. The world has too long been humbugged with such pleas as you put forth, to stand the im¬ position much longer. Something is rotten in Denmark, and men are finding it out. You farther state, that when a text sounded favorable to Universalism, Mr. S. forced it into service. By this we learn, even from an opponent, (such as yourself,) that there are texts, that are " favorable " to TJniversalism. I knew all along, that the Bible was " favor¬ able " to Universal salvation, and I am pleased to hear you acknowledge it, even at this late period of your life. Farther, you say, in speaking of the Bible, " when its plain, easy 24 LETTER II. sense lay against him, Mr. S. criticised it out, and thus defeated my plans." If Mr. S.'s criticisms were not correct, why did you not show, and point out their fallacy ? Why, I say, did you not do this, with your magic wand of common sense ? On page 10, you falsely accuse Universalists of charging God with " a lax and contradictory administra¬ tion." This, my good sir, is far from being the case, for no people believe in, and contend for just retribution, more than our denomina¬ tion. That God will u render to every man according to his deeds," is a cardinal article of faith with Universalists. Man is a finite creature; therefore, for punishment to be ac¬ cording to deeds, it must be limited. If any doctrine under heaven makes God " lax and contradictory " in his government, it is Meth¬ odism ; for it hangs every thing upon the slender thread of uncertainty, while, at the same time, it speaks in most glowing terms of the pleasures of sin ; and whispers to the transgressor, that " While the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest sinner may return." That, if he will only say he is sorry for his dark deeds of villainy, just as death stares him LETTER II. 25 in the face, he will by that means escape all punishment, and wing his way to glory, un- whipt of justice, where he will be permitted to behold the endless torment of his murdered vic¬ tims, who were never half so mean as himself. Your theory, sir, does, to all intents and purposes, charge God with a " lax and con¬ tradictory administration." Lax, because it virtually offers a premium to sin, by declaring that it is pleasant, and by assuring transgres¬ sors, that the evil day is far off; and by as¬ serting, contrary to the Bible, that " their judgment lingereth," and that " their damna¬ tion slumber eth." This is Methodism — it is " lax" in its morals, and uncertain in its aims, being cer¬ tain only of an endless hell — an old infernal depot, in which rascality in all its horrid forms, is to be kept up through endless ages; and all this sanctioned and carried on by a holy and merciful God. This is not all Methodism does. It makes God, — the best being in the universe — the meanest and most cruel, by declaring with its foul, pestif¬ erous breath, that our Father in heaven will always torment his offspring; which is in opposition to Psalm ciii. , — where the 26 LETTER II. Psalmist asserts that the Lord will not always chide. Thus does Methodism unblushingly array itself against God, justice, mercy, and every holy desire of the human soul. You next speak of the positive existence of a devil — future judgment, &c. Could you prove what you here intimate, you would gain nothing for your cruel dogma. You must prove endless torment; that was, and is now, the question. Universalists believe in the Bible doctrine concerning the devil and judgment, but they have long since learned, that many heathen notions, have, in the minds of some, taken the place of more scriptural ones — hence, we reject such relics of Pagan¬ ism, and prefer to cling to that old Universal- ist Joook, the Bible. From your dogmatic defence of a personal devil, one might be led to infer that he is a personal acquaintance of yours — perhaps your friend. However this may be, and whoever, and whatever the devil may be, the word has gone forth—he shall be destroyed with his works. (See Heb. ii. 14. 1 John iii. 4.) " When seas shall waste, and skies to smoke decay, Rocks fall to dust, and mountains melt away, In adamantine chains, shall death be bound, And hell's grim tyrant feel the eternal wound." letter ii. 27 Yes, sir, I rejoice to believe, in the words of the celebrated Dr. Adam Clarke, a learned man of your own church, that " death shall be conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally destroyed." How much more God-like and God-honoring is such a sentiment, than that which proclaims the immortality of sin and satan, and the end¬ less agony of God's children, in the Hadean depths of black despair. Believe it not, pro¬ claim it not, for God has declared that " the triumph of the wicked is short." The devil is the spirit of wickedness—therefore, the tri¬ umph of the same will be short. We are taught to believe in the Bible, that whatever we undertake to do, if it be of good report, to implore the divine aid. Now, sir, when you commenced writing your work, in defence of endless torment, could you, as a Christian man, pray that you might succeed in establishing the endless misery of your fellow- men ? There can be but one answer, and that is, No ; for none but a bona fide devil could think of offering such a petition. Yours, truly, J. C. Burruss. LETTER III. Dear Sir : The first passage introduced in your pamphlet to sustain the doctrine of end¬ less misery, is found