一生
​者​,
。
;"
::
PET
:
:
11,1,
可
​...”
是​,
「。畢​,
1.
一書​,
}
..
:
”
「是售車​,車​:
董事​,事事重​,
.
|
一
​”
”中
​ktv,,
,
了
​11:
重
​上車​,
*
,
“-
-
重
​青​,
,
事​;
事有鲁鲁動​「基本實自者
​事
​中
​,
再
​...-
,
.
重量
​」
體重​:
車式​:y是重重
​重重重重
​事​,事事
​料管理學會
​事件​,事
​。
“
1
「是​,
,
*
,
事件​,
。
;車
​,
重量​:1
事
​14 鲁美​,
書畫
​.
「
#
“
一
​1
上車
​「
",
事
​。
:,
“严重
​重
​ht
車
​鲁​,鲁鲁畫
​。”
中
​量​,事事
​:
.-
.
:
.
.
--
1
上
​年​,是一
​.
.*
..
=者​。
:.:
事
​」
看
​-
.
.
本書​,
,
重重重​,
「中華
​事​。
「,
.
.
.
4
|:
- 1
。
*
事
​: ..
.
多
​号
​.
.
.
'下事
​.
.
..
”
“
当事
​1
.
.
.
“
.
.
”。
.
.
.
車
​,
.
。
事
​鲁善于
​鲁鲁
​看動​:
事
​| |
中事​。」
,
事事
​鲁
​事
​单​,
E-
重量
​一本
​會
​,
,
|
i
..
t
,
.
.
..
:
|
:
.
三是重
​毒
​。
...
重重重重
​h
者
​:
!
:
善
​.
T
*
.,
,
手華
​中​,
t
.
::
.
,
A 1,126,569
.
… .
..
中部
​.
,
.
14
,
.
,
-
中的十
​..、
-
.
.
事
​以上
​.
-
.
-
車事
​主要事
​影響​,
|
4
F
、
-
,,
老是在上学​,
事​;
-
筆
​。
,
,
老
​年
​行当中
​事​“
書名​:
青青​。
事
​,
,
「
書 ​|
|中国​|
一帶書畫​,
巴
​鲁鲁​,
鲁
​鲁
​,身上
​。
”
州大学
​重重​,
-
HI,
量
​:
以将
​RES
站在
​:11
看了看​,
「
F,
,
ALL
、重車車重
​畫畫
​TIME
是以​,
不是產生
​-
4,
,
事事事​, , ,, ,,
「一事​,
事事​? 鲁鲁​,
鲁鲁​,鲁鲁
​董事​,事事​,
生
​17,
44
非 ​,基書畫事
​畫
​是鲁鲁事
​,
鲁​“
重
​,
,
學會
​{"ti書有事
​たいいいいい​~
--
“是​”,其中中中
​-4P
了 ​。
下
​一 ​”
半年量​;":
:::
A:
Rels
的
​F1賽事​,要量
​华中学​:中的作16
增
​产
​年 ​量產T ",
.
式​,本
​,
HT
萨​,
SAYA
-
子
​4444
,
,
,

LIBRARY
UNITARIAN CHURCH,
OF THE
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN.
RULES FOR DRAWING BOOKS.
drawn by any ticket-holder at a time, and no volume can be
retained longer than two weeks without being redrawn. For
every volume so retained, the Librarian will require a payment
of ten cents for each week of delinquency.
No person except the Librarian, or some assistant directly
responsible to limi, is authorized to loan books.
The times for drawing and returning books are Saturday,
from ? to + P. H., and Sunday, for a half hour before, and a
half hour afcer, viorning and evening services.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES
ini
names
ашы
FRIENDLY LETTERS
TO
A UNIVERSALIST,
ON DIVINE
***YUNITARIAN CHURCH)

PUNSHMENTS.
had I therefoto become your eng
e vuse I tell you the to
Paul.
And Ar
arbor. Miobo
CAMBRIDGE:
BROWN, $ HATTUCK, AND COMPANY.
1833.
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1833, by BROWN, SRAT-
TUCK, AND COMPANY, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District,
of Massachusetts.
BOŠ T ON.
Freeman ånd Bolles.
CONTENTS.
Introductory Epistle to the Reader. . . . . vi
LETTER I.
Temporal Rewards and Punishments Illustrated.
LETTER II.
No Perfect Retribution in this World. . . . 37
LETTER III.
Future Retribution Established by an Appeal to Common
Sense. . . . . . . . . .
LETTER IV. .
Nature and Means of Christian Salvation. . . 109
LETTER V.
Passages of Scripture which prove Future Rewards. 135
LETTER VI.
Passages of Scripture which prove Future Punishment. 163
LETTER VII.
Passages which prove both Rewards and Punishments. 197
LETTER VIII.
Incidental Arguments for Future Retribution. . . 237
LETTER IX.
Objections to a Future righteous Retribution Answered. 271-
LETTER X.
Arguments for no Future Retribution Refuted.
LETTER XI.
Objections to Universalism stated. . . . . 321
LETTER XII.
Concluding Observations. . . . . . 345
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE TO THE READER,
GENTLE READER,
Before you enter upon the perusal of the following
pages, you will doubtless wish to ask a few questions.
Please to propose such as you think proper and I will
return honest and explicit answers.
“In what sense do you use the term universalist?”
I use it to denate an individual, who believes that a per-
fect retribution takes place in this world; who denies all
future rewards and punishments for the deeds done in the
body; who contends that all will be happy like the angels
in heaven the moment they enter the next conscious ex-
istence, and who declares that no distinctions will exist
among mankind beyond the grave.
“What name do you give to the person who believes
that all future punishment will terminate in the reforma-
tion and consequent happiness of mankind?” I call
him a restorationist. Many of this faith have already
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
separated from the universalists and organized them-
selves into a distinct denomination; while others of the
same sentiments still remain in the sect of universalists.
But this is no reason for withholding from them their
rightful name, as you learn from the following official
declaration. “It is not necessary that restorationists
should use this phrase, 'ultra,' to distinguish themselves
restorationist are sufficient distinctions." Very well.
I bow submissively to this authority; and will never
intentionally call a universalist an ultral, or a restora-
tionist a universalist. And I will do all in my power to
have this important distinction observed. Trumpet, v.ol.
xiv. p. 103.
“Have you attacked the distinguishing doctrine of
the restorationist?" I have not. My main object is
to establish the certainty of a future righteous retribu-
tion. I think there is little or nothing in the following
letters to which any of the number will object, whether
they are now connected with unitarians, universalists,
baptists, calvinists, methodists or episcopalians. And I
know not why any believers in future retribution should
dislike my work, since I have not discussed the ques-
tion of the duration of future punishment.
“Do you assert that universalists believe in a perfect
earthly retribution ? " I do. Read the following offi-
cial declarations. “The fundamental principle of uni-
versalism is this, that all men shall be rewarded accord-
0
)
YON
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
vii
ing to their works ; that the punishment of sin is not
delayed until the future existence, but that it is swift,
sure and inevitable. In regard to retribution, this is
the doctrine of universalists.” “It is a sentiment which
distinguishes us from all our religious opponents, that
this life is a state of retribution as well as of trial or
probation; that here virtue receives an ample reward
of happiness, and that here sin meets a competent punish-
ment of misery." " There is in the moral govern-
ment of our heavenly Father, an established admin-
istration, which secures to those who love and obey
him a present complete reward; and one which delays
not to give unto the wicked the reward of his hands.
To deny this, however popular the contrary opinion may
be, is a moral delirium, a fatal insanity, which not only
exposes us to danger, but absolutely plunges us into
trouble.” Trumpet, vol. xiii. p. 38. Cobb’s Sermon in
Ch. In. 1829. Ballou's Select Sermons, p. 87.
“Do you assert that universalists believe no one will
be rewarded hereafter for the goodness here acquired?"
I do. Read the following official declaration. “By
this rational interpretation, we avoid the heathen notion
of recompensing men in one state of being for the con-
duct they do in another. Of all reveries this is the
wildest. Jesus no where taught that doctrine.” Trum-
pet, vol. xii. p. 134.
“Do you assert that universalists believe no one will
be punished hereafter for the sins of this life?" I do.
TAI
viii
S
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
Read the following official declarations. “The univer--
salist does not indeed believe in punishment after death
for the sins of this life. Our doctrine is and has been,
that men will not be punished in the future world for the
sins of this life.” - Universalists do maintain that pun-
ishment in the future state is not threatened in the
divine word.” Trumpet, vol. xiii. p. 42. Vol. xii. pp.
158, 190.
“Do you assert that universalists believe all will be
made happy in heaven the moment they enter upon the
next conscious existence?" I do. Read the following
official declaration. “Universalists now know of no con-
dition for man beyond the grave but that in which he is
as the angels of God in heaven. Let the opponents then
refute, if they can, the views of universalists of the pre-
sent day.” Trumpet, vol. xii. p. 158.
- Do you assert that universalists believe there will be
no distinctions among men in a future life ? " I do. Read
the following explicit declaration. « The bible does not
support the doctrine of distinctions among mankind, either
in the grave or beyond it.” Trumpet, vol. xiii. p. 38.
" Will universalists be satisfied with having your
attack confined to these opinions?” Certainly. Read
the following official direction. “When you attack
the doctrine of universalists, we beseech you to take hold
of the real doctrine as it is believed now and defended
now. Refute Origen, if you can; and Relly and Win-
chester if you can; but do not suppose you have refuted
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
ix
us, because you have discovered discrepancies in the
systems of early universalists. Neither content your-
selves with combating what a private individual, here
and there, of the present day believes; but take the
sentiment of the order, read the books of its principal
authors, and seize the principal arguments, and overturn
them if you can.” Trumpet, vol. xi. p. 14.
“Who are considered the principal authors among
the universalists?” This question was once asked of
an official organ by an orthodox clergyman, so that he
might become acquainted with the “present prevailing
system of universalism;" and what answer was returned ?
Read the following statement. “I took a pen and ink
and wrote, Ballou on Atonement, Ballou's Notes on the
Parables, Ballou's Lectures, Kneeland's Lectures, Bal-
four's Enquiries, and all the volumes of the Universalist
Magazine or Trumpet.” Trumpet, vol. xi. p. 166. .
“Will not universalists consider your attack upon
their system unprovoked?" No. Read the following
false and official statement. “There has been a con-
stant effort, for a year or two, on the part of Mr. Whit-
man to torture and caricature the views of universalists
in regard to the future state. Is he not willing they
should abide by the word of God? Does he wish them
to be wise above what is written? If they have misun-
derstood any part of God's revealed truth, we ask, in the
name of justice, why he does not endeavor as a friend to
convince them of their error? He has always had oppor-
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE,
tunities, but has never attempted it. The gauntlet was
fairly thrown down to him a few months since by Rev.
Mr. Paige, of Cambridgeport; but with the most frivo-
lous pretences, and palpable evasions, he shrunk away
from the controversy, knowing too well the power of his
antagonist's mind and arguments to judge it safe to enter
the lists." Trumpet, vol. xiv. p. 154.
And now, gentle reader, let me conclude with a few
words of explanation. My views on some minor points
may be misunderstood, because I have not given them
a full statement and ample discussion. An enemy can
pervert my meaning in several places. I have address-
ed these communications to an honest man, and he will
endeavor to ascertain what I mean in every place, and
not what he can make my language teach. I hạve taken
no great pains to guard against perversions, and I know
that sentences may be taken from their connexion and
made to present apparent inconsistencies. Many of my
arguments are greatly contracted for want of room.
The whole branch of evidence in proof of my definition
of gehenna from the christian, fathers is necessarily omit-
ted. About one hundred and fifty years after Christ
Justin Martyr comments on a passage of our Savior in
which he cautions his disciples to fear God. As he is
addressing heathen converts he has to explain the word
used in the text quoted. These are his words. “Ge-
henna is the place where those are to be punished who
have led unrighteous lives, and disbelieved what God
CS
INTRODUCTORY EPISTLE.
X1
declared by Christ.” Now such testimony when added
to what I have advanced must possess no small value.
So also the evidence from Josephus in relation to the use
of hades in his day has been neglected. Speaking of
the belief of the sadducees he uses this language.
- The sadducees take away the belief of the duration
of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in hades."
Owing to my distance from the press and my want of
care in correcting the proof sheets, a few trifling mis-
takes appear in the text, which I must request you to
TA 2
IULUTUL
mention.
Errata.- Page 6, add after tenth line, "Provided all
other members of the human family do the same, and God
orders all events favorably.", Page 7, unreasonably for
unseasonably. Page 26, acquitable for equitable. Page
37, strike out not in first line. Page 172, add Jonathan
between Targum and Ben Uzziel.
(D

...
via on
-
nown mean tower
amb el
homenatge
KO
orem
SHELF
L
!
min....
Way
2
*******..
....***.
LETTERSEL
My Dear Sir,
Your candid and patient attention is invited to a friendly
discussion of the important question of divine rewards and
punishments. You profess to be a universalist of the mo-
dern school. You believe that a perfect retribution takes
place in this world. You believe that the righteous are
always and equitably and fully rewarded by their right-
eousness in this mortal life. You believe that the wick-
ed are always and equitably and fully punished by their
wickedness, in their present existence. Not only so.
You also believe that there will be no future retribu-
tion for the deeds done in the body. You believe
that the righteous will not be rewarded hereafter by the
righteousnes, which they have here acquired.. You
believe that the wicked will not be punished hereafter
by the wickedness which they have here committed.
In short you believe that the future condition of man-
kind will not be affected by the characters which they
have here formed. You believe that all rational beings
will be made pure and holy and happy when they enter
upon the next conscious existence. You assure me
that these two articles of your belief constitute the dis-
LETTER 1.
tinguishing features of modern, American universalism.
And you request me to express my honest convictions
on this controverted subject.
Now, my dear Sir, I firmly believe that your system
of universalism has no foundation in fact or revelation.
I will therefore frankly give you some of the reasons
for my belief. In the following pages I will endeavor
to illustrate the nature of temporal rewards and pun-
ishments; to prove that no perfect retribution takes
place in this world; to explain the meaning of christian
salvation; to produce some of the arguments from com-
mon sense and scripture in proof of a future righteous
retribution; to refute the principal objections which your
writers have made to this doctrine; to answer the argu-
ments which they have adduced in support of your sys-
tem; to state my objections to modern, American uni-
versalism, and to conclude with soine remarks on the
natural tendency of the different views of divine retri-
bution. I shall aim to manifest my friendship by using
great plainness of speech, and by declaring explicitly
my opinions and impressions on the various questions
that may arise. I know you will give my Letters a fair
and thorough examination. I believe you will cheer-
fully renounce your present sentiments on the points at
issue if I should prove them to be erroneous. I think
you will gladly embrace whatever truth may be elicited
and established by my remarks. And I may reasona-
bly expect, that all the members of your denomination
who think and judge for themselves, will peruse my
observations with candor and attention, since some of
your preachers have repeatedly called upon me to engage
in this discussion.
In the first place, you will naturally inquire what
I understand by divine rewards and punishments? In
answer to this question I will appeal directly to your
LETTER I.
own experience and observation. I trust you have an
undoubting faith in the infinite perfections of One uni-
versal Father. Has not this impartial Parent given
you existence? Has he not created you for happiness?
Has he not endowed you with an animal, an intellectual,
a moral nature, so that you may answer the design of
your creation? Has he not admirably adapted all your
appetites, passions, propensities, affections, corporeal
and mental and religious capacities for the accomplish-
ment of this glorious purpose? Has he not implanted
in your bosom an unconquerable desire for higher de-
grees of enjoyment? Has he not mercifully provided
all the necessary means for its gratification? Does he
not wish you to be continually happy? And does he
not do every thing which is consistent with your moral
freedom to promote your happiness? Surely an affirma-
tive answer must be returned to these several inquiries.
How then can you secure happiness and avoid misery?
In but one way. You must obey the laws of your
nature. But whence arise these laws? Where are
they recorded? How can we ascertain their adaptation?
What is their extent? They originated with your heav-
enly Father when he created man in his own image.
They are enstamped on your very constitution. They
are indicated in the works of nature. They are plainly
revealed in the gospel. They are known by experience
to be adapted to your necessities. They extend to every
principle of humanity; to all the relations you sustain
towards your fellow men and your allwise Creator and
benefactor. Hence there is a right course in every
thing, and a wrong course in every thing. The right
consists in thinking, feeling, believing, conversing, and
acting in all things and at all times as your Maker de-
signed you should think, feel, believe, converse and act
under the existing circumstances. The wrong consists
LETTER I.
either in omitting these particulars, or in pursuing a
different course in these several respects from what
you were made to pursue. When you follow the right
you obey in a greater or less degree the laws of your
nature, and this obedience is generally attended or fol-
lowed with more or less happiness.' When you adhere
to the wrong you disobey in a greater or less degree
the laws of your nature, and this disobedience is gen-
erally attended or followed with more or less misery.
Now, my dear Sir, you know that this happiness is
the natural consequence of your obedience. This hap-
piness then is the natural retribution or the paying you
for your righteousness. And this natural consequence,
this natural retribution, I call the divine reward of your
obedience to the laws of your nature. You also per-
ceive that this misery is the natural consequence of
your disobedience. This misery then is the natural
· retribution or the paying you for your wickedness. And
this natural consequence, this natural retribution, I call
the divine punishment of your disregard of the laws of
your constitution. You must likewise observe that re-
ligion consists in conforming to the rule of right in all
things and at all times; and that irreligion consists
either in neglecting the right or in pursuing the wrong.
The sole design of religion then is to enable you to
receive happiness and avoid misery. To be a christian
is to obey the laws of your nature, and happiness is the
reward of your obedience. To be a sinner is to disre-
gard these laws, and misery is the punishment of your
transgression. Consequently, we cannot receive the
happiness for which we were created without obedience
to the divine laws.
But perhaps you will inquire, why I call these re-
wards and punishments divine? Does our heavenly
Father interpose to furnish happiness when we obey his
LETTER I.
laws and misery when we disobey them? Not directly,
but through second causes. You know that he is the
author of your constitution. You know that he has
made you for holiness, and that all sin is directly con-
trary to your very natúre. · You know that you are a
free agent and have power to choose and practise right-
eousness, and also to discover and avoid wickedness.
You know that the righteous course is generally attended
or followed with happiness, and the wicked course as
generally attended or followed with misery. And you
know that all this is the arrangement of divine provi-
dence. Consequently the happiness you enjoy when
you have done righteously is as much divine as though
the Deity had interposed directly to confer this reward
for your obedience. And the misery you suffer when
you have done wickedly is as much divine as though
your Father had interfered directly to inflict this pun-
ishment for your transgression. Besides these rewards
and punishments through second causes, the Almighty
has occasionally interfered in a miraculous manner to
punish the guilty and reward the innocent; and surely
all such retributions are entitled to the name divine. I
think you must understand what I mean by divine re-
wards and punishments. The natural or-miraculous
consequences of obedience to the laws of God I call
divine rewards. The natural or miraculous consequen-
ces of transgression I call divine punishments. When
these consequences are confined to this world I call
them a temporal retribution; and when they extend be-.
yond the grave I call them a future retribution. I con-
clude therefore that no candid and intelligent reader
can mistake my meaning of the various phrases used in
the present discussion.
Let me now endeavor to illustrate the nature of tem-
poral rewards and punishments.
LETTER 1.
I. I will first direct your attention to the natural rew
wards of obedience, and to the natural punishments of
transgression. I will arrange my remarks according to
the different relations we sustain, and the corresponding
duties we are under obligation to perform.
1. The duties which you owe to yourself are the first
in order. You were made to enjoy uninterrupted hap-
piness. You can secure this invaluable boon by con-
forming to whatever is right in every particular, and in
avoiding whatever is wrong at all times and under all
circumstances. · It becomes your highest interest then
to practise righteousness and shun iniquity, so that you
may obtain the enjoyment for which you were created,
and glorify your heavenly Father by living in all instan-
ces as he intended. Let me now give you a few illus-
trations of these remarks.
In the first place, you were made to enjoy uninter-
rupted health. If your parents and ancestors have
obeyed the laws of their physical nature, you have
doubtless inherited a perfect animal constitution, and
are therefore prepared to enjoy more or less of the re-
wards of their obedience, and to transmit them to pos-
terity. If they have disobeyed these laws, you have
probably inherited an imperfect constitution, and must
consequently suffer more or less of the punishments of
their transgression, and transmit them much beyond the
third and fourth generation. Whoever knows any thing
of human nature must know that the iniquities of the
fathers are visited upon their children. It will be suffi-
cient in this place to mention the predisposition to the
gout, scrofula, consumption and insanity. Now if you
scrupulously obey the laws of your Maker which relate
to your animal nature, you receive uninterrupted health;
and the natural consequence of health is a high degree
of satisfaction and a preparation for all the other rational
LETTER I.
enjoyments of life. If you disobey these laws you suffer
the penalty; and the natural consequence of your trans-
gression will consist in a greater or less degree of pain
and sickness, and an unfitness for participation in the
various blessings of life. Suppose then your constitu-
tion is perfect, and you endeavor to render the required
obedience. - You eat the right kind of food, at proper
times and in suitable quantities. You will drink whole-
some liquids, in moderate portions and at appointed
seasons. You will take sufficient exercise, in various
ways and at convenient hours. You will sleep no more
nor less than nature requires. You will always regu-
late your dress according to the present temperature.
You will avoid all improper exposure to heat or cold,
to moisture or dryness, to impure air or contagious dis-
ease. You will shun every thing which can impart
disease or give physical suffering. You will practise
all things which were designed to increase your cor-
poreal enjoyments, and preserve your animal functions
in full vigor and strength. And what will be the natural
consequence of this obedience to the laws of your con-
stitution? Health, which is itself a source of happiness
and a necessary qualification for enjoying the pleasures
which arise from all other sources. This health then I
pronounce the divine, reward of your obedience.
Now suppose you should pay no particular regard to
the laws of your physical being. You would eat un-
healthy food, at improper times, and in quantities either
too great or too small. You would drink injurious
liquids, in excessive or scanty portions, and at periods
the most irregular and dangerous. You would be un-
duly and unreasonably exposed to all the varieties of
heat and cold, to moisture and dryness, and also to im-
pure atmosphere and pestilential vapors. Your sleep
LETTER 1.
and exercise would be neither regular nor productive of
beneficial results. In short you would disregard all the
known and necessary laws of health. And what would
be the consequence of this disobedience? More or less
pain and disease and sickness. You would be unquali-
fied in a greater or less degree for the performance of
your incumbent duties, and for rational enjoyment.
Perhaps death itself would come suddenly and perhaps
you would linger many years in wretchedness. All this
suffering and loss I consider to be the divine punishment
of your transgression. Now I believe it is as much a
part of religion to obey these laws of your physical
nature, as any other of your Father's requisitions.
You must be convinced from your own experience and
observation that the penalties of disobedience are severe
and almost certain to be inflicted. I imagine there is
more suffering from this one source of sinfulness than
from the transgression of many other commands. And
it is not merely the body that experiences the sad con-
sequences of the wickedness. The mind very frequently
feels itself guilty; the man is conscious of having know-
ingly done wrong; he sensibly realizes that he has un-
fitted himself for the performance of his necessary
duties, and his compunctions of conscience are most
poignant. And must not this consequence extend to
the next existence? Although physical suffering may
cease with the dissolution of the body, yet I can see no
reason why the soul, which in many cases has been the
sinner, which has suffered severely even here for its
transgressions, must not hereafter lament its disobedi-
ence of the divine laws. This surely would be nothing
more nor less than the natural consequence of its disre-
gard of the commands of heaven. And must not he who
has so preserved his health as to make great advances
in knowledge and goodness feel rewarded by the con-
LETTER I.
sciousness of having done righteously and by the pos-
session of high degrees of wisdom and holiness? With-
out pressing this question, I have said sufficient to illus-
trate one particular of temporal rewards and punishments.
In the second place, you were made to derive hap-
piness from the proper gratification of your appetites.
They are given you for this purpose in connexion with
other important uses. You may secure this reward by
observing rigidly the laws which your Creator has or-
dained for their regulation. Suppose then you should
render perfect obedience. You would be temperate in
the use of all nourishing food and drinks. You would
abstain wholly from whatever is injurious or unhealthy.
And what would be the natural consequence? You
would possess a pure and delicate taste, and a keen and
well regulated appetite. Your meals would afford you
a high degree of pleasure. Their immediate and remote
effects on your system would be pleasing and beneficial.
Your animal nature would be nourished and invigorated.
You would thus be qualified for intellectual and moral
advancement. All this enjoyment and preparation for
duty I pronounce the divine reward of your obedience.
Now suppose you should disregard the laws of tem-
perance. Suppose you should become an intemperate
drinker of ardent spirits. You would experience much
pain and sickness. Your health would be injured and
your constitution undermined. Your temper would be-
come fretful and your mental powers would be enerva-
ted. Your moral feelings would be blunted and bruti-
fied, and your social affections wasted and destroyed.
Your property would be dissipated, your family and
friends disgraced, and your neighbors injured. You
would be unfitted for the performance of your obligatory
duties. You would not answer the design of your .cre-
ation. Your enjoyments would be diminished and your
10
LETTER I.
misery increased in various ways. All this and much
more would be the natural consequence of your intem-
perance. This suffering and degradation I consider the
divine punishment for your disobedience. Now it is as
much a part of duty to govern your appetites as to ob-
serve any other of the divine laws. Intemperance in
both eating and drinking, but particularly in eating, is a
crying sin of our land. Thousands and tens of thou-
sands of immortal beings are annually hastened to the
grave by an excessive gratification of the appetites. And
this wickedness. By no means. Let a man become
intoxicated by accident and the natural consequences of
drunkenness on his body cannot be avoided. But let
him knowingly indulge to excess a second time, and he
is so constituted that he will experience the most severe
compunctions of conscience. Almost every confirmed
drunkard in moments of soberness suffers the most ex-
cruciating mental agony. And what can prevent these
consequences from extending to the next existence ? It
is the free soul which sins. And can the mind of man
when in a sound state ever view intemperance with com-
upon the injury which he inflicted upon himself, his friends
and society? Can the recollection of a wasted and de-
graded life, of duties neglected and sins committed, af-
ford comfort to a religious mind ? Surely not. Then
how can the drunkard escape from himself, from a re-
membrance of his aggravated wickedness, from the hor-
ror and remorse of a guilty and self-condemned con-
science ? On the contrary, must not the man who has
qualified himself by strict temperance for a christian
life ever rejoice in his successful resistance to temptation,
and in his mental and moral attainments. I see not how
these natural consequences can possibly be avoided. I
LETTER 1.
11
have however said sufficient to illustrate another instance
of temporal rewards and punishments.
In the third place, your mind was made to be educa-
ted. You may expand its powers almost indefinitely by
discipline. You may acquire an unlimited degree of
useful knowledge by industry and application. You may
qualify yourself by education for the most exquisite in-
tellectual enjoyment and the most distinguished useful-
ness. If then you obey the laws which regulate your
mental operations you will find the greatest satisfaction
in your obedience. The whole process of culture will
be attended with a high degree of pleasure. Your in-
creasing information will afford you great delight. And
your ability to enjoy, and to communicate, and to bene-
fit, will be the natural consequence of your application.
This happiness and capacity for felicity, and mental and
moral power, I call the divine reward of your obedience.
Now suppose you should altogether disregard the laws
of your mind. You would spend no time in reading or
meditation. You would acquire very little valuable in-
struction. You-would be unfitted for many of the impor-
tant duties of life. You would live and die in ignorance.
And what would be the natural consequence of this
course of transgression? You would lose all the pleas-
ures which arise from mental cultivation, from valuable
information, from intellectual power. And you would
suffer many inconveniences and vexations for want of
more education. And if you had wilfully abused your
privileges, and wasted your time, and neglected the cul-
tivation of your talents, you would experience many
hours of self-condemnation and wretchedness. All this
suffering, incapacity and loss of the purest enjoyments,
I should consider the divine punishment of your disobe-
dience. Now it is as much a part of christian duty to
obey the laws which relate to the improvement of the
12
LETTER 1.
mind as it is to observe any of the other precepts of the
gospel. Almost infinite evils arise from this transgres-
sion. And what can prevent these consequences from
extending to another world ? You have seen the man
whose youth was spent in idleness and dissipation, lament-
ing most bitterly his iniquity, and suffering most severe-
ly for his negligence and wickedness. And when he
enters a spiritual life beyond the grave can he look with
approbation on what he now condemns ? Must he not
feel more sensibly his ingratitude and sinfulness? Must
not his wilful ignorance, which unfits him in some degree
for the most refined pleasures of the soul on earth, equal-
ly disqualify him for the same enjoyments in heaven?
On the contrary must not the individual who has done
most for his own mental and moral advancement be best
prepared for the enjoyment of mental and moral happi-
ness? But on this ground, you will ask what must be
the future conditions of the millions who die in utter ig-
norance. Look among savage nations, and although
their ignorance is unavoidable, you perceive that they
suffer the natural consequences of their disobedience to
the laws of their intellectual nature. You notice the
great enjoyments of which they are deprived, and the
great wretchedness which they suffer, on account of this
transgression. As their ignorance is not wilful but ne-
cessary they feel no compunctions of conscience; and
surely they can feel none on this account when admitted
to a brighter existence. “And although they are unfitted
for the higher degrees of celestial enjoyments, still is it
not in the power of the universal Father to place them
in the most favorable situations for improvement, so as
eventually to equalize their advantages with those of the
rest of mankind ? If he can make such distinctions in
this respect as now exist on earth, he surely can do the
same thing in another world. And will not this course
LETTER 1.
13
be necessary to establish his impartial and paternal char-
acter? I can pursue this topic no farther at present.
Thus I have given you three illustrations of the duties
which you owe to yourself. Several more might be
sketched did my limits permit. These however are suf-
ficient to convince you that obedience to the laws of your
nature is generally attended or followed with more or
less happiness; and that disobedience is usually attended
or followed with more or less misery. Consequently
you see the necessity of living righteously in every par-
ticular if you would secure the divine reward and avoid
the divine punishment; and I believe you will find no
way in which the natural consequences of your conduct
can be prevented from attending you into another exis-
tence.
2. The duties which you owe your fellow men come
next in order. You were made to love your brethren
as yourself. You were created to do unto them in all
things and at all times as you would have them do unto
you. So far as you obey these laws of your nature, so
far you secure the reward of your obedience. So far
as you neglect or transgress these laws, so far you incur
blame and punishment. Unless your obedience be per-
fect your happiness will be imperfect. It is your high-
est interest therefore to observe these laws, so as to se-
cure the enjoyment for which you were created, promote
the welfare of your equal fellows in which your own is
more or less involved, and glorify your Father in heav-
en by living in these several particulars as he intended.
Let me give you a few illustrations of these observations.
In the first place you were made to be honest in your
dealings, with your fellow men. You are surrounded
with temptations to cheat and defraud. You have in
your own mind motives to resistance sufficiently power-
ful. You have merely to place yourself in the situation
.
14
LETTER 1.
of your neighbor and the victory is gained. Now would
you desire your brother to deceive you in a bargain ?
Would you have him make you believe an article is of
superior quality when he knows it is wholly worthless ?
Should you wish him to induce you to pay much more
than the real value of the purchase ? Are you willing
he should defraud you in any manner whatever or to any
amount however small ? Certainly not. If then you
are guilty of any of those sins which you would unhes-
itatingly condemn in him, do you not knowingly violate
the law of benevolence ?. And what follows? You feel
a degree of oppression at your heart. Your mind re-
proaches you for having wilfully done wrong. Your
iniquity is sooner or later discovered. You resolve up-
on restoring some of your ill-gotten gains. You have
not moral courage to carry your resolutions into execu-
tion. You despise yourself, and you fear many others
have the same feelings towards you. You cannot look
to heaven for a blessing upon such unhallowed means of
obtaining property. Your character suffers in the esti-
mation of your acquaintances. Little or no confidence
is reposed in your integrity. You know very few if any
real friends. In hours of reflection or danger or sick-
ness, your dishonest dealings cause you the most pain-
ful reflections and the most fearful forebodings. All
this and much more is the natural consequence of your
iniquity; and all this I pronounce the divine punishment
of your disobedience.
Now suppose you should be perfectly honest in all
your transactions with your fellow men. Suppose you
should do unto them in all your dealings as you would
have them do unto you. You would speak the truth,
and the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on every
occasion. And what would follow ?. You would feel a
high degree of satisfaction in the consciousness of al-
LETTER I.
15
ways doing right. You would experience an elevation
of spirits too little known among men of business. You
would daily seek the blessing of an omniscient Father on
your labors, to whom you would appeal in proof of the
sincerity of your intentions. You would look your cus-
tomers in the face with an undaunted eye and an un-
blushing countenance. Your character would be re-
spected by all, even the intriguing and deceitful. Unlim-
ited confidence would be reposed in your word. Your
business would be increased. And in times of self-ex-
amination, or affliction, or approaching dissolution, you
would review your truly christian course with approba-
tion. You would experience the smiles of an enlighten-
ed conscience. All this and much more is the natural
consequence of your honesty ; and all this I pronounce
the divine reward of your obedience. And what can
prevent these consequences from extending to another
existence? Whatever the gospel authorizes you to re-
gard with satisfaction in the hour of death must increase
your enjoyment in a purer and more spiritual region.
And if you condemn yourself for your dishonest and
fraudulent practices when standing on the brink of the
grave, if you then suffer the most exquisite torments on
account of your unjust and sinful dealings, what is to
change your views and feelings on your entrance into a
state in which wickedness will appear in its true defor-
mity ? Can you then look with approbation on the ma-
ny instances in which you deceived and injured your
brethren? Will it give you happiness to remember how
great riches you acquired by falsehood ? I see no way
in which you can escape these natural consequences of
your obedience or transgression.
In the second place, you were made to obtain your
living by some useful occupation.' You may employ
your body or your mind, or both in connexion. The
16
LETTER I.
philosopher in his study has done more for the advance-
ment of the human family than thousands who have
devoted themselves to manual employments. In what
condition would the world have been, had not the inven-
tions of printing, the mariner's compass, the machinery
for cotton and woolen fabrics, and a thousand others,
never been known? All useful employments are equally
honorable, and the day laborer is as much entitled to
respect for his honest industry as the overseer of the
most complicated mechanism on earth. Suppose then
you follow agriculture, the most ancient occupation of
man, and without which all others must terminate. You
secure health and competence. You escape a thousand,
temptations to which others are exposed. · Many occur-
rences naturally lead your thoughts up through nature
to the supreme ruler of the universe. You are not
dependent on your fellow men for your daily bread.
Circumstances conspire to produce contentment, do-
mestic enjoyment, and much mental and moral improve-
ment. Now the result of all these things is rational
happiness. This then I pronounce the divine reward
of your obedience.
But suppose you should pursue a different course.
Suppose you should endeavor to gain a subsistence by
the useless and pernicious vice of gambling. While
engaged in this business you do nothing to increase
provision, clothing, or improvement in knowledge or
goodness. On the contrary you aim to obtain the pro-
perty of your neighbor without returning him any equiv-
alent, or without his giving it to you as a present; and
consequently what you receive is fraudulently acquired.
You are taken from your family at unseasonable hours,
and often return with a peevish and crabbed disposition.
You set an example which you dare not let your child-
ren observe or imitate.' You are tempted to indulge in
LETTER I.
lying, profanity, obscenity and excessive drinking.
Your character is ruined in the estimation of all wise
and christian persons. You are instrumental in seduc-
ing the promising youth from the paths of virtue and
honest industry. You are accessary to the destruction
of his moral principles, his brightest prospects for this
world, and his best hopes for another. With all this
accumulated load of guilt on your head, how can you
enjoy a moment's real happiness?. It is impossible. You
cannot ask the blessing of your Father upon your un-
dertaking. In your, own soul you know it is a wicked
and ruinous occupation. You can never look back with
satisfaction either upon your gains or losses. You can
never think of your habits and practices without severe
compunctions of conscience. You fear sickness and
death and futurity. All this is the natural consequence
of your iniquity; the divine punishment for your diso-
bedience of the laws of your Creator. And can these
consequences cease with the death of the body? Will
you take delight in heaven in contemplating your wretched
and depraved existence on earth? Will not the indus-
trious and virtuous laborer who has done good to others
find himself qualified for pure and holy pleasures? I
put these questions to your common sense.
3. In the third place, you were made to love your
neighbor as you love yourself. If this affection exists
in your bosom it will manifest itself in your feelings,
dispositions, conversation and conduct. How then
would you discover your friendship for yourself? Would
you endeavor to waste your property, injure your influ-
ence, and destroy your character? These are acts of
the insane and wicked who hate their own existence.
Suppose then you disregard this law of your nature;
suppose you really hate your brother; the fruits of
your enmity will appear in your behaviour. You will
18
LETTER I.
feel uneasy and restless whenever his name passes
through your memory. You will be watching for op-
portunities to diminish his wealth or popularity or respect.