on page 10, and reads as follows: " Marvel not at this, for 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 re¬ surrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John v. 28, 29.) As the superstructure of your arguments rests upon the word " dam¬ nation," it will be my object to show, by proofs divine, and reasons strong, that the term does not sanction the revolting dogma of ceaseless misery. It is a maxim admitted by all logicians, so far as I know, that that which is not contained in a proposition, cannot come out. Now, I ask you, and all candid men, if there is a syllable in the above scriptural sentence, about endless punishment ? You may say it is inferred; but remember, it is not the province of either of us, to infer ab- LETTER III. 29 stractly, we must prove something. Till we can do this, our efforts will be of no avail, so far as establishing the truth of our tenets is concerned. But I pass on to grapple with your main pillar in support of pndless tor¬ ment'— the word damnation. The original, from which this word comes, is krisis, defined by Donnegan, in his Greek Lexicon, to mean " separation, discrimination, choice, decision, judgment; the decision, or final issue of a distemper." These are all the meanings given the word by Donnegan, a celebrated Greek author, whose production is allowed to be, by all denominations, a standard work. Now, in all the above definitions, there is no sort of allusion to endless punishment. Not the first word. Why, then, should you so apply it ? Does " common sense " prompt you to set aside the root, and legitimate meaning of words ? Verily, such a course on your part, reminds me very much of an individual who should attempt to traverse the mighty ocean, without a compass to guide him. But would such a course be prudent ? would it be likely to be adopted by reflecting minds ? Let a man attempt to navigate the briny deep with common sense alone, independent of the com- 2* 30 LETTER m. pass, and he will find, and that to his chagrin, that he has followed an ignis fatuus. Such a delusion do you follow, when you attempt to explore the wide-spreading truths of God, without the aid of the compass of correct criticism. For, be it known, the New Testament was at first written in the Greek tongue. It may be well to remark here, in passing, that the term rendered damnation, as it oc¬ curs in the above scripture, is also found in 1 Cor. xi. 29. There, some are said to " eat and drink damnation." Did the apostle mean that they ate and drank endless misery ? I, for one, think not. The celebrated John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church to which you cling, on this passage, says: " Ye eat and drink, not damnation, a vile mis¬ translation of the word, but judgment, temporal judg¬ ment."—Wesley's Sermons, vol. 2, p. 162. This quotation, made from the father of your church, kills, as dead as death, all that you have said on the subject. So much for the negative side of the argu¬ ment. I will now consider the true import of the language. By noticing the context, it will at once appear that the Saviour was not speak- LETTER III. 31 ing of the literal resurrection of the dead,but of the moral or spiritual elevation of those that were dead in trespasses and in sins, by the power and energy of the gospel. The word " resurrection," does not, necessarily refer to the raising of defunct beings, for it comes from the Greek word Anastasis, which means to be raised from a state of dishonor to one of exaltation. The word "graves," does not, I apprehend, in this instance, and in others that might be named, refer to literal cavities in the earth for dead men, but to gnorance and darkness of mind. For proof of this, see Ez. xxxvii. 12,13. There the prophet, in speaking of the moral blindness of Israel, says: " Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves." Now, this language about "graves," is just as strong, if not more so, than that which we find in John, and yet, as the candid must allow, it referred to the Jews who were then living in the flesh. When a man is literally dead, he sees, and feels and hears 32 LETTER III. nothing. "Thus it was with ancient Israel, in a spiritual sense. They knew not God. They saw not His protecting hand, and they heard not the pleading voice of sovereign mercy. In fact, the mass of mankind, prior to the in¬ troduction of the gospel, were in this benight¬ ed condition. They were in their graves of darkness, error and ignorance. Hence, says the inspired writer, " the times of this igno¬ rance, God winked at, but now, commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent." The evi¬ dent meaning of the Saviour, in John v., is this: that all that were in mental darkness, should come forth into the light of the gos¬ pel, and all that had done good, even without the law, should come forth to the resurrection (anastasis) or exaltation of life, and stand approved by the gospel, while those that had done evil, without the light of revelation, should yet hear the voice of the Son of God, and stand damned or condemned by that gos¬ pel which was about to burst upon the world with benignant lustre. That this is the true meaning, appears from the 25th verse of John v. There the Saviour plainly says, " the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and and they that hear shall live." LETTER III. 33 That all will eventually hear the voice of the Saviour, is asserted in John, x. 16. " And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them also, I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Now, when all shall hear the inviting voice of Jesus, and follow him, as he declares, how many will follow the devil to an endless hell ? Another fact to which I wish to call your attention, is, that the same verb rendered " shall be damned," is applied to Jesus in no less than three places. (See Matt. xx. 18 ; xxvii. 3. Mark xiv. 64.) Now, to contend, as you do, that the word damned, signifies endless misery, will at once involve the end¬ less torment' of Jesus, which is, I opine, too great a monstrosity for reasonable men to digest. Again, Christ told the Jews, they should receive a greater damnation. Now a great¬ er, always implies a lesser; but if the doc¬ trine of infinite torment be true, and this is the theory you advocate, no such distinction can be made; for that which is infinite, admits of no degree of comparison, such as great, greater, greatest. This one fact must forever 34 letter iii. stand in the way of your notion of infinite damnation. But, could you prove that John v. 28, 29, refer to the literal resurrection of all men from the caverns of the tomb, your system would gain nothing, for not a word is said about endless misery, and that point, with us, is the question. You must establish this, or you get defeated. Many Christians at the present day, in retrospecting their lives, no doubt feel condemned for many things they formerly did; but if this proves their endless wo, then you, as well as others, have just cause to tremble, for " all have sinned." Finally, if only such are to be raised from the tenacious embrace of death, as those that have done good or evil, then, there will be no life in the immortal world, for infants and idiots ; for they have done neither good nor evil. Therefore, my good sir, your system closes with a ruthless hand the gates of glory against all smiling infants, idiots, &c., and like Atheism, inscribes upon their tombs, " death is an eternal sleep." Yours, truly, J. C. Burruss. LETTER IV. Dear Sir : On page 11, of your pamphlet, in speaking of future punishment, you say, " unless, indeed, it could be rationally proved, that what merited and received God's utmost denunciation this side of hell itself, ceased to be a reason for denunciation as soon as the agent died." The question, sir, between yourself and Universalists, is not future, but endless punishment. And the reluctance which you manifest in stating and defending the legitimate question, induces me to believe that you doubt your ability to defend that point successfully. Hence, your prevarica¬ tion. In the above extract, however, you take for granted, the very thing which remains to be proved ; and that is, that men will sin in eternity. The Scriptures give no counte¬ nance to such a sentiment, but on the other hand, clearly teach that, " he that is dead is freed from sin." (See Romans vi. 7.) Your bare assertion, therefore, when contrasted with the word of God, sinks into insignificance. 36 LETTER IV. To contend, as you do, that God is so much in love with sin, that he will transplant it in the immortal world, which would please your devil exactly, is confounding every thing that appertains to the God of the universe. But, if as you say, sin has " received God's utmost denunciation this side of hell," how can you contend for future endless punishment ? Here, Dr., your " common sense " is evidently at fault. The word " utmost" is defined by dictionary-makers, to mean " the greatest de¬ gree," and in speaking of sin, you say it has " received God's utmost denunciation this side of hell." Therefore, to argue for endless punishment, after admitting that God's denun¬ ciations are dealt out to the utmost, this side of hell, shows clearly a great want of con¬ sistency. This one assertion of yours, sir, sweeps away the fabric of endless misery, without any farther argument from me. I pass on now to notice your comments upon 1 Cor. xv. 22, " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The explanation which you attempt to give this passage, in order to avoid Universalism, seems foreign and far-fetched; for you say the text simply means that all will be raised LETTER IV. 37 from the dead. By referring to 2 Cor. v. 17, we shall find that when men are made alive in Christ, they are new creatures: " old things have passed away—all things have*become new." This, my good sir, shows that all will not only be raised from the dead, but that they will be new creatures. Now, to clinch the argument, just here, in favor of universal salvation, I will introduce the words of Christ, who spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, — I will now question the Son of God a little, and then hear his testimoily. Jesus, it is believed by Dr. Pierce and others, that in the resurrection, men will be raised wicked and sinful, as they were here: what is your testimony on the subject ? "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matt, xxii. 29, 30.) I will introduce farther testi¬ mony of the Saviour. " Do ye not, therefore, err, because ye know not the Scriptures, nei¬ ther the power of God ? For when they shall arise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Mark xii. 24, 25.) 