You will throw out hints, insinuations and even direct
charges respecting his purity or innocence or honesty
or integrity. You will rejoice to hear of his misfortunes
and his ill success in the business of life. In short
your hatred will fill your bosom with more or less wretch-
edness. And besides this your fellow men will lose
their respect for your character. They will receive
your statements with caution. They will feel less kindly
towards you, and be less ready to aid you in even your
good undertakings. They will pity and in some in-
stances despise you. All this and much more is the
natural consequence of your wickedness; and all
this I consider the divine punishment of your disobe-
dience.
Now.suppose you should strictly observe this divine
command. You would regard your neighbor as a child
of your Father; equally dear by nature to your com-
mon parent, and entitled to equal rights and privileges
and hopes. You would feel that your own happiness
depended in no small degree on his mental, moral and
temporal prosperity. You would accordingly regard
his feelings, his property, his character, as sacred as your
own. You would endeavor in every possible way to ad-
vance his best welfare. And what would follow? You
would feel at ease in your own mind. You would de-
rive improvement and enjoyment from your friendship.
You would realize that you had one on whom you could
depend in every situation. You would view your inter-
course towards him with satisfaction. All this and much
more would be the natural consequence of your affec-
tion; the divine reward of your obedience. And must
not these consequences extend beyond the grave? Will
LETTER I.
19
you not renew your intimacy with the virtuous brother?
Will not a recollection of your past kindness and love
increase your celestial joys? Will you not be better
prepared for the felicity of a heavenly existence? On
the contrary, can you ever look with approbation upon
your hatred and enmities? Will it afford you pleasure
to remember your unchristian feelings and your infernal
dispositions? I see no way in which you can ever be-
come so perfect as not to loathe all ill will and revenge.
I have given you a few specimens of the duties which
we owe to our fellow men. Similar remarks might be
made respecting the remainder did my limits permit.
Sufficient however have been mentioned for all present
purposes.
3. The duties which you owe to your heavenly Fa-
ther are now to be considered. You were created to
believe in one impartial parent; to love him with supreme
affection; to worship him in spirit and truth; to confide
in his goodness with implicit confidence; to remember
his manifold blessings with lively gratitude; to submit to
his various dispensations with cheerfulness, and to ren-
der unreserved obedience to his beneficial commands.
If you comply with these requisitions of your nature, you
· secure the happiness for which you were created, and
glorify your Maker by. living in all things as he intended.
In the first place, you 'were made to believe in the
existence of One all-perfect Fạther. Many of your
fellow men have not this belief. Some few in christian
lands profess to have no faith in a Supreme Being. They
have made themselves atheists either by false reasoning
or depraved living. Their minds are in a state of con-
fusion. They cannot give vent to the natural devotion
of the human heart. All the works of creation are
in disorder. They have no support in trials. They
have no consolations in afflictions. They have no friend
20
LETTER I.
in danger, no hope in the grave, no Father in heayen.
How deplorable their condition. There are others in
heathen countries who believe in many gods. They
worship idols of their own making or creation or deifi-
cation. Some they flatter and some they fear; some
they despise and some they imitate; and nothing but
wretchedness is the natural result of their erroneous
belief. There are others again who believe in the One
true God, but have no correct views of his real charac-
ter. They ascribe to him actions which would disgrace
a human parent. They consider him as both partial
and revengeful. They fear he will not deal so well
with his own children as they should did they possess
his power. , And for these and other reasons they suffer
many hours of anxiety and misery. In all these cases
the unhappiness and degradation are the natural conse-
quences of unbelief or misbelief; the divine punish-
ment for their disobedience to the laws of their mental
constitution.
Now if you believe the representations of your Savior
respecting your heavenly Father, you will entertain cor-
rect notions of his character and perfections and govern-
ment. You will regard him as a self-existent creator,
preserver and benefactor. You will view him as the
merciful parent of his human family. You believe that
he loves all his children with an infinite affection; that
he overrules the events of this world in wisdom and
benevolence; and that he never afflicts in anger or
wrath or resentment. You believe that he sent his well
beloved son to be the Savior of the world. It gives you
delight to meditate upon his unbounded benevolence.
So long as you render him gratitude, affection and obe-
dience you preserve an unfailing confidence in his
unchangeable love. In hours of sickness and death
you know that your friend and Father will be with you
LETTER I.
21
for your support and consolation. All this and much
more is the natural consequence of your correct faith
on this subject; the divine reward of your obedience
to the laws of your intellectual and moral nature. And
what can prevent these consequences from extending to
another life? So far indeed as unbelief or misbelief are
necessary no one can suffer the compunctions of con-
science on their account either here or in the world to
come. So far as any one has neglected or abused the
light and evidence granted for his guidance, so far he
must feel guilty, and condemn his own wickedness.
And so far as the true belief has aided any one in secur-
ing the happiness of this life and preparing for heaven,
so far he carries the reward of his obedience in his own
soul. Enough however has been said to illustrate this
particular.
In the second place, you were made to love your
heavenly Father supremely. Affections for this pur-
pose have been implanted in your bosom. Motives to
its cultivation are multiplied. You are free to conform
to this law of your nature or to disregard its directions.
Suppose you should neglect to cultivate the required
affection. You would give your thoughts to earthly
concerns. You would find the pleasures of this world
transient and unsatisfactory. You would feel an aching
void in your heart which no temporal blessings can
ever supply. You would become uneasy, restless, dis-
contented. You are not prepared for the changes and
trials of life, and their occurrence brings dismay and
anguish. All this and much more is the natural conse-
quence of your neglect and ingratitude; the divine pun-
ishment of your disobedience.
But suppose you should endeavor to comply with the
divine injunction. You will carefully study the works
of your Father so as to have the evidence of his infinite
22
LETTER 1.
perfections deeply impressed upon your mind. You
will meditate upon the various displays of his goodness
in the world around. You will contemplate his unspeak-
able love in appearing for the salvation of a perishing
world. You will examine the descriptions given of his
paternal character by your divine Savior. . You will
call to mind the favors you have received at his hands.
You will often raise your thoughts to him in spiritual
devotion. . You will aim to see him in everything and
every thing in him. In this way you will acquire a
pure and ardent love for the only true God. And this
affection will give rise to all your conduct; will sustain
you under the greatest afflictions; will animate you in
the discharge of incumbent duties; will console you
under the heaviest afflictions, and will render you happy
in some degree at all times. All this and much more
is the natural consequence of your love; the divine
reward for your obedience to the laws which were given
to regulate your affections. And can these conse-
quences be prevented from extending to the other ex-
istence? Can he who has blasphemed the name of his
maker, despised his providence, disregarded his com-
mands, join at once with those who have learned by
long practice to love and worship their heavenly father?
Impossible. I have thus given you a few illustrations of
the duties which we owe to our Creator. I might make
similar remarks concerning the remainder did my limits
permit; but enough has been said to explain the first
division of my subject.
Thus, my dear sir, have I given you a few brief illus-
trations of the natural rewards of obedience, and the
natural punishments of transgression. Now if you could
prove that the laws of your nature are perfect in their
operation ; if you could prove that the obedient always
enjoyed a full and equitable reward ; if you could prove
LETTER I.
23
that the wicked always suffered a full and equitable pun-
ishment ; still the argument for a future retribution would
remain unaffected. For you know that the consequen-
ces of both goodness and wickedness extend far beyond
the period of action. You know that the consequences
of a virtuous or dissipated youth extend through the
whole of mortal life. Now before you can convince me
that there is to be no future retribution, you must estab-
lish the three following positions. You must prove that
the present life has no connexion whatever with the next
existence ; and is not this supposition contrary to both
reason and revelation ? You must also prove that we
shall have no remembrance in the next life of what took
place on earth ; and is not this also contrary to truth
and scripture ? You must likewise prove that we expe-
rience a moral change in our passage from this world
to the other; and is not this likewise most absurd ? As
these positions never have been proved true, I trust they
never will while sound reasoning is respected. But you
cannot prove the first particular, that the laws of your
nature are perfect in their operation. No ; this 'cannot
be accomplished. It is perfectly evident that various
causes exist to modify their effects, so that the wicked
are not always and fully punished, nor the righteous-al-
ways and fully rewarded. Consequently a future retri-
bution seems to my mind absolutely necessary to justify
the ways of God to man. But as these topics will be
more fully discussed hereafter I forbear, and request
your continued attention to the remainder of the present
subject.
II. I will now direct your attention to some instances
of happiness, and misery which are not generally consid-
ered to be the natural consequences of obedience and
transgression. Some of these are undoubtedly caused
by the miraculous interposition of our Father in favor of
24
LETTER 1.
goodness and against wickedness. Some are evidently
the natural consequences of human conduct either whol-
ly or in part, and the necessary results of the ordinary
operations of the natural laws of the Creator. And
some are neither the natural consequences either of ob-
serving or disregarding the divine commands, nor the
miraculous interpositions of Deity either for reward or
punishment. Let me give you a few brief illustrations
of these several assertions. .
1. I will first notice some of those instances in which
our heavenly Father has miraculously interfered to re-
ward the righteous and punish the wicked. All the ex-
amples of this character which are mentioned in the
bible I receive as certain facts ; for I find sufficient evi-
dence to satisfy my mind that the scriptures contain the
record of a divine revelation. There may have been
other cases of a similar nature which are not contained
in the sacred writings; but as I have no convincing
proof of a miraculous interference in any given instance,
I must withhold my assent from all such relations.
In the first place, look at some of the instances in
which our heavenly Father interfered miraculously for
the preservation and happiness of his obedient children.
Enoch and Elijah were translated to heaven without pas-
sing through the pangs of a temporal death. Joseph
received supernatural aid to interpret dreams which
paved the way for his future greatness and glory. Daniel
remained unharmed in a den of lions. Shadrach, Me-
shach and Abednego were uninjured in the midst of a
burning fiery furnace. The Hebrews were conveyed
through the Red Sea in safety. Manna from heaven
was given them for food. Constant use diminished not
the widow's oil. Many of the believing received favors
through the commissioned Savior. The prison doors
were opened to the persecuted apostle. - Now we must
11
LETTER I.
25
consider these and all similar cases recorded in scrip-
ture as miraculous interpositions of our Father, not
merely to manifest his approbation of moral goodness,
but to furnish satisfactory evidence of a divine revela-
tion. Are the rewards of obedience equitably distribu-
ted in this world? Why then have not the righteous
when in extreme danger and distress oftener received
supernatural assistance? Here is surely strong indica-
tions of partiality, if this is the only state of retribution.
In the second place, look at some of those instances
in which our Father has miraculously interfered to pun-
ish the wicked. The antedeluvians were destroyed with
a flood. The Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea.
The cities of the plain were overwhelmed with fire
and brimstone. Korah and his company were swallow-
ed by an earthquake. Ananias and Sapphira were in-
stantly levelled with the dust. These and all similar
examples recorded in the sacred writings must be consid-
ered miraculous interpositions of heaven. But for what
purpose ? As a punishment of the disobedient. Such
is the declaration of revelation. But if your belief of
no future retribution be true, these judgments cannot be
called punishments. On the contrary I should consider
them as miraculous rewards conferred on the depraved.
Take the inhabitauts of Sodom for an example. They
were exceedingly wicked. Of course they were truly
wretched. They were suddenly destroyed. They were
thus saved from the many miserable hours which they.
must have experienced had they continued on earth.
They escaped those severe compunctions of conscience
which a review of their wasted and profligate life must
have produced. They were relieved from the pains and
agonies of a lingering and unhappy death. From these
and other temporal sufferings they were taken by a mo-
mentary. destruction. Now if this was the end of their
26
LETTER I.
sins and miseries ; if they are never to endure another
moment's pain and wretchedness ; if they are to be pure
and happy the instant they enter upon the next conscious
existence, what did they lose by the overwhelming ca-
lamity ?. Nothing but punishment. What did they gain ?
A release from. torment and an admission to unspeakable
felicity. If this be the fact as you believe, must we not
consider their destruction from the face of the earth a
special favor of heaven? Surely it can be considered
in no other light. What then do the scriptures mean by
calling such events divine punishments ? Not only so.
On your own ground you cannot prove an'acquitable
retribution in this world. Why are so many cities which
are equally wicked not specially favored with a sudden
translation from degradation and indescribable suffering
to celestial happiness? I have thus given you a specimen
of what revelation pronounces divine rewards and pun-
ishments. Consider them in what light you please, and
I believe you must admit that they furnish an unanswer-
able argument in proof of a future righteous retribution.
2. I will now notice some of those instances of pres-
ervation and destruction which individuals have denom-
inated special or miraculous interpositions of our Father,
but which I consider to be nothing more than the com-
mon results of the ordinary operations of the natural
laws of our Creator. In order to convince me that any
such' occurrence is supernatural, you must first prove
• that the event could not have occurred in the ordinary
course of Providence, such for instance as the raising
to life of a dead man; and then you must also prove that
some valuable purpose is to be answered by the interpo-
sition, such for example as establishing the truth of di-
vine revelation. I do not think it will be possible to
prove these two positions in any of those constantly oc-
curring cases which people call special mercies and
LETTER I.
27
.
judgments. Let me refer you to a few examples of this
description :
In the first place, look to some of those instances in
which it is supposed our Father miraculously interfered
biography of the late Dr. Adam Clarke now before me,
and as he has been ranked the most learned man among
the Methodists, I will select two examples from this pub-
lication. Listen to his own words. “Having occasion
to bring home a sack of grain from a neighboring village;
it was laid over the bare back of his horse, and to keep
it steady he rode on the top; one end being much heav-
ier than the other, he found it difficult to keep it on: 'at
last it preponderated so much, that it fell, and he under
it; his back happened to come in contact with a pointed
stone; he was taken up apparently dead; a person at-
tempted to draw some blood from his arm, but in vain,
none would flow, and his face and neck turned quite
black. He lay insensible for more than two hours, dur-
ing the greater part of which time, he was not known
even to breathe, so that all said he is dead. He was
brought near the fire and rubbed with warm.cloths; at
length a plenteous flow of blood from the orifice in his
arm, was the means of promoting that respiration which
had been so long obstructed. All had given him over
for dead, and even now that he began to breathe, but
with an oppressive sense of the acutest pain, few enter-
tained hopes that he could long survive this accident.
In about twenty-four hours it was thought that he might
in an easy chair be carried home, which was about a
-mile distant. He however utterly refused to get into
the chair, but while the men carried it, held it with his
father's house; and in a short time, to the great surprise
of all who had witnessed the accident, was completely
LETTER I.
restored. Had he not been designed for matters of great
and high importance, it is not likely in the ORDINARY course
of nature he would have survived this accident.” Now in
this relation there is nothing more remarkable than what
has occurred to hundreds of others; and I believe any
scoundrel of the same bodily powers would have passed
through the accident in the same favorable manner.
Let me present you another example from the same
author. This is his own statement. “Mr. Wesley's
time allotted for his visit to these Islands being expired,
he purposed sailing for Southampton by the first fair
wind, as he had appointed to be at Bristol on a particu-
lar day; but the wind continuing adverse, and an Eng-
lish brig touching at Guernsey on her way from France
to Penzance they agreed for their passage, Mr. Clarke
having obtained Mr. Wesley's permission to accompany
them to England. They sailed out of Guernsey road
on Thursday, the sixth of September, with a fine fair
breeze; but in a short time, the wind which had contin-
ued slackening, died away, and afterwards rose up in
that quarter which would have favored the passage to
Southampton or Weymouth, had they been so bound.
The contrary wind blew in to a tight breeze, and they
were obliged to make frequent tacks, in order to clear the
Island. Mr. Wesley was sitting reading in the cabin,
and hearing the noise and bustle which were occasioned
by putting about the vessel, to stand on her different
tacks, he put his head above deck and inquired what
was the matter?. Being told the wind was become con-
trary, and the ship was obliged to tack, he said, — Then
let us go to prayer. His own company, who were upon
deck, walked down, and at his request Dr. Coke, Mr.
Bradford, and Mr. Clarke went to prayer. After the
latter had ended, Mr. Wesley broke out into fervent
supplication, which seemed to be more the offspring of
LETTER I.
29
strong faith than mere desire, his words were remarka-
ble, as well as the spirit, evident feeling, and manner in
which they were uttered. The power of his petition was
felt by all; he rose from his knees, made no kind of
remark, but took up his book and continued his reading.
Mr. Clarke went upon deck, and what was his surprise
when he found the vessel standing her right course, with
a steady breeze, which slackened not, till, carrying them
at the rate of nine or ten knots an hour, they anchored
safely near St. Michael's Mount, in Penzance bay. On
the sudden and favorable change of wind Mr. Wesley
made no remark; so fülly did he expect to be heard, that
he took for granted he was heard. Such answers to
prayer he was in the habit of receiving; and therefore to
him, the occurrence was not strange. Mr. Wesley was
no ordinary man; every hour, every minute of his time
was devoted to the great work which God had given him
to do; and it is not to be wondered at that he was favor-
ed, and indeed accredited, with many signal interpositions
of divine providence. Mr. Clarke himself has confes-
sed, that high as his opinion was of Mr. Wesley's piety
and faith, he had no hope that the wind which had long
set in the opposite quarter, and which had just now
changed in a very natural way, would immediately veer
about, except by providential interference, to blow in a
contrary direction. There were too many marked ex-
traordinary circumstances in the case, to permit any at-
tentive observer to suppose that the change had been
effected by any natural or casual occurrence.” Now if
Mr. Clarke can prove that the wind would not have
changed if Mr. Wesley's prayer had not been offered,
then the first step will have been taken to establish a special
providence; but this can never be done, and consequently
we have no evidence in the case whatever. And to
suppose that God Almighty had made John Wesley an
30
LETTER I.
"accredited” messenger of his providence requires a
degree of credulity which I do not possess. These spe-
cimens are sufficient to show that no satisfactory proof
exists in confirmation of modern miracles.
In the second place, look at the other side of the
question. . Instances have occurred in which individuals
suppose that our Father interferes miraculously for the
punishment and destruction of his children. Since I
have selected the former examples from a Methodist
book, I will still confine my remarks to the same denom-
ination. When the unitarian church in this place was
struck by- lightning, some of the members of this sect
pronounced it a special judgment. This was their calm
and deliberate opinion. They believed that our Father
had departed from his usual course to manifest. his dis-
pleasure against our peculiar sentiments. Not long since
the Methodist chapel in a neighboring town was struck
in a similar manner and greatly damaged. Had it not
been for the timely interference of human means the
building would have been wholly destroyed. Now will
they be consistent? Will they call this a special judg-
ment, to manifest the diviné disapprobation of their dis-
tinguishing belief. Not only so.. It is but a few years
since a vessel which was conveying a large number of
their missionaries with their families from one island to
another, was wrecked and all the passengers drowned.
A more distressing, accident has scarcely ever been re-
corded. Did.God interfere for their destruction? Is
there not as much evidence of this as there is that he
interfered to save the life of Clarke and hasten Wesley
on his voyage? Precisely the same. Will it be so re-
garded? By no means. The truth of the case is sim-
ply this. When an unfortunate event happens to those
who reject our creed we pronounce it a special inter-
ference of our Father for their punishment. But when
.
LETTER. I.
31
:
an occurrence precisely similar overwhelms any of our
own denomination, we are ready to exclaim, whom the
Lord loveth he chasteneth. Why may not the miser
affirm that his property has been gained through the spe-
cial assistance of divine Providence, since he has so far
outreached his neighbors in the pursuit of wealth? Why
may not the pirate attribute his success to the superna-
tural interference of heaven? I see no reason why they
may not advance these claims with as much propriety as
those religionists who pronounce the natural results of
their zeal and activity and impudence special mercies.
No. It is not possible to prove that God now interferes
in a miraculous manner either to reward the righteous
or punish the wicked. This is not his mode of govern-
ing his rational creatures. A day of perfect retribution
will yet arrive; and then those who have flourished by
their iniquity will receive the recompense of their la-
bors, and those who have been crushed by the oppres-
sion of the depraved will rise in their true dignity, and
enjoy the rewards prepared for all who live sober, right-
eous and godly lives. I have said sufficient to show
that we have no evidence of miracles at the present day,
either for the reward of the holy or the punishment of
the sinful.
3. I will thirdly refer you to some of those instances
of prosperity and adversity which are evidently the na-
tural consequences of human conduct either wholly or in
part; and the necessary results of the ordinary opera-
tions of the divine laws. Under this head I should in-
clude all uncommon success in mercantile, civil or reli-
gious' affairs; all pestilence, war and persecution; all
earthquakes, famines and conflagrations. A few illus-
trations may be mentioned.
In the first place, look at the success of some sect of
religionists. I will refer in this instance to those in our
LETTER I.
own land who are called christians. It is about thirty
years since a few individuals renounced all sectarian
names, discarded all human creeds, and began to preach
the simple truths of unitarian christianity. Their in-
crease has been beyond all former example. They have
now more than twelve hundred churches in this country,
and for piety and morality they will bear an honorable
comparison with any other denomination. Now has our
Father.given them any special assistance? Some are
ready to answer this question in the affirmative. But
for one I have no hesitation in giving a decided negative,
All this success is the natural result of human instru-
mentality. The preachers adapted themselves to the
condition and wants of the hearers. They talked to
them in an earnest and plain and direct manner. They
persevered with all becoming zeal; and they soon re-
ceived the fruit of their labors. I might make similar
remarks concerning the methodists. Not only so. If
the same means are used to propagate false doctrines
very considerable progress will be made. Look at the
mormonites. They are most laborious and indefatigable
in their exertions. They are making converts to their
wild and absurd opinions even in our own vicinity. So
in England the power of speaking unknown languages
is increasing with fearful rapidity. And how did the
Arabian imposter carry forward his ambitious designs?
You may just as well consider the prevalence of his re-
ligion the result of special divine interposition as to re-
gard the unusual advancement of any one christian sect
to be a miraculous favor conferred on its votaries. In
all such cases there is nothing more nor less than the
natural consequences of great zeal, untiring persever-
ance and well selected means. .
In the second place, look at the prevalence of the
cholera. It has shown no partiality to opinions, but
LETTER I.
33
taken the hindoo, the mahometan, the jew, the christian
and the infidel. It has however observed certain rules
in its operation. Those who have violated the laws of
their physical nature are the first victims and almost the
only victims. Is this pestilence a special judgment for
the punishment of mankind? So many have believed.
I think the contrary. Had all men observed the laws
of their animal constitution the cholera would never have
prevailed. Most of the deaths which have occurred in
this disease, I regard as the natural consequence of
their disobedience. When contagion is increased by
great mortality, and many are unfitted for resistance
through the influence of fear, no doubt the innocent per-
ish with the guilty. It is also evident that many have
inherited weakly and sickly bodies from those who in
some way or other violated the laws of their physical
nature. So that after you have counted those on whom
the vices of their progenitors were visited; and those
who had injured their constitution either ignorantly or
in a good cause; and those who had not received suffi-
cient nourishing sustenance; and those who had abused
their nature by excessive eating and drinking and licen-
tiousness; and those whose unmanly fears prostrated
them at once, you will find but a few victims of the
cholera remaining. Had there been no disobedience I
firmly believe there would have been little or none of
this temporal punishment. But if your doctrine of no
future retribution be true, I. see not but we must regard
the cholera as a special blessing to the miserable victims
who have been hurried to the grave. Take the great
multitude of prostitutes who have been swept away by
its ravages. A more degraded, polluted, miserable,
wretched class of human creatures cannot be imagined.
They were constantly in a perfect earthly hell. Now if
this is the end of all their sufferings; if they can look
34
LETTER I.
back with approbation and delight on their profligate
lives; if they enjoy uninterrupted happiness; if their
felicity is never to be disturbed by one pang of remorse
on account of their unparalleled depravity; then I must
regard the pestilence which hastened them from unutter-
able torments to heavenly glory a very special blessing
to their souls. I see not how any benevolent person
can take any other view of the subject, on your ground
of belief. Although I do not consider any prevailing
epidemic to be a miraculous interposition of our Father,
yet I believe all events above our control are wisely
ordered by his superintending providence. I could go
on to make similar remarks respecting earthquakes and
tornadoes, tempests of thunder and lightning and all the
uncommon convulsions of nature. All these I regard
as the natural result of the operation of divine laws,
and not as a designed punishment for wickedness.
4. In the fourth place, look at those sufferings which
are neither the natural consequences of disobedience
to. divine commands, nor miraculous interpositions for
the punishment of wickedness. Read the history of the
world; look abroad into society; enter into the retire-
ment of domestic life; and you will be convinced that
the innocent, the virtuous, the righteous have experi-
enced the most severe, unceasing, excruciating suffer-
ings. You will be convinced that these torments were
inflicted by their fellow men, and not because they vio-
lated the laws of their. maker, but for the very reason
in many instances that they were pure and holy. How
many christian wives are daily made miserable by their
brutal and intemperate husbands? How many philan-
thropists have sacrificed their ease, their influence, their
liberty, their life in the cause of suffering humanity?
How many worthy reformers have been fined, tortured,
imprisoned, and burned for their conscientious adherence
0
LETTER I.
35
.
to the principles of religious liberty? How many dis-
interested patriots have shared in toils and hardships
and cruelties and death for the benefit of an ungrateful
multitude. In every war how many of the innocent
are made wretched by the crimes of the wicked? Time
would fail me to mention the instances. in which the just
suffer the severest torments from the injustice of their
brethren. Now how will you dispose of all these facts?
Why have so many experienced such dreadful cruelties ?
Because they have transgressed the laws of their na-
ture? By no means. They suffered on account of
their very obedience. What benefit are they to receive
for this indescribable anguish? Perhaps you will say
that they may learn by their inflictions to put a firm
trust in their heavenly Father, to be weaned from the
vanities of this world, and to enjoy the smiles of an ap-
proving conscience. All this is very well. But if all
men are to be rewarded according to their deeds, how
can you call this an equal retribution? I see no way
in which you can avoid this difficulty on your scheme
but to affirm that these individuals were great sufferers
only because they were great sinners. This is the lan-
guage of Job's comforters; and if it was incorrect in
ancient days I know not that the lapse of ages has con-
verted it into truth. Admit the fact of a future right-
eous retribution and the difficulty vanishes; and with-
out admitting this truth you cannot possibly reconcile
justice of your heavenly Father.
But are the persecutors always punished in exact
accordance with their wickedness? Surely not. For
many really believe they are doing God service in their
abominable cruelties, and consequently they receive
the approbation instead of the reproaches of their own
conscience. Others are too hardened in sin to suffer
36
LETTER 1.
any compunctions on account of their crimes. Now in
order to make rewards and punishments equal the merits
and deserts of all mankind, must there not be another
existence, where the secrets of all hearts shall be ex-
posed; where all circumstances shall be considered;
where the blinded bigot shall confess the truth; where
the right and the wrong of their present course shall be
manifested to every soul, and where every one shall be
rewarded and punished according to the deeds done in
the body. As I shall have occasion to discuss this sub-
ject more fully hereafter I will not dwell longer on this
point. I have given you such illustrations of my views
of divine rewards and punishments as my limits will
permit. Many very important questions I have left
altogether untouched. Many more I have but briefly
and superficially examined. And none have been treated
with that fulness which they really demand. I have
said enough however to give you some insight into my
opinions on the various topics connected with this branch
of my discussion. And I hope you will examine my
remarks and statements and conclusions with all proper
freedom and boldness, and embrace whatever of truth
may have been elicited and established,
LETTER II.
My Dear Sir,
You contend that a perfect retribution does not take
place in the present existence. You believe that the
righteous are always and equitably and fully rewarded
by their righteousness; and that the wicked are always
and equitably and fully punished by their wickedness.
Now I feel confident that your belief on this point has
no foundation in reality or revelation. And I will
endeavor to prove that no perfect retribution takes place
in this world. I contend that the righteous are not
always and equitably and fully rewarded by their right-
eousness; and that the wicked are not always and
equitably and fully punished by their wickedness. Some
of the evidence which establishes the truth of my posi-
tions I will now present to your consideration...
I. My first argument for believing that a perfect
retribution does not take place in the present existence
is drawn from the Old Testament. You admit that
Moses was divinely commissioned, and that the prophets
and other writers of the hebrew scriptures were divinely
39
LETTER II.
1
TA
inspired. Consequently any clear evidence from these
ancient writings in proof of my positions must be satis-
factory and conclusive. My limits will permit me to
select but a few particulars.
1. I appeal to the testimony of Moses. He repeatedly
declares that punishments were inflicted on the disobe-
dient. Consequently sin itself does not punish the
sinner sufficiently. This is the practical declaration of
the omniscient Jehovah. Turn to the book of Leviticus
and you will find the following command. "If a man
take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall
be burnt with fire, both he and they.” Now if sin itself
punishes the sinner sufficiently, then this burning was
altogether more punishment than the guilty really de-
served. Consequently you must admit either that Moses
under the divine direction inflicted undeserved and unjust
punishment, or that your belief in the sufficient punish-
ment of sin itself is, erroneous. Turn to the book of
Numbers and you may read these words. “And while
the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found
a man who had gathered sticks on the sabbath day.
And the Lord said unto Moses, the man shall be surely
put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with
stones without the camp. And all the congregation
brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones and he died.” Now if the sin of disobedience to
the divine law had punished the offender sufficiently of
itself, then the stoning to death was a cruel infliction
which he did not deserve. Consequently you must
admit either that the Lord commanded an unjust and
undeserved punishment, or that your belief in a perfect
earthly retribution is incorrect. This argument may be
thus summarily stated. Various severe punishments
were threatened in the mosaic law; they were inflicted
upon the several transgressors to the very letter; con-
LETTER II.
39
:
sequently the sin itself does not always punish the sinner
sufficiently; or the Lord authorized cruel and unde-
served inflictions. Take which horn of the dilemma
you please, · For my own part I believe the Almighty
is perfect in knowledge, and of course that the argument
from this source that sin does not always punish the
sinner sufficiently is perfectly unanswerable. Many
more instances of a similar character might be selected,
but these are sufficient for all present purposes. Le-
viticus 20, 14. Numbers 15, 32.
2. I appeal to the prophets and other writers of the
hebrew scriptures. They repeatedly affirm that a per-
fect retribution does not take place in this world. Con-
sequently their testimony must be invalidated before
your theory can be established. Turn to the confession
of Ezra. - Thou our God hast punished us less than
our iniquities.” Now if God punished them less than
their iniquities deserved, then a perfect retribution did
not take place in this instance. Consequently you
must admit either that this writer made a false assertion,
or that your belief in a perfect earthly retribution is
erroneous. Listen to the words of David. "He hath
not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us ac-
cording to our iniquities.” Now if God did not punish
them exactly according to their wickedness, then no
perfect retribution took place in this instance. Conse-
quently you must admit either that the Psalmist delib-
erately penned a falsehood, or that your theory is plainly
contradicted in the scriptures. What does the Lord
declare by the mouth of Ezekiel. “And he shall know
that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for
my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways,
not according to your corrupt doings.” Now if the
Almighty did not deal with them precisely according to
their iniquities, then a perfect retribution did not take
40
LETTER II.
place in this instance. Consequently you must either
deny the truth of the divine declaration, or admit the
incorrectness of your opinions. What is the. assertion
of Solomon? “ There be just men, unto whom it hap-
peneth according to the work of the wicked; again there
be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the
work of the righteous.” Now if the wicked were
blessed and the righteous cursed, then surely no perfect
retribution took place in this instance. Consequently
you must either accuse the wise man of publishing an
untruth, or admit the correctness of my positions. The
argument from this source may be thus, summarily
stated. The sacred. writers repeatedly affirm that the
righteous are not always and fully rewarded, and that
the wicked are not always and fully punished. Now
they have either asserted numerous falsehoods or your
belief in a perfect earthly retribution is erroneous.
Take which horn of the dilemma you please. For my
own part I believe these holy men who spoke as they
were moved by the divine spirit declared the literal truth
in all these examples, and consequently the argument
for my positions from this quarter is perfectly unanswer-
able. Many more passages of a similar character might
be produced were it necessary for the support of my
opinions. Ezra 9, 13. Psalms 103, 10. Ezekiel 20, 44.
Ecclesiastes 8, 14.
3. I appeal to the various cruelties which were inflict-
ed on the ancient worthies. You will admit that they
were tormented in the most inhuman and barbarous
manner. Now you must prove that their sinfulness de-
served all this punishment, or admit that they were not
rewarded according to their goodness. Turn to the
epistle to the Hebrews, and you will find the following
affecting account of their persecutions. “They had
trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea moreover of
1.
LETTER II.
41
bonds and imprisonments; they were stoned; they were
sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword;
they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins; be-
ing destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world
was not worthy; they wandered in deserts and in moun-
tains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” Now you
admit the correctness of this description. You also ac-
knowledge that these injured individuals were among the
most acceptable worshippers of the only true God. You
must likewise grant that the wicked inflicted these cruel-
ties in a very great degree, because they were right-
eous and reproved iniquity. Now are you ready to affirm
that these distinguished worthies enjoyed as much hap-
piness as their goodness merited? Are you willing to
aver that they suffered no more misery than their trans-
gression deserved? All this you must do in order to
establish your belief in a perfect earthly retribution.
And this is not all. If you declare that they were tor-
mented no more than their iniquities demanded, then
you must show how their enemies received a degree of
punishment in proportion to their more aggravated sinful-
Dess. But if you allow that their trials were more severe
than their depravity required, then you abandon your
ground of a perfect earthly retribution. This argument ·
then may be thus summarily stated. Many of the best
men of the ancient church were most barbarously
treated. Either they suffered no more punishment than
their iniquities demanded, and enjoyed as much happi-
ness as their excellencies deserved; or no perfect retri-
bution took place in the examples quoted. Either their
persecutors experienced much greater degrees of tor-
ment on account of their more aggravated sinfulness, of
which we have no account on record, or no perfect
retribution took place in these particular instances.
Take which side of the dilemma you please. For my
42
LETTER II.
own part I believe the cruelties of the ancient worthies
were undeserved? and consequently the argument from
these cases in proof of my belief is perfectly unanswer-
able Descriptions of a similar character might be
greatly extended did my cause require their assistance.
Hebrews 11, 36.
4. Perhaps you will now ask, if there are not some
passages in the Old Testament which favor your belief
of a perfect earthly retribution? which either, teach or
imply that men are always and equitably and fully
rewarded and punished according to their deeds in the
present existence? I answer that I have never discov-
ered a single text of this description. I know your
writers often select sentences from the hebrew scriptures
in support of your doctrine. I will therefore briefly
notice those which are generally quoted for this purpose.
I think you will instantly perceive that not one of the
number has the least bearing upon the question at issue.
Hear the assertion of Solomon. - The way of trans-
gressors is hard."? Very true. But do these words
either affirm or imply that every transgressor is always
and equitably and fully punished in this world? By no
means. Then this text has nothing to do with the con-
troversy. Listen to the declaration of Isaiah. “There
is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." This I
believe. But does this text either teach or imply that
every wicked person is always and fully punished in this
life, and that the moment they enter upon the next
existence, peace and happiness will be their portion?
Nothing of the kind; and consequently your belief
derives no support from this passage. Observe the
remark of the Psalmist. “Great peace have they which
love thy law, and nothing shall offend them." Very
well. But what has this assertion to do with your theory?
Nothing at all; for it contains no intimation either that
LETTER I
43
all the righteous are always and fully rewarded on earth,
or that they shall be on a perfect level with the wicked
the moment they enter the life beyond the grave. Mark
the affirmation of Solomon. “Wisdom's ways are ways
of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” Certainly.
Does any one dispute the truth of this observation? But
does it either assert or imply that rewards are always
proportioned to the merits of the obedient, and that
hereafter no distinction will be made between them and
the most abandoned? Surely not; and therefore this
verse has no bearing on the points in debate. Listen
to another proverb of Solomon. “Behold the righteous
shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the
wicked and the sinner.” What does this sentence prove?
Not your doctrine of a perfect earthly retribution most
certainly. For it neither affirms nor implies either that
the righteous are always and equitably and fully rewarded
on earth, or that the wicked are always and equitably
and fully punished in this world, or that both righteous
and wicked will enjoy equal degrees of heavenly
felicity. On the contrary the passage as it now reads
is in direct opposition to your doctrine; for it distinctly
declares that while the righteous are recompensed in the
earth, the wicked and sinner shall be much more than
recompensed; and if this be the fact, then no perfect
earthly retribution takes place in this instance. But I
will not waste words on a text which has no connexion
with the controversy; and how any person could ever
quote this in favor of your belief is more than I can
understand. The correct translation of the passage is
the following, as you may ascertain by consulting any
hebrew scholar. “Behold the righteous in the earth,
he shall be recompensed; and surely the wicked and
the sinner.” Yesthey shall all be recompensed because a
perfect retribution does not take place at the present time.
44
LETTER II.
Other passages of a similar import might doubtless be
quoted, but these must be considered a fair specimen
since I have taken them as brought forward and arrang-
ed by one of your preachers. You can determine for
yourself that not one of the number has any connexion
with the point in dispute; and I think you must be ready
to admit that no texts can be selected from these ancient
records in direct proof of your belief in a perfect earthly
retribution. Proverbs 13, 15. Isaiah 57, 21. Psalms
119, 165. Proverbs 3, 17. Proverbs 11,31.