3 38 LETTER IV. Such language as this, clearly teaches, that in the resurrection, all will be equal to the angels in heaven, and refutes, in toto, all that Dr. P. has said on the resurrection of the dead. Thus, my good sir, you will have to stand corrected, by the inspired witness of the most high God. You next bring up the figure of a cotton mill, in order to back what you have said about " common sense." Cotton mills, sir, do not constitute the question at issue be¬ tween us. Endless torment is what you must prove, or your cotton will turn out to be noth¬ ing but gun-cotton, which I intend to ignite and explode with the torch of divine truth ; and then you can no more weave it into a web of error. Nevertheless, you, with your adherents, " shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Cor. iii. 15.) You next make a quotation from Isa. i. 11, about lying down in sorrow, and apply it to Universalists. There is no such language in Isa. i. 11, nor is there the least thing that bears any resemblance to it; all of which goes to show that you have been misapplying the Scriptures so long you cannot well avoid mis¬ quoting them in order to bolster up your bloody creed. This is farther evident, by ref- LETTER IV. 39 erence to the 12th page of your work. There you attempt to quote 1 Cor. xv. 52, but stop in the middle of the verse. Is such a course fair ? Does it become a man who has been professedly preaching the gospel forty years ? Is such a course manly ? A man who can thus mutilate the word of God, by handling it deceitfully, as the above instance shows, must have a very elastic con¬ science. The whole of the verse in question, reads: " In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised, (here you stop, but read on) incorruptible, and we shall be changed." This " incorruptible," and " changed " part of the text does by no means suit your corrupt creed, therefore, you pre¬ ferred not to quote but half of the verse. Such miserable shuffling and quibbling, show the weakness of a cause which you hire your¬ self ' to defend ; like a pettifogging lawyer, when he undertakes a bad case. That you act as the devil's attorney, you cannot deny, and for one, I cannot understand how a Chris¬ tian minister can willingly plead the cause of Satan, year in, and year out, when it is known that he is the greatest scoundrel in the uni- 40 LETTER IV. verse. As for your remarks about the dis¬ quietude of the consciences of the Universal- ists of Georgia, found on page 14,1 hardly need notice them, as they carry their own refutation. You say, " consistent Orthodox christians are perfectly satisfied with the ground of their faith and hope." This I de¬ ny ; for no man having the love of his race at heart, can be satisfied with that dogma which consigns millions to the flames of endless per¬ dition. Orthodox christians pray that all may be saved. This shows that their faith in the salvation of a few, does not satisfy them. Yes, sir, however you may believe, you and all your church, pray for the doctrine of Uni- versalism. The sincere Universalist sees in his faith, all that the soul desires, nor does he ask or pray for anything better. To speak of being satisfied with the dogma of eternal wretchedness is absurd, for none but a fiend of darkness could rest satisfied with such a horrid sentiment. The learned and eloquent Saurin, for many years a preach¬ er of endless misery, says: " I find in the thought a mortal poison, which diffuses itself through every period of my existence, render¬ ing nourishment insipid, pleasure disgustful, letter iv. 41 and life itself a cruel bitter. I cease to won¬ der that the fear of hell-torments has made some melancholy, and others mad." Such, sir, is the confession of a preacher who had long proclaimed your withering doctrine. Was he satisfied ? Was he contented with it ? By no means. The world, sir, now groans to be relieved of your desolating Si¬ moon which is yet causing the midnight of despair to hover over the expectation of thou¬ sands. The history of the brimstone-churcli1 has been marked with blood and murder, and it yet carries the mark of the beast on its front, while it still continues to breathe out threatening and slaughter against God's chil- dren, in this world, and in that which is to come. Another item, to which I wish to call your attention, is, that the doctrinej>f eternal rascality, for which you contend, was never preached as a Christian doctrine until about the close of the second century, and then by Tertullian, an old African ! i- ii ..I - - Yours, truly, J. C. Burruss. 3* LETTER V. Dear Sir : I proceed noyr to an examina¬ tion of your remarks on the rich man and Lazarus, mentioned in Luke xvi. 19—31, in¬ troduced upon page 14 of your pamphlet, and continued to page 24 of the same work. You assume, as your starting point, that the narra¬ tive is a literal history, and not a parable, and clearly intimate, that if it is not a literal his¬ tory, it is without a meaning; and that if taken in a parabolical sense, it is " contempti¬ ble hyperbole," unless we couple with it the, doctrine of endless misery. Allow me to say, sir, that the parables of the Bible are all beau¬ tifully instructive, without incorporating into them the hideous dogma of an endless hell; and that they are sometimes founded upon possibilities, and sometimes upon impossibili¬ ties. Of the latter class, I will introduce two, which must here suffice. In Judges, ix. 8, it is said " the trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them." Do you, or any other man believe, that literal trees ever stood LETTER V. 43 in need of a king, and that they walked about in search of one ? The answer must be in the negative. Again. Isaiah says, (lv. 12,) " All the trees of th6 fields shall clap their hands.'* Here, then, are parables, founded upon literal impossibilities ; for whoever saw trees walking about after a king ? or clapping hands ? No one ; for such things are literally impossible. Now, to understand the account of the rich man in a literal sense, would be just as absurd, as to so interpret the parables of the trees.—Such things being impossible. Absurd, because the word hades, rendered hell in the text, means the grave, or sepul¬ chre, and unless it can be shown that we shall have graves in the spirit-world, a literal interpretation of the text does not answer your purpose. This is not all; God has de¬ clared that He " will not cast off forever," (Lamentations iii.'21,) that He " will not al¬ ways chide," (Ps. ciii. 9,) and that He " will have all men to be saved," (1 Tim. ii. 4,) which of_course includes the rich man. Now, sir, if we take God at His word, we must believe that all will finally be reclaimed — that misery shall cease in the universe, and that God shall be " all in all." (1 Cor. xv. 28.) From this 44 LETTER V. testimony, I argue legitimately, that endless torment is not only absurd, but that such a thing is impossible, under the government of a God of truth and justice. Immortal love and endless cruelty cannot go together, for the prophet has told us, that " two cannot go together, unless they are agreed." But I will enumerate a few more of the difficulties that must attend a literal interpretation of the nar¬ rative. Take it in this sense, and you make the grave all the hell to which wicked men are exposed ; for hell, in which the rich man was, comes from hades, which means the grave, and as graves are in this world, and as we have no accounts of any in the spirit- world, your argument upon this term is sui¬ cidal to your cause, and instead of proving endless punishment, fails most signally even to prove future punishment. A literal inter¬ pretation will also make Abraham's bosom the only heaven promised in the Bible, and it is believed, that Abraham, even with no one but the beggar, would have a crowded stom¬ ach ! This theory also denies the existence of heaven until the birth of Abraham, for, if his bosom constituted heaven, there could have been no such thing as heaven until the LETTER V. 45 formation, or birth of the old patriarch. . Ver¬ ily, my good, sir, if you go on at this rate, you will demolish heaven, in your blinded ef¬ forts to build up hell. But notice the parable a little farther: " They which would pass from hence to you, cannot." Do you believe the inhabitants of heaven and hell, will be so close to each other, that they can converse together in a most fa¬ miliar style ? That the blest in heaven will desire to redeem the damned, but cannot. If so, heaven will not be a place of bliss, but of pain ; for where holy desires cannot be grati¬ fied, there must be sorrow, disappointment and pain. Here again, your history fails. But Solomon has told us,(Prov. x. 24,) that the de¬ sire of " the righteous shall be granted." There¬ fore, " if they which would pass," &c., refers to the righteous in heaven in reference to such as you consider the damned, the desire of the former in behalf of the latter will be granted, and relief will ultimately be extended to all outcasts. Christ has told us, in Luke xxiv. 39, that " a spirit hath no flesh and bones." Now, as the finger, tfie eye, and the tongue, are all spoken of in this narrative, and they are composed of " flesh and bones," the in- 46 LETTER V. ference is clear, that the scene was not in the spirit world. Hades, in which the rich man is represented, is never coupled with the word endless, or its equivalent. In fact, Dr. Ham¬ mond, a noted partialist divine, says, " Among profane writers, it is clear, that the word hades signifies not the place of the damned, no, nor any kind of place, either common to both, or proper to either bliss or woe, but only the state of the dead." To this may be added the testimony of the celebrated Dr. Benson of the Methodist church, to which you belong. In speaking of hell, (hades) he says: " It never signifies the place of torment after the day of judgment." The work from which I quote, was published in New York, by N. Bangs, in 1823, for the Methodist church. Yes, sir, your great theological Ajax, Dr. Benson, had too much sense to predicate end¬ less misery upon hades, knowing well enough that it would not do any thing for his cause, and the avidity which you manifest in seizing upon it, clearly shows that you are behind the age, and that you not only array yourself against Universalism, but against the greatest lights that ever shone in your own church. Dr. Adam Clarke says of the rich man, " in LETTER V. 47 comparison of thousands, he was not only blameless, but he was a virtuous man." Why, then, should a virtuous man be punished through eternity ? There is no proof that the rich man was wicked — none in the least. Dr. Lightfoot, on this subiect, says: " That it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself." Drs. Whitby, Hammond, Gill, Theophylact, and Proudfit, all unite in declaring the sub¬ ject a parable. Saurin,