. What then is the testimony of the Old Testament on
the question in controversy? Judge for yourself. You
have seen that severe punishments were threatened, and
inflicted upon the disobedient, by the omniscient Jehovah;
and consequently you must conclude that he does not
believe that sin itself always punishes the sinner suffi-
ciently. You have also seen, that the prophets and
other sacred writers repeatedly affirm, that the wicked
are not always and fully punished on earth, and that the
righteous are not always and fully rewarded in the pres-
ent existence; and consequently you must infer that the
infinite Spirit who moved them to publish such statements
did not believe in a perfect earthly retribution. You
have likewise seen that many of the ancient worthies
were most cruelly tormented, while some of the most
depraved were highly prosperous; and consequently
you must determine that rewards and punishments have
not been always distributed in exact proportion to the
character of individuals. And finally you have seen
that no passages can be produced which either teach or
imply that a perfect retribution takes place in this world;
and consequently you must admit that a belief in this
doctrine is not supported by a shadow of evidence
from the hebrew scriptures. Is not my first argument
in proof of my belief that no perfect retribution takes
LETTER II.
45
place in the present existence perfectly satisfactory and
conclusive?
II. My second argument for believing that a perfect
retribution does not take place in the present existence
is drawn from the New Testament. You admit that
Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the living God. You
also acknowledge that he was sanctified and sent by the
universal Father to be the Savior of sinners. You
likewise grant that the apostles were divinely inspired,
and qualified to preach the gospel to every creature.
You confess that their writings contain the record of a
divine revelation. Consequently any clear evidence
from these books in favor of my position must be satis-
factory and conclusive. My limits will permit me to
select but a few particulars. '.
1. I appeal to the sufferings of Jesus Christ. You be-
lieve that he was tried and tempted when on earth.
You also believe that he resisted all temptations, and
lived a sinless life. . Now did he receive the full re-
ward of his obedience in this world? Did he suffer no
more misery than he deserved? Call to mind some of
his afflictions. Was it no suffering for his pure soul to
be tempted by appetite, by ambition, by worldly glory?
Was it no suffering to have his motives suspected, his
actions misrepresented, his words perverted? Was it
no suffering to be destitute of the necessaries of life,
persecuted by bitter enemies, and constantly exposed
to destruction? Was there no suffering when his soul
was exceeding sorrowful in the garden, and he sweat as
it were great drops of blood? Was there no suffering
in being betrayed by a chosen disciple, tried by pre-
judiced and cowardly judges, accused by false witnesses
and condemned without evidence or justice? Was it
no suffering to be deserted by his friends, denied by
his most zealous followers, scourged by unfeeling hire-
46
LETTER II.
lings, and mocked by the depraved and insulting rab-
ble? Was it no suffering to have his temples lacerated
with thorns, his feet and hands mangled with large
nails; his body suspended on a cross like the vilest
slaves? And was it no suffering to hang in this most
excruciating agony for hours, until the breath of life
departed? Yes; all these were real sufferings, and
these are not all that might be enumerated. Now how
can you explain these indescribable torments in con-
sistency with your theory? You defend the simple hu-
manity of Jesus as well as the majority of your denom-
ination. Can you say that his happiness on earth was
exactly proportioned to his holiness? If you cannot,
then you must admit that he was not fully rewarded for
his obedience in the present existence. Can you affirm
that he suffered no more than his character demanded ?
If you cannot, then you must acknowledge that he .ex-
perienced more misery than he deserved. In either
case no perfect retribution took place. This argument
then may be thus briefly stated. Either Jesus received
happiness and misery in exact proportion to his conduct,
or your belief in a perfect. retribution is erroneous.
Take which side of the dilemma you please. For my
own part I believe that the sinless Savior suffered un-
deserved torment, and consequently the argument from
his example in favor of my position is perfectly unan-
swerable.
2. I appeal to the declarations of our Savior. Did he
ever inform his apostles that they should be rewarded on
earth according to their merits? Did he once assure
them that their misery in this world would be proportioned
to their iniquities? I find no record of any such instruc-
tions. On the contrary I can turn to many of a directly
opposite character. Listen to a few specimens of his
teachings on this subject. “In the world ye shall have
LETTER II.
47
tribulation.” Why so? Paul assures us that every
soul who worketh.evil shall experience tribulation. Now
was their suffering occasioned by vicious conduct? or
was it drawn upon them by their christian behavior. If
you affirm that their iniquities produced their miseries,
and that they were punished exactly according to their
deeds, you will make them the most abandoned wretches
in existence, because their torments were almost unpar-
alleled in the history of human sufferings. If you ada
mit that their goodness excited others to persecute and
injure them, then it follows of course that a perfect
retribution did not take place in this particular example.
Turn to another paragraph of a similar character. “Be-
hold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.
Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils,
and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye
shall be brought before kings and governors for my name
sake. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to
death, and the father the child; and the children shall
rise up against the parents, and cause them to be put to
death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's
sake. Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you,
will think that he doeth God service.” Here you learn
that the divine master distinctly informed his disciples of
the cruel, unceasing, inhuman persecutions to which
they would be constantly exposed during their earthly
ministry. And why must they be so severely and unre-
mittingly tormented? Simply because they were engaged
in the noblest employment of humanity; simply because
they were to become the instruments of everlasting
benefits to the children of men. But did this heaven-
sent teacher mean to convey the idea that their miseries
would be only, equal to their demerits, and their joys
exactly proportioned to their virtues? Did he even
insinuate that they and their brutal enemies and murderers
48
LETTER II.
would receive the same degree of happiness when they
entered the next existence? You must return an affirm-
ative answer to these questions, or admit the fallacy of
your opinions. Not only so. Select one instance of
his declaration concerning the nation and generation to
which he belonged. “Therefore also said the wisdom
of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and
some of them they shall slay and persecute; that the
blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world, may be required of this gener-
tion, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
which perished between the altar and the temple; verily
I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation."
Now what do you make of this statement. Does it
teach that a perfect individual retribution takes place in
this world? Directly the contrary. Former.generations
had not received their full share of temporal punishment;
but their iniquities were to be visited on the present
inhabitants of the country. Consequently God has not
rendered unto all according to their deeds in this life,
and there must be an adjustment of these inequalities
beyond the grave or the character of our Father suffers
in the estimation of impartial judges. This argument
then may be thus stated. Jesus explicitly taught that
rewards and punishments, happiness and misery were
not to be distributed either on the apostles or his own
nation exactly according to their individual characters.
You must therefore accuse him of either ignorance
or falsehood, or admit the error of your peculiar belief
on this question. For my own part I receive the word
of Jesus as divine truth, and consequently the argument
from his declarations in favor of my position is perfectly
unanswerable. John 16, 33. · Matthew 10, 16. John
16, 2. Luke 11, 49.
3. I appeal to the sufferings and declarations of the
LETTER II.
. 49
apostles. Did they experience the persecutions which
their divine master predicted? Yes, to the very letter.
Read the history of their labors and trials and sufferings,
and you will find enough to excite the sympathetic tear,
and give anguish to the benevolent heart. Take merely
an account of Paul's early experience. -Are they
ministers of Christ? I am more; in labors more abun-
dant, in stripes, above measure, in prisons more frequent,
in deaths oft; of the Jews five times received I forty
stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods; once
was I stoned; thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and
· a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often; ·
in perils, of water; in perils of robbers; in pèrils by my
own countrymen; in perils by the heathen; in perils in
the city; in perils in the wilderness; in perils in the sea;
in perils among false brethren; in weariness and pain-
fulness; in faintings often; in cold and nakedness.
Besides these things which are without, that which
cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth
that I lie not.”Now will you say that Paul received
as much happiness in this life as his goodness deserved ?
Will you say that he endured no more misery than his
iniquities demanded? Will you say that he is to be on
an equality hereafter in point of felicity with his malig-
nant and depraved enemies and murderers? All this
you must say, or admit that no perfect retribution takes
place in this world. Not only so. Take merely one of
the apostolic declarations. “ If in this life only we
have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
Now if rewards and punishments are equitably distri-
buted in this world, they could not have been the most
miserable unless they were the most depraved. The
certainty of another existence has nothing to do with the
question. If they were pure and holy beyond others
50
LETTER II.
they must have experienced the natural consequences
of their goodness in some degree. Will you then affirm
that these early and obedient christians were the most
degraded, or will you admit that no perfect rétribution
takes place in this mortal life? Will you aver that years
of painful and unremitting labor, accompanied with
almost unceasing torments, in the cause of pure religion,
will furnish no better claims to heavenly happiness than
an uninterrupted series of debaucheries, cruelties, per-
secutions and murders? You must say this, or admit
that your belief on this subject is erroneous. Take
which horn of the dilemma you please. For my own
part I believe the apostles had some powerful motives to
support them under all their exertions and sufferings;
and I can think of inone sufficient for this purpose unless
I admit a future state of righteous retribution. 2: Cor-
inthians 11, 23. 1 Cor. 15, 19.
4. Perhạps you will now ask, if there are no passages
in the New Testament which teach or imply that a perfect
retribution takes place on the earth? I know of none
whatever. And what is still more remarkable I have
never seen any which related to the subject quoted by
your writers. Surely they would not have omitted so
important a service for their cause if any thing plausi-
ble could have been advanced. This fact speaks vol-
umes in proof of my position. For how can you account
for the silence of the sacred writers on this question, if
you can call that a silence which is constantly proclaim-
ing the opposite doctrine? All the world then believed
in future rewards and punishments. All the people
supposed that present retributioa was not perfect. If
they were mistaken in this belief was not the error
worthy of correction, since one simple, declaration of our
Savior would have settled the question forever? No
such information was communicated. On the contrary
LETTER II.
51
a constant reference is made to rewards and punishments.
They are spoken of as something future, and not as
immediately following the action. Did you ever notice
this peculiarity of the divine instructions? Shall and
will are almost uniformly used. How. different would
have been the language of the inspired preacher had all
retribution been limited to this life. He that sins shall
be miserable in the present state; he that obeys shall
existence. Such must have been the ideas conveyed in
some one conversation at least, had your doctrine been
then believed. But you will say that the threatenings
in the gospel relate to the destruction of Jerusalem.
This mode of interpretation appears to my mind the
most absurd and ridiculous imaginable. Let me set
forth some of its irreconcilable contradictions. The
universal Father sends Jesus to save people from their
sins. He spends no small portion of his short ministry
in warning his countrymen against the coming dissolu-
tion of their nation. He earnestly entreats them to em-
brace, his religion so as to escape the dreadful calamity.
He suffers every indignity and even a cruel and igno-
minious death in accomplishing this object. His apos-
tles are filled with the same spirit. They endure un-
paralleled hardships and afflictions in inducing men to
receive the new religion. They warn them repeatedly
and solemnly to repent so as to avoid temporal death a
few weeks sooner than the natural termination of their
mortal life. They also suffer martyrdom in this noble
cause. All this while both Jesus and his apostles know
that the Jewish people are corrupt and sinful beyond
measure. They know their miseries must be great and
poignant. They also know that all wickedness and
torments terminate with the dissolution of the body.
They know that all who perish in the destruction of their
52
LETTER II.
city will be as well prepared for future happiness as the
poor christians who are doomed to wear out a lingering
life in wretchedness. Now is it possible to suppose that
men of common sense with this knowledge could have
pursued such a ridiculous course? Is not the very sup-
position absurd in the highest degree? Is there one sin-
gle trait of human nature discoverable in the whole busi-
ness? Suppose you knew that New Orleans was to be
destroyed next year, and that all the inhabitants who
perished would enjoy heavenly happiness the moment
they entered the next conscious existence. Suppose
you also knew that by exposing yourself to the most
cruel sufferings for some months you could induce a
number of the people to embrace your religion, and that
those whom you converted would leave the city and with
you must live a life of almost continual sorrow. Would
you enter upon missionary labors under such conditions ?
If your doctrine of universalism be true this is the
precise situation in which the Savior and his apostles
were placed. Let your own feelings. be a test of the
truth of your system. I cannot enlarge, but must request
you to give these questions your candid consideration.
· What then is the testimony of the New Testament
on the subject in controversy? You have seen that
your Savior and his apostles were not rewarded accord-
ing to their deeds; and consequently that no perfect
retribution takes place on earth. You have also seen
that their declarations confirm this conclusion, and con-
sequently they had no belief in the equitable distribu-
tion of rewards and punishments in the present exist-
ence. You have likewise seen that they gave no en-
couragement to your belief either by their words or the
course they pursued; and consequently your opinion
on this point derives no support from their authority, Is
not my second argument conclusive? -
LETTER II.
53
III. My third argument for believing that a perfect
retribution does not take place in this world is drawn
from the unequal operation of human governments.
You have already seen that sin itself does not always
and fully punish the sinner; and that goodness itself
does not always and fully reward the virtuous. The
only remaining course for establishing your position is to
prove that these natural inequalities in happiness and
misery are rectified by human legislation. But here
also you are doomed to meet disappointment. For the
argument from the operation of human laws is conclusive
in my favor. My limits will permit me to select but a
few examples.'
1. Human laws provide no rewards for the virtuous.
The depraved receive equal benefit with the holy. Look
into society. You see a man who is thoroughly christian
in his whole character; in the purity of his motives; in
the regulation of his thoughts; in the government of his
appetites and passions; in his dealings and social inter-
course; in his benevolent feelings and common conversa-
tion; in his devotion to the performance of all his incum-
bent duties. He sincerely endeavors to imitate the exam-
ple, obey the precepts, imbibe the spirit and submit to the
authority of his chosen master. No one can justly
accuse him of a disregard of the laws of man or his
maker. You notice his next neighbor. He is thor-
oughly unprincipled. He indeed endeavors to escape
the penalties of the laws of the commonwealth. But
this is all. He defrauds his creditors; he slanders his
acquaintances; he draws the young into dissipation; he
abuses his wife and family; he blasphemès every thing
sacred; in short he is a scoundrel of the most advanced
degree. Now both these receive equal benefits from our
government. Their reward from the state is the same.
And what is this? Why, their rights, liberty, property
54
LETTER II.
and reputation are equally protected. This is nearly all
the good that human legislation pretends to effect; no
distinctions can well be made between the righteous and
wicked. If you call public offices of any value, you
will find that men of little or no principle are frequently
promoted to posts of honor, and trust, and emolument;
and in some nations such individuals are the most likely
to obtain these miserable prizes. It is therefore per-
fectly evident in the first place, that human legislation
does not contribute to establish a perfect earthly retri-
bution, because it can make no discrimination between
the most depraved and the most holy, but must confer
its benefits on all alike, whether wicked or righteous.
2. Human laws do not always punish the guilty; the
innocent sometimes suffer in their stead. Look at a
record of the great crimes which have been committed
in our own country during the past century. Enumer-
ate the cases of theft, slander, arson, rape, robbery,
piracy, murder. How many of the criminals escaped
the penalty of human laws? The number is not small.
If those who were detected and punished suffered no
more than their iniquities demanded, then those who
escaped both detection and punishment have not receiv-
ed an equal share of misery. In either case the retri-
bution is not perfect. Not only so. Many of the inno-
cent have been condemned with and for the guilty.
They have suffered for crimes which they never com-
mitted. They have not been able to convince their
judges of their innocence. And for want of satisfactory
evidence they have been doomed to disgrace and pun-
ishment. And surely this is not a case of perfect retri-
bution. Examples of both kinds might be selected;
names and dates might be mentioned; but as facts of
this character are within the knowledge of every intelli-.
gent man, I need not enlarge, Neither you nor any
LETTER II.
55
one will deny the correctness of my statements. If
then human laws do not always punish the guilty, and
do sometimes punish the innocent, there can be no per-
fect retribution in these instances. Consequently the
evidence against your position from this source is per-
fectly conclusive. . .
3. Human laws do not proportion punishment to the
criminality of the offence. In England many crimes
of a very trifling character are punishable by death.
In this commonwealth but few of any description are
considered capital. Now a man may forfeit his life,
either by the stealing of a horse, or by murdering a
whole family. You perceive there is a very great dif-
ference in the degrees of guilt, but no difference is made
in the punishment. So also many criminal practices
are wholly overlooked by other governments. Go into
severely punished while flagrant vices are unnoticed.
You must see that no human being can make laws for
all cases, or can proportion punishment to crime, or
can make the necessary allowances for palliating cir-
cumstances. Consequently there can be no perfect
earthly retribution in the many cases of this kind that
· might be selected.
4. Many crimes cannot be punished by human laws.
Illustrations of this remark are constantly occurring.
You have known a very respectable man pressed for
money. His family were suffering for the necessaries
of life. He forged a check upon one of our banks,
and obtained perhaps five hundred dollars. He was
detected, tried, condemned, disgraced, punished, ruined.
His nearest neighbor engages largely in business. He
gets a vast amount of property in his possession. He
secures a large proportion of it beyond the reach of his
creditors. He stops payment. The remaining stock
56
LETTER II.
T
pays a few cents on a dollar. Many an honest laborer
is defrauded; many an industrious mechanic is injured;
much of the earnings of industry and perseverance are
lost. After a time the bankrupt commences his business
anew, is permitted to retain his rank in society, lives
at his ease on his ill-gotten wealth. Now is not his
crime almost infinitely greater than the forgery? Why
then should not his punishment be as severe? Can you
call this a perfect earthly retribution? And are there
not hundreds and thousands of similar instances to be
mentioned in this connexion? Do they not prove be-
yond all dispute that men are not always rewarded and
punished according to their deeds in this world?
What then is the testimony of legislation on the ques-
tion in controversy? You have seen that human laws
are and must be unequal in their operation; they furnish
no reward for the righteous; they punish the innocent
occasionally and frequently permit the guilty to escape;
they cannot proportion punishment to the degrees of
criminality, nor take cognizance of many and aggra-
vated offences. Consequently they prove beyond all
doubt that a perfect retribution does not take place in
the present existence. Is not my third argument then
perfectly unanswerable?
IV. My fourth argument for believing that a perfect
retribution does not take place in this world is drawn
from the unequal operation of circumstances. The
happiness and misery of mankind are much affected by
the situations in which they are placed. Many are pun-
ished for doing what is right in itself; and many are
rewarded for doing what is wrong in itself. If this is in
any degree the fact there can be no perfect distribution
of temporal rewards and punishments. Many examples
might be selected, but my limits will permit me to potice
but a small number. .
1
LETTER II.
57
1. You believe that we were created free. You hold
that liberty is one of the greatest earthly blessings.
You contend that every one should strive for its enjoy-
ment. You affirm that all should labor to have mankind
enjoy this unalienable right: All who engage in this
patriotic duty-you pronounce worthy men. Now turn
your attention to unhappy Poland. You see her honest,
brave, virtuous, high-minded, enlightened patriots impris-
oned, tortured, murdered, driven into exile. You see
their helpless infants, their innocent sons and daughters,
their worthy brethren and sisters, their honored wives
and aged parents, persecuted in the most inhuman man-
ner, starved, mangled, polluted, burned and destroyed
from the face of the earth. The very relation of their
sufferings is sufficient to awaken the most painful feelings.
And why are they doomed to experience all this misery?
Because they have been laboring to establish liberty in
their nation. Because they have been engaged in per-
forming what you pronounce a most important duty.
Now can you say that they have been rewarded according
to their deeds? Can you affirm that their punishment
is deserved? Perhaps you will aver that they enjoy the
approbation of their conscience. Very true. But will
this give them their families, their homes, their posses-
sions, their murdered relatives? And let me ask, do
not their persecutors also receive the smiles of an
approving conscience? Do they not feel that they are
doing righteously in maintaining their national govern-
ment? Where then is their punishment for their wick-
edness? Now this is but one of a thousand similar
examples which might be mentioned. And does not
this prove beyond all controversy that no perfect retri-
bution takes place in these instances?
2. You believe the scriptures are a safe and sufficient
guide of faith and practice. You deem it a sacred duty to
LETTER II.
study them with boldness, and to receive their instructions
as everlasting truth. You contend that this is a privilege
which no one can innocenily neglect, and a right which
no one can take from you without guilt. Now you
know that the Inquisition has existed in some Catholic
countries. You know that those who dared to differ
from their church in matters of opinion have been called
to account. They have been tortured in every mode
which the ingenuity of man could invent. The horrors
and cruelties and torments which the innocent victims
have suffered, no tongue can tell, no language describe,
no imagination paint. Eternity alone can reveal all the
inhuman barbarities of the infernal inquisitors." Now
why have christians been so severely punished? For
performing what you call an important duty. For
searching the scriptures; for believing the Savior; for
worshipping God according to the dictates of their own
minds; for speaking the honest convictions of their own
hearts; for doing right to the best of their abilities and
to the extent of their knowledge. And is this rewarding
them according to their deeds? You will aver that the
approbation of their own minds is of more value than
life. True. But will this remove the pains of the rack;
the loss of liberty and family and friends; the miseries
of imprisonment, and the excruciating agonies of a man-
gled and bleeding body? And do not the holy inquisitors
receive the same approbation in defending the true
religion, supporting the mother church, punishing her
apostate children? Surely. This is but one of many
similar cases that might be mentioned, but does not this
conclusively prove that men are not always rewarded
and punished according to their goodness and wickedness.
in this world?
3. You believe that a knowledge of natural science
'is productive of the most valuable interests of mankind.
LETTER: II.
You contend that every philosopher should labor to
make as many discoveries and learn as many facts as
his time and learning and facilities will permit. You
affirm that he who increases the bounds of scientific
information deserves well of his country and of the
world. Now you know there was once such a man as
Galileo. He made many great and important discoveries
in astronomy. He proved that the earth revolved round.
the sun. This fact was not believed by the learned or
the ignorant. For proclaiming this truth he was impris-
oned a year, and then released on the condition of
taking an oathi that he had renounced these opinions as
erroneous. He was afterwards punished again for the
same. offence, and his death was doubtless hastened by
the confinement and cruelties he experienced. And
why was all this punishment inflicted? Simply because
he performed a duty of the highest importance. Simply
because he proclaimed truths of immense value. And
was his happiness as great as his merits deserved? Did
he suffer no more than his sins demanded? He received
the approbation of his own mind. - So did his persecutors;
for they believed they were doing right, defending the
true religion, upholding the word of God. This is þut
one of many similar occurrences. But is not this suffi-
cient to convince any man that a perfect retribution does
not take place in such instances? .
4., Take a general survey of mankind in all ages and
nations. You find that in many periods and places, the
wise and good have been forsaken, abused, despised,
tortured in a variety of modes, and murdered in many
ways. You learn that the morally corrupt, the thor-
oughly depraved, the greatest murderers have oftentimes
been the greatest favorites with the people, the most
flattered and honored and rewarded. You observe that
what has been accounted truth and virtue in one gener-
60
LETTER II.
ation or in one region has been pronounced error and
vice among other tribes or in other sections. Public
opinion is constantly changing. In some parts of our
own country the duelist is honored, while in others he
is despised. Examples to illustrate these positions might
be selected almost without number. I have however
said enough to show that human happiness and misery
depend much on the circumstances in which individuals
are placed. And can retribution be perfect when the
good are punished and the bad rewarded? Surely not.
The facts then to which I have barely alluded fully prove
that the righteous are not always and fully rewarded,
and that the wicked are not always and fully punished.
I think no one will feel disposed to deny this conclu-
sion.
What then is the testimony of the unequal operation
of circumstances on the question in controversy? You
hàve seen that the patriot, the reformer, the philosopher
and the philanthropist are frequently doomed to suffer -
indescribable torments on account of their very obedi-
ence to the laws of their creator. Consequently no
perfect retribution in these instances takes place in the
present existence. Is not my fourth argument perfectly
unanswerable ?
V. My fifth argument for believing that no perfect
retribution takes place in this world, is drawn from the
history of mankind. I could select hundreds of cases
from the pages of authentic records, which clearly prove
that the innocent are frequently subjected to indescriba-
ble sufferings, and that the guilty are favored with all
the means of temporal prosperity and enjoyment. I
could quote thousands of instances in which every can-
did mind must confess that the penalty was not propor--
tioned to the crime, nor the reward to the merits of the
individuals. I prefer however to suppose some probable
LETTER II.
61
examples, since my limits will permit me to illustrate but
a few particulars.
1. Three men of the same standing and character
agree together to commit a robbery and share the spoils.
They station themselves in an obscure retreat and listen
with impatient anxiety for the sound of footsteps. At
length the stillness of night is disturbed by the tread of
a horse. The oldest robber seizes the reins and is shot
dead upon the spot. The youngest levels the traveller
with his rifle; and the two survivors divide the plunder.
The second is now detected and brought to justice.
The other lives thirty years in great mental agony, and
at last leaves the world in a most unhappy.state of mind.
Now was the punishment of these three individuals
equal? They were equally guilty in the intention. You
cannot call death itself any punishment, for it is what all
must pass through; and sudden death by shooting must
be much less painful than a lingering termination of life.
All being of the same character experience the same,
degree of uneasiness in making preparations for the com-
mission of the crime. If then the oldest robber is made
happy the first moment he enters the next conscious ex-
istence he suffers no punishment whatever in conse-
quence of his participation in this horrid transaction.
The second is imprisoned for several months. His rep-
utation is at once ruined. His family and friends are
disgraced and made wretched by his. iniquity. He is
tried before an assembled multitude and condemned to
be hung. A few weeks are given him to make his peace
with heaven, and then he is suddenly launched into eter-
nity. Here then is the punishment of his own con-
science, his confinement, his trial, his disgrace, his
agonized relatives and his public execution; and you
will admit that all this amounts to no small degree of
torment. Did he not suffer infinitely more than the first
62
* LETTER II.
criminal? The third indeed escapes human penalties.
But he becomes awakened to a realizing sense of his
sinfulness. He has not resolution and moral courage
to make confession or to effect a thorough reformation in
his character. He lives from year to year in the greatest
agony, afraid of every thing, even his own shadow, his
sleep disturbed by the most frightful dreams, his days
spent in depression and self condemnation, goaded by
the tormenting stings of a violated conscience, and in
this miserable state descends to the grave. How will
his punishment compare with that of the others? Surely
you will not have the effrontery to pretend that these
three were punished exactly according to their wicked-
ness. It is impossible. Neither will you pretend that
this is an improbable supposition. For cases not very
dissimilar have repeatedly occurred. Look at the Salem
tragedy. The assassin by his own act removed himself
from human justice to heavenly felicity. The others
passed many miserable days and: nights before their re-
lease. All such facts must prove to the satisfaction of
candid minds that your doctrine of a perfect earthly
retribution has no foundation in truth. To return any.
plausible answer to such statements is not possible.
2. Look into society. You behold a victim of intem-
perance. The habit of excessive drinking has been
gradually and almost insensibly formed. He has be-
come a thorough slave to his appetite. This seems to
bé his only sin. He is a man of firm integrity., of rigid
honesty, of great benevolence, and even of strong devo-
tional feelings. You know whom I mean. Now notice
his punishment. It is severe in the extreme. He is
unfitted for business. He has lost all employment. His
property is gone. He has a most interesting family
whom he tenderly loves. His children cannot receive
those literary advantages which he meant to have
LITTER II.
63
furnished. He feels his degradation most sensibly.
His conscience torments him most severely at every
interval of sobierness. He sees nothing but ruin and
wretchedness for hirnself and family in the present world.
He is troubled with fearful forebodings of the future.
Can you imagine a more severe retribution? Now look
at his neighbor. This is the man who has furnished the
poison which has. produced the dreadful calamity. He
urged him to drink in his store. He trusted him to
whatever quantities he might request. He took a mort-
gage of his small place and humble dwelling, and has
now taken them into his own possession. He has also
received the little remains of his property, and put all
in safe keeping. He is serving others in the same
manner. He has no regard to truth and honesty in
any of his transactions any further than they will pro-
mote his present pecuniary interests. He is profane
and corrupt, given to many secret vices. And during
all this time, while his riches are greatly increased, his
influence on account of his wealth extended, and even
temporal advantage and convenience multiplied, he is
generally free from the compunctions of conscience.
He has become so hardened in iniquity that his crimes
give him little or no uneasiness or anxiety. He believes
all will fare alike in another world, and experiences
no remorse for his disobedience. Now is the punish-
ment of these two individuals proportioned to their
wickedness. The drunkard is rendered almost contin-
ually wretched by his sin of intemperance. The un-
principled and depraved miser daily enjoys more or less
pleasure of a certain kind, unaccompanied by any thing
like painful suffering. I do not deny that he is deprived
of the happiness of the christian and experiences many
temporal disadvantages on account of his criminality.
But I think it must appear perfectly evident to all that
64
LETTER II.
the punishment for his numberless crimes is very much
lighter than the other receives for his one vice of intem-
perance. Consequently your doctrine of a perfect
earthly retribution is proved erroneous by this supposi-
tion; and this is but one of ten thousand similar examples
which come under your observation.
3. Take another survey of the world. Here is a
young, modest, virtuous female. Her parents are in
indigent circumstances. They have given her a decent
education, and endeavored to train her up in habits of
industry and morality. · At a tender age she leaves the
parental home and seeks employment in some family in
the city. Her prospects appear brightening. At length
she is beset by the unprincipled seducer of innocence
who moves in a higher rank of life. He flatters, de-
ceives, promises marriage, and finally triumphs over
the moral principle of his victim. He then deserts her
altogether and is unknown to her by his real name.
Her disgrace becomes manifest. She is suddenly dis-
missed from her situation. She has too much false
pride to return to her relatives. And after many cruel
struggles and singular adventures she becomes the
inmate of the brothel. There she passes a few years
of sinfulness and is hurried to the grave by painful and
loathsome disease. But this is not all. The unprinci-
pled seducer of innocence plays the same part with
several other defenceless girls, and brings them to ruin
and destruction in the same manner. During all this
period he drowns painful reflections by excessive quan-
tities of stimulating liquors. So that although he is
deprived of christian happiness, he suffers very little
real remorse and anguish on account of his numerous,
aggravated, diabolical crimes; and finally is hurried to
: the grave by some violent disease which deprives him of the
use of his reason. Now make some estimate of the un-
LETTER II.
65
utterable sufferings of some half dozen females in their
progress from the commission of crime to the period of
their entrance into the abodes of prostitution; then follow
them through their short and guilty course to an untimely
and miserable death. Can you find language to express
the torments they individually suffer?' And will you say
that the seducer and seduced were punished exactly
according to their wickedness? Impossible. Now this
is no imaginary supposition. Read the authentic state-
ments in the magdalen reports of New York and you
will find many examples much more affecting than I
have described. Look into the history of this vice in
Europe and you will discover hundreds of instances in-
finitely more aggravated than I have mentioned. I ask
you merely to view such cases with the eye of candor,
and then show me in what way punishment is always
proportioned to guilt; and also explain how such sinners
can look back upon their ruinous practices with satis-
faction in a world of purity and holiness? Can any
stronger evidence be needed to show the fallacy of your
doctrine than the mere mention of such instances?
4. Take one example of a different character. Look
at yonder widow. She is in destitute circumstances.
She is obliged to struggle with all her powers to procure
a bare subsistence for herself and family. She has five
children to maintain. And what is her true character?
She is a christian in every sense of the word. She wor-
ships her Father in heaven in spirit and truth. She
submits cheerfully to his will in the various dispensations
of life. She is patient in the inidst of her manifold trials.
She exhibits a proper example in the various relations
of life. She endeavors to bring up her offspring in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord. Ought she not to
experience almost uninterrupted happiness on account of
her superior goodness? What is the fact? Her reli-
66
LETTER II.
gion does give her great comfort; her righteousness
secures much inward satisfaction; but her enjoyment is
constantly disturbed by the conduct of others. Her
sons fall among vicious companions; they are led on
from one step of iniquity to another until they become
dissipated and degraded, unfitted for usefulness or re-
spectability, a curse to their widowed mother and a tor-
ment to themselves. Her daughters are early married
to profligate and cruel husbands. She is neglected by
those in whose society she once moved. She knows
not from day to day where she shall procure her daily
bread. She has not suitable clothing to attend public
worship. A thousand cares and anxieties are constantly
pressing upon her soul in her abject poverty. Can you
say that she is rewarded according to her real goodness?
Is her happiness proportioned to her merits? This you
will not pretend. . Do you doubt the existence of any
such instance? . Go into the metropolis, visit the minister
at large who has done so much in the cause of humanity;
ask him if my statement is exaggerated; see if he cannot
point you to living instances of a much more affecting
character; I will risk the soundness of this argument
on the results of your interview. Then to make the
.contrast, you must select some individual who has ac-
quired a fortune by iniquity; who has quieted his con-
science with the deceitful opiate of good resolutions;
who is not troubled with any fear of the future; who en-
joys all the conveniences and luxuries which wealth can
purchase; whose thoughts are pleasantly occupied with
his business and his books; who has really no moral
principle, and who experiences little or no suffering on
account of his sinfulness. Can you say that in these
two cases misery is exactly proportioned to wickedness?
Will you affirm that happiness is granted in exact ac-
cordance with righteousness? The mere mention of the
LETTER II.
67
facts is sufficient to satisfy me that no perfect retribution
takes place in the present existence.
What then is the testimony of history on the question
in controversy? You have seen that many cases occur
in which it is perfectly evident that those equally guilty
suffer very different degrees of punishment; and conse-
quently the wicked are not always and equitably and
fully punished in this world. You have seen that there
are many instances in which the more sinful experience
the less wretchedness; and also many examples in which
the more virtuous enjoy the less happiness; and conse-
quently there is no perfect retribution in this mortal life
Is not my fifth argument then from the history of man-
kind perfectly unanswerable ?
VI. My sixth argument for believing that no perfect
retribution takes place on earth is drawn from the unequal
operations of conscience. In what does conscience
consist? In two distinct and separate acts of the mind,
which I shall call the moral judgment and the moral
sense. By the moral judgment I mean our common
judgment exercised upon moral subjects. By moral
sense I mean that feeling of approbation which we
experience when we have done what our judgment
pronounced to be right, and that feeling of condemnation
which we suffer when we have done what our judgment
pronounced to be wrong. This may appear to be a new
definition of conscience, but the more you examine its
meaning and bring it to the test of facts, the more will
you be convinced that it is the correct definition. You
will find that it serves to explain all the existing diffi-
culties on this important subject. My limits will permit
me to furnish but a few illustrations. .
! 1. Conscience frequently rewards persons for their
wickedness and punishes others for their righteousness.
Paul persecuted the early christians even unto death,
68
LETTER II.
He verily judged this course to be right. He was
rewarded by a feeling of self-approbation. The English
church and government persecuted our forefathers. They
wished to make them conform to their standard of doc-
trine and discipline. They judged that coercive meas-
ures were right. They were rewarded by a feeling of
self-approbation. Our forefathers took up their residence
on these shores. They extirpated the indians, banished
the baptists, murdered the quakers, hung the supposed
witches. They supposed this was the right course.
They were rewarded with a feeling of self-approbation.
The same might be truly said of every sincere religious
or political persecutor. Look into the christian church.
You may see christians engaging in practices which are
absolutely wrong; practices which are condemned by
the plainest commands of the gospel, and which they
would be unwilling others should do towards themselves.
And for their performance they are rewarded by con-
science; they experience a feeling of self-approbation.
Why so? Because they think such proceedings are
right and beneficial. If you extend your view to heathen
nations, you may find numerous examples of the same
description. You see the hindoo wife throw herself
upon the burning funeral pile of her husband, and the
hindoo parent expose to death his sickly infant and aged
parents. And for all such acts they are rewarded with
a feeling of self-approbation, because they consider
them righteous. Consequently if persons are rewarded
for doing wrong, as you perceive is often the case, then
no perfect retribution takes place on earth. Not only
so. . Conscience also frequently punishes a person for
his righteousness. Adam Clarke was making fine pro-
gress in the acquisition of useful knowledge. He was
convinced that this was a wrong course. He asked
God's forgiveness of his sinſulness. He vowed to give
LETTER II.
69
up human learning altogether. So long as he judged
the course he had pursued to be wrong he was punished
by his conscience, by a feeling of self-condemnation.
So you may find a thousand cases in which persons do
something which is right in itself; but they believe it to
be wrong; and consequently are punished with a feeling
of self-reproach until they are convinced to the contrary.
If then conscience sometimes punishes for doing right-
eously, there can be no perfect earthly retribution. I
see not how any one can deny these facts or dispute this
conclusion.
2. Conscience becomes deadened by wickedness.
Here is a young man who received a christian education.
He was thrown into the society of the thoughtless and
unprincipled. For a time he resisted all theįr solicita-
tions to vice. At length he yielded. For many days
he was made miserable by his conscience because he
used one profane expression, because he spent one eve-
ning at the gaming table, because he once became
intoxicated. But now cursing and swearing are his
common language, gambling is his occupation, drunk-
enness is almost a daily fashion. And he has little or
no trouble from within. He experienced more torment
in one hour when he commenced his downward career
than he now suffers in one year. This is the history of
thousands and tens of thousands according to their own
confessions. Many of the most deprayed wretches have
made similar statements concerning their course of
iniquity after they were condemned to the gallows.
Many who have been converted to the gospel have also
testified to the same truths concerning themselves. John
Newton declares that he did not suffer from the com-
punctions of conscience during his irreligious and dis-
solute years. And you may find many christians who
engage in the slave trade, warfare and other iniquitous
LETTER II.
practices without the least uneasiness. Many instances
might be related did my limits permit. No one will deny
the truth of these statements. It is an acknowledged
truth that conscience becomes seared by crime. How
will you dispose of this argument? If conscience pun-
ished the offender sufficiently at the beginning of his
career, it did not punish him sufficiently when he became
hardened in transgression. If it punished him sufficiently
when he became inured to wickedness, it-did not punish
him equitably when he commenced his downward march
to destruction. In either case the evidence is conclu-
sive against a perfect earthly retribution.
3. The operations of conscience depend upon the
moral sensibility. Observe your neighbor's wife. She
endeavors to be a real christian. She aims to perform
every duty with fidelity. She understands the divine
commands in all their spirituality and extent. She daily
falls short of her wishes. She daily compares herself
with the gospel standard. A vain thought has been in-
dulged; an improper motive has operated; an unfriendly
feeling has been tolerated; an unkind word has been
spoken; some benevolent deed has been omitted; but
little progress in the divine life has been effected; these
and similar charges are found against herself; and they
occasion the unceasing reproaches of her conscience;
her life is rendered in no small degree unhappy. Now
you know that this lady represents a large class of be-
lievers Is she rewarded and punished according to
her deeds? Then there is her husband. He means to
be a follower of Jesus. He attends church and reads
a chapter in the bible on Sunday.' He presents his
children at the baptismal font and appears himself at
communion table. He means to do about what is right.
But an occasional overreaching in a bargain; a few
passionate exclamations; a little slander of his rival;' a
LETTER II.
common neglect of his secret devotions, and many other
sins of omission and commission give him no uneasi-
ness; occasion scarcely a sting of conscience from one
year's end to another. Now you know there are many
in every religious denomination of this description.
Are they rewarded and punished according to their
deeds? If conscience punishes this wife more than she
deserves, it does not punish her husband so much as
his greater negligences demand; if it punishes the
husband in exact proportion to his sinfulness, then it
inflicts more punishment upon the wife than her iniqui-
ties require. In either case no perfect retribution takes
place, and consequently your belief is proved erro-
neous.
4. The operations of conscience depend on a know-
ledge of duty. You see an individual join the church.
He is really sincere in his public profession. He means
to obey the christian commands. But he is repeatedly
guilty of disobedience. His friends notice his devia-
tions from the path of rectitude. They speak to him
in a friendly manner 'on the subject. He is not con-
scious of having done any thing unchristian, so limited
is his acquaintance with the requisitions of the gospel;
and consequently he has .experienced no compunction
of conscience. After a few years he learns more of
the spirit of his holy religion. He sees many instances
in which he violated the divine precepts; he notices
many omissions of important virtues; and he regrets
his sins of omission and commission with great feeling.
This is the experience of almost every real christian.
And does conscience always punish according to the
real character? Not only so. You know many of our
political office seekers. They mean to be worthy disci-
ples of the Savior. They belong to the different de-
nominations of believers. They are perhaps as correct
72
LETTER II.
in most things as their brethren. But in order to obtain
promotion to office and to retain their posts of honor
and emolument, they are frequently guilty of artifices,
mancuvres, subterfuges, changes in opinion and conduct,
which are not. tolerated in the christian code. The
same proceedings in any other concerns of life they
would condemn without a moment’s hesitation. They
manifest a want of political integrity, and in very many
instances their course deserves no better name than
moral obliquity. But for all this they do not seem to
experience any great. compunctions of conscience.
They do not consider that there is a right and a wrong
in every thing. Their knowledge of duty is limited.
When convinced of this they are doubtless more or less
troubled with remorse and anguish. Can you say then
that they are rewarded according to their deeds ? As
the operations of conscience depend so much on a
proper understanding of the laws of your nature, there
can be no perfect retribution in this world.
What then is the testimony of conscience on the
question in controversy? You have seen that con-
science sometimes rewards for wickedness and sometimes
punishes for righteouness. You have seen that she
often becomes, deadened through the influence of crime,
and that her operations depend much on the moral
sensibility and enlightened understanding of the indi-
vidual. Consequently she cannot render unto every
man according to his deeds. Is not my sixth argument
unanswerable?
But, my dear Sir, I must draw my long epistle to a
close. The arguments I have imperfectly illustrated
are but a mere specimen of what might be stated did
my limits permit. If what I have said should convince
you that even in one instance, either the sinner was not
sufficiently punished, or the righteous not fully rewarded,
LETTER II.
73
or benefit in different individuals, my cause is gained.
I trust however the facts I have advanced must con-
vince every candid 'mind that the righteous are not
always and equitably and fully rewarded on earth; and
that the wicked are not always and equitably and fully.
punished in the present existence. If you are not satis-
fied with this conclusion on the first perusal of what I
have written, I beseech you to read over again the
separate arguments, and determine in your own mind
as in the presence of an omniscient judge, whether you
can furnish any fair answer to the evidence in a single
instance. If you will pursue this truly honest and in-
dependent course I have no fear of the results; for I
cannot see any way in which a person who is governed
by preponderating proofs can resist this testimony of
undisputed facts. And what is the legitimate inference
from my conclusion? Simply this. If there is not a
perfect retribution in this world, there must be rewards
and punishments beyond the grave, or God is not a
being of infinite justice. Can the justness of this infer-
ence be avoided?
L ETTER III.
My Dear Sir,
You believe there will be no retribution beyond the
grave for the conduct of the present life. You believe
that the righteous will not be rewarded hereafter by the
righteousness which they have here acquired. You
believe the wicked will not be punished hereafter by
the wickedness which they have here committed. You
believe the future condition of mankind will not be ef-
fected by the characters which they have here formed.
Now I consider your belief on this question thoroughly
erroneous. I contend that there will be a future right-
eous retribution. I believe the righteous will be made
happy hereafter by the righteousness which they have
here acquired. I believe the wicked will be rendered
miserable hereafter by the wickedness which they have
here committed. I believe a perfectly just and equita-
ble distribution of rewards and punishments will take
place hereafter according to the deeds done in the body.
In proof of the truth of this belief I now appeal to your
common sense. My limits will permit me to notice but
a few of the most common arguments of reason. :
76
!
LETTER ļI.
I. My first argument for a future retribution is drawn
from the common consent of mankind.
1. Suppose mankind had generally believed that there
would be no future retribution. Suppose they had be-
lieved that all would be made happy at their entrance
upon the next conscious existence. Suppose this had
been the belief of the savage. and the civilized, the
ignorant and the learned, the heathen and the mahom-
etan and the jew. Above all suppose that christians
from the days of the apostles to the present hour had
defended this faith? Would you not affirm that this
common opinion of all ages and nations presented a
very strong argument in favor of the doctrine of no
future retribution? To this question you will surely
return an affirmative answer.
Not only so. Suppose a new sect had arisen within
the present century who denied the correctness of this
common belief. Suppose they contended that a perfect
retribution did not take place in the present world.
Suppose they also believed that the consequences of our
present conduct would extend to the next existence ;
and that every individual would hereafter be treated
precisely according to the character here acquired.
Suppose they defended a just and equitable distribution
of rewards and punishments. Suppose the members of
this party were few in comparison with the whole body
of christians, were principally confined to this country,
were no way superior to their neighbors either in sound
learning, or theological attainments, or examination of
the scriptures, or christian character. Should you say
that the belief of the new denomination presented any
serious objection to the argument above stated? The
honest convictions of your mind must return a negative
answer to this question.
2. Now, my dear sir, make an application of this
LETTER III.
77
illustration. “I state a fact which you will not dispute.
The great majority of human beings in every age and
country and religion have believed that no perfect retri-
bution took place on earth. This has been the common
opinion of the barbarous and the uncivilized, of the
enlightened and refined, of the depraved and wicked,
of the virtuous and holy, of the unbeliever and misbe-
liever. Above all this has been the unanimous senti-
ment of christians till within a short period. Now why
have so many embraced this faith? Because they were
so taught in childhood ? No. Because they arrived at
this conclusion by reasoning? No.' Because it con-
-stituted an article in their religious creed? No. From
what source then have they derived this belief? From
their own observation? Yes. They have seen the
wicked. prospered. They have seen the righteous de-
pressed.' They have seen the guilty rewarded. They
have seen the innocent punished. They have seen an
unequal distribution of the means of improvement and
enjoyment. They have seen that happiness was not
proportioned according to the goodness of individuals;
and that misery was not allotted according to transgreso
sion. Above all the follower of Moses and Jesus has
read in the records of a divine revelation, that some were
not dealt with according to their iniquities. And is not
the evidence satisfactory which is derived from our own
experience, our own observation, our own bible? Does
not this common consent of mankind furnish a strong
argument against your doctrine of a perfect earthly
retribution? Surely your honesty will compel you to
return an affirmative answer to this question.
But this is not all. You know that most of the human
family have hoped for a future existence. You know
they have also believed in future rewards and punish-
ments. This is the undisputed fact in relation to the
78
LETTER III.
great majority of every nation, in every period, in every
country and under every religion. Above all you know
that christians, with scarcely an exception from the
ascension of our Savior till the beginning of the present
century, have believed in a future righteous retribution.
Now from what source has this belief been so generally
derived? From nature? If so it must be true; for
nature when properly interpreted teaches no falsehoods.
From instinct? If so it must be true; for the author of
instinct is the living fountain of wisdom. From an early
revelation? If so it must be true; for revelation can
proceed from none but the omniscient. From the gospel?
If so it must be true; for Jesus came to bear witness to
the truth. From the conclusions of reason? · Yes; and
can mankind have been so long and so universally de-
·ceived by sophistry? From common sense? Yes; and
has common sense always and uniformly led her votaries
astray on this important question? Is not this common
belief of mankind then a powerful argument in proof of
a future righteous retribution? In proof of this conclu-
sion I appeal to the common sense of unprejudiced
christians.
But a sect has arisen within the present century who
deny the truth of both my conclusions. They contend
that a perfect retribution takes place on earth, and that
there will be no rewards and punishments: beyond the
grave for the deeds done in the body. Their number is
very small in comparison with the whole denomination of
christians. They are principally confined to our country.
They are no way superior to their brethren, either in
their talents, knowledge, industry, application, research,
wisdom, goodness or piety. Now from what source
have they derived their opinions? From observation?
If so let them name the facts which prove that every,
man is rewarded or punished according to his obedience
LETTER III.
79
or transgression in this world. From the gospel? If
so let them show one passage which teaches that the
future condition of mankind will not be affected by their
present character. This has never been done. Can
you say that the belief of this new and small denomina-
tion furnishes any serious objection to the argument
from the common consent of mankind ? Let your
answer to this question be formed by the same rule
which would dictate your reply if the facts were of a
directly opposite character. Then you must admit that
my conclusion is not essentially affected by the small
numbers either in ancient or modern times who dissented
from the common judgment of the world.
II. My second argument for a future retribution is
drawn from the impartiality of the Creator.
1. You know a father who has three sons. The first i
obeys his commands, regards his wishes, devotes him-
self to the family interests, and manifests filial and fra-
ternal affection. The second is neither very good nor
very bad, reviles his authority when his inclinations
prompt, wounds his feelings when his passions rebel,
furnishes but little aid to his temporal and spiritual pro-
gress, and cares no great for domestic peace and pros-
perity. The third becomes dissipated and abandoned,
a nuisance in society, a torment to his friends, a curse
to himself. The parent makes his will, and gives to the
youngest son fifty thousand, to the middle one five hun-
dred, and to the eldest nothing. Do you not call this
gross,partiality? Is this an equitable distribution of his
property? Has he shown any attention to their just
deserts? Can you longer give him your respect and
esteem? Has he not violated the best principles of hu-
manity? I appeal to your sense of right and wrong. .
Now you know that mankind are depraved in a greater
or less degree. Many have abused their nature, their
80
LETTER III.
education, their privileges, their religion, and become
exceeding sinful. Many have obeyed the divine laws,
avoided vice, cultivated holiness, and formed christian
characters. Now suppose your Father should take one
half to heaven, and send the remainder to an endless
hell, without any special regard to their obedience or
transgression in his election. Would you not call this
gross partiality? Would you consider this an equitable
distribution of his favors? Could you longer respect
his name? Could you love him even if you were one
of the favorites? No. This is not in human nature.
There is a sense of justice implanted in your bosom.
You can distinguish between right and wrong. You
cannot call that goodness in one being which you would
consider wickedness in yourself. You would say that
an all perfect Creator is bound to deal out his gifts with
an impartial affection; that he must necessarily distribute
his rewards and punishments eventually, precisely ac-
cording to the merits of every individual. Is not this
the fact?
2. Now make an application of this illustration. Your
creator has placed his human family on this earth with-
out their knowledge or consent. He has endowed you
with reason to discover the path of duty and happiness,
and the course of sin and misery. He has given you
moral freedom to walk in one and shun the other. He
has not furnished you with equal advantages for improve-
ment and happiness. Some are doomed to live in utter
ignorance, while others are favored with the best ad-
vantages for the acquisition of knowledge. Some are.
oppressed with slavery, while others enjoy unlimited
liberty. Some are dwelling in heathen darkness, while
others are blessed with the light of the everlasting gos-
pel. Some improve their privileges to their own increase
in wisdom and goodness and happiness, while others
LETTER III.
81
abuse theirs to the injury of their bodies and souls.
Rewards and punishments are not always equitably dis-
tributed, because the moral governor does not interfere
to remedy the defects of his general laws. This has
been satisfactorily proved in my last communication.
Such you will admit is the condition of the human
family.
Now the Father who gave us this life has promised
to give us another. We call this gift an unspeakable
blessing. Suppose however he should place the whole
family on a perfect equality at the commencement of
our new existence. Suppose he should admit every in-
dividual to his heavenly kingdom, and make all equally
pure and holy and happy. Would this compensate for
the inequalities of this world? Would this rectify the
unequal advantages and unequal retribution of this mor-
tal life? Would this be dealing with every child accord-
ing to his use or abuse of his powers and opportunities?
Surely not. If then he should establish this equality,
must you not admit that partiality has been shown to
individuals and nations? Does not this destroy the
strict impartiality of his character? Could you give
him your confidence any more because he exercised
election this side the grave, than you could if it was ex-.
ercised in relation to the future? Is not the principle
the same? In my mind there is no difference. If he
may show partiality in one instance, and for a short
period without any remedy, on the same grounds he may
show partiality in many instances and for eternity. But
when you are assured that an all perfect Being can see
the beginning from the end, and that he will rectify in
the next state the inequalities of this, your mind is at
ease. All difficulty vanishes. . Your love returns.
Your confidence is confirmed. You have no fear that
an impartial parent will ever suffer the guilty to escape
82
LETTER III.
the just consequences of their wickedness, or permit his
obedient offspring to lose their just rewards. Conse-
quently a future righteous. retribution is absolutely
necessary to vindicate from partialism the character of
your Creator. .
Do you doubt the soundness of this conclusion? Let
me give one example to render it more evident. You
have read of Nero. He was a monster in human form.
He ordered his own mother to be murdered. He killed
his own wife. He set fire to the city of Rome and thus
made thousands wretched. He persecuted the early
christians in the most cruel and barbarous manner. No
language can describe, no words can recount the inhuman
and wicked acts of his life. About the same period there
lived one Paul. He went from place to place preaching
the gospel. He converted thousands from idolatry and
sinfulness to the worship and service of the universal
Father. He gave instruction to the ignorant, advice
to the doubting, reproof to the erring, consolation to the
afflicted. He filled many souls with gladness. And
during all this time, he was calumniated and persecuted;
he was exposed to sufferings the most intense; he expe-
rienced trials the most severe; he even laid down his
life in the promotion of human happiness. Now would
it be justice to place these two persons on an equality
when they enter the next existence? Let the honest
feelings of your heart answer. Nay, I appeal with con-
fidence to the experience of every individual in every
age and country in support of my position. Is there one
of the number who has taken an extensive and minute
survey of the condition and character and enjoyment of
individuals and nations who has not inwardly uttered
the following exclamations? “The inequalities of the
present life cannot be reconciled with the justice of God.
If he is an impartial parent there must be a future ret-
LETTER III.
83
ribution. A partial Father I cannot love; and nothing
but a righteous and equitable distribution of rewards
and punishments. beyond the grave can establish his
impartiality."
III. My third argument for a future retribution is
drawn from the memory of man.
1. Do you not, my dear sir, sometimes review the
transactions of your past life? Do you not call to mind
the good motives you have cherished, the good dis-
positions you have cultivated, the good deeds you have
performed? Do you not recollect your success in resist-
ing temptations, in reforming improper habits, in subdu-
ing rebellious passions, in acquiring religious knowledge,
in obtaining christian holiness? And does not the
remembrance of your praiseworthy exertions afford you
happiness? Yes; you will surely answer this question
in the affirmative.
On the other hand, do you not occasionally notice the
faults and transgressions of which you have been guilty?
Do you not recall some excesses of appetite, some out-
breakings of passion, some unsubmissive tempers; some
unkind feelings, some idle and injurious words, some
neglect of religious opportunities? And does not the
remembrance of your deficiencies and transgressions
give you misery? Surely you will again return an affir-
mative answer. Remembrance then rewards you for right-
eousness and punishes you for wickedness. In proof of
this conclusion I'appeal with perfect confidence to the
experience of every man who has endeavored to be a
practical christian.
2. Your friend was early instructed in the truths and
duties of the gospel. He left the paternal roof at a
tender age. He associated with dissolute companions.
He learned the language of profaneness and obscenity.
He wasted his leisure hours and his little income at the
84
LETTER III.
gaming table. He acquired a love for intoxicating
liquors. He became dissipated, and spent some precious
years in the service of sinfulness. All hope of reform-
ation vanished. Before the age of thirty a striking
providence aroused him to consideration. He reviewed
his iniquitous course, and meditated on his future pros-
pects. The image of his departed parents arose to his
imagination, and their concern for his welfare, their
prayers and entreaties and instructions rushed on his
recollection. He saw nothing but certain destruction
and an untimely grave before him. Relying upon divine
assistance he resolved upon amendment. He commenced
in earnest the work of reformation. For several years
he has been a consistent and zealous christian. He“
seeks no concealment for his former iniquities. He
warns the young to avoid the rocks on which he was
wrecked. He sincerely laments his past wickedness.
Does not a remembrance of his youthful sins give him
misery? Certainly; every man will admit the truth of
this conclusion. It is confirmed by scripture.
On the contrary, does he not often call to mind the
dispensation of providence which brought him to reflec-
tion? Does he not rejoice that the infant lessons of
parental piety were early impressed upon his suscepti-
ble heart? Does he not feel grateful that he has been
enabled to carry his virtuous resolutions into execution?
Does he not recollect his manly struggles in shaking
off his unprincipled associates, in denying his craving
and vitiated appetites, in conquering his low and grov-
elling propensities, in elevating his debased affections?
Does he not exult in his success in forming moral habits,
in cultivating purity of heart, in obtaining devotional
feelings, and in securing the christian character? Does
not a remembrance of his triumphant victory over sin-
fulness give him great happiness? Most assuredly.
LETTER III.
85
Memory then punishes him for his wickedness and rewards
him for his righteousness. In proof of this conclusion I
appeal with perfect confidence to the experience of every
christian whose youthful years were spent in dissipation.
3. I was intimately acquainted with a female christian.
She manifested the scriptural evidence of a true and
sincere and advanced disciple. Her life was threatened
by a lingering disease. All expectation of recovery was
banished from her mind for several months before her
dissolution. Every day I spent hours in her presence.
She looked upon the approaching event with perfect
calmness. She was patient under her various sufferings.
Her spirits were continually cheerful. The idea of
being so early separated from the friend of her youth
and the children of her affection and her prayers would
occasionally produce a tear. But her resignation was
complete. And what gave her this support and com-
fort? Several particulars which I will mention. She
took a review of her past life. Although she could
discover enough in her deficiencies and transgressions
to produce true humility, yet there was nothing to create
remorse or anguish. She had conscientiously endeav-
ored to fulfil all her incumbent duties. She had ac-
quired the graces and virtues of the gospel in a high
degree. She had taken great satisfaction in all the
exercises of piety and holiness. She loathed sin in all
its forms, and hungered and thirsted after righteousness.
Her soul was in a religious and happy frame. She felt
prepared to unite with the ransomed of the Lord in the
pleasures and employments of heaven. She had a firm
and unshaken confidence in her unchangeable Father
and friend. She knew he would never desert nor for-
sake those who gave themselves to his service. She
had no fears of meeting him whom she loved more than
all things else. She had venerated her Savior, She
86
LETTER III.
had studied and imitated his character. She desired to
be with him and enjoy his society and affection. She
made all necessary arrangements for her burial. She
prayed for assistance to pass properly through the try-
ing scene of separation and death. In the language of
her Savior she commended her soul to the hands of her
ever-present Father and gently bid adieu to all earthly
concerns. Is this reality or is it imagination? It is the
literal truth. There is no deception in this instance.
The remembrance of her christian life and principles gave
her comfort and strength and joy in the trying scenes of
sickness and dissolution.
On the other hand, I have stood beside the bed of the
dying awakened sinner. Soon after I commenced preach-
ing, before my settlement in the ministry, it was my
unpleasant lot to be invited to visit an abandoned female
in the near prospect of death. She had been more than
once a mother, though never married. She had lived a
profligate and wicked life. She was now awakened to
a sense of her sinfulness and her danger. She suffered
the most intense mental agony. She wanted me to do
something for her relief, to offer prayer, to administer
baptism, to find some cordial for her agonized soul. My
experience in pastoral duties was small. My feelings
were overcome. I had never witnessed or imagined
any thing of the kind. I said every thing my conscience
would permit. I spoke of the unchangeable love of a
universal Father. I described the compassionate and
benevolent feelings of the common Savior. I alluded
to the cordial reception of the repentant and returning
prodigal. I exhorted her to unfeigned repentance, and
a confiding faith in her divine Master. I offered the
most fervent petitions for her forgiveness and acceptance.
· All this produced but little effect upon her troubled and
self-condemned spirit, The very mentioning of infinite
LETTER III.
87
goodness and mercy, of a dying and crucified and risen
redeemer, seemed to increase her distress. For it remind-
ed her of her base ingratitude, her wilful neglect, her
aggravated disobedience. All the sins of her dissolute
course seemed to have taken possession of her thoughts.
Nothing that I was able to advance gave any real relief.
She continued in this dreadful state a day and a half,
and was then ushered into eternity. The scene is too
deeply engraved on my mind ever to be effaced. Now
what produced this indescribable misery? Remembrance
of her past 'sinfulness. Yes; in the eventful hours of
sickness and death, memory severely punishes the wicked
and richly rewards the righteous. In proof of the truth
of this conclusion I appeal with confidence to the expe-
rience of every advanced christian minister.
3. Now, my dear sir, make an application of this
argument. Let this unhappy female enter upon the next
conscious existence. In order to constitute her the
same person she must have a remembrance of her for-
mer life. And will it give her happiness to recollect her
vile practices, her sinful indulgences, her pernicious
example, her debasing influence? Will.it give her hap-
piness to recollect her neglected duties, her wasted time,
her abused privileges, her slighted mercies? Will it give
her happiness to recollect her disregard of her Savior and
her disobedience of her Father? Will not the recollection
of her loathsome vices, her aggravated depravity, her
infernal wickedness fill her soul with remorse and dis-
may, tribulation and anguish? How can the case be
otherwise ? Will she not realize more sensibly the
deformity of sin, the guilt of transgression, the degrada-
tion of her rational and immortal nature? What then
can prevent her remembrance of her past iniquities from
giving her unutterable torments? I know of nothing.
On the other hand, must not the christian be rewarded
88
LETTER III,
by his remembrance? Is not this idea intimated both by
Jesus and his apostles. How must the happiness of the
beloved disciple be increased in calling to mind his
earthly course, his kind care of the widowed mother of
his master; his arduous labors for the salvation of man-
kind, his resistance of the various temptations to apostacy,
his peaceful and benevolent dispositions, his worthy ex-
ample in all the relations of a man and a minister? And
must not every true and obedient believer partake in
some good degree of similar enjoyment? Will it not
give him delight to review his successful warfare, his
glorious triumph over the world, the flesh and the adver-
sary. Yes; the surviving or renewed memory must hereafter
torment the wicked and bless the righteous. I can discover
no other alternative. I know not how this conclusion
can be shaken. In proof of its soundness I appeal to
the common sense of mankind. This then is my third
argument for a future retribution; THE UNDYING MEM-
ORY OF MAN.
But, my dear sir, you know that great efforts have
been made to destroy the force of this argument, be-
cause it comes home with such power to the conscience
of every reflecting individual. Some of the recent
attacks upon this insurmountable obstacle to the cor-
rectness of your doctrine I will now notice.
1. One objection to this argument is thus stated. If
the remembrance of past wickedness punishes one per-
son, it must give more or less punishment to all who
have sinned. Many good christians have greatly trans-
gressed the divine laws, and therefore the consequences
of their iniquities must extend to the next existence,
Certainly. This appears to be the dictate of both reason
and revelation. This is the very principle for which I
am contending, an equitable and righteous retribution.
Let me then-illustrate by an example. Suppose for ,
LETTER III.
89
instance that Judas sincerely repented in his last mo-
ments on earth. Suppose that he commenced the next
life in the same state of mind in which he departed
from this world. Suppose he should press forward in
the work of reformation and improvement, until he forms
a christian character, and is thus qualified for heavenly
felicity, for the society of the other apostles and of their
divine master. Now can he forget during this period
his former selfishness, and avarice, and dishonesty?
Can he forget his mercenary bargain, his thirty pieces
of silver, his unparalleled treachery? Can he forget
the last supper, the look of his Savior, the sop given
and received? Can he forget the hypocritical kiss in
the garden and his betraying of innocent blood? And
must not the remembrance of his base ingratitude and
his cold blooded depravity diminish his satisfaction, dis-
turb his happiness, and even create painful sensations?
Must not such consequences continue for an indefinite
period? Surely I know not how this conclusion can be
avoided. And must not all men be served according
to their characters? This I admit. I believe our Fa-
ther is no respecter of persons, but that every individual
will be rewarded or punished precisely according to his
deeds. So long then as I contend that remembrance is
to do justice to every class of our fellow men I consider
this objection fully answered.
2. A second objection to this argument is thus stated.
We forget much of what took place in our early years,
and still we are the same persons. Why may we not
forget what took place in this world and still retain our
identity? For many plain and satisfactory reasons, one
or two of which will be sufficient for my present purpose.
We do not leap at once from infancy to manhood. Our
course is progressive. We make gradual advances in
the acquisition of knowledge. New impressions remove
90
LETTER III.
old ones into a dim and darkened distance. Each step
is connected with those which precede and follow. So
that all change is gradual. Now between death and
the next existence there can be no mental advancement,
and consequently a person must remember what took
place on earth or he is not the same individual. An
illustration will make this reasoning plain. Suppose
you should arise tomorrow morning in the full exercise
of all your powers of body and soul. Suppose however
you had no remembrance of having before existed.
You knew no person, you had no knowledge of any
thing in this world. Could you be called the same in-
dividual who went to sleep with a great store of valua-
ble information? Your body would be the same. The
powers of your mind so far as the future was concerned
would not be altered. But every thing that now con-
stitutes your character and qualifies you for spiritual
happiness would be wanting; and consequently your
identity would be lost. So must it be with each of us
if we are to lose our remembrance of this life in our
passage through the grave.
Not only so. A few facts in relation to the powers
of memory may convince you that none of our acquisi-
tions are really lost although we may have forgotten
them for years. You know that many persons have
been drowned and afterwards resuscitated. The expe-
riences of some of this number throw much light on
this question. As the man is sinking all the transactions
of his past life rush through his mind in rapid succession;
many things which he had long since forgotten, the
minutest events of his life, every scene in which he
had been engaged, in short the picture of his earthly
existence is placed before his mental vision, perfect
in all its parts. Now this proves that it is in the power
of our Father so to operate on the memory that the in-
LETTER III.
91
dividual shall recollect all things he ever knew. This
is a fearful thought. This explains the mode in which
the secrets of all hearts may hereafter be made mani-
fest. If you have any doubt of the truth of this state-
ment I would refer you to works on mental philosophy;
and further than this, I can introduce you to an individ-
ual of the first respectability in this vicinity who will
substantiate my relation from his own personal experi-
ence. Did my limits permit I could adduce many in-
teresting facts of a similar character to illustrate my
position. So that I consider this weak objection fully
refuted.
3. A third objection is thus stated. We shall have
no remembrance hereafter of what took place in this
world. My answer to this assertion is contained in one
sentence. If we have no remembrance hereafter of the
present life we have no future existence. The truth of this
position I will prove to your full satisfaction. Suppose
you could convince me that I am at this moment made
up of the very materials which once constituted the soul
and body of Adam. Would this satisfy you, either that
he was now enjoying a second life, or that I am the first
parent of mankind? By no means. You would merely
show that the ingredients of humanity which he had long
since worn out, were fashioned anew into an unitarian
minister. Now suppose your heavenly Father should
form a new being from the animal, intellectual and
moral nature which you must ere long lay down in death?
Suppose this creature should have no more knowledge
of having lived once before than you now possess of
having enjoyed a former existence. Would he be the
identical man to whom these questions are addressed?
Is this the kind of immortality you expect? No. The
supposition is perfectly absurd. You must have a re-
membrance of the transactions of this life, or it will no
92
LETTER III.
longer be you who receive a future life. And this is
true in relation to every individual of the human family.
In proof of the truth of this conclusion I appeal to the
common sense of mankind.
Not only so. This question is settled beyond all con-
troversy by the resurrection of our Savior. He was
raised to an incorruptible and immortal life. His body
will never be corrupted. His nature can never suffer
death. Now was he not precisely the same person after
his resurrection as before his crucifixion? Did he not
possess the same mental and moral powers, the same
benevolence and piety, the same deep interest in the
cause of human salvation? Did he not retain a perfect
recollection of his earthly ministry, of his cruel persecu-
tions, of his excruciating sufferings, of his ignominious
death? Did he not know his disciples, give them in-
structions concerning their future course, explain the
prophecies to the two with whom he journeyed? Look
at the records for yourself. You will soon be satisfied
that Jesus experienced no change in his mental or moral
character in passing through death. And if raising him
to an incorruptible and immortal life did not destroy his
remembrance of his earthly career, neither can our be-
ing raised to an immortal and incorruptible existence
destroy our remembrance of temporal transactions. For
as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Here then is an answer to your objection which no be-
liever in revelation will feel disposed to attack.
But this is not all. Our Savior's instructions confirm
this conclusion beyond all question. Listen to his own
words. “I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go
and prepare a place for you, I will come again and re-
ceive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may
be also. Father I will that they also whom thou hast
given me be with me where I am; that they may behold
LETTER III.
93
my glory which thou hast given me.” Does not this
statement decide the controversy? Are the apostles to
be hereafter with Jesus? With what Jesus? With the
one they followed when on earth, the one they served
with fidelity, the one they revered and loved; or with
one who had no recollection of any of these circum-
stances? And what apostles? The very same Peter
and James and John who were commissioned to preach
glad tidings to all people? Or some other beings of the
same name, who never knew Jesus? I need not ask
such questions. The same Savior and the same apostles
were to renew their intimacy beyond the grave, and no
doubt much of their happiness would arise from a recol-
lection of their earthly transactions. Paul encouraged
his converts with the same truth. And the instructions
of the whole gospel conspire to prove that a future life
is to be the portion of mankind, and not that a new cre-
ation is to be made from our worn out natures. No one
then can possibly enjoy a second existence without re-
membering the first. Consequently the undying memory
must create a future retribution. There is no possible
way of avoiding this conclusion. In proof of its sound-
ness I appeal to the common sense of mankind.
IV. My fourth argument for a future retribution is
drawn from the nature of sin and holinèss.
1. A christian father has two sons. He endeavors
to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord. He teaches them the existence and paternal
character of the universal Father. He makes them ac-
quainted with the history and example and instructions
of the common Savior. He explains to them all the du-
ties which they owe themselves, their fellow men, their
divine master and their heavenly parent. He persuades
them by motives human and divine to cultivate the chris-
tian character. He convinces them by a variety of ex-
94
LETTER III.
amples, that they have the power either to rise to a high
degree of moral excellence, or sink to a low degree of
moral depravity. He makes them understand both from
experience and observation that goodness qualifies a
person for pure and satisfactory happiness, while wicked-
ness prepares them for severe suffering and wretched-
ness. He has the satisfaction of seeing them amiable,
care and attention and prayerfulness. He places them
at a proper age in the same business in our metropolis,
and leaves them to their moral freedom. And what
follows?
The youngest son soon experiences a degree of liberty
which he never before enjoyed. He may spend his
leisure hours as he pleases. He begins to relish society.
He accepts an invitation to attend the theatre. He is
delighted with the performances. He feels no com-
punctions of conscience on this account; for he knows
that worthy christians occasionally visit this scene of
amusement, and his beloved parents never cautioned him
to avoid this place of fashionable resort. He is drawn
there a second evening by some brilliant star in the
theatrical world. He becomes so much interested that
he resolves to spend his little income in attendance upon
this "interesting school of morals.” Thus far he is not
conscious of having deviated from the path of rectitude.
He indeed desires that his parents should not know
where so much of his leisure is passed. At length he
has not funds sufficient to purchase the necessary ticket.
He thinks of borrowing of some friend, but concludes
to take from the drawer of his master, and keep an exact
account so as to return at some future period the prin-
cipal with interest. All this appears correct, for his
intentions are not wrong. His acquaintances however
increase and he is soon invited to a convivial meeting.
LETTER III.
95
He wishes to accept, but has not the means of defraying
his share of the expenses, without borrowing more from
his master's drawer. The joke, the story, the song and
the wine cause the evening to pass pleasantly and rapidly; .
and there does not seem to him to be any thing to regret
in this mode of enjoyment. He becomes a regular
of the stimulating drink than he intended. His con-
science reproves him most severely for placing himself
so clearly in the way of temptation. His companions
fear the consequences, and endeavor to convince him
that such excesses are not uncommon among some-
gentlemen of high standing in the community. The
wound heals slowly, but is at last plastered over with
the deceitful opiate of good resolutions. He becomes
more intimate with his associates. They enter into
more familiar conversation. Women are mentioned.
The sophistry of infidelity is employed. They convince
him that he has passions which were given to be grati-
fied; that their gratification is productive of health and
attended with pleasure; that certain precautions will
prevent any evil results either to himself or others; that
there can be no sin in following the dictates of nature.
In a state of excitement he is led to a house of moral
death. Remorse torments him on the day following.
But his thoughts are turned from himself by his business
during the day, and his dissipation through the night.
He however despises theft, but fears he shall not be
soon able to return his borrowed capital. He takes
more for the purpose of purchasing lottery tickets.
Being unsuccessful here he enters upon other modes of
gaming which are ever open in large cities to ruin the
unwary. From one thing to another he proceeds until his
iniquities are exposed, his character ruined, his constitu-
96
LETTER III.
immoral, his heart polluted. I need not describe his
misery and wretchedness. This is no picture of the im-
agination. Now let me ask several questions. Was he
made wicked by fate, or necessity, or chance, or
supernatural influence? No. This you will not pre-
tend. On the contrary was he not a free agent? Did
he not possess the power to resist the temptation? Can
he justly blame any but himself? Is not his wicked-
ness of his own acquisition? Can he get rid of his
depravity in any method but reformation? Does not his
sinfulness torment him severely? Is not his suffering
increased by the moral purity which prevails in the
community? To all these questions you will undoubtedly
return an affirmative answer. On these points then we
are agreed. Remember this conclusion.
Now the eldest son pursues a different course He
is faithful to the interests of his master. He never
knowingly deviates from what he believes to be exactly
right in his mercantile transactions. He secures the
unbounded confidence of his employer, and the respect
and approbation of his customers. He selects virtuous
and intelligent and christian associates. He attends
regularly upon the ministrations of the gospel. He
engages in the instruction of the sunday school. He
unites with the associations of young men for mutual
improvement and benevolent purposes. He spends his
evenings in reading, hearing lectures, and improving
social intercourse. He is extensively known and greatly
beloved. His sphere of influence is enlarged. He
commands the best situations in his line of business, and
receives the largest amount of salary. He is rendered
happy by his goodness, his consciousness of having done
right, his progress in mental and moral improvement,
his well-disciplined passions, his expansive benevolence,
his ardent piety, his truly christian character. And
LETTER III.
97
here again I would ask several questions. Was he
made good by any fate, or chance, or miracle? No.
This you will not pretend. Was he not a free agent?
Could he not have gone astray if he had pleased? Can
he lose his moral excellence without his own consent
and exertions? Is not his holiness of his own acquisition?
Does it not qualify him for high degrees of felicity? Is
not his enjoyment increased by the virtues of the com-
munity in which he resides? To all these questions you
will also return an affirmative answer. On these points :
then we do not disagree. Now what are the two con-
clusions at which we have arrived? In the first place,
we have settled these questions; whatever wickedness
any man may possess has been acquired by his own free
agency; the more perfectly christian the community in
which he resides the greater must be his misery arising
from his sinfulness. In the second place, we have also
established these positions; whatever goodness any man
possesses has been acquired by his own free agency;
the more perfectly christian the community in which he
lives the greater must be his happiness arising from his
holiness.
2. Now, my dear sir, let us proceed one step further.
Suppose that these two sons should enter the next exist-
ence with the very character I have described. Would
not the youngest necessarily suffer greater torments than
he ever experienced on earth? Would he not be removed
from all those occupations and indulgences which served
to prevent unceasing anguish in this world? Would he
not be in a region of greater moral purity? Would he
not be wholly unfitted for the enjoyments and employ-
ments of a heavenly inheritance? Could he heartily
unite in the worship of that Father whom he had neg-
lected and disobeyed? Could he delight in the society
of that Savior whom he had slighted and denied ?
98
L.CTTER III.
Could he mingle in the joys of those pure souls whom
he had ridiculed and despised? Must not his depraved
inclinations, desires, passions, affections, habits of feel-
ing and thinking greatly increase his suffering? It can-
not be otherwise. This you will admit must be the natural
and unavoidable consequence of his sinfulness, provided
he enters the future state with the character he here
formed. .
On the contrary must not the oldest son enjoy greater
happiness than he ever experienced on earth? Would
he not be removed beyond the reach of all those per-
plexities and imperfections which prevented his goodness
from producing uninterrupted enjoyment? · Would he
not be in a state more congenial to his holy desires and
longings? Would he not be qualified for the enjoyments
and glories of the spiritual kingdom? Would he not
delight in the society of just men made perfect; of the
innumerable company of angels, of Jesus, the mediator of
the new covenant, and of the one universal Father? Most
assuredly. This you will also admit, provided he enters
the next existence with the character which he formed
on earth. Here again we arrive at other very impor-
tant conclusions. In the first place it is settled, that if
the sinner enters the next existence with the same char-
acter which he here acquired, his sinfulness must neces-
sarily render him more wretched than it possibly could
in this world. And in the second place we have deter-
mined, that if the righteous enters the next life with the
character which he formed on earth, his holiness must
necessarily qualify him for greater felicity. than it could
possibly yield him in the present existence. Thus far
we are agreed.
3. Now, my dear sir, let us come to the application of
these conclusions. An all important question arises.
Shall we enter the next existence with the same moral
LETTER III.
99
characters which we have formed in this world? Most
assuredly. I have no hesitation in returning an affirma-
tive answer to this inquiry. And I will now endeavor
to establish my position with a few plain and satisfactory
arguments. In the first place, we cannot retain our
· personal identity unless we retain our moral character.
Revelation and reason assure us that we shall retain our
identity; that it is we ourselves who are now conversing,
who are to enjoy a second existence. And what now
constitutes ourselves? Our hands and feet, our tongue
and limbs, our body? No. This is but the instrument
which we use for our gratification. We ourselves think,
reason, judge, love, hate, suffer and enjoy; and the
results of these mental and moral operations form our
character. Now take away all these characteristics and
you remove our characters; you remove ourselves; you
leave nothing but infant souls; we are not then the same
beings; in losing all that constitutes our present char-
acter we lose our identity. Now let me apply this to
the younger son. Take away all his knowledge, so
that his remembrance of the instructions he disobeyed
and the iniquities he committed can give him no suffer-
ing. Take away his habits of thinking and feeling, so
that his perverted will and affections may cause him no
misery. Take away his sinful desires and dispositions,
so that his undisciplined passions and debased tastes may
not create any wretchedness. Take away his power of
judging between right and wrong, and his moral sense
which approves the former and condemns the latter, so
that his conscience can occasion no torment. Take
away these and other particulars and you have indeed
removed the sinfulness which he acquired. But what
have you left? Nothing that made him the person de-
scribed. You leave him a mere infant, without any moral
character whatever. Is this inſant the same individual
100
LETTER III.
mentioned ? By no means. Consequently you cannot
remove his character, all that makes the man, without
destroying his personal identity. But we have already
seen that depravity cannot be taken away except by
reformation, and that this must be the work of a free
agent. You make him a new creature altogether; and
have we not seen that you cannot destroy the habits a
person has acquired without his own consent and coop-
eration? Consequently no one can lose his character
in passing through the grave without losing his identity.
Unless we retain our characters we shall not receive a
future existence. In proof of this conclusion I appeal
to your common sense.
In the second place, it is also a settled question that
no one can enjoy heavenly happiness without holiness.
This is the declaration of scripture and the dictate of
reason. This you admit. . Well, suppose you could
remove all wickedness from the sinner and leave him
the same person, how could you furnish him with the
holiness necessary for spiritual felicity? What is holi-
ness? It is nothing more nor less than a christian
character which the individual acquires by his own exer-
tions. Consequently this is an acquisition of free human
agency. Now can this be imparted by miracle? - By
no means. Why? Because it is the result of a man's
own voluntary labors and exertions. The scriptures
assure us that God cannot lie. Why not? Because
falsehood is directly contrary to his pure and holy nature,
In the same way, I affirm that God cannot make a man
holy by miracle. Why not? Because holiness consists
in certain habits of thinking and feeling and willing and
loving and acting, which habits the human being must
himself form by frequent repetitions. Consequently no
miraculous agency can make the soul form habits at one
mental operation which requires freedom of choice and
LETTER III.
101
many successive repetitions. We have seen before that
goodness is acquired by personal and active exertions.
I consider it fairly proved then that no man can ever be
made holy by a miracle, and of course that the wicked
can never be fitted for heaven without their own consent
and endeavors.
In the third place, the example of our Savior fully
proves that we shall enter the next existence with the
same characters which we have here formed. He
acquired a christian character by his own personal exer-
tions. He was tempted in all points' as we are and yet
resisted in every instance. He lived a sinless life. His
holiness was the result of his own free choice and arduous
labors. For the captain of our salvation was made
perfect through suffering. And of what did his char-
acter consist? Many pages would not furnish a full and
proper answer to this question.' I may however say,
that his love for his heavenly Father, his devotion, resig-
nation, gratitude, confidence and obedience; his love
for mankind, sympathy, compassion, kindness, labors
and prayers; his self-government in relation to his appe-
tites, motives, feelings, passions, dispositions; all these
particulars are to be included in his character. These
qualities and graces and virtues constituted his personal
identity. With these in full vigor he left this life. Now
did he not enter upon the next incorruptible and immortal
existence with all these excellencies? Did he not possess
the same habits of piety, benevolence, self-government?
This you cannot deny. He 'could not have been the
same person had this character been removed between
death and the resurrection. Now if Judas had been
raised at the same moment with the Savior, what would
have been his character? He could not have been the
same Judas who betrayed his master, unless he retained
the same habits of feeling, thinking and acting. Sup-
102
LETTER III.
pose he had appeared full of devotion, benevolence, pu-
rity and holiness, although such a supposition is perfectly
absurd, would he have retained his personal identity ?
Would he have been Judas Iscariot? Surely not. If
then we are ever raised to a second life we must retain
the characters which we here form, or it is no longer we
ourselves who are raised, but a new being created
from our worn out materials.
In the last place, the conscience must be raised, for
this is one of the essential ingredients of our nature.
This consists in the power of determining between sin
and holiness, and the moral sense which approves when
you have done right and condemns when you have done
wrong. Now illustrate this remark by a reference to
the youngest son described. On earth he knows the
difference between virtue and vice. He has practised
iniquity, and this moral sense gives him severe torment.
Let him enter the next existence. Must he not be able
to distinguish between righteousness and wickedness ?
Will not his transgression appear as sinful as it did be-
fore death? Will not his moral sense be as ready to
execute the sentence of condemnation? And can he
be the same man without this moral judgment and moral
sense? Surely. not. Here then is an unanswerable
argument for a future righteous retribution. We must
enter upon the next life with the same. characters we
form in this world. Sin will then confer the most severe
punishment, and holiness the most satisfactory reward.
And the undying conscience of man can never cease its
operations; it must give happiness to the holy so long as
his holiness continues; it must render misery to the
sinful so long as his sinfulness lasts. Such then is the
nature of sin and holiness, that the righteous must be
hereafter rewarded by the righteousness which they have
here secured; and the wicked must be hereafter pun-
LETTER III.
· 103
ished by the wickedness which they have here acquired.
In proof of the soundness of this conclusion: I appeal to
the common sense of mankind.
Now, my dear sir, you are aware that great exertions
have been made to destroy the force of this argument,
because it is so plain, intelligible, convincing and
rational. Some have employed the weapons of ridicule
and sarcasm, and others have made free use of evasion
and sophistry. A few of the most plausible attempts to
remove' an obstacle so utterly destructive of your system
I will now notice.
1. One objection to this argument is thus stated.
Paul was instantaneously converted, and why may not
all sinners receive the same favor at their entrance upon
the next existence? Because there is no connexion
whatever in the two cases. A miracle was wrought to
give Paul convincing evidence that Jesus was the true
Messiah. No change whatever was effected in his
moral character by this supernatural influence. All the
reformation, in views, feelings, dispositions, tempers,
conversation and habits which was necessary to make
him an acceptable christian, was left for him to effect by
his own exertions in cooperation with the ordinary in-
fluences of the spirit. He was also elected to be an
apostle to the gentiles, and a departure from the com-
mon laws of providence seemed necessary to prepare
this chosen instrument for his important mission. There
is no probability that such measures will be adopted to
bring those to holiness who have already a belief in the
divine mission of Jesus, and who wilfully reject his
claims and his entreaties. So that the example of Paul
has no relation to the subject in dispute whatever; and
of course this objection deserves no further refutation.
2. Another of your party has attempted to ridicule
the idea of there being any distinctions in another life
104
LETTER III.
on account of the different degrees of knowledge and
goodness here acquîred. Such language may serve to
flatter the vulgar and degraded, but will appear to all
who reverence the words of Jesus very unfortunate for
the author. For if the Savior has taught any lesson
with distinctness it is this. To whom much is given, of
them will much be required. He that knowingly neg-
lected his master's will shall be beaten with many stripes;
while he who ignorantly disobeyed shall receive a milder
chastisement. He who improved five talents was to be
ruler over five cities, and he who buried his one talent
in the earth was to be cast into outer darkness. As one
star differeth from another in glory, so shall the children
of the resurrection. All revelation conspires to con-
vince us that every man shall be rewarded according to
his deeds. You might as well ridicule the idea that one
man is wiser than another, better than another, happier
than another in this world. You may as well say that
Judas and his Master must be on the same equality in
the next existence. I do not consider this attack on
the doctrine of a future righteous retribution worthy of
any further refutation. I am only sorry to see a man
who professes to be a christian so ready to confound all
moral distinctions, and so ready to love the impression
that he neither wishes nor expects any thing better be-
yond the grave, than is given to the murderer of tens
and of hundreds.
3. Another objection of this nature is stated. Some
die in a state of mental derangement, consequently they
must enter the next life as they leave this world. This
does not follow. A few facts in mental philosophy will
reconcile this apparent difficulty. No one believes that
any individual will be raised in a state of insanity, or
in the childishness and dotage of old age. Neither of
these characters are what have been acquired by the
LETTER III.
105
free agent. The mind when in its most perfect state
must be the accountable person. As insanity depends
on various physical causes, it may exist without impair-
ing the mental powers or injuring the moral character.
The same may be said of the decays of sickness and
years. Let me state merely two facts in illustration of
my remarks. A person was taken suddenly deranged.
He forgot every thing of his former life. He lost all
knowledge. After a few years he was as suddenly re-
stored. He forgot every thing that took place during
his insanity. He recollected every thing he knew when
the calamity happened. After some time he again be-
came suddenly insane. He remembered every thing
which had occurred during his former period of de-
rangement. He forgot every , thing else. This is
enough to prove that a person loses neither his knowl-
edge nor goodness by any physical disease. Many more
facts of a similar character you may find in works on
mental philosophy. One more example I will mention.
It is no uncommon thing in France for the physicians
to cure insanity by drowning. The experiment has
been once successfully performed in this county. The
maniac was chained in a large tub, and the water poured
upon him until life departed. He was then resuscitated
in the usual method; and he who was before the trial
a most raving madman became perfectly rational. Now
is it not in the power of our Father to remedy all these
apparent difficulties without the least inconvenience, so
that every one shall appear in his true and real character
at his entrance upon the next existence? I consider
this objection entirely removed. .
4. But a more difficult case is supposed. Here are
twin brothers. The elder forms a christian character.
The younger gives himself tº dissipation. At the age
of forty the younger strikes the elder on his head, and
106
LETTER III.
produces mental derangement which lasts through life.
This event becomes the occasion of reforination to the
abandoned wretch, and he devotes himself to religion
the remainder of his days. Both depart at eighty. The
question is triumphantly asked how both can be reward-
ed exactly according to their deeds. Now this is alto-
gether an irrational supposition. No case of the kind
ever occurred. But shortsighted as I am, I find.no
difficulty in reconciling it with my views. In the first
place the younger son must suffer greatly every day of
his life in beholding a brother deprived of reason, in
reflecting upon his own wickedness which caused the
dreadful calamity, so that although he is reformed he
experiences in some degree the natural consequence of
his iniquity. Then he has great obstacles to overcome
in the work of reforination, on account of his deeply
rooted habits of sin; so that beginning at the age of
forty with such a load of vitiated tastes, and carnal pro-
pensities, and wicked practices, he will not be able to
make great advancement. He must be much the worse.
for all his transgressions. When both enter the other
world, the elder must have all the goodness he had ac-
quired, which at forty would be nearly as great as is
ever obtained; and his enjoyment could not be embit-
tered by any painful remembrances or any sinful lusts
and passions. The other is indeed prepared for heavenly
felicity, but his happiness must be diminished by the
stains which more than twenty years' service in the
cause of depravity has left upon his soul; and espe-
cially by the recollection of that act which deprived his
brother of forty years' enjoyment and improvement.
Does not this render the retribution in a proper degree
equitable? If you think it does not, you may easily
suppose that it is in the power of our Father to place
them in such different situations so as to rectify all in-
LETTER III
107
equalities. This objection then amounts to nothing and
is very much of a piece with the preceding. In short
the argument for a future retribution which is 'drawn
from the nature of sin and holiness appears to my mind
a perfect demonstration. I know that attacks may be
made upon this as upon every thing else, even the ex-
istence of the Divinity. But it seems to me when I
read such attempts like aiming to prove that there is
no sun in the heavens, because there are some spots on
its disc, and because it is sometimes 'obscured by an
eclipse.
Thus, my dear sir, I have given you a few of the ar-
guments from reason for a future retribution. They
appear to my mind conclusive. More might be stated
did my limits permit me to make them intelligible to the
common reader. These however are sufficient to give
an outline of this mode of reasoning, and this is all I
expect to accomplish in my present publication. In
· proof of the correctness of my several conclusions I
appeal to the common sense of mankind.
LETTER IV.
MY DEAR SIR,
I will now direct your attention to the nature and
means of christian salvation. I have often thought that
erroneous notions upon this subject were at the foun-
dation of your system; and as I have before given it
a thorough investigation, and as I am under the necessity.
of introducing it in order to a full discussion of the ques-
tion of divine rewards and punishments, I shall offer no
apology for making free use of my former publication.
ance from ignorance, error and sin; and the possession
of christian knowledge, virtue and piety. Perhaps I can
render this definition more clear by a familiar example,
Suppose then that a learned heathen now stood before
me; one who worshipped idols; one who had heard of
Jesus and believed him to be an impostor; one whose
.conduct was openly immoral. I undertake to convert
him to christianity by rational argument and evangelical
motives. I first convince him of the existence of one
infinite Creator, Governor and Father. You perceive
that he would then be saved from his ignorance concern-
109
LETTER IV.
ing the nature and perfections of the Supreme Being;
as well as from the darkness and folly of idolatry. I next
convince him that Jesus of Nazareth is the divinely com-
missioned Savior of the world. You perceive that he
would then be saved from his erroneous opinions respect-
ing the one Mediator between God and men; as well as
from an evil heart of unbelief. I further convince him
that if he would be a true christian, he must obey the
instructions, imitate the example and imbibe the spirit of
the great Author and Finisher of our faith. When his
actions give evidence of a reformation of heart and life,
you perceive that he would be saved from his iniquities;
as well as blessed with a righteous and holy character.
When these things are accomplished, you must admit
that he has experienced christian salvation. Now from
'this illustration, you may learn four most important gos-
pel truths. First, that christian salvation consists in
deliverance from ignorance, error and sin; and in the
possession of christian knowledge, virtue and piety.
Secondly, that this salvation takes place whenever a.
person becomes a practical christian. Thirdly, that so
long as any one continues a practical christian, he is in
no danger of punishment. And fourthly, that divine
pardon can be obtained only by forming a christian
character. The truth of these four propositions I will :
now endeavor to prove, from reason, observation and
the scriptures.
1. I am first to prove that christian salvation consists
in deliverance from ignorance, error and sin; and in the
possession of christian knowledge, virtue and piety.
Look then to the scriptural argument. Why was our
Savior called Jesus?. “Thou shalt call his name Je-
sus; for he shall save his people from their sins.". Why
did he appear on earth? - The son of man is come to
save that which was lost;” lost in darkness, doubt and
i
LETTER IV.
111
depravity. Why did he commission Paul to visit the
gentiles? - To open their eyes, and to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God.”
Why did he give himself a ransom for sinners? " To
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works.". And who are
the subjects of his saving power? "He became the
author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”.
If then a person is turned from heathenism, to the ser-
vice of the living God; if he is redeenied from his
iniquities, and rendered zealous of the good works of
the gospel; he is surely saved from his religious blind-
ness and depravity, and possessed of christian instruction
and holiness. Many more passages of a similar import
might be quoted, but these are sufficient to prove the
truth of the first proposition.
2. I am secondly to prove that this salvation takes
place whenever a person becomes a practical christian.
Look again at the argument from revelation. What did
Jesus say to the penitent female who anointed his feet at
the house of Simon the Pharisee? - Thy faith hath
saved thee; go in peace.” Hath saved thee; not will
save thee at some future period; but, hath even now
secured thy salvation. His miraculous powers enabled
him to know that her repentance was sincere, that her
reformation was commenced, and that her belief in his
divine mission would influence her to strive for christian
perfection. What is the exhortation of Paul to his be-
loved Timothy?: "Be thou partaker of the afflictions
of the gospel, according to the power of God, who hath
saved us.” Hath saved us; not will hereafter confer
salvation; but hath already saved us, by aiding us in
becoming obedient disciples of Christ Jesus. What is
his testimony concerning God in his letter to Titus?
“According to his mercy he saved us." He saved us.
112
LETTER IV.
If he had before saved them, their salvation could not
be an event of futurity. The same apostle makes these
explicit declarations to his converts. “We are saved
by hope.” “By grace ye are sayed.” Are saved!. In
both cases the salvation was then experienced. This
meaning is more strongly expressed in the original. - The
literal translation is this — we were sayed by hope; by
grace ye were saved. Thus no doubt remains that he
spoke of an event already passed. Take one example
from the epistle of Peter. “The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth now save us." Doth' now save us!
This ordinance was then leading them to the acquisition
of christian knowledge, virtue and piety; and thus sav-
ing them from ignorance, error and sin. If then our
Savior pronounced his disciples saved, as soon as they
cordially embraced his religion; and if the inspired
apostles declared that their reformed converts, as well
as themselves, had already experienced salvation; surely
christian salvation takes place whenever a person-be-
comes a practical christian. Many similar passages
might be produced, but these are sufficient to prove the
truth of the second proposition.
3. I am thirdly to prove that so long as any one con-
tinues a practical christian, he is in no dạnger of pun-,
ishment. He will not indeed be saved from, temporal
afflictions, as were many of them who attended upon our
Lord's personal ministry. Still the words save; saved,
salvation and Savior are frequently used in the scriptures
in reference to these evils. From such trials, the sin-
cere christian is now delivered only so far as his cheer-
ful resignation raises him above their influence. But
he is in no danger of suffering that misery which is the
natural consequence of sin. For there is a hell only for
the impenitent and disobedient; and what is called the
wrath of God abides only on those who are his enemies
LETTER IV.
113
by their wicked works. And there is no future con-
demnation to those who walk not after the flesh, but
after the spirit. For what does Paul say to his Roman
converts? “God commendeth his love toward us, in
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the
death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall
be saved by his life.” Here you perceive that two kinds
of salvation are mentioned. The first was deliverance
from sin, which they had already experienced; the
second would be deliverance from wrath, or the natural
consequence of sin, in a future world, which would take
place hereafter. For if they remained holy, no torment
would await their entrance upon another existence.
Paul's only fear on this subject was, lest any should
abandon the christian character, and become so wicked
as to incur future punishment. And although an inspired
apostle, he manifests his sense of the danger, even in
regard to himself; for he has written this passage.
“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec-
tion; lest that by any means, when I have preached
unto others, I myself should be a castaway." A few
other passages might be adduced to prove that the prac-
tical christian has nothing to fear but sin; but enough
has been said to prove the truth of the third proposition.
4. I am fourthly to prove, that divine pardon can be
obtained only by the formation of a christian character.
And what is divine pardon? Nothing more nor less
than deliverance from the power and punishment of sin;
and the possession and enjoyment of 'holiness. And
can the sinner secure this without reformation and im-
provement? Look once more to the law and the testi-
mony. What are the words of Isaiah? “Let the
114
· LETTER IV.
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon.” This is perfectly plain. If the
depraved forsakes his depravity, he escapes its punish-
ment. What are the words of Jeremiah? "It may be
that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I
purpose to do unto them, that they may return every
man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity
and sin.” This is equally plain. The house of Judah
could obtain forgiveness only by forsaking their iniqui-
ties. And what was our Savior's commission to his
apostles? “That repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name.” And what is repent-
ance, but forsaking wickedness and acquiring holiness?
and what is the remission of sins, but deliverance from
their power and punishment? And what was the ex-
hortation of Peter? “Repent and be converted."
Why? "That your sins may be blotted out." You.
perceive that pardon and reformation are inseparable.
Whoever forsakes any sin, that sin is immediately par-
doned; and until a sin is forsaken, it cannot be forgiven.
This is the current language of revelation. A host of
texts might be produced in proof of this assertion; but
sufficient have been quoted to prove the truth of the
fourth proposition.
- But, my dear sir, I will not trust to scriptural evidence
alone. I appeal to your observation. Take the man
of intemperance. You perceive that his unlawful indul-
gence causes immediate pain, and not unfrequently
sickness. The seeds of various diseases soon take deep
root, and undermine the constitution; the balance of
temper is destroyed; the tender sympathies of the soul
are perverted; the benevolent affections of the heart
are brutalized; the moral powers are rendered insensible
LETTER IV.
-115
to good impressions; the intellectual faculties are ener-
vated and shattered; property is dissipated; family and
friends are disgraced; and the order of social life is
disturbed. Add to all this, his distressing reflections on
the past; his inefficient and broken resolutions of the
present; his dismal forebodings of the future, and what
earthly punishment more severe need be imagined? And
how is he to obtain pardon for this sin? Suppose God
should audibly pronounce his forgiveness from heaven;
would this insure his happiness so long as he continued
intemperate? No. It would be of no service whatever
for him to know that he was pardoned in the mind of his
heavenly Father, so long as his punishment was not
removed. He can secure enjoyment only by reformation.
So it is with every sin of heart and life. "We may pray
for forgiveness, and appeal to the divine mercy; but
unless we endeavor to forsake our iniquities, we only
prove ourselves hypocrites. The husbandman may as
well expect a harvest without any cultivation of the soil.
No. All such expectations are irrational and unscrip-
tural. God is indeed sufficiently merciful. He is infinite
love. He is a perfect Father of all his children. But
no change takes place in his character when our sins
are pardoned. The reformation must be in ourselves.
And although we were already pardoned in his mind,
we could not escape from the punishment of a single
sin, until it was forsaken. Consequently, we can obtain
the divine pardon only by forming a christian character.
But will not the punishment frequently continue after
the sin is forsaken? Will reformation restore to the man
of intemperance, his impaired constitution, his wasted
estate, his lost confidence, and his self-approbation?
Surely not. The consequences of sin must remain long
after it is forsaken. And for this there can be no imme-
diate pardon; because so long as we remain the same
116
LETTER IV.
persons, whether in time or eternity, our memories must
remind us of our past transgressions. Do you suppose
that Judas can forget that he betrayed his Master? And
whenever this base act of treachery occurs to his mind,
must it not fill his soul with the most excruciating an-
guish? Yes. Sin is the same to the soul that poison
is to the body. Take poison, and you injure or destroy
your health. Commit sin, and you injure or destroy
your soul's happiness. Expel the poison, and you regain
your health; although your constitution will be injured
in proportion to the quantity taken, and the time it is
retained in the system. Forsake sin, and you regain
your happiness; although your soul will be injured in
proportion to the degree and duration of your depravity;
and you must be forever the worse for the sins commit-
ted. Until you expel the poison you cannot regain
your health. Until you forsake your sin, you cannot
escape its punishment, nor experience divine pardon, nor
obtain christian salvation. I must conclude, therefore,
that the four propositions are proved true, from reason,
observation and scripture.
I think, sir, I have said enough to explain the nature
of christian salvation. You perceive that Jesus was not
sent into the world merely to save a few Jews from the
destruction of Jerusalem. He was not sent to suffer
and die so that God could extend pardon to a few elect
individuals. He came to establish a moral and spiritual
kingdom. We are all created for happiness. We can
never secure this object of our creation without holiness.
· When we become holy then we are prepared for hap-
piness in this world and in the future; we are saved from
the principal cause of earthly misery, and from the only
cause of future torment. This therefore is the salvation
which our Savior was sent to accomplish. This leads
me to my second inquiry.
LETTER IV
117
II. By what means does our heavenly Father effect
our christian salvation? By certain instruments, prin-
ples and motives. The most important of these I will
now describe..
1. Our heavenly Father saves us through the instru-
mentality of Christ Jesus. He brought him into being,
commissioned him to be a Savior of all who would come
unto him, and qualified him for the successful execution
of his divine office. But how is Christ Jesus an instru-
ment for our salvation? Let Peter answer this question.
“God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless
you, in turning away every one of you from his ini-
quities.” So far then as he turns any one from his
wickedness, so far he saves him from its punishment, and
no farther; and he effects the salvation of sinners in no
other way. But in what manner does he turn us from
our sins? Let this question be answered by the expe-
rience of those already saved; by the best christians
of all denominations. Inquire what first induced them
to become sincere disciples of Jesus and you will receive
a variety of replies. You will find that some have been
early and successfully trained up in the nurture and admo-
nition of the Lord, and gradually drawn into the paths
of holiness by the pure morality of the gospel; while
years by the great discoveries of christianity. You will
find that some have been excited to consideration and
amendment by the example of Jesus; while others have
been influenced to obedience by his benevolent labors
and stupendous miracles. You will find that some have
glorious promises of a heavenly reward; while others
have been savingly alarmed by the awful threatenings
of future punishment. You will find that some have
been melted to contrition by his agonizing sufferings;
118
LETTER IV.
while others have bowed their stubborn wills before the
majesty of his cross. From these and similar confes-
sions, you rnust conclude that Jesus saves us from our
iniquities, by his life and labors; by his example and
instructions; by his consolations and discoveries; by his
promises and threatenings, and by his sufferings and
death. And what is proved true by actual experience,
ture. For spiritual salvation is there ascribed to these
various causes; sometimes to one, sometimes to another,
and sometimes to all combined. The whole process is
therefore perfectly plain and intelligible. Jesus exerts
no mysterious or miraculous influence over our souls.
strumental in our salvation, and no farther; for we are
not now saved, and we shall never be saved, any farther
than we become holy. This is expressly declared by our
Savior himself. “Not every one that saith unto me-
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
The writer to the Hebrews is equally decided. “Christ
Jesus became the author of eternal salvation unto all
them that obey him.” Consequently those who continue
disobedient are not partalšers of his salvation.
2. Our heavenly Father saves us through the instru-
mentality of his holy word. This truth is likewise plainly
taught in scripture. But how does the bible effect our
salvation? By warning us of our moral dangers, fur-
nishing remedies for our spiritual diseases, and provid-
ing instruction in relation to our immortal interests. For
we are assured that “all scripture, given by inspiration
of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor-
rection, for instruction in righteousness.” Let me then
illustrate this position by a familiar example. Give a
navigator an accurate chart of some dangerous coast;
LETTER IV.
119
let it exhibit a perfect delineation of all rocks, shoals
and quicksands; let the course of safety be described
with equal fidelity and plainness. · Now if he follow the
right directions, his chart will be instrumental in the
salvation of himself, his crew and his vessel; but if he
proceed in a contrary path, his neglect will expose him
to all the calamities of shipwreck. So with the bible.
Put it into the hands of an intelligent child of God, and
he will readily perceive that it discloses the moral dan-
gers to which he is exposed, and that it discovers a sure
and safe way to holiness and heaven. He will feel
conscious of freedom and ability, either to disregard its
admonitions, or to comply with its requisitions. Now if
he follows its instructions, he will assuredly be saved
from ignorance, vice and misery; and rendered enlight-
ened, virtuous and happy. But if he slight its warnings,
despise its counsels and disobey its injunctions, he will
as certainly experience the consequences of ignorance,
error and sin. The bible is instrumental in effecting
his salvation in the same way that a chart saves the
mariner from shipwreck. The divine word contains the
same efficacy now as at the period of its first promulga-
tion. Whoever sincerely endeavors to make it the
standard of his faith and practice, will inevitably secure
salvation, although he should be deprived of the privi-
lege of hearing the preached gospel. But no one should
be so foolish as to suppose this holy book possesses any
mysterious or miraculous charm. No. You may cover
every shelf in your house with bibles; you may place
them under every pillow; you may even bind them to
every heart; and if you use them in no other way, you
may as well expect salvation from your almanac. No.
The bible will do you no good, unless you study its
pages, and understand its contents, and obey its instruc-
tions; and then it will prove instrumental in your salva-
120
LETTER IV.
tion just so far as it makes wiser, better and holier, and
no farther.
3. Our heavenly Father saves us through the influ-
ence of his holy spirit. · This fact is plainly taught in
the gospel. But how does the spirit of God effect our
salvation? Let an inspired apostle answer this ques-
tion. "The spirit also helpeth our infirmities.” But
how is this help communicated? In a supernatural
manner? Does it give us the power of working mira-
cles, and of speaking unknown languages? No. It
was so imparted to the apostles and some of their first
jewish and gentile converts; so as to convince them
more deeply of the truth of christianity, and aid them
more effectually in its propagation. But we have no
good evidence that any believers have received this spe-
cial influence of the spirit since the apostolic age. Is
it communicated in an irresistible manner? Does it
compel us to become christians?. No. For this would
destroy our accountableness, and directly contradict
the scriptures. These commands are plainly given.
- Quench not the spirit.” “ Grieve not the holy spirit
of God.” And this charge was boldly made to the
Jews. Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the holy ghost.” If they had
power to withstand its influence, we must surely possess
the same power, for human nature in this respect re-
mains unchanged. Is it communicated in an arbitrary
manner? Is it bestowed without any conditions? No.
It is promised to those, and those only, who ask, seek
and knock for its assistance. “ If ye then, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how
much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy
spirit to them that ask him.” “Work out your own sal-
vation with fear and trembling.” “Give all diligence
to make your calling and election sure." Our Father
LETTER IV.
121
is ever ready to help all who help themselves; and as
he has promised aid to none others, those who neglect
the means of grace, must not expect any peculiar assist-
ance. Is it communicated in a discernible manner?
Can we distinguish its operations from the results of our
own thoughts, feelings, affections and imaginations?
No. For if we could, we should realize as much of a
miracle as any wrought by our Savior; and we all be-
lieve the day of miracles to be past. And to prevent
this pernicious error, our divine master has given us a
very explicit caution. “The wind bloweth where it
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is
every one that is born of the spirit.” Is it communicated
in a uniform manner? Does it assist all persons in the
same way, and at any one particular period? No. For
then we could determine the mode and time of operation.
But experience furnishes no such result. And an in-
spired apostle assures us, that there “are diversities
of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all
in all.” If the help of the spirit is communicated in
none of these ways, how is it imparted? Neither reve-
lation nor experience furnishes an answer to this ques-
tion. We must therefore rest satisfied with knowing
that we are assisted by the holy spirit in our exertions
for salvation; and assisted in such a way as not to affect
our free agency. We have a parallel case in the pro-
ductions of nature. “So is the kingdom of God, as if
a man should cast seed into the ground; and should
sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should spring
and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the ear bringeth
forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after
that the full corn in the ear.” If you see the ripened
grain, you know that God has blessed the labors of the
husbandman, although you cannot tell the time when,
122
LETTER IV.
nor the manner. how. So in religion. If you behold
a person exhibiting love, joy, peace, long suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,
you know that his infirmities have received help from
the holy spirit. And just so far as this influence pro-
duces these christian-fruits, just so far it is instrumental
in our salvation, and no farther.
4. Our heavenly Father saves us through the instru-
mentality of the christian ministry. But how does the
minister of Christ effect our salvation? By inducing
us to forsake and avoid sin; to acquire and maintain
holiness. And by what means does he accomplish these
objects? Ask those pious believers who readily ascribe
their salvation to the instrumentality of their pastors.
They will frankly confess, that their attention was first
awakened to the claims of religion, by some rational,
affecting or. persuasive discourse. Or they will freely
admit, that they were first excited to duty by the con-
versation of their religious teacher, either in public or
private, either at the bed of sickness, in the hour of
death, or at the house of affliction. There are others
indeed in almost every society, who will not acknowledge
that they have received any perceptible benefit from the
christian ministry. But is there not reason to believe,
that they have been imperceptibly deterred from many
vain thoughts and sinful desires, from many unkind re-
marks and cruel accusations, from many vicious practices
and wicked habits, by hearing the weekly sound of the
everlasting gospel? Is there not reason to believe, that
they have also been excited, in the same way, to cherish
good feelings, to cultivate amiable dispositions, to exhibit
benevolent sympathies, and to perform righteous actions?
You can judge fairly of the saving effects of preaching,
only by comparing the intellectual and moral state of a
whole congregation, where no christian instructions have
1.
LETTER IV.
123
lately been dispensed, with one which has long enjoyed
the blessings of religious institutions. Whenever this
is done candidly, you will be convinced, that the con-
stant warnings against wickedness, the continual recom-
mendations of righteousness, the unceasing proclamation
of the love of God and the claims of Christ, and the
ever ascending spiritual devotion, have a direct and
powerful tendency to elevate the tone of moral feeling
and character. And the principal reason that more ap-
parent good is not effected, must be found in the hearers.
The apostle fully confirms the truth of this assertion.
“For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto
them; but the word preached did not profit them, not
being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” This
must ever be the case so long as men are free agents.
Their improvement from preaching must depend on their
own exertions, in connexion with the promised blessing.
Yes; you may attend church on every returning sab-
bath; you may have the most eloquent preacher in
christendom; you may hear the whole counsel of God
declared from week to week and from year to year; and
unless you listen to the truths of religion, and bring
them home to your minds and consciences, and strive to
reduce them to practice, you can reap but little benefit
from the christian ministry; for this instrument will save
you just so far as it makes you good, and no farther.
5. Our heavenly Father saves us through the instru-
mentality of the events of his providence. These are
of two kinds, joyous and grievous. Both are wisely
designed to lead his intelligent children to consideration
and obedience. This is clearly taught in various pas-
sages of scripture. But how do the events of provi-
dence effect our salvation? By leading us to self-exam-
ination and self-improvement. Prosperity is admirably
adapted to excite our gratitude to our heavenly Benefac-
124
LETTER IV.
tor, and encourage unreserved obedience to his holy
laws. No doubt many may be found in every religious
denomination, on whom the goodness of God has exert-
ed its saving influence. But I fear the pleasing events
of life have corrupted a still larger number, and rendered
them more thoughtless and worldly minded, more cov-
etous and depraved. On the other hand, adversity has
produced an abundant harvest of holiness. The afflic- .
tive events of providence have probably awakened the
attention of more persons to the concerns of religion,
than any other cause whatever. · You find some in
almost every church who were first moved to commence
the work of salvation, by some disappointment, desertion
or suffering; by the loss either of health or friends or
property. But affliction has not uniformly produced
holy fruits. Many have been hardened by their trials,
and made more depraved and wretched. This must
continue to be the case so long as we remain free agents.
Our Father designs our best good in all the events of
his providence. We have power, either to improve them
to our salvation, or to misimprove them to our condem-
nation. Our interest, our duty, and our happiness
coincide. Let no one then be so simple as to think he
shall be always sure of happiness, without personal
holiness, because he now receives a large share of tem-
poral blessings. For unless he faithfully improves all
his talents, they will hereafter swell the fountain of his
misery. Neither let any one believe that he is sure of
future felicity, simply because he is afflicted while on
earth. No. You may see every hope of your soul
blasted; you may be deserted by every mortal friend;
you may be tormented with every bodily disease; you
may be stripped of every earthly comfort; and if your
trials render you more peevish, repining and rebellious,
they will assuredly increase your guilt, your wretched-
LETTER IV.
125
ness and your condemnation. Unless they serve to
wean your affections from earthly vanities; unless they
raise your thoughts to the unseen realities of eternity;
unless they lead you to self-scrutiny, self-discipline and
self-cultivation, they cannot promote your christian sal-
vation. For this instrument will save you just so far as
it makes you holy, and no farther.
6. Our heavenly Father saves us through the influ-
ence of faith. A belief in the messiahship of Jesus
leads to christian salvation. You find this plainly taught
on almost every page of the gospel. But how does faith
effect our salvation? By influencing our thoughts, mo-
tives and conduct in the ways of truth, virtue and piety.
It operates in the same manner as our belief in many
other facts. Much of our daily conduct is the result of
faith, and not of certain knowledge. Take an example.
You may find a man of learning, who was comparatively
ignorant when he arrived at years of maturity. His
advantages of instruction had been few and defective.
But he believed that important and valuable literary ac-
quisitions might be made by attention to study. He
accordingly.procured, the necessary books, employed
the requisite instructers, and devoted to the pursuit of
knowledge a sufficient portion of time and thought.
And what is the result? A good education. This is
therefore the effect of his belief; for it was his faith
which first excited him to commence a literary course,
and stimulated him to persevere to the accomplishment
of his wishes. Now faith in the anointed Jesus oper-
ates in precisely the same manner. A person becomes
rationally convinced that he is the divinely commission-
ed Savior of sinners. He therefore receives all his
instructions as eternal truth. These assure him that
salvation can be obtained only by obedience to the di-
vine commands. He accordingly makes the necessary
126
LETTER IV.
exertion for the acquisition of a christian character.
This is the natural result of his belief. His faith in Je-
sus therefore influences him to obedience, and secures
his deliverance from iniquity, and his possession of holi-
ness. And in this process, there is nothing more mys-
terious than in the faith of the student.
But are there not two kinds of faith? Certainly; the
one speculative and the other practical; the one living
and the other dead; the one of the head and the other
of the heart; for “ with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness.” And you may frequently see both kinds
exemplified in the concerns of this world. Take an
example. You behold two persons strongly tempted to
engage in gambling. You assure them that if they fol-
low this pernicious practice, they will sooner or later
lose their property, ruin their character and disgrace
their friends. You adduce sufficient evidence to con-
vince them of the truth of your assertions. Now the
faith of one is practical and influences him to resist the
temptation, and thus saves him from severe punishment.
The faith of the other is speculative, and while he pro-
fesses to believe in the ruinous consequences of the
forbidden vice, permits him to engage and continue in
its fascinations and fatal allurements. So in religion.
The great majority in civilized lands profess to believe
in the christian religion. A part only are influenced by
their faith to conform to its requisitions. The remainder
act in direct opposition to their profession, because their
belief is merely speculative. So far therefore as a per-
son's faith induces him to obey the christian commands,
so far it is instrumental in his salvation, and no farther.
And a belief in any particular doctrine or set of opinions is
of no further value to any person, than it contributes to his
goodness or happiness: For no one will ever be judged
by the articles of his creed, but by the fruits of his faith,
LETTER IV.
127
" the deeds done in the body.” Consequently no faith
is effectual to salvation, except that “which works by
love, purifies the heart, and overcomes the world.”.
7. Our heavenly Father saves us through the influ-
ence of hope. This is expressly asserted by an inspired
apostle. But how does hope effect our salvation? By
influencing us to become the obedient followers of Jesus.
For John informs us, “that every man that hath this
hope in him, purifieth himself even as Christ is pure."
Many of our temporal affairs are regulated by this very
principle. Take an example. Why does the husband-
man prepare the soil, sow the seed, and cultivate the
growing plant? Does he surely know that success will
crown his exertions? No. The mere hope of a harvest
is the moving cause of his labors. So in religion. A,
person really desires to obtain present and future hap-
piness; he is convinced, from reason and observation
and scripture, that nothing but christian obedience can
secure these blessings. His hope therefore influences
his conduct, and causes him to comply with the pre-
scribed conditions of salvation. So far then as his
moral goodness is the result of his christian hope, so far
is this principle instrumental in his salvation, and no
farther. And there is nothing more incomprehensible
in its operation, than in the hope of the husbandman.
But are there not two kinds of hope? Certainly; the
one living and influencing the conduct; and the other
dead and exerting no salutary influence. An illustration
of both kinds may be readily furnished from real life.
Two persons are equally desirous of obtaining a fortune.
The hope of one is a living principle, and influences
him to rise early, and retire late, and "eat the bread of
carefulness;" and thus enables him to secure the object
of his wishes. The hope of the other is inoperative,
and permits him to remain inactive, unenterprising, and
128
LETTER IV.
perhaps imprudent; and thus naturally disappoints his
desires. So in spiritual concerns. All persons wish
for present and future happiness. A part only are influ-
enced by their hope to make the necessary exertions
for the acquisition of christian virtue. The remainder
continue more or less negligent and disobedient; and
consequently secure but a small portion even of earthly,
enjoyment, and leave the world with a very imperfect
preparation for heavenly felicity. Now for a person to
hope for salvation, while neglecting the christian duties,
is more absurd than for a pauper to expect riches, while
confined to the almshouse. And for him to expect
present and future happiness, while walking in the paths
of open wickedness, is infinitely more absurd, than for
the person who cannot swim, to hope for salvation from
drowning, while he continnes plunging further and
deeper into the bosom of the ocean. Just so far there-
fore as our hope of happiness influences us to become
good, just so far is this principle instrumental in our
salvation, and no farther. And this living hope is the
only one which will not make us ashamed.
8. Our heavenly Father saves us through the influ-
ence of fear. This is taught by the precepts and ex-
ample of our Savior and his apostles. But how does
fear effect our christian salvation? By deterring us
from wickedness. We are daily influenced by this prin-
ciple in the regulation of our own conduct, and in our
government of those under our protection. Take a
family of children. Some of them may be persuaded to
filial obedience by kind and generous motives; while
others can be moved to duty only by the fear of punish-
ment. So in the christian world. Present religion to
the attention of men, and some are induced by the purest.
principles of action to commence and continue the work
of reformation and improvement; while others seem
LETTER IV.
129
hardened against every tender and affecting considera-
tion. You may persuade and entreat them to embrace
the gospel by the friendship and sufferings and death of
a crucified Savior; by the mercy and love and blessings
of a heavenly Father; by all that is dear and desirable
on earth and in heaven; and you produce little or no
effect. You must depict the bitter fruits of sin, and
describe the torments of the damned, and arouse their
fears of future punishment, before you can start the
tears of penitence. Inquire into the experience of
many good christians in alınost every denomination,
and you will learn that the fear of misery first induced
them to begin the work of salvation. Had not the tér-
rors of the Lord been proclaimed, they might have con-
tinu ed impenitent even to the present hour, and perhaps
bécome' hardened profligates. But commencing the
work of religion in fear, the very lowest principle of hu-
man nature, they gradually learned to love God for his
goodness, and to serve him for the rewards of holiness.
So far therefore as the fear of punishment influences us
to forsake and avoid sin, so far it is instrumental in our
salvation, and no farther. :
But does not fear operate in different ways? Cer-
tainly. You may see this illustrated in temporal con-
cerns. Behold a vessel in a dangerous storm. The
fear of shipwreck nerves one mariner with double
courage and strength; and enables him to make wonder-
ful exertions for self-preservation. A second is wholly
unmanned, becomes faint and sick, and is perhaps left
a prey to despair. So in the concerns of the soul. The
fear of punishment influences one to persevere in a
sober, righteous and godly life. A second is wholly
unnerved, driven to despair, perhaps deprived of the
use of his reasoning powers, and even abandoned to self-
destruction. But when this takes place, we may be
9
'
130
LETTER IV.
assured that his fears have not been excited by the ter-
rors of the Lord. For Jesus and his apostles certainly
declared the whole counsel of God; sinners were as de-
praved then as pow; and we have no account of any
such occurrence under their preaching. We cannot do
better than imitate their example, and make sinners fear
nothing so much as the natural and lasting consequences
of their sins.
Perhaps you will now ask, my dear sir, if we are not
saved by our good works? Whatever may be said as
to our being saved by them, it is certain that we cannot
be saved without them; for they are the only scriptural
evidence of a christian character, as well as the chief
method of forming it. This is the reason that they are
so emphatically insisted upon by our Savior and his
apostles. Perhaps there is no other subject, on which
they have said so much and so earnestly; because, if
not holiness itself, they are the manifestations of holi-
ness, and considered. in connexion with their motives,
the elements of it. If the fruit be bad, you pronounce
the tree corrupt. If the stream be bitter, you call the
fountain impure. If the outward actions be vicious, you
declare the heart depraved. For the same reason, if
the conduct be virtuous, you consider the soul to be
holy. Hence you see the infinite importance of good
works; for without them there can be no evidence of
christian holiness; and consequently no ground to hope
for salvation. In this conclusion, the sacred writers
wonderfully harmonize. I know, indeed, that some
persons have supposed Paul and James at variance on
this point. But this is the mistake of ignorance. Paul
asserts that a christian is saved without works of law.
By works of law, he means the jewish rites and cere-
monies; circumcision, sacrifices, fasting, washing of
hands, paying tithes, and the like. And surely these
C
LETTER IV.
131
cannot aid a believer in Jesus in forsaking his iniquities.
He also declares that a man is justified by faith alone.
By faith, he intends that living, operative principle,
which is as sure to yield good fruits, as the sun is to..
send forth light and heat. And it is this faith which
saves the believer; but good works are the only evidence
of the existence of such a principle. Now James was
probably writing to those who had perverted the mean-
ing of Paul; and he insists that a man cannot be saved
without works. By works, he means the fruits of love
to God and man, holiness of heart and life; and he
proves his proposition so clearly, that no one ought to
mistake his conclusion. The real sentiments then of
both apostles, are in perfect harmony with the instruc-
tions of their divine master. The substance of the
a person obeys Jesus, just so far will he bring forth good
works; and just so far as he exhibits good works, just
so far is he. a practical christian; and just so far as he is
a practical christian, just so far is he saved and no far-
ther.
One most important consideration remains to be men-
Yes. To the free grace of our heavenly Father are we
indebted for all the means of our salvation. And what
is free grace? Let me give an imperfect illustration
by an example. Suppose an earthly monarch should
make a feast, and cordially invite all his subjects to come
and partake freely. He receives nothing in return for
his entertainment; and consequently it is the gift of his
grace or favor. If any of the invited guests refuse to
attend, the fault is wholly their own; and for their loss
of the pleasure, they can justly blame none but them-
selves. So it is with our heavenly Father. He wishes
all his children to be happy. He knows they can be
132
LETTER IV.
happy only by being good. He has accordingly fur-
nished all the means necessary for securing their good-.
ness. And it is solely of his free grace, that he sent
his Son Jesus, gave him miraculous powers, and quali-
fied him to be the spiritual Savior of mankind. It is
solely of his free grace, that he raised the crucified Lord
of glory from the dead, exhibited him to competent wit-
nesses, qualified his apostles to publish the history of a
divine revelation, and preserved the gospel unimpaired
to the present times. It is solely of his free grace, that
he now invites us all to come to the fountain of
truth and be cleansed from our moral pollution, that
he offers the assistance of his holy spirit to all who
seek for it in sincerity, and that he aids us in form-
ing christian characters. For all these unspeakable
blessings, we can make him no returns; for he is a
perfect being, and cannot be benefited by the ser-
vices of his imperfect children. So long as we refuse
to improve these means to our own progress in holiness,
we shall not be saved; but we can blame no one but
ourselves; for we are all invited to approach the table
of spiritual bread and water. We all have ability to
comply with the invitation. We are all encouraged by
the most animating motives. And we are assured there
can be no other way of becoming happy, but by using
our own powers in the acquisition of holiness. Although
salvation is of free grace, it can be experienced only by
those who cultivate christian knowledge, virtue and piety.
Thus, my dear sir, you have my views on the import-
ant subject of salvation. I have shown precisely what
it is. I have explained how it is obtained. In proof of
any positions I challenge an appeal to reason and fact,
experience, observation and scripture. My conclusions
give rise to one or two most interesting and important
questions. In the first place, do not many in christian
TS
2
LETTER IV.
133
lands leave this world without being saved? without
acquiring that holiness which is essential to their hap-
piness? Do not many die in their sinſulness? Certainly.
You will return to these questions an affirmative answer.
Now let me propose a second serious inquiry. Is there
any way pointed out in revelation in which sinners can
be saved in passing from this life to a future existence?
This you will not pretend. Then must not many go into
a future world unsaved, unholy, unfitted for heavenly
happiness? This you must admit. There is no possi-
ble way in which this conclusion can be fairly avoided.
Consequently there must be a future retribution. Now
if it was in the power of God to make men holy by a
miracle, is it probable that he would thus appear for the
salvation of those who had neglected the work during
the whole of this probationary scene? Surely not. But
I have already shown that goodness can be obtained
only by the free choice and persevering exertions of
every individual; and therefore no one can be saved
until he has forsaken his sins and formed a christian
character. I beseech you to consider faithfully the re-
marks and conclusions of this communïcation.
My Dear Sir,
I am now prepared to present you the direct scrip-
tural evidence for a future retribution. In my present
communication I shall quote some of the passages which
teach or imply that those who become righteous in this
world will be rewarded in the next existence. Before I
proceed to make my selections I wish to mention a few
particulars which we should ever keep in mind when we
examine the sacred writings in reference to this doctrine.
In the first place, you will remember that the Jews in
the time of our Savior, with the exception of the Sad-
ducees, expected a future existence. You will also
recollect that they likewise believed in rewards and pun-
ishments beyond the grave. Your principal writers
have admitted the truth of these statements. I shall
therefore produce no evidence in their support, but take
these positions for granted throughout the discussion.
Now such being the undisputed facts, you perceive that
our Savior had no occasion to teach his hearers in a
formal manner the doctrine of a future retribution. If
he knew the righteous were to be hereafter rewarded
136
LETTER V.
and the wicked punished he was solemnly bound to
confirm them in their present belief, and to correct their
erroneous notions concerning the modes of divine ad-
ministration. The case was precisely similar in relation
to the existence and perfections of God. This funda-
mental article of religion was already embraced by the
people to whom he preached. You notice that he never
gives a formal annunciation of this important truth. He
indeed confirms them in their present belief, and corrects
their erroneous views of the paternal character of the
Almighty. Now if you examine his teachings in relation
to a future retribution you will discover that he adopts
a similar practice. He confirms their belief in the cer-
tainty of rewards and punishments beyond the grave.
He never intimates that the truth of this doctrine was
even so much as called in question. He enters into no
argument in order to remove objections, because none
were then advanced. You might therefore as well affirm
that Jesus never taught the existence of God as to
say that he never proclaimed the doctrine of future ret-
ribution..
In the second place, you will remember that the con-'
verts from heathenism to whom some of the apostles
preached, and to whom most of the epistles were ad-
dressed, hoped for å future existence. You will also
recollect that they likewise believed that the good would
be rewarded and the wicked punished beyond the grave.
Your principal writers have admitted the truth of both
these assertions; and consequently I shall offer no ar-
guments in their support, but take these positions for
granted throughout the discussion. Now these being
the undisputed facts, you perceive that the apostles were
not called upon to declare in a formal way the doctrine
of a future retribution. They had merely to confirm
their hearers and readers in their present bélief, and
LETTER V.
137
correct some of their erroneous opinions respecting the
particulars of the subject. They would adopt a course
similar to the one pursued in preaching the gospel to
Cornelius and the Athenians. Look at the example and
words of Paul. As I passed by, said he, and beheld
your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription:
5. To the unknown "God.” Whom therefore ye igno-
rantly worship, him: declare I unto you. You thus learn
that he did not commence his discourse as some modern
missionaries might have done, by informing his hearers
that they were poor, , miserable, benighted idolaters,
destitute of any faith in the only living and true God.
He confirmed them in whatever correct notions they
might have entertained respecting a supreme Creator,
explained his nature and character, alluded to the evi-
dence of his existence and perfections, and thus politely
removed their erroneous and darkened conceptions on
this fundamental question. The same course was pur-
sued in regard to a future retribution. The converts
from heathenism never doubted or denied the truth of
this sentiment; consequently no occasion was given to
teach it as an elementary fact or defend it with rational
arguments. It was sufficient that an allusion was made
to it when proper, as a motive to obedience. And you
might as well declare that Paul never taught to the
Athenians the existence and perfections of the true God,
as to say that he never taught the doctrine of a future
retribution.
In the third place, you will remember that if the doc-
trine of a future retribution has no foundation in truth,
both our Savior and his apostles were solemnly bound to
remove, so pernicious an error from the minds of their
hearers and readers. For these inspired teachers were
not governed by, belief on this question, but possessed
certain knowledge. They positively knew either that
138
LETTER V.
there was to be a future retribution or that there was to
be none. If there was to be one, they also knew that a
firm belief in its certainty was of the highest import-
ance; if there was to be none, they likewise knew that
a faith in one must be highly injurious. Consequently
they ought as honest men to have confirmed them in
their opinions or discarded the false sentiment. Now in
searching the scriptures you will endeavor to discover
if a single hint is given to either jewish or gentile con-
verts to destroy their confidence in the certainty of re-
wards and punishments beyond the grave. You will
carefully watch to see if every thing they taught was
not adapted to confirm them in this opinion. Not only
so. Merely to have corrected such an error would not
have been sufficient. If the doctrine of no future retri-
bution be true, they were most solemnly bound to de-
clare it with great distinctness and frequency. Our
Savior should have brought it forward as a new truth in
his sermon on the mount, for he was addressing believ-
ers in a future retribution. He should have incorpo-
rated it in all his teachings, and especially in his com-
mission to his apostles. And they should not have hid
this light under a bushel but proclaimed it at all times
and on all occasions. It should have stood forth with
peculiar prominency on every page of their writings.
Now read through their instructions and compositions,
and see if you can show me the faintest trace of your
doctrine of no future retribution. If you cannot, will
not this very silence speak volumes in proof of the
prevailing belief on this subject? How unfaithful
too must have been those inspired preachers. When
your ministers address believers in future rewards and
punishments are they equally silent on this question, or
are they more faithful to the souls of mankind?
Finally, keeping these several facts in distinct re-
LETTER V.
139
membrance, I think you cannot help discovering that
the doctrine of a future retribution is thoroughly incorpo-
rated into the whole system of christianity. I suspect
you will readily perceive that it is taken for granted or
distinctly implied in many places, and in many others
plainly and seriously mentioned as a motive to obedience.
clearly as could be rationally expected under existing
circumstances, and as often as the subject of remark
either required or permitted. You will of course recol-
·lect that it was not the principle business of the heralds
of salvation to dwell continually on a fact already firmly
believed by their hearers. Suppose for instance I should
be commissioned to preach what I believed the pure
gospel to an old arminian society. Suppose I should
remain long enough with them to give a thorough course
of lectures on all the distinguishing articles of my creed.
Do you suppose I should have occasion to introduce in
a formal way the doctrine of a future retribution ? Surely
not; for this sentiment is already firmly embraced. I
should indeed be obliged to show that the doctrines of
election and reprobation were irrational, unscriptural
and of injurious tendency; and thus prove that a certain
portion of the human family were not to receive endless
damnation for what they could not avoid. I should also
endeavor to establish the full free agency of man, and
thus make them understand how retribution must event-
characters of individuals. But to undertake to prove in
a formal way that the righteous would be hereafter re-
warded and the wicked punished, would be altogether
a work of supererogation; for these truths are neither
doubted nor denied by the hearers. Now the situation
of our Savior and his apostles was not very dissimilar in
this particular. By keeping such facts in mind you will
140
LETTER V.
be prepared to investigate the scriptural evidence for a
future righteous retribution with candor and understand-
ing.
I will now present you some of the passages of scrip-
ture which prove future rewards. I will arrange them
in seỹeral different classes. My limits will not permit
me to record more than half of the number which I have
selected for this purpose.
: 1. In the first place, I will direct your attention to a
class of passages which promise a future reward to the
righteous and holy. -
1. Listen to the following declaration. “Blessed are
ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
shall say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my
sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your
reward in-heaven.” Who is the preacher on this occa-
sion? Our divine Savior. Whom is he addressing?
His disciples especially. 'What earthly recompense
does he promise them for their practical adherence to
his principles? Every species of indignity and defama-
tion and cruelty? Were these persecutions to give them
happiness? Surely not. Why then does he pronounce
them blessed and exhort them to rejoice? Because he
has another and more important promise to mention. · A
promise of reward? Surely. Of what degree? A
great reward. Where is it to be bestowed? In heaven.
What did the hearers understand by this word ? A
place or state of felicity for the righteous after death.
Then the inspired Jesus plainly promises to them a great
reward in heaven if they adhere faithfully to his religion,
and he mentions this as a great source of support and
joy and gladness under their undeserved sufferings. Is
it possible for words to teach more definitely and strongly
the doctrine of future rewards? Matthew v. 11, 12.
2. Hear the following answer, “If thou wilt be per-
LETTER V.
141
fect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Who is the
speaker in this instance? Our anointed teacher. With
whom is he conversing? With a rich young ruler of the
jewish nation, who inquires what he must do to inherit
eternal life. What did he mean by this phrase? Hap-
piness beyond the grave of which the wonderful prophet
had previously spoken. On what conditions does the
Savior promise this.blessing? Obedience to the divine
commands. Of what was he then deficient? A willing-
ness to make temporal sacrifices for the religion of the
gospel. If he gives up his great riches what compensa-
tion shall he receive in return? Heavenly treasures?
What does he understand by this phrase? Happiness
in another existence, as a reward for his christian char-
acter, Our Savior then plainly promised this rich
young ruler treasures in heaven if he would manifest.
the spirit and temper of christianity. Can words more
plainly teach the doctrine of future rewards ? Matthew
19. 21. 10. 41.
3. Read the following passage. “For ye had com-
-passion on me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoil-
ing of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in
heaven a better and an enduring substance. . Cast not
away therefore your confidence which hath great recom-
pense of reward.” These words were addressed to con-
verts from judaism. They reminded them of their former
sympathy with prisoners, and of their temporal losses.
These they had borne with joyfulness. What! rejoice
when their means of living were unjustly seized? Yes.
Why so? Because they knew they had more enduring
substance.' Such as what? Their christian virtues.
Of what use were these? They would qualify them for
heavenly happiness. Are they exhorted to preserve
their confidence? On what account?' Because it would
142
LETTER V.
enable them to secure a great reward hereafter. The
sacred writer then reminds these christians of their trea-
sures in heaven, and exhorts them to maintain their
confidence in these imperishable riches. Can words
more strongly imply the doctrine of future rewards ?
Heb. 10. 34, 35.
4. Listen to the following instruction. "Then said he
also to him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call
not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor
thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a
recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a
feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind;
and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense
thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of
the just.” Who is the speaker? The commissioned Sav-
ior. To whom did he preach? To one of the chief
pharisees. What class of people was he forbidden to
invite to convivial entertainments? Neither brethren,
friends nor rich neighbors. Why so? Because they
would have the inclination and ability to return the invi-
tation and thus confer an earthly reward. · But what
description of persons should be invited? The poor and
unfortunate and wretched. Why? Because they can-
not return the favor. But is he to lose his reward? By
no means. He shall be blessed. When? At the res-
urrection of the just. What did the sect of the phari-
sees understand by the word resurrection? Another
conscious existence after death. Did Paul hold to this
meaning after he was converted? Hear his own an-
swer. " There shall be a resurrection of the dead both
of the just and unjust." Our Savior then plainly, assured
his hearer that if he would perform works of benevolence
he should be recompensed at the resurrection of the
just. Can words more plainly teach the doctrine of
future rewards? Luke 14. 14. 2 Timothy 2. 18.
LETTER V
143
How do your writers explain this decisive passage?
In several different ways. I will give the exposition of
one of your professed critics. . These are his own words.
" Jesus was directing the people when they made feasts,
to be careful not to forget the poor; “call the poor,
the maimed, the lame, the blind.” He anticipates the
objection of the pharisees, who would say, but if I do
this, how shall I be recompensed? He assures them
that they shall not lose their recompense; for although the
poor would not recompense them, yet when these poor were
raised from inactivily to action, from obscurity to eminence,
or returned to such a state after an interruption; then they
should be recompensed." "By this rational interpretation,
we avoid the heathen notion of recompensing men in
one state of being for the conduct they do in another.
Of all reveries this is the wildest. It is as rational as to
suppose that a field of grain sowed in one quarter of
the world shall be reaped in another.” Look at this
rational mode of avoiding the “- heathen” notion plainly
taught by the heavenly Jesus! Of all ridiculous and
absurd interpretations, this must be allowed to stand in
the foremost rank. I have no doubt that many of my
unitarian brethren, who never look into a universalist
book, will think on reading this extract, that I am at-
tempting to impose some nonsense of some ignoramus
upon their credulity, for a genuine passage of some
acknowledged writer. I shall therefore be obliged to
give the author's name, book and page, so that they may
be satisfied this evidence of the wonderful march of
mind comes from a man who considers himself one of
your leading divines. And if they would spend a few
hours in perusing the publications of this and other
authors of your order, they might find very many spe-
cimens of a similar character. To attempt a serious
refutation of such burlesque would be useless. It is
S
144
LETTER V.
sufficient to say that this explanation of the text makes
the divine Savior contradict himself in the same sen-
tence. To reduce it to plain english, it would read
thus. Give not to the rich. Why? Because they can
and will repay. But give to the poor. Whý. Because
they will soon become rich and then they will return
the whole. So much for system, and superior ration-
ality. I have quoted sufficient for my present purpose.
Do they not fully establish my doctrine? Thomas Whit-
temore on the Parables, pp. 109, 110. . .
II. In the second place, I will call your attention to
a class of passages in which christians are exhorted to
secure a future heavenly reward by their obedience to:
the divine commands.
1. Listen to the following exhortation. “Lay not
up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and
steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where
neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do
not break through and steal.” These are the words of
Jesus, They were addressed to his disciples and the
multitude. Why should they not give supreme and ex-
clusive attention to earthly pursuits and possessions?
Because all things temporal are perishable in their
nature, transient in their duration, and can never furnish
pure happiness to the thinking mind. . To what then
should they devote themselves principally? To the
acquisition of moral and christian goodness. Why so ?-
Because this can never be taken from them, but will
endure after the death of the body, and qualify for feli-
city in the heavenly existence. Our Savior then plainly
directs his hearers to labor earnestly for holiness which
will give them the recompense of happiness in heaven.
Can words more plainly teach the doctrine of future
rewards? Matthew 6. 19, 20. Luke 12. 33. John
4. 36. 1 Tim 6. 19.
LETTER V.
145
2. Hear the following confession. “Know ye not,
that they which run in a race; run all, but one receiveth
the prize? So run that ye may obtain. And every man
that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.
Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an
incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so
fight I, not as one that beateth the air; but I keep under
my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any
means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway." These are words of Paul. They were ad-
dressed to the converted Corinthians to whom the Isth-
mean games were familiar. This allusion being kept in
view the meaning of the whole passage is easily obtained.
Many persons strive for victory in these conflicts so as
to obtain an earthly crown. Only one receives the
prize. We strive for an incorruptible and unfading
crown. All who strive in the right niethod may receive
the reward. · Is there any danger of not succeeding in
the christian warfare? Great; so much so that even the
inspired apostle keeps his appetites and passions in sub-
jection, lest he should fail of receiving this heavenly
crown. Here then an inspired apostle honestly ac-
knowledges that he and his converts strive by the cul-
tivation of holiness for an imperishable and future re-
compense. Can words more plainly imply the doctrine
of future rewards? 1 Cor. 9. 24, 27.
3. Read the following exhortation.. “ Therefore my
beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, immoveable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord; forasmuch as ye
know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Paul
here addresses converts from heathenism. He has just
asserted, that if they had hope in Christ only in this
world, they must be of all men most miserable; of course
he can allude to no earthly reward. The whole argu-
mnent is concluded with an exhortation to persevere in
10
146
LETTER V.
the christian course. Why? Because they know that
if they remain steadfast and immoveable they shall re-
ceive a reward in heaven. The following paraphrase
may serve to illustrate more clearly the sense of the
apostle. “I earnestly exhort you, be steady to your
christian principles; let nothing move you from your
faith in Christ, nor induce you to corrupt his religion by
the mixture of heathen fable and philosophy, and es-
pecially, let nothing shake your faith in the momentous
doctrine concerning the resurrection from the dead, upon
which all hope depends. Be active in the duties of life;
be ever diligent, ever 'abounding, ever aiming at the
highest excellence; act upon christian principles and
with christian views. Be not sparing in your exertions;
you are not called to labor without hope of reward; you
cannot 'eventually be losers by the utmost activity in
doing good. You serve a righteous and kind master,
who knows all that you do, and all that you desire to do
in his service; and who will compensate your faithful
exertions beyond all your expectations and your thoughts.
Persevere therefore unto the end; and be assured that
your christian labors shall not finally be in vain.” Can
words teach more plainly, the doctrine of future re-
wards? 1 Cor. 15.58."
4. Notice the following exhortation. " Labor not for
the meat which perisheth; but for that meat which en-
dureth unto everlasting life; which the son of man shall
give unto you.” Jesus is the speaker.' The hearers
are not merely the disciples but especially the multitude
who had been partakers of the loaves and fishes. He
directs them not to labor supremely for the possessions
of this world. Why? Because they all perish in the
using. For what then ought they primarily to seek ?
For christian goodness. Why so? Because this will
endure when all earthly things are passed forever; this
LETTER V.
147
will endure unto everlasting life.; and will qualify its
possessor for felicity in another existence. Whatever a
man now acquires which can increase his felicity here-
after is the reward of his exertion. Then our Savior
plainly entreated the multitude to seek especially after
righteousness which they would carry with them to the
ſuture life. Can words more plainly teach the doctrine
of future rewards? The remaining texts of this class
must be omitted; these however appear to my mind to es-
tablish my position beyond all controversy. John, 6. 27.
III. In the third place, I will direct your attention to
a class of passages which prove that future rewards are
the natural consequence of obedience...
1. Read the following declaration. "For bodily exer-
cise profiteth little; but godliness is profitable unto all
things; having promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come.” Paul is addressing his son Timothy.
He utters a very important general truth. The prac-
tice of religion will insure inore or less of the enjoy-
ments of this world, and it will qualify you for heavenly
happiness. Perhaps the whole meaning of the apostle
may be made plainer by the following paraphrase. "I
have been urging you to exercise yourself in the prác-
tice of true religion, to make a serious business of it,
and to endure all that labor and self-denial which may'
be necessary to your success in it. Follow my advice,
and be assured your labor will not be lost. That bodily
exercise, which is necessary to success in the celebrated
games of Greece, may be useful to .promote health,
vigòr; and agility, to secure the garland of victory and
the applause of nations. But these are comparatively
trifling things. The rewards of true religion are infin-
itely superior. Health, competence, content and cheer-
fulness, together with the divine blessing, are the na-
tural and the promised rewards of industry, integrity,
148
LETTER V.
prudence and piety in this life; to which the revelation
of the gospel annexes the grand prize of immortality.
While others therefore contend for that which if obtain-
ed is at best a corruptible crown, we strive for one that
is incorruptible. They labor for time, we for eternity.”
Does not Paul then most plainly teach future rewards.
for the righteous ? 1 Tim. 4. 8.
2. Read the following declaration. “And the world
passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the
will of God abideth forever.” The meaning of this
sentence is clearly and fully expressed in the following
quotation. "The present state of things is transitory
and eyanescent, it will soon disappear and be seen no
more. He that doeth the will of God shall abide for-
ever in a state of pure and perfect happiness. He
abides, that is, in a state of peace and felicity. This is
the object of the promise; and this no doubt is the
meaning of the apostle. Mere existence is in itself
neither good nor evil. Sentient existence may be either
a blessing or curse. But existence to him that hath
done the will of God is an unmixed blessing. For him
to live is to live to the Lord. To abide is to be happy.
It is to abide in the exercise and improvement of all the
noblest powers of his nature. It is to abide in the love
and service of God. It is to abide in the habitual ex-
ercise of devotion and benevolence. It is to abide in
the possession of all that can contribute to the felicity
and improvement of a reasonable and holy being, and
in the continual progress towards perfection. Let it
suffice that what God hath promised he will faithfully
"perform." Whatever meaning then you attach to the
word abide, you must admit that it implies a reward
beyond this life; and a reward for the righteous, for
those who have done the will of God, and not for the
LETTER V.
149
disobedient. Consequently the text clearly inculcates
the doctrine of future rewards. 1 John 2. 17, 28.
3. Read the following declaration. “And I heard a
voice from heaven, saying unto me, write, blessed are
the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea,
saith the spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and
their works do follow them.” Who are pronounced
blessed or happy? Those who die in the Lord. Why
should they be called happy in distinction from the
wicked? If no distinctions are to be made after death
in the condition of mankind this assertion cannot be
correct. But when are the holy to be happy? Is it
not in their death? O no. From henceforth. Then
of course it means the period of the future. And this
conclusion is confirmed by the remaining part of the
sentence. They rest from their persecutions, tempta-
tions, afflictions and burdensome labors; of course all
this is subsequent to dissolution. And their works fol-
low them. How can this be? Whatever goodness
they have here acquired will qualify them for future
happiness. This idea has been often advanced by the
sacred writers, and it will serve to make plain this last
expression. This is another circumstance that enables
us to consider the righteous blessed or happy beyond
death; and this by clear implication not being promised
to those who do not die in the Lord, are not virtuous
and' pious, fully establishes the doctrine of future re-
wards. Rev. 14. 13.
4. Read the following declaration. « And being
made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him.” Is Christ the author of
salvation? Certainly. To whom? To those who obey
him. This we know to be the case in this world. We
plainly perceive that none but the obedient are here
saved from their sins and the consequent misery. There
150
LETTER V.
was no need of mentioning this fact which is known to
every observer.' But does not the sacred writer extend
the salvation beyond the grave? O yes. He became
the author of eternal. salvation. But to whom? Al-
though he is the author of temporal salvation only to
those who obey him, yet on your scheme he should be
the author of eternal salvation to all who have disobeyed.
Is this also admitted? No. Jesus is declared to be
the author of eternal salvation to those who obey. But
why mention the obedient. If the conduct of this world
has no connexion with the condition of the next exist-
ence, why should · the obedience of this mortal life be
mentioned? It is very clear that those who disobey
cannot receive either temporal or eternal salvation until
they reform and become obedient. Consequently the
doctrine of future rewards is here plainly taught. I
have quoted enough passages of this class for my pre-
sent purpose. Do they not fully prove my position?
Heb. 5. 9.
IV. In the fourth place, I will direct your attention to
a class of passages which promise an inheritance in the
future existence to the obedient disciples of Christ.
1. Listen to the following promise. “Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which
· according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again
unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead, to an inheritance, incorruptible cind unde-
filed and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you
who are kept by the power of God through faith unto sal-
vation, ready to be revealed in the last time.” These
are the words of Peter. They were addressed to chris-
tians. For what does he bless God? For a lively hope?
Hope of what? A lasting, pure and unfading inherit-
ance. Where is this inheritance situated? In heaven.
Is it to be given to all the children of men without dise
LETTER V
151
tinction? No. It is reserved for a particular descrip-
tion of persons; for obedient disciples of Jesus, or in
other words for those who are kept by their faith from
sinfulness and thus are prepared to secure the end of
their faith, even their salvation. If it is reserved only
for these, then some are not prepared to be partakers of
the heavenly inheritance. Of course this is a reward
for the obedience of those who persevere unto the end
of life. And by what evidence is this hope confirmed?
By the resurrection of Christ. The apostle then plainly
teaches the doctrine of future rewards. 1 Peter, 1. 3,
5, 9. - .
2. Read the following promise. « And whatsoever
ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men,
knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the
inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that
doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath
done; and there is no respect of persons."! Paul is here
addressing the christian slaves of heathen masters. He
encourages them to do right in all things by promising
a reward of an inheritance. Where is this inheritance
to be found ? Not in this world, for if it consisted in
christian goodness, they were already in possession, and
consequently the present tense would have been used.
He also warns them of future punishment unless they
adhere to the principles and practice of the gospel.
Perhaps the whole meaning of the sentence may be
best conveyed by the following paraphrasé. « Instead
therefore of neglecting the service of your heathen
masters, I call upon you to obey them with alacrity in
all their lawful commands; and that not only when their
eye is upon you, and from a desire to recommend your-
selves unto them, but perform your work honestly as a
christian duty, and from a regard to the authority of
Christ. Do all that is required of you, and do it cheer-
152
LETTER V.
fully; as if you were working, not for an earthly master,
but for Christ himself. In a word, always consider
yourselves as the servants of Christ; and whatever you
are ordered to do, do it with the same alertness and zeal
as if Christ had given you the command.' For he is
your true master; and whether your heathen 'masters
reward you or not, he will give you ample recompense
for you "fidelity, and will admit you to the relation and
privileges of children in the great family of which he is
the head. But on the contrary, if any one neglects his
proper duty, and under any pretence whatever does in-
jury to another, he shall, certainly suffer condign pun-
ishment from his impartial judge; whether he be a
believer or an unbeliever, a master or a slave.” Does
not this passage then plainly teach the doctrine of future
rewards? Col. 3. 23, 24.
3. Read the following declaration. “The spirit itself
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children-
of God; and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and
joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together.” Paul is address-
ing christians. Both the writer and the readers were
endeavoring to live sober, righteous and godly lives.
They all expected to enjoy heavenly felicity if they
should persevere unto the end of their pilgrimage. The
apostle here reminds his converts of the reward which
would await those who imitate the example of Jesus in
his sufferings. The following paraphrase will make the
whole meaning plain. “Those gifts of the holy spirit,
of the existence of which, though you may not your-
selves possess them, you have no doubt been credibly
informed, and which constitute the proper proofs.of the
resurrection of Christ, and of the divine, original of the
gospel, are the most satisfactory evidence we can possess
or desire that we are taken into the new covenant, that we
LETTER V.
153
are no longer subject to the terrors of the law, and that
we are adopted into the family of God, and acknow-
ledged by him as his children. And be it remembered,
this title is not an empty name; for as on our part it im-
plies duty and affection, so on the part of God, who con-
descends to acknowledge the relation of a father, it im-
plies an engagement to treat us as children, and particu-
larly to provide an inheritance for us; an inheritance
similar to that of which Jesus Christ, the first born son,
our dear elder brother, has already been put in posses-
sion.” Does not this text teach the doctrine of future
rewards? Romans, 8. 16, 17.
4. Read the following statement. “I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet,
for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
thee a minister and a witness both of these things which
thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will
appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people, and
from the gentiles, unto whom I now send thee, to open
their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the power of satan unto God, that they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are
sanctified by faith that is ini me.". These are the words
of the risen and ascended Jesus. They were addressed
to the persecuting Saul. They contain his commission
to be an apostle to the gentiles. He was appointed to
bear witness to the truth of the gospel, and to be instru-
mental in converting the heathen from idolatry and im-
morality. But why should this work be undertaken?
So that these members of the human family might obtain
the forgiveness of their sins which can take place only
on reformation; and not only so, but an inheritance
among the saints in glory. Those who are sanctified
through faith in Jesus are christians; and on account of
their sanctification are entitled to that inheritance which
154
LETTER V.
is reserved in heaven for the righteous. Thus have I
quoted sufficient texts of this class to prove the doctrine
of future rewards. Acts, 26. 15, 18.
V. In the fifth place, I will direct your attention to a
class of passages which relate to the inspired apostles.
1. Read the following conversation. « Then answer-.
ed Peter, and said unto him, behold we have forsaken
all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye
which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the
son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ýe also
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses,
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands, for my name's sake shall receive a
hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life;” The
Savior's meaning is still more thoroughly expressed in
the following parallel passage. “ And he said unto
them, verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath
left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children,
for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive
manifold more in the present time, and in the world to
come life everlasting.” One of ihe apostles asked what
compensation they should receive for their temporal
sacrifices. Our divine master gives a plain and direct
answer. He assures them that their profession of his
religion would expose them to severe persecutions; this
is recorded by another of the evangelists, and was re-
peated on many other occasions. But he also declares
that the real happiness arising from their principles,
successes, characters and future prospects would be
much greater than they could possibly have received
from their earthly possessions in their unconverted state.
He stops not with this life. He affirms that in the
world to come they should have everlasting life or hap-
LETTER V.
155
piness. Here then our Savior clearly and distinctly
promises a present and future reward to his apostles and
to all who embrace and honor his religion. The impli-
cation that those who do not make the necessary sacri-
fices and acquire the christian' virtues will lose this
present and future recompense is clear and striking.
Perhaps you will ask if the world to come does not
mean the age after the destruction of Jerusalem? Such
a meaning would make the inspired Jesus utter false-
hood. For some of these apostles were dead before
that period, and those of his converts who survived the
event suffered as great or greater persecutions than be-
fore. Consequently there is no way of avoiding the
conclusion, that our Savior distinctly taught in these
passages the doctrine of future rewards. Matthew 19.
27, 30. Mark 10. 28, 30., Luke 18. 29, 30..
2. Read the following declaration. “For what is our
hope, or joy or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye
in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming ?
For ye are our glory and joy.” The whole meaning of
Paul is well expressed in the following paraphrase.".If
it should be in my power I will make another effort to
visit you soon; but I may perhaps be again disappoint-
ed; and possibly in this world I may never have another
opportunity of seeing you again. But there is a day
advancing when we shall be sure to meet; it is the day
of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. And to what
think ye that I look forward with delightful anticipation,
as the brightest crown, the most transporting bliss of
that triumphant day? It is to the happiness of meeting
you, my beloved brethren, my joy and pride, at the
tribunal of our honored Lord and Judge, approved,
acknowledged and rewarded by him. Yes, it is to meet
never to part any more. This will be happiness indeed.
And of this triumph, blessed be God, it is not in the
156
LETTER V.
power of our worst and most inveterate enemies either
to hinder or deprive us.” It is then plain that the
apostle expected to meet his converts after death. It
is certain that he expected his happiness to be increased
by the meeting. Why so? Because he had been in-
strumental in preparing them for heavenly happiness;
and this would be some part of his future reward. Had
he expected to meet all his persecutors and be made
happy by their presence would he have omitted to men-
tion the fact? Can words more plainly teach my doc-
trine? 1 Thess. 2. 19, 20. 2 Cor. 1. 14. Phil. 21. 16.
3. Read the following declaration. 's For our light
affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us' a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we
look not at the things which are seen, but at the things
which are not seen; for the things which are seen are
temporal; but the things which are not seen are eter-
nal.” The idea of Paul is plain. If we improve our
afflictions aright they serve to make us better. Our
goodness will hereafter qualify us for greater degrees
of happiness. Consequently a future reward awaits,
our increase in holiness. Perhaps the following para-
phrase may make the meaning of the apostle still more
intelligible. “If our views were limited to the present
state, our afflictions and persecutions might well be re-
garded as both heavy and tedious. But compared with
that inexpressible, incomprehensible, immeasurable mass
of glory and happiness which the gospel reveals, for
which these sufferings are preparing and qualifying us,
and to which by the mercy of God they entitle us, all these
troubles are as dust in the balance, not deserving the least
attention. And this is the true cause of that habitual
cheerfulness which we maintain under the pressure of
severe tribulation; our regards and best affections being
fixed not upon visible and sublunary objects, but upon
LETTER V.
157
those which are invisible and permanent. The things of
time and sense are light, transitory and evanescent, they
are not worth a thought, but the invisible objects of faith
have a most serious and important reality; they are
subject to no interruption or vicissitude, and when once
possessed they will be ours forever." This passage
then plainly teaches the doctrine of future rewards. 2
Cor. 4. 17, 18.
4. Read the following declaration. « For I am now
ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at
hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me
only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."
Paul is addressing Timothy. He reviews his past life
· with satisfaction. He expects soon to depart. He feels
no fear of death or eternity. He is elated with the ex-
pectation. He is confident that a crown of righteousness
is laid up in heaven for him. In what this crown con-
sists is of no consequence. He regards it as invaluable.
He considers it the reward of his faithful ministry. He
says it shall be given to whom? To all mankind?
No. Why is any distinction to be made hereafter?
Who are to receive this crown? All who love and obey
Christ. Then those who hate and disobey him have no
share in this recompense. But at what day was this
crown to be received? Will you say at the destruction
of Jerusalem? This would make the inspired apostle
utter falsehood and nonsense. For he is now ready to
depart, and this is many years previous to that event.
He did die long before the period of that calamity. He
surely was not raised to receive any crown. No,
there is no way of avoiding the conclusion, that Paul
expected a reward hereafter for his fidelity on earth.
158
LETTER V.
These passages are sufficient for my present purpose.
2 Tim. 4. 6, 8.
VI. In the sixth place, I will direct your attention to
a class of passages which relate to Jesus Christ. .
1. Read the following exhortation. “Wherefore see-
ing we are also encompassed about with so great a cloud
of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin
which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with
patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Je- ·
sus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy
that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the
shame and is set down at the right hand of the throne of
God." The following paraphrase will convey the true
meaning of the sacred writer.' “ I have a greater and
more interesting example to propose to you than any
or all that I have already mentioned. It is that of our
master Jesus himself. Look, my christian friends, to
our great leader; trace him from the beginning to the
end of his course. He was the first to begin the career
of faith, and the first to receive its reward. How did
faith exert itself in him, and how was it recompensed?
Confiding in the promise of God, that his reward should
be proportioned to his labors and his sufferings, he en-
dured crucifixion, he made light of the disgrace, he did
not shrink from duty or from suffering; and proportioned
to his faith is his honor and reward. He was raised
from the dead, and is exalted to the right hand of God,
to power and glory, and to be the head of his church.
Shall we hesitate then to believe and to obey the gospel,
when the pain and the shame to which we are exposed
by it can bear no proportion to what he endured for us.".
You can have no doubt from this passage, that the mo-
tive of future reward animated and supported Jesus in
his labors and sufferings. And what is the reward
which he has received. A seat at the right hand of
LETTER V.
159
God. We are exhorted from this example also to labor
for a future recompense. Can language more plainly
or strongly inculcate the doctrine of future rewards for
the obedient? Heb. 12. 1, 2.
2. Read the following extracts. “I have glorified
thee on earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest
me to do. And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self, with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was.” “Father, I will that they also whom thou
hast given me be with me where I am; that they may
behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou
lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” By
putting these two passages together you readily obtain
the meaning of our Savior. He rejoices that the great
work committed to his charge was finished. He rever-
ently asks for the reward of his labors.' He desires to
receive the glory which his Father had designed before
the foundation of the world to confer on him for his suc-
cessful execution of his divine mission. He wishes his.
apostles may be with him so as to witness the recom-
pense of his toils and sufferings. Thus it is evident not
only that he was animated with the expectation of future
reward, but also that he distinctly alluded to the glory
promised to him by the Father in heaven. The doctrine
of future rewards then is taught not only by the example
but by the solemn words of our Savior. John 17. 4, 5,
21.
3. Hear the following declaration. « To him that
overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even
as also I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his
throne.” Dissect this sentence and you will obtain its
true meaning. The risen and ascended Jesus is the
speaker. His words may be appropriately considered
as addressed to all christians. To whom does he pro-
mise a reward? To all who overcome the obstacles and
160
LETTER V.
temptations in the path of christian holiness. Where is
this recompense to be conferred? In another life. In
what is it to consist? In being permitted a place in his
society. But is not this favor to be granted to all
mankind without distinction? Directly the opposite
is clearly implied in the promise. Where is Christ
now seated ? · On his Father's throne. Why was this
privilege granted to him? Because he overcame all
obstacles in the way of holiness, and this was the re-
ward of his persevering obedience. Consequently he
teaches in his exalted state most plainly the doctrine of
future rewards. Rev. 3. 21.
4. Read the following declaration. “Let this mind
be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a servant,, and was made in the
likeness of men;. and being found in fashion as a man,
he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even
the death of the cross. WụEREFORE GOD ALSO HATH
HIGHLY EXALTED HIM, and given him a name which is
above every name; that at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of
God the Father.” The part of this sentence which re-
lates to the subject in discussion may be explained by the
following paraphrase. - This unexampled instance of
voluntary humiliation and suffering for the benefit of
mankind was not left destitute of proper reward. The
righteous and benevolent governor of the world, who to
answer the wise purpose of his administration; imposed
this severe duty upon his holy servant Jesus Christ, has.
in return made him ample compensation for this great
act of filial obedience and magnanimous benevolence."
LETTER V.
161
Nothing can be plainer than this declaration. Jesus
submitted to unexampled sufferings; and as a recom-
pense for his obedience God has highly exalted him.
Can words more definitely teach the doctrine of future
rewards? Heb. 12. 1, 2.
My limits will not permit me to quote any more pas-
sages in defence of my present position. I had arrang-
ed the texts which have a bearing on this question in
eleven classes, and placed a larger number in each class
than I have given. If what I have presented are not
sufficient to convince a man, that the doctrine of future
rewards is taught in the christian scriptures, then no-
thing that the Savior and his apostles have said can ef-
fect this object. Before I conclude the present com-
munication I wish to ask a few plain questions.
: Do you not think that our Savior and his apostles
meant in some of these texts to teach the doctrine of
future rewards? I put the question to your conscience.
I wish you to answer it as in the presence of an omnis-
cient judge. Let me ask you to read the whole in their
connexion. Listen not to what any man may say on
this important subject. Examine and decide for your-
self. If you admit that even one passage declares or
implies that the righteous shall be hereafter rewarded,
our controversy is at an end; for we are both willing I
hope to abide by the decision of scripture. How any
man can deny that not one of this whole number was
acknowledge that the doctrine of future rewards is once
taught in the christian scriptures, must you not also
admit the truth of future punishment? Most certainly.
This some of your wisest and best men have confessed
to me in conversation. This must be evident to every
11
162
LETTER V.
reflecting mind. I will then finish this letter by request-
ing you to decide the question respecting future rewards
before you proceed to my next communication.
LETTER VI.
My Dear Sir,
I have selected and arranged eight classes of passages
which distinctly teach or plainly imply future punish-
ishment. My limits will not permit me to give even a
brief exposition of but one of the number. This I re-
gret the less since my next communication will contain
some other texts which inculcate the same doctrine.
The question at issue is not to be decided by the number
of times a future retribution is recognised in the scrip-
tures. A few undoubted instances must be as satisfac-
tory to every sincere believer as many hundreds. In
my present article then I shall confine myself to that
class.of passages in which the greek word gehenna oc-
curs. A few preliminary remarks seem necessary to
illustrate the nature of my arguments.
In the first place, you probably know that gehenna is
a word of exclusively hebrew origin. It is made up of
two other words which signify when united the valley of
Hinnom. This valley was originally a delightful spot.
It was shady and well watered.' It was situated on the
164
LETTER VI.
east of Jerusalem. At an early period the idolatrous
Jews set up the brazen image of their god Moloch. To
this deity they offered children in sacrifice. The name
Tophet was afterwards given to the valley. This is
also a hebrew word and signifies a drum, because the
wicked priests beat drums to prevent the cries of the
dying children from being heard. Josiah abolished this
horrid practice. He caused the place to be, polluted.
All the filth of the city was deposited there, and a fire
kept burning so that the air might not be rendered im-
pure and unhealthy; worms also were generated in the
offal, and hence arose the phrases of unquenchable fire,
and undying worms. So far there is no disagreement.
Now the learned commentators of all denominations
contend, that the name of this loathsome, and fiery, and
wormy valley, was afterwards used as an emblem of the
ſuture punishment of the wicked. They contend that
our Savior used gehenna to signify the torment which
awaited the sinful in another existence. This opinion
was generally received as true until one who is now a
member of your body denied its correctness. He en-
deavored to show that no such change. had taken place
in the meaning of the word. He aimed to prove that
gehenna must be taken in its literal sense, as a place of
temporal punishment near Jerusalem. Unitarians con-
sidered the doctrine of future retribution firmly estab-
lished without a reference to this class of passages;
they took little or no notice of the work, and very few
of the denomination have perused it even to this day.
Those who examined for themselves stated that the
investigation of the subject was superficial, the reasoning
inconclusive and many of the arguments irrelevant, and
deemed it unworthy of any public notice. · When I
conimenced my preparation for the present letters I did
not think much space could be allotted to this part of
LETTER VI.
165
the discussion. On examination however I became
convinced that your view of the word was altogether
erroneous, and concluded to bring forward such evidence
as seemed to settle this controversy beyond all doubt.
The results of a thorough investigation will now be
submitted to your candid consideration.
I. In the first place, I will state some of my reasons
for rejecting your definition of the greek term gehenna.
You know that this word was used eleven times by our
Savior and once by the apostle James. All valuable
commentators affirm that Jesus employed the word as
an emblem of the spiritual punishment of the wicked
both in this world and the next existence. This is the
view I take of the subject and the one which I shall
attempt to defend. You contend that gehenna was used
to denote a place of literal punishment, in this world alone,
out of the city of Jerusalem. Some of the arguments for
rejecting your meaning of the word I will now mention.
1. I reject your definition of gehenna because it makes
our blessed Savior utter nonsense and falsehood. Look
at the several passages in which he employs the word.
The following is the first instance. “Ye have heard
that it was said to them of old time, thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judg-
ment; but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with
his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the
judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, raca,
shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall
say thou fool, shall be in danger of the gehenna of fire."
Here you perceive that our Savior mentions three de-
grees of punishment, the judgment, the council, the
gehenna. Now the question is simply this. Did our
Savior mean literal and temporal punishment as you
contend, or did he mean figurative and spiritual as I
believe? He could not mean literal punishment. For
166
LETTER VI.
the Jews had no law for punishing a person for unrea-
sonable anger; and I defy you or any other man to
produce a single case in which such an offence was
ever punished by the jewish tribunal called the judgment;
consequently no disciple was in any danger of a literal
punishment by this court on account of anger. The
Jews had no law for punishing a person for calling an-
other raca; and I challenge you or any other individual
to mention a single instance in which such a crime was
ever punished by the jewish tribunal called the council;
and consequently no hearer of our Savior was in the
least danger of a literal punishment by this court for
using such words. The Jews had no law for punishing
· a man for calling his brother fool; and I defy you to
produce a single example in which they punished any
breach of their laws by burning in the valley of Hin-
nom; and consequently no one of those our Savior ad-
dressed were in danger of being thus punished for any
crime whatever. Now is it likely he was totally igno-
rant of the jurisprudence of his own nation? Is it not
probable that his hearers would have ridiculed him to
his face for manifesting such ignorance had they under-
stood him to mean literal punishment. Not only so.
Your definition of gehenna makes our Savior contradict
himself in the same sentence. He first avers that the
Jews consider nothing to be murder but the outward
act; and that this offence was condemned to no heavier
penalty than what the judgment could inflict. Had he
then declared that whoever cherished unreasonable an-
ger would be exposed to the literal judgment, or literal ·
council, or literal fire, would he not have contradicted his
former assertion? But this is not all. You make our
Savior threaten his hearers with punishments of which
they were in no possible danger, and this must have
been perfectly well understood by all present. Conse-
LETTER VI.'
167
quently they must have received his meaning according
to my exposition. He meant that the torment of inim-
ical and revengeful feelings must be as severe as the
punishments which could be inflicted in three several
methods. And when he used the word gehenna he ex-
tended the sufferings beyond the grave, as this word
was then employed to denote the future misery of the
wicked, which I shall soon prove. Thus you see your
definition of gehenna makes our Savior utter nonsense
and falsehood. Matthew 5. 22...
Take a second class of passages. ," And if thy right
eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it
is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into
gehenna. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off
and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole
body should be cast into gehenna." How can you re-
concile this sentence with your view of gehenna? What
connexion would the cutting off an offending member
have with being burnt in the valley of Hinnom? What
court had authority to inflict this kind of punishment on
account of a person's being led into sin by his right eye?
Can you possibly understand this in a literal sense?
Surely not. The Jews had no laws relating to such
offences. There was no manner of danger from a literal
burning. And this must have been known both to the
preacher and hearers. Now my 'definition of the word
makes our Savior consistent, wise and benevolent. Mat-
thew 5. 29, 30; 18. 9; Mark 9. 43, 45..
Take a third class of passages. "And fear not them
which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
and body in gehenna.” What can you make of this
verse on your system? What more than the body could
168
LETTER VI.
be destroyed by burning in the valley of Hinnom? Call
the soul what you please, still it must mean something
which no human tribunal could destroy, in order to make
our Savior utter any truth or wisdom. If then you say
that gehenna here means the valley of Hinnom, the
meaning of the sentence amounts to nothing more than
this. Fear not him who can kill you in one way, but
fear him who can destroy you in another. Could such
nonsense proceed from the inspired Jesus? Not only so.
He had been exhorting his disciples to boldness and
perseverance in proclaiming the gospel; and if your
definition of gehenna be the true one, he exhorted them
to take the most direct course to incur the hatred of the
jewish rulers, and the highest punishment which they
could inflict. His language then amounts simply to this.
Leap into danger of gehenna with your eyes open, yet
entertain the greatest dread of him who has the power of
casting you in thither. Make it morally certain that
you shall suffer the punishment of gehenna, and yet do
all you can to avoid it. Did the Savior preach such
nonsense and falsehood? Surely not. Give the true
exposition of the passage and his instructions appeav
clear, striking, rational and consistent. Matthew 10.
28; Luke 12. 5. ;
Take a fourth class of passages. “Woe unto you,
scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea
and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made,
ye make him twofold more the child of gehenna than your-
selves.” The scribes and pharisees use great zeal to
make proselytes. When they have made one he is
doubly deserving the punishment of gehenna. Then
according to your definition he ought to be burned twice
in the valley of Hinnom. You will recollect, however,
that these words were addressed directly to the scribes
and pharisees. Now the scribes were magistrates and
LETTER VI.
169
the pharisees the ruling party; consequently they had
in their own power all the punishment. If the burning of
criminals was then practised they would be the last to
incur such a judgment. This rendering then will not
bear in this particular instance surely; so that you must
give another meaning to gehenna in order to make any
sense or truth of our Savior's words. Matthew 23. 15.
Take a fifth example. “Ye serpents, ye generation
of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of gehenna."
Will your definition bear in this sentence? Not at all.
It was utterly impossible for the scribes and pharisees
to incur any punishment which the jewish nation would
inflict, let them be ever so guilty. Consequently they
were in no more danger of being burned in the valley of
Hinnom than of being drowned in the then unknown
valley of the Mississippi. But this. verse is manifestly
addressed to men in real danger of gehenna, whatever
it might be. The scribes and pharisees were then at
the summit of whatever temporal power the Jews at that
time possessed. Is it to be supposed that in all these
instances our Savior either meant nothing at all, or men-
tioned a fire of which they were not in the least possible
danger? Matthew 23. 33.
tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue
among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and
setteth on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire
of gehenna.” Does the writer mean to declare, that
the human tongue is literally set on fire of the valley of
Hinnom? Surely not. A passage from one of the jew-
ish writers will illustrate the meaning of this verse. "A
in the infernal gehenna.” Another author has this
sentence. "I above, thou beneath. I from above will
170
LETTER VI.
scatter arrows upon evil tongues, thou from beneath
shall cast up coals upon them.” James 3. 6.
I have thus briefly noticed the passages in which the
word gehenna is contained. Do you not clearly per-
ceive that your definition makes our Savior utter nonsense
and falsehood in almost every instance? Is it not per-:
fectly plain that your exposition does not bear in a sin-
gle instance? I ask you to look for yourself. I could
have made my remarks much more prolix, but the sev-
eral cases seemed so perfectly clear that I could not feel
willing to occupy your time with more objections. Be-
lieving as I do that Jesus spoke nothing but the most
important truth, I must reject an interpretation which
renders many of his solemn sayings so ridiculous and
absurd.
Perhaps you may now say, that our Savior alluded
to the destruction of Jerusalem; that those who were
not converted to christianity would then be burnt alive
in the valley of Hinnom. If he uttered such an idea he
declared what never took place. I am not willing there-
fore to accuse him of falsehood. Many of those he ad-
dressed were dead long before the calamity befel the
city. And those who perished at the time were not
taken and burned outside its walls. So that there is not
the least shadow of evidence for such a definition. Give
your meaning in the passages in which gehenna occurs,
and it destroys all the sense and connexion, makes our
Savior a fool or a liar; and surely this is a sufficient
reason for rejecting your exposition :
2. My second reason for rejecting your definition of
gehenna is this. The word evidently denotes some kind
of punishment in all the instances in which our Savior
used it. Now we have no evidence that the valley of
Hinnom was a place of punishment in the time of our
Savior and his apostles. We have satisfactory proof to
LETTER VI.
171
the contrary. No instance of punishment in that place
and at that period is recorded in the New Testament or
any other book. You never find any persons but Christ
and his apostle using the word. Our Savior mentions
various kinds of trial to which his apostles would be lia-
ble; but he mentions gehenna in this connexion but
once; and he then uses the word in such a manner that
you plainly perceive he could not mean corporal pun-
ishment, since he had just spoken of killing the body as
a matter of no consequence. The apostles never speak
of themselves as in any danger of being burned in the
valley of Hinnom; and the Jews never threaten either
them or their master with such punishment. Conse-
quently I cannot possibly believe that our Savior meant
a literal, temporal punishment in the valley of Hinnom
· when he used the word gehenna.
3. My third reason for rejecting your definition of
gehenna is this. You have no evidence that a perpetual
fire was kept up in the valley of Hinnom at the time our
Savior was on earth. I know that a statement of this
kind has been often repeated. . I have often done it
myself. I supposed the authors in which I found the
account were to be trusted. I find this is not the case
in this instance.' An assertion to this effect was made
by Rabbi Kimchi who flourished about the fourteenth
century. If there is any other evidence for the truth of
the story I have not discovered it; and surely this is
not sufficient to satisfy any reasoning mind. Until further
proof is produced I shall therefore strenuously deny that
any perpetual fire existed in the valley of Hinnom in the
time of our Savior. And if this be the fact, then he
could not possibly have used the word gehenna in the
sense you suppose.
4. My fourth reason for rejecting your definition of
gehenna is this. All the truly qualified biblical critics
172
LETTER VI.
from the earliest days of research to the present time
have given a different exposition. They have investiga-
ted the subject thoroughly. They have had no interest
whatever to deceive. If the evidence had been sufficient
to convince them that gehenna meant a literal, temporal
punishment, they would have declared this opinion with
all readiness. I cannot therefore believe that such
numbers of honest men could have been so long and so
universally mistaken on this question. I might advance
many more reasons for my rejection of your definition
of gehenna did my limits permit. I have however said
sufficient for all present purposes. I hope you will give
them a candid consideration.
II. In the second place, I will mention a few reasons
for believing that our Savior used gehenna to mean
spiritual punishment both in this life and the world to
come..
1. This is the testimony of the jewish writers of
antiquity. I go to their writings to ascertain the exact
meaning of a hebrew word in their day, and for no other
purpose. I have nothing to do with their theology or
religious sentiments. There is no other sure method of
arriving at the truth on this question, as every biblical
critic will admit. What works then have we to which
reference can be made in this controversy. We have
the Targums and the Talmuds. As you may not know
much about these writings I will give you a brief but
accurate statement respecting their origin and history.
What then are the Targums? They are chaldee
paraphrases on different portions of the Old Testa-
ment. In the first place there is the Targum Ben
Uzziel. This is a paraphrastic commentary on the .
prophets. The author was the chief disciple of Hillel
the elder, who flourished in Jerusalem within thirty years
of Christ. There can be no doubt of the genuineness
LETTER VI.
173
and authenticity of this work. In proof of these we have
first the testimony of all the later jewish writers. We
have second the entire absence of all anachronisms; that
is, there is nothing which bears the stamp of a later
date; there is no reference to names or events of a sub-
sequent period; and this is a very strong ground of
evidence, especially when you consider that the names
of contemporary persons, of places, of allusions to local
circumstances, are constantly occurring in all the Tar-
gums. I know a certain writer has asserted that this
Targum was not quoted by the christian fathers for the
first four centuries. · Admit the fact for the sake of
argument, and this objection is readily answered. First,
these christian writers did not understand the chaldee,
with the exception of Jerome. Second, Jerome learned
it late in life, and complains that his knowledge of it was
very superficial and imperfect. Third, the Jews were
exceedingly backward in communicating any of their
learning to christians. This is evident from the fact that
the Rabbins whom Jerome hired to assist him in his
hebrew studies came by night to avoid offending their
brethren. Fourth, the Jews had special reasons for
caution in communicating the contents of this book to
the christians; for it explains many of the prophecies of
the Old Testament respecting the Messiah in the same
way in which believers then did and now do. There is
no reasonable doubt in the minds of those who have had
time and ability to investigate this subject, that Jonathan,
the author of the Targum on the prophets, was either a.
few years prior to Christ, or contemporary with him.
Of course his writings furnish the very best authority
we could desire or can possibly have, for ascertaining
the meaning of the word gehenna in the time of our
Savior.
In the second place, there is the Targum of Joseph
174
LETTER VI.
the blind. This author flourished about three hundred.
years after Christ. He was a teacher of the law at
Babylon. He was peculiarly skilled in the Hagiogra-
phy. Many disciples resorted to his school. They
wrote down his explanations and remarks. The Targum
which bears his name is probably a collection of extracts
from their manuscripts with their comments. Its style
shows it to be the work of several different hands. Now
this work has a péculiar value in our present inquiry.
on this very account; for it shows not merely the opin-
ion of the teacher but the views of his pupils in relation
to the meaning of gehenna.
In the third place, there is the Jerusalem Tárgum.
This must have been written as late as the sixth century,
because events are referred to, and geographical names
are inserted, which could not have had an earlier date;
but it could not have been composed at a much later
great, for it consists principally of extracts from earlier
Targums and other jewish writings. In fact there is
gum and passages in the New Testament, that some
critics have supposed it was extant in the time of Christ.
There is of course not the least shadow of probability
in supposing that the compilers of this Targum quoted
from the christian scriptures, a book which they utterly
detested. We must then allow this Targum an au-
thority on this question equal to the New Testament, or
else suppose it to have been compiled in part from docu-
ments extant in the time of Christ, which is the same
thing for my argument. On either hypothesis this Tar-
gum is of great value in determining the meaning that
was given to hebrew words in the days of our Savior.
I have said sufficient on the Targums for all present
purposes.
LETTER VI.
175
Let me now offer a few explanatory remarks respect-
ing the Talmuds. In the first place there is the Jeru-
salem Talmud. Rabbi Judah Hakkadesh resided at
Tiberias in Palestine about the year two hundred. He
made or published a collection of the traditions of the
Jewish doctors, in order to preserve them from being
lost in the dispersion of the Jews and the interruption
of the schools. This collection was termed the mishna,
or second law. About a century afterwards Rabbi Jo-
chanan lived in Palestine. He prepared a gemara,
that is a filling up or completion of the mishna. This
is at once a commentary on the mishna and also a sup-
plement to it. The mishna and the gemara constitute
the Jerusalem Talmud.
In the second place there is the Babylonish Talmud.
This is much larger than the other. It is also much
more known, and much more commonly used. It is
composed of Rabbi Judah's mishna, and a gemara pre-
pared at Babylon, perhaps as early as the year four
hundred, and certainly not more than a century later.
But as both these Talmuds are composed chiefly of
sayings and writings much older than the date of their
compilation, they are good authority for ascertaining
the meaning of hebrew words at a much earlier period.
I think these notices are sufficient for all present pur-
poses.
Now I wish you to understand distinctly the use I
am about to make of these hebrew writings of antiquity.
I do not search them to ascertain what the Jews believed
concerning future retribution. No. Their opinions
weigh nothing with me in this controversy. I go to
them for the express purpose of learning what meaning.
the jewish nation gave to the word gehenna in the days
of our Savior and immediately after. He was born of
jewish parents, and would use language as understood
176
LETTER VI.
by his brethren according to the flesh, unless he signi-
fied to the contrary. This he has not done in the pre-
sent instance. Now this is the only true and sure way
of coming at the real meaning of words in any language.
Let me give you an illustration. You find the word
atonement but once in our English translation of the
christian scriptures. You wish to know what meaning
was attached to this term in the time of the translators.
How can you determine this question? By examining
other books which were written near that period. You
take the plays of Shakspeare. You there find the
word thus divided, at-one-ment. This shows you that
the people of that day meant by the word atone-
ment, reconciliation, bringing together those who were
at variance, making them one. Now I am about to
pursue a similar course in relation to the word gehenna;
and all judges of this subject will assure you there is
no other certain way of arriving at its true meaning.
In the first place, take a few extracts from the Tar-
gum of Jonathan. Read the following declaration.
“ Abram saw gehenna belching forth smoke and burning
coals, and sending up sparks to punish the wicked
therein.” Surely he did not see the valley of Hinnom,
for this would make him witness what no one pretends
took place until a thousand years after his time. Hear
the following remark. “The wicked are to be judged,
that they may be delivered to eternal burning in gehen-
na." This surely cannot refer to the valley of Hinnom.
Very many passages occur in which the wicked are
threatened with the punishment of gehenna. But you
want only those which clearly prove that future punish-
ment was intended. Listen then to the three following
sentences. " Like embers in the fire of gehenna which
God created the second day of the creation of the
world.” - The earth from which springs forth food,
LETTER VI.
177
and beneath which is gehenna, the cold of whose snow
is changed so as to become like fire." - Thou shalt
see them, descending into the earth to gehenna.". Thus
have I given you five extracts from this jewish writer
who lived about twenty or thirty years before Christ.
They plainly prove that he considered gehenna a place
or state of future punishment for the wicked. They are
comments on the following passages of scripture. Isa.
33. 14, 17. Cant. 8. 6. Job. 38. 5. Wolf's Bibli-
otheca Hebræ, Part II. pp. 115960. Wetstein's N.
T..on Matthew 5. 22. Bartoloccius Bibliotheca Rab-
binica, Part II. p.: 136. . .
In the second place, take an example from Medrasch
Thillium, an allegorical exposition of the Psalms as-
cribed to Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, who was born the
first year of the Christian era. These are his words.
“Circumcision is regarded with favor; for the holy and
blessed' swear to. Abram that no one who was circum-
cised should descend into gehenna.” This cannot mean
the valley of Hinnom. Wetstein Mat. 3. 9. Bartoloc-.
cius Part IV. pp. 272, 320.
· In the third place, take a few specimens from the
Pierche Eliezer, written by Eliezert hé great, whose wife
was great grand-daughter to that Simeon who took the
infant Jesus in his arms. He flourished about the year
seventy-three. These are his sayings. “On account
of the sabbath-Adam was delivered from the condemna-
tion of gehenna." - Whosoever confesses his trans-
gressions and forsakes them is delivered from the con-
demnation of gehenna.” - The holy and blessed God
has dealt with me in truth and goodness, and delivered
me from the condemnation of gehenna.” “ All angels
and seraphim shall not deliver the wicked from the
condemnation of gehenna.” You see that in all these
cases gehenna is evidently used to denote future punish-
12
178
LETTER VI.
ment. Bartoloccius. Part I. pp. 184, 5. Part IV.
Chronological Index. Wetstein. Mat. 23, 33.
In the fourth place, take a few instances from Beras-
chith Rabba, which was written by Rabbi Hoschiakia.
He flourished about the year ninety five. These are
the sayings. ' " Hereafter . Abram will sit at the gate's
of gehenna,' and will suffer no circumcised Israelite to
descend thither; but what will he do with those who
have sinned beyond measure? He will restore to them
their foreskin, and they will descend into gehenna."
“ Before paradise gehenna was created; gehenna on the
second day, paradise on the third day. This is the edge
of the sword which turns every way, and which being
directed towards them hereafter sets them on fire.” “In
that hour gehenna ascends upon the wicked. Woe to
the world on account of the judgments thereof." Wet-
stein. Mat. 3. 9; 5. 22; 23. 33. Luke 16. 22. Bartoloc-
cius, Part II. pp. 778, 82, 134. .
In the fifth place, take one example from Maase
Thora, ascribed to Rabbi Hakkodesh who was born
about the year one hundred and twenty. These are the
words. " God admitted Hiram king of Tyre into par-
adise, because he had built the temple, and had been
from the first a pious man; and he lived in paradise a
thousand years; but when afterwards he began to be
filled with pride and made himself, a deity, he was ex-
pelled from paradise and descended into gehenna.” Wet-
stein. Luke. 23. 43. Wolf. Biblioth. Heb. Part II.
p. 839. Bartoloccius Part III. p. 773.
In the sixth place, take a few passages from the Tal-
muds. I will give them in the order they occur in the
original works. Look then to the following examples.
“For those who observe the law, Paradise is prepared,
but for transgressors, gehenna.” Does this refer to this
world or the next. s While you apply yourselves with
LETTER VI.
179
the greatest labor and trouble to the study of the law,
and yet neglect to fulfil it, you will become heirs of ge-
henna at your death, while you have enjoyed no pleasure
in this life.” This admits of no doubt. “Heretics, trait-
ors, apostates, epicurians, those who deny the law, and
those who deny the resurrection of the dead, those who
separate themselves from the doctrines of the congrega-
tion, and those who cause terror among the dwellers upon ·
earth, and those who have sinned and caused many to
sin, as Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his companions;
these all descend into gehenna and are punished therein
ages of ages, as it is written. And they shall go forth,
and look upon the carcases of the men that have trans-
gressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither
shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an ab-
horring unto all flesh.” This surely extends the meaning
to a future world. “That ungodly man, Turnus Rufus,
asked Rabbi Akiba, if your. God loves the poor, why
does he not feed them? He replied, in order that we
may be delivered through them from the judgment of
gehenna;” “Whoever carefully celebrates the three
feasts to be instituted every sabbath is delivered from
three calamities, namely, from the distress at the com-
ing of the Messiah, from the judgment of gehenna,
and from the war of gog and magog.” “God will re-
deem my soul from condemnation to gehenna, and he
has delivered my body from condemnation to gehenna."
“God hath set the one against the other, that is, gehenna
and paradise.” “You will escape the judgment of ge-
henna, and your portion will be: with Sarah, Rebecca,
Rachel and Leah.” “The fire of gehenna does not
prevail against the sinners of Israel so as to consume
them, but they are sent down into it to be frightened and
scorched awhile on account of their evil deeds; after-
wards Abraham, who kept all the commandments and
180
LETTER VI.
went down into the fire of the Chaldeans to sanctify the
name of God, descends thither, and through his merits
brings them forth from thence that he may establish the
promise of the covenant.” I could extend my quota-
tions to an indefinite number; but sufficient have been
presented for all necessary purposes. Wetstein. Mat.
Part I. p. 143, 148, 138, 133.
You learn from these various quotations that gehenna
was used by the Jews at and after the times of our Sa-
vior to mean future punishment for the wicked. That
he used the word in the same sense there can be no
doubt in the minds of sound critics. The only ob-
jection you will be likely to make to this conclusion
of probability that our Lord and his apostles knew any
thing about the Targums? I have already furnished you
some evidence on this question;' and I may remark that
those scholars who have given this subject a thorough
investigation have a firm belief that some of these he-
brew writings were then in existence. I will present one
or two considerations which seem satisfactory to my mind.
In the first place, it appears that the Jews had lost
their national language, the Hebrew, after the return
from the captivity, since you find that Ezra was obliged
to employ interpreters, while he read the law to the
people. Their original language had become so corrupt-
ed during their residence in Babylon, and so intermingled
with the Chaldaic, which was the language in common
use in that region, that they could not understand the
Hebrew scriptures without interpreters. From this
period the Syro Chaldaic continued to be the established
national language of the Jews. Of course, none but the
learned would be able to understand the Hebrew scrip-
tures, without the constant aid of interpreters. To the
LETTER VI.
181
common people therefore the scriptures would be a sealed
book, except on holydays when they might hear them
expounded by those who had studied the hebrew. But
the great multiplication of synagogues throughout Judea
and Galilee would render necessary a correspondence
in the number of interpreters, unless some translation
more natural than that such translations should be made
for the benefit both of the synagogue and of private
families, and that they should be generally used?' We
certainly should expect it. Suppose there were no
copies of the bible to be had in our country, except in
the hebrew and greek languages in which they were
originally written. Suppose that none but a few learned
men were able to read the scriptures and that the people
passage translated from the pulpit on sundays. Would
this satisfy the people? Would they not be likely to get
some man of education to write a translation and com-
mentary which they could read for themselves?. Now
the Jews. regarded it as being much more important to
be thoroughly acquainted with the scriptures than we
do. It was the practice to commit them to memory, so
that Josephus says, “For our people, if any body do
but ask any one of them about our laws, he will more
readily tell them all, than he will tell his own name; and
this in consequence of our having learned them immedi-
ately as soon as ever we became sensible of any thing;
and of our having them as it were engraven on our souls."
Seeing then that the Jews regarded the scriptures as
being of such importance that they committed them to
memory, is it not altogether probable that they would
generally wish to have a copy of them in a language
which they could understand? Is it at all probable that
182
LETTER VI.
they would be content merely to hear a passage read
from them occasionally in the synagogue? .
But in the second place, we have positive evidence
that there were translations of the scriptures in common
use among the Jews in our Savior's time. In addition
to the books of the Old Testament, the Jews had a col-
lection, oral, of laws or traditions, as they were called,
which had been handed down for many ages from father
to son, until finally, about one hundred and ninety years
after the time of Christ, they were committed to writing,
and received the name of mischna, under which name they
have come down to us. Now on turning to the mischna,
we find it plainly intimated that there were translations, or
Targums, of the scriptures in common use among the
Jews, at least as early as the time when the mischna was
composed, (Targum is a chaldee word meaning trans-
lation,) and that is, even before the time of Christ, since
Christ himself often speaks of the traditions of the Jews,
and it is of these traditions, as has been remarked, that
the mischna is made up. You will keep in mind that I
never refer to these traditions for proof of a religious
doctrine, but simply to ascertain the use of a hebrew
word ať that period. It was one of these traditions, as.
laid down in the mischna that “all sacred books ought to
be preserved from fire, whether they are read in or not;
and whatsoever language they are writ in, they ought to
be laid up carefully.” This plainly implies that the
Jews had their sacred books in more languages than one,
in at least one other language besides the hebrew. But
no one pretends th at at this time there were any trans-
lations of the hebrew scriptures in existence besides the
greek and chaldaic. The greek translation, or the
Septuagint, was used by those Jews who lived in foreign
countries, and by them the traditions were never receiv-
LETTER VI.
183
ed nor acknowledged to be of any sort of authority.
It is evident then that in the passage which has been
referred to the chaldaic Targums must have been meant.
I can see no room for further doubt on this subject.
Here then you have one grand reason for my definition
of the word gehenna. It was uniformly used by the
Jews in the time of our Savior and in succeeding ages
to.mean future punishment. I know of no other way of
arriving at the true meaning of hebrew words and
phrases. :
I have not room to mention at length other reasons
for my belief, many of which might be stated if the argu-
·ment required. I will however observe, that my defi-
nition of gehenna seems absolutely necessary in almost
every passage in which the word occurs to make our
Savior utter either sense or truth, or be consistent with
himself. This you can readily ascertain by an examin-
ation of the several verses already quoted. I would
further remark, that I cannot believe all commentators
of note, of every denomination, who have had no special
interests to serve, could have been mistaken in the
meaning of this hebrew word. They have spent months
and even years in studies connected with this question;
they had no cause at heart but truth; they were quali-
fied for such investigations; and on the common grounds
of judging their conclusions are not to be shaken with-
out preponderating evidence on the other side. This
never has and never can be produced. Not only so.
The common meaning of gehenna makes our Savior's
instructions consistent with themselves. He has spoken
of a heaven for the righteous. Now the mode of inter-
pretation which inakes gehenna mean the valley of Hin-
nom would require that we look either to the garden of
Eden or to the starry firmament for heaven, and confine
the meaning of heavenly felicity to the present life. I
184
LETTER VI.
think enough has been said to satisfy all candid inquir-
ers that the common definition of this word is altogether
the correct one; and consequently that our Savior threat-
ened future punishment to the wicked.
III. In the third place, I will answer the objections
which may be made to my definition of the word gehenna.
I shall notice all which I think can have the least weight
with candid inquirers after truth.
1. Perhaps you will affirm, that neither gehenna nor.
any other word is sed in the hebrew scriptures to de-
note a place of endless misery for the wicked. This I
readily grant. I admit that neither the doctrine of a
future existence, nor the fact of a future retribution, is
taught with distinctness and in a formal manner in the
five books of Moses; but that the Jews of those days
had some faint belief in both there can be no doubt. I
also acknowledge that the evidence in support of these
sentiments is not full and striking in the subsequent
writing of the Old Testament. But what do these ad-
missions prove in favor of your position? Just nothing
at all. You must grant that-the great majority of the
jewish nation in the time of our Savior had a decided
belief in both a future life and future retribution. And
I have given you the outline of tủe testimony which has
convinced those who have given this subject a thorough
investigation, that gehenna was used to teach future
punishment for the wicked in the time of Christ's per-
sonal miniştry. So that your objection has no direct'
application to the question in controversy, and is satis-
factorily refuted by the evidence presented.
· 2: Perhaps you may affirm, that gehenna occurs but
twelve times in the christian scriptures, and is the only
word which is supposed to mean a place or state of
misery for the wicked. I admit that the word gehenna
occurs but twelve times in the New Testament. But
LETTER VI.
185
does this admission prove the truth of your position?
By no means. If our Savior has taught the doctrine of
future retribution in but one sentence in the whole of
his teachings, I am perfectly satisfied; for I cannot be-
lieve he was ignorant of the truth on this question;
neither can I allow that he uttered even one falsehood.
And surely any believer in revelation ought to bow in
profound submission to a doctrine twelve times distinctly
declared. Did he teach the idea of Providence on as
many different occasions? Did he even assert the exist-
ence of his Father in a dozen discourses? Examine
the records for yourself. But I do not admit that gehenna
is the only word used in the christian scriptures to mean
future punishment for the wicked. I find this solemn
truth under different phraseology in very many other
passages, some of which will be noticed in my next
communication. And I am willing to confess that the
removal of gehenna from the controversy would not
shake my belief in the doctrine of a future retribution.
I confine my remarks to this word in the present letter
because I considered the argument on the topic perfectly
satisfactory and conclusive. . So that your objection in
this instance is fairly. answered.
. 3. Perhaps you will affirm, that the word gehenna is
used only by our Savior and James, and ask why it was
not mentioned by the other apostles? I am able to re-
turn a most satisfactory answer to your question, while
I admit the truth of your assertion. · Gehenna was a
word which the Jews of Judea understood. To these
our Savior addressed his discourses; and James.wrote
his epistles to converts from the same body. Some to
whom the apostles preached, and to whom several of
the epistles were partly addressed, were indeed of jew-
ish extraction. But then they had been educated in
foreign countries. They used the Greek language,
186
LETTER VI.
.
They knew · little or nothing of the colloquial usages of
Judea. They were acquainted with the Old Testament
only through the Septuagint. Consequently the apos-
tles, if possessed of the true spirit of gospel ministers,
would not use a word which some of their hearers or
readers could not understand. All these were firm be-
lievers in future retribution before and after their con-
version, and consequently had no special need of ele-
mentary instruction on this doctrine. This then is the
very best reason in the world why the other inspired
teachers did not use the word gehenna. They could
not use it to mean future punishment when addressing
such believers with any more propriety than I could
use the word hell to convey the same idea to a congre-
gation of Germans. You will please to remember that
the question is not whether the same word is always
used, but whether the same doctrine is taught through-
out the New Testament; and that this is the fact I shall
fully prove. I seldom use the word hell in my dis-
courses, but I preach future punishment for the wicked
as distinctly as our orthodox brethren, who repeat the
word hell in every sentence. Here then is a full refu-
tation of your objection.
4. Perhaps you will affirm, that the word gehenna is
not once used in addressing the gentiles, and ask the
cause of this omission. I admit the truth of your affirm-
ation, and will give you a convincing answer to your
question. Gehenna is a word of hebrew origin. They
understood neither this ancient language nor had heard
of the meaning this word had acquired among the in-
habitants of Judea. Consequently it would have been
talking or writing an unknown tongue to have reminded
them of the gehenná fire. Suppose a missionary should
address a society of converted Indians in their native
dialect. Would he use the word hell when he wished
LETTER VI.
187
to mention future punishment? By no means. And
were not the inspired preachers possessed of common
sense? If so they could not use gehenna when speak-
ing or writing to heathen or converts from heathenism.
All these believed already in future rewards and pun-
ishments, and only needed confirmation in their present
belief. Consequently your objection has no weight
against my argument.
5. Perhaps you will affirm, that the greater part of
what our Savior said concerning gehenna was addressed
to his disciples, and ask why he did not say more on the
subject to the unbelieving Jews, if the word meant future
misery? The truth of your assertion I admit, and will
return a satisfactory answer to your question. To whom
were most of his discourses addressed? To his disciples
surely. To whom were his doctrines entrusted? Who
were selected to propagate his gospel? And to whom
was the greater portion of all his intructions on every
subject delivered? To his disciples certainly. Why
then should he make a distinction on this question?
But, my dear sir, he did preach gehenna to the unbeliev-
ing Jews; and the different manner in which he declared
this doctrine to the two classes of hearers fully establishes
the truth of my exposition. Mark this peculiarity.
When addressing his disciples he speaks of gehenna as
something they might avoid by being his faithful disci-
ples. Now if gehenna means a literal, temporal pun-
ishment, the very way to be exposed to it was by em-
bracing his religion, and thus'exciting the anger of the
Jews. But if the word means future punishment, then
surely they might escape by being righteous and holy.
On the other hand, when he addressed the unbelieving
Jews he uses language like the following. “How can
ye escape the damnation of gehenna.” Now if gehenna
meant a literal, temporal punishment, these Jews were
188
LETTER VI.
in no danger of suffering it; for they were the ruling
party, and of course would not condemn themselves to
death by fire; and at the destruction of Jerusalem the
Roman enemies did not burn any individuals outside of
the city; according to your definition of the word there-
fore our Savior threatened them with a punishment to
which they were not exposed, and would never suffer.
But if you give the common meaning to gehenna his
words are literally true. These unbelieving and perse-
cuting Jews were in danger of future punishment from
their very wickedness. So that this objection turns
against yourself with tenfold power.
6. Perhaps you will affirm, that in all the places in
which gehenna is used, the persons addressed are sup-
posed to be acquainted with its meaning. This I readily
grant. When the word hell is now mentioned we uni-
formly understand future misery. This was not the
original meaning of the term by any means. This was
not the exclusive meaning in the time our present trans-
lation of the bible was made. In the episcopal prayer
book you read that Jesus descended to hell. Did the
framers of the liturgy understand by this word a state
of torment? Certainly not, as you may learn from their
writings of the period. So it was with gehenna. It was
originally used to mean the valley of Hinnom. But in
the time of our Savior it was as generally understood to
mean future punishment as the word hell is now sup-
posed to convey the same idea. This I have already
proved by satisfactory evidence. But there is one argu-
ment which may be mentioned in this connexion. It
was our Savior's boldness in threatening the self-
righteous pharisees with misery beyond the grave which
so excited their anger and enmity. Consequently the
admission of your objection furnishes another proof in
favor of my position.
LETTER VI.
189
7. Perhaps you will affirm, that if gehenna means
-future punishment, the apostles never preached it to
Jews or Gentiles. I admit that they used not this word,
but it by no means follows that they never preached
future punishment. They indeed omitted the word ge-
henna, and for the best reasons possible. Most of their
discourses recorded in the book of Acts were not
preached in Judea, where the meaning of the word
would be easily understood. Besides there were doubt-
less more or fewer proselytes and heathen in almost every
congregation, and the inspired teachers were too wise
to use a word which they knew even one of their hearers
could not feel. Not only so. There was no dispute
on the subject of future retribution, for all believed this
doctrine. Other topics engrossed their attention. So
that a knowledge of the circumstances removes this
objection entirely. Now you will remember that our
principal concern in this controversy is, with doctrines
and not words; and if the apostles recognised the be-
lief then existing in future rewards and punishments, it
is as much to my purpose as if they had used the word
gehenna a hundred times. And that they did preach
this doctrine to both Jews and Gentiles, either directly
or by implication, I shall fully prove.
3. Perhaps you will affirm, that gospel salvation is .
salvation from sin, and not salvation from gehenna.
The first part of your statement is correct, and the
latter part incorrect. Sin and its consequences are the
principal causes of misery in this world; and I believe
they are the only causes of punishment in another ex-
istence. When a person therefore is free from sin and
its consequences he is saved from spiritual wretched-
ness. Paul speaks in a passage I have already quoted
of some of his converts being already saved, and on
this account they would be hereafter saved from wrath
190
LETTER VI.
or torment. Consequently he plainly taught that salva-
tion from sin would secure salvation from future misery.
And our Savior plainly taught the same doctrine in
those very passages in which he uses the word gehenna.
Yes; he assures his disciples, that unless they avoided
certain sins, sins which could not come under the cog-
nizance of human laws, they were in danger of gehenna.
Salvation from these sins would then save them from
gehenna. He told them to fear not any punishment
man could inflict, and on your ground man could burn
them to death in gehenna fire; but to fear him who
could.cast them after death into gehenna. According
to the infallible teacher therefore salvation from those
very sins which no human tribunal could punish would
save them from gehenna and future wrath. Now does
he not declare that some of mankind would not be
saved from their sinfulness? Do not the apostles urge
men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling?
Do they not ask them how they can escape if they
neglect so great salvation? Were they in no danger of
losing christian salvation? Are not faith and repent-
ance frequently mentioned as unalterable conditions of
christian salvation? Now so long as sin exists misery
must continue, and even longer, as you can testify. So
wickedness, so long there must be punishment. That
many leave this world in an unsaved condition you will
not deny. Consequently they need salvation from sin
hereafter before they can be saved from misery. So
that this objection is directly opposed to your own doc-
trine.
greek nor english languages had originally any name
for a place of future punishment. Suppose I should
admit the truth of this declaration, what would you
LETTER VI.
191
gain in your argument? Just nothing at all. I can
assert also that neither of these tongues had originally
any name for a place of future reward. But does this
destroy the truth of the doctrine? Surely not. You
well know that all the nations which have spoken these
several languages have believed in both future rewards
and punishments from time immemorial. If our judges
should condemn fifty pirates to be hung and omit to
name any place of execution, would this prove that the
sentence could never be executed? Ridiculous. Now
you know that in the infancy of language sensible objects,
processes and operations are the only ones to which
names are usually given. In every language spiritual
ideas are expressed by words which originally related
to material objects; and which when first employed to
denote things unseen and spiritual were used meta-
phorically. This is the fact in relation to paradise,
heaven, gehenna and the like in other languages. So
that this weak objection is fully refuted.
10. Perhaps you will affirm, that gehenna was ori-
ginally used to mean the valley of Hinnom, and ask
when its meaning changed to future punishment? I
admit your assertion, and will answer your question by
asking another. The word paradise was originally used
to denote an earthly garden. The word heaven was
first employed to mean the space over our heads. When
did their meaning change to a place or state of future
happiness? Because you cannot give a satisfactory
solution to this inquiry does it follow that there is no
happiness beyond the grave? Surely not. Then if
the precise period cannot be fixed when the meaning of
gehenna was changed, does this prove that it never has
of the bible was executed, the word villian was applied to
Paul and the other apostles. Its common meaning at
- 192
LETTER VI.
· that day was seryant. Can you tell me when it was
changed to denote a vile scoundrel? Such objections
then are utterly futile. It is enough that we have the
evidence that a change had taken place in the meaning
of the word gehenna in the time of our Savior. :
11. Perhaps you will affirm, that if the jewish mean-
ing be given to gehenna, it will prove a material hell.
Not at all. This is one mode of infidel attack upon our
religion. They say the jewish writers describe God as
possessed of human limbs, senses and passions, and.
therefore the God of the bible is a material Being. In
the same way they attack the descriptions of heaven
recorded in the scriptures, and contend that christians
expect to enter a pleasant garden, or a splendid city, or
the bosom of Abram, or the region among the stars.
All this results from their ignorance or depravity. We
must have sensible things to make ideas plain to unedu-
cated minds. And consequently objects of this nature
are employed when speaking of future punishment as
well as when heaven and the Deity are mentioned. So
that this objection amounts to nothing, and would apply
with as much force against the belief of a spiritual
Father.
· 12. Perhaps you will affirm, that if I give to gehenna
the meaning of future torment, I prefer the Targums
to the books of the Old Testament. By no means.
Your objection has no application to the case in ques-
tion.. I do not go to the jewish writers and commenta-
tors for any religious doctrines or precepts; or for their
opinion on any article of christian faith and practice,
But to ascertain the meaning of a word is a purely -
philological question. And the only way in which this
can be done in the present instance is by referenee to
the Targums and Talmuds. This every critic will tell
you. This every man of candor must admit. For we
LETTER VI.
193
have few if any jewish writings of the period wanted
except those I have consulted. I wish for example to
ascertain the exact meaning of the term gehenna in the
time of our Savior. The Old Testament cannot give
me satisfaction on this question. Why so?. Because
the most modern writings in this book were composed
about four hundred years before Christ. After this
period the hebrew language underwent many and great
transformations. Now the Targums and Talmuds come
very near the days of our Savior. And even the com-
paratively later jewish writers, who use the word to de-
note future punishment, as they do in hundreds of
instances, are good authority. For you cannot suspect
thern of borrowing the signification of hebrew words
from christian writers. They evidently ground their
doctrines on the Targums, the early Rabbins, and the
Talmuds; for to all these they constantly refer. The
Old Testament in the Septuagint version furnishes no
authority one way or the other, for the valley of Hinnom
is always rendered in some other form of words. Per-
haps you will ask why great use is not made of these
jewish writings in illustration of the scriptures? They
have indeed been used to great advantage. Look at
Lightfoot, Wetstein, Schoettgen and others; the great-
est names in biblical criticism, and you will never ask
such a question a second time. I have answered every
objection which I think can have any influence with
reasonable men. I will therefore conclude my present
communication with one or two observations. .
If you or any of your denomination are not satisfied
with my conclusion, I ask you to appoint some well
qualified person to make a thorough investigation of the
whole subject. All the necessary books are to be found
in the Library of Harvard University, which is open to
13
194
LETTEP VI.
all settled ministers within ten miles of Cambridge. I
have no fear of the result. I feel morally certain that
conviction must be produced upon any unprejudiced
mind by the evidence there to be found, that our Savior
used gehenna to mean future punishment. I had no
idea of the mass of arguments for this definition until I
gave my attention to the inquiry. I then found that I
had neither time nor qualifications to make that thorough
research which my work demanded. I accordingly ob-,
tained the assistance of two friends, the Rev. George
Nichols, and the Rev. Andrew P. Peabody, tutor in
Hebrew and Mathematics in the University, who are
amply and admirably qualified for the undertaking.
They have spent hours and days in. poring over the Tar-
gums, and Talmuds, and other authorities in various
ancient and modern languages. They have furnished
me with numerous quotations, translated from the ori-
ginal chaldaic, some of which you have in the present
communication. They have provided materials enough
for a volume, a small part of which are here presented;
but as the case appears to me so perfectly clear, I have
thought one letter sufficient for this topic. I am there-
fore prepared to defend the position I have taken; and,
not only so, I can command the services of those who
have already laid me upder such lasting obligations,
as well as of others whose acquirements and candor
will render their statements worthy of the highest con-
fidence. Many questions must be settled by a pre-
ponderance of evidence on one side. In this instance
almost every argument of consequence favors my defi-
nition. You can say something against. it, and so you
can against the existence of matter. But the inquiries
of biblical critics on this subject have uniformly led to
the same results; and all I ask is that you should induce
LETTER VI.
195
some disinterested witness to go to the College Library
and make a thorough investigation of this question.
Until then I shall consider that I have fairly proved the
doctrine of future punishment from that class of passages
in which the word gehenna occurs.
LETTER VII.
My Dear Sir,
Your attention is now invited to some of those passa-
ges which fairly imply or plainly teach rewards and
punishments in another existence. I have arranged
them in twelve distinct classes, and will present for your
consideration as many of the number as my limits will
permit.
I. In the first place, I will notice those passages in
which our Savior promises a reward to those who con-
fess him before men, and threatens punishment to those
who publicly deny him. These are his words. “Who-
soever therefore shall confess me before men, him will
I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I
also deny before my Father which is in heaven." To
have Christ acknowledge us as his true disciples before
our heavenly Father and his holy angels is surely a.
reward for our fidelity. To be denounced before the
heavenly host as disobedient and depraved must certainly
be regarded as a severe punishment. You may how-
198
LETTER VII.
ever contend that all this confession and denial are con-
fined-to the present life; and this position you must
prove in order to establish your belief in no future retri-
bution. Let me show you the absurdity of such a sup-
position. Here is a man for example who openly denies.
the Savior, calls him a wicked impostor, ridicules his
precious invitations, and knowingly disregards his in-
structions. You go to him with your interpretation of
this text. You make use of the following language.
“Friend, you are denying Christ; this you must admit;
now permit me to assure you that he is at the same time
denying you to be a true disciple before his Father and
the holy angels; you may continue in this impenitent
state until death if you please; but the first moment you
enter upon the next conscious existence you will be ad-
mitted to the happiness of heaven, and Jesus will ac-
knowledge you as one of the number for whom he laid
down his precious life.” Is there an unbeliever on earth.
who would not laugh you to scorn for such preaching?
But perhaps you will say that this promise and this
threatening were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Let us then give the true meaning to the sentence and
see how it will read. Our Savior was instructing his
apostles in relation to their future ministry. To make
his teaching consistent with your views he should have
made the following address. “Go forth and preach the
gospel to every creature; if any of you desert my cause
and deny me before the world, you will perish in the
destruction of the holy city; there will be an end of all
your sufferings; the moment you enter upon the life to
come I shall stand ready to receive you and welcome
you to the heavenly mansions; those of you who con-
tinue faithful to my religion shall be persecuted and tor-
mented; you shall indeed escape the impending calamity,
but only to experience every manner of cruelty and tor-
LETTER VII.
199
ture, and the most inhuman martyrdom; then you shall
be received to an equality with those of your number
who avoided all these unparalleled sufferings by timely
renouncing my religion; deserting my cause and deny-
ing me before the world.”. Such must have been his
speech in order to reconcile your belief with the passage
quoted. I think nothing more need be said to convince
any candid mind that our Savior distinctly taught the
doctrine of future retribution in this class of passages.
Whenever this position is denied I stand ready to men-
tion many substantial reasons why this threatening and
promise could not have been limited to this world.
Matthew 10. 32, 33. Mark 8. 38. Luke 12. 9.
· II. In the second place, I will mention those passages
in which our Savior promises reward to the forgiving,
and threatens punishment to the unforgiving. These
are his solemn words. “For if ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;
but if ye forgive not men their trespassos, neither will
your Father forgive your trespasses.” I have already
shown that forgiveness of any particular sin takes place
upon reformation, and the consequence of reforination
is spiritual happiness both here and hereafter. Until a
sin is voluntarily forsaken, it cannot be forgiven, and
consequently must continue its punishment in this world
and the next. Now you would limit our Savior's mean-
ing to the present existence. Let us see how your ex-
position would read. You visit a hardened pirate whose
heart is filled with ill will, hatred and revenge. You
preach to him from the text quoted in the following
manner. .66 Stranger, your infernal passions make you
miserable and wretched. Banish them from your bo-
som, acquire, christian love for your, fellow men, and
you will receive the forgiveness of your Father and
consequent happiness. If you think the work of reform-
200
LETTER VII.
ation too difficult on account of your great depravity,
just destroy your life in the easiest manner possible, and
when you awake in another world, your wickedness will
be all removed, your heart will be filled with the kind-
est affection towards all you have murdered, and you .
will experience the divine forgiveness. Or if you are
too much of a coward to take this short road to holiness,
you must remain unforgiven and in unceasing torment
until your mortal career shall terminate, and then all will
be done for you by miracle which you have so long neg-
lected to do for yourself.” Is not this mode of expos-
ing the absurdity of your interpretation of such instruc-
tions perfectly fair? So it appears to my mind, and I
certainly intend no disrespect to your person or charac-
ter. I have proved in a former communication that our
moral characters cannot change by our passage through
death; and consequently I must believe that our Savior
meant to teach future retribution in the class of passages
in which forgiveness is promised to the forgiving, and
pardon is withheld from the unforgiving. Whenever
an attempt is made to reconcile such teaching with your
belief, I shall feel prepared to state my objections to
your interpretations. Mat. 6. 14; 18.35. Mark 11. 25.
III. In the third place I will consider those passages
in which spiritual happiness is promised to the obedient
believer, and severe misery threatened upon those who
are unbelieving and disobedient. These are the words.
“ He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life; and
he that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him.” I have already shown
the nature of salvation. You have seen that the real
believer in Jesus receives some foretaste of that spiritual
happiness which is to be received more fully hereafter.
So that to say the truly holy hath already become a
partaker of everlasting or spiritual felicity is perfectly
LETTER VII.
201
e until he belige becomes this sentence
correct. This reward for goodness begins in this world
and extends to the next existence. He then who diso-
beys the Savior does not see: life, does not enjoy the
happiness which arises from religion. This no one
doubts. This is a part of the punishment for his disbe-
lief. And do not the words of the text imply that he
shall not see life until he believes; that the wrath of
God abides upon him until he becomes a christian?
Certainly. Suppose then the author of this sentence
had been a believer in your doctrine. He was preach-
ing to those who believed in a future retribution. In
order to guard them from error he should have used
the following language. “ If you believe and obey
the true Messiah, you will experience present happi-
ness. If you refuse and reject and disobey the Savior
of mankind, you cannot taste of this felicity. The
wrath or punishment of God will abide upon you until
death. Then you will believe on Jesus, and enter im-
mediately upon celestial glory, and be upon an equality,
with those of your brethren who were christians on
earth. You now resist the most convincing evidence
of his divine mission, but then you will have faith and
holiness without your own exertion or even consent."
Now if there was any intimation in scripture that such
a change is to be effected, there might be more appear-
ance of consistency in such harangues. But none such
being found, it being manifestly contrary to our expe-
rience and reason, for a person to obtain belief and
moral goodness without his own efforts, your supposi-
tion appears truly absurd. Whenever then you are dis-
posed to show that an impenitent unbeliever can expe-
rience the happiness of heaven without his own con-
sent; when you endeavor to prove that the wrath of
God abides on the sinner no longer than the present
life continues, then I shall aim to show the futility of
202
LETTER VII.
your reasoning, and the folly of your position. John 3.
36. Heb. 10.39.
IV. In the fourth place, I will examine some of the
passages in which the disobedient are threatened with
punishment, and the obedient promised a reward. Take.
the following as a specimen. God“ will render to every
man according to his deeds; to them who by patient
continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor,
and immortality; eternal life. But unto them that are
contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey un-
righteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of
the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor,
and peace to every man that worketh good; to the Jew
first, and also to the Gentile; for there is no respect of
persons with God.” The exact meaning of the apostle
is. expressed in the following paraphrase. “The re-
ward which God will bestow upon those who patiently
persevere in a course of virtue will be that everlasting
honor and happiness in a future life, the hope of which
has been the most powerful spring of action, and the
most abundant source of consolation in their struggles
through life. But on the other hand, the most insup-
portable effects of the divine displeasure shall fall upon
those who have acted contrary to their better knowledge;
who though instructed in the rule of duty have lived in
the practice of vice, whatever arrogant pretensions they
may have made to be the favorites of heaven, or how
loud and severe soever their censures may have been of
others, who though not possessing the same privileges,
have not exceeded them in the commission of crime.
To be plain with you, my brethren, I must frankly tell
you, that the Jew who glories in his privileges is equally
amenable to the divine tribunal with the despised Gen-
tile. The man who perseveres in sin shall suffer ade-
LETTER VII.
203
quate and insupportable punishment, whether Jew or
Gentile, and indeed the Jew will be the greater sufferer,
because he sins against superior light; and every one
who perseveres in the practice of virtue, shall be put
into possession of the promised reward, whether Jew or
Gentile.” I do not see how any one can suppose the
apostle meant to confine these promises and threaten-
ings to the present life. What had these converts at
Rome to fear from the destruction of Jerusalem? Were
Jews and Gentiles then rewarded according to their
deeds? In the gospel dispensation are the secrets of all
hearts made manifest? Do those who disobey experi-
ence any greater misery than the disobedient in jewish
or heathen lands? Has eternal life been given to those
who continue patient in well doing? What is meant by
seeking, immortality? Not only so. Does not Paul
refer to those who had lived before his day? And what
had all these to do with any temporal calamities after
their death? It is unnecessary to make further inquiries.
I know not how words can more plainly teach the doc-
trine of future rewards and punishments. Romans 2.
7, 12.
V. In the fifth place, I will place before you a pas-
sage in which persecutors are threatened with future
punishment, and a rest is promised to the faithful.
These are the words of Paul. - So that we ourselves
glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience
and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that
ye endure; which is a manifest token of the righteous
judgment of God, for which ye also suffer; seeing it is a
righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to
them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest
with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
204
LETTER VII.
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he
shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired
in all them that believe, because our testimony among
you was believed in that day.” You will obtain the
exact meaning of Paul from the following paraphrase,
:56 With much regret we hear that the cruelty, of your
persecutors does not yet relent. But having been also
informed of the fortitude with which you undergo the
severest sufferings, and of your faithful adherence to the
profession and promises of the gospel, we cannot but
congratulate you upon your heroic conduct; and we are
continually boasting of you wherever we go, and holding
up your example to other christians for their encouragė-
ment under similar trials. And be assured, my brethren,
that such sufferings as yours, borne with such a temper
and in such a cause, cannot fail of their proper recom-
pense. They are themselves a proper proof of a future
judgment under the righteous government of God; and
are preparing you for a glorious station in that blessed
and immortal state, the lively expectation of which sup-
ports you under all your sufferings. And I can assure
you, my brethren, from the highest authority, that we
are not deceived in the conclusions we draw from the
persecutions of the virtuous and faithful, that there is a
judgment to come. For the righteous God himself re-
gards it as an equitable thing, and as that which the
honor of his government requires, to protect the inno-
cent sufferer, and to inflict a just retaliation upon their
cruel persecutors. And the gospel revelation teaches.
us when this awful distinction shall take place. Your
oppressors shall be punished; and you, together with us,
who like you are exposed to continual persecution for
the sake of Christ, shall enter upon your final and ever-
LETTER VII.
lasting reward, on that day, when Jesus our exalted
chief shall appear again in the clouds of heaven.” Will
you confine these threatenings and promises to this life?
What will become of consistency and truth under such
an exposition? What had the persecutors at Thessalonica
to fear from the destruction of Jerusalem? Were they
signally punished before that event occurred? Were
they then driven from the presence of Jesus? For you
must know that the word Lord in the last part of the
passage refers to our Savior. Were the christians de-
livered from temporal persecutions? There are so many
important facts which your explanation contradicts that
it is impossible to make it bear upon this inspired declara-
tion. If these persecutors were destroyed then they
disciples. I say nothing concerning the words ever-
lasting destruction, for I am engaged in proving the
certainty of future retribution, and not the nature or
duration of punishment. And if this paragraph does not
I know nothing of the use of language. 2 Thes. 1. 5, 9.
VI. In the sixth place, I will refer you to those pas-
sages which relate to the sin against the holy spirit.
These are the words of our Savior. “And whosoever
speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be for-
given him, but whosoever speaketh against the holy
ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world
neither in the world to come.” The same declaration
is thus recorded by Mark. “ All sins shall be forgiven
unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewithsoever
they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme
against the holy ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation.” The exposition of this
notable passage is attended with no great difficulty.
Our heavenly Father who dwelt in Jesus wrought mir-
206
LETTER VII.
acles in confirmation of his divine mission. The Jews
believed in evil spirits, and attributed these mighty
works to the prince of demons. This was their offence,
speaking evil of the holy spirit of God. Jesus assures
thern that all other sins are more easily forgiven than
this. That is, they would be more likely to forsake
other vices than to overcome this unbelief. If they
could resist the evidence of their own senses there was
little probability of their embracing the gospel. And in
another life they could scarcely have more proof of his
messiahship, and consequently were actually in danger
of eternal condemnation; for they could never obtain
lieved and obeyed and became holy. Of course no one
is in danger of committing this particular offence at the
present period of the world; for none can see miracles
wrought, and I presume there are not many who would
defend the miraculous powers of evil spirits. Now I
do not see how it is possible to reconcile the ideas of
our Savior with your belief. Suppose he had really
meant what your exposition declares. He would have
worded himself in the following manner. “You may
speak evil of me and every one else as much and as long
as you please, and no punishment shall follow your of-
Tence. But if you speak against the holy spirit, you will
not be converted to christianity while I live, nor in the age
after my ascension, or even after the destruction of Jeru-
salem. But should any of you die within a few hours your
forgiveness is granted; there is an end of your unbelief;
you will be made holy and happy when you wake up in
the next existence.” Can any one believe that the
inspired Jesus meant this or any thing of a similar
character? I see not how words can more plainly teach
future retribution. Matt. 12. 32; Mark 3: 29; Luke
LETTER VII.
VII. In the seventh place, I will direct your attention
to a passage which plainly threatens punishment to the
unfaithful minister, and promises a reward to him who
adheres to the divine master with fidelity. These are
the words which Paul addressed to his son Timothy.
“It is a faithful saying; for if we be dead with him, we
shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also
reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot
deny himself.” The following paraphrase happily ex-
presses the meaning of the apostle. “The profession
and especially the preaching of the pure incorrupted
doctrine of Christ, exposes us to many temporary in-
conveniences and sufferings; but it does not leave us
without an adequate recompense. It is indeed, my
friend, a most certain, a most solemn, and a most glori-
ous truth; that whatever sacrifices we may be called to
make in the cause of truth and virtue, nay, if we even
suffer death itself for the sake of Christ and his gospel,
we shall be acting a safe, a wise, and an honorable part.
He died for us, and rose again; if we die with him and
for him, we, like him shall rise to a glorious and immor- .
tal life. If we suffer persecution for his sake, we shall
hereafter share with him in his throne, and participate
in his everlasting triumph. To these animating con-
siderations there is also an alarming counterpart, which
may justly awaken our utmost solicitude. If we who
make a profession of christianity, and who are placed
in eminent stations in the church, who know the truth
and the infinite importance of the doctrine we are com-
missioned to teach, if we, I say, from indolence or
induced to desert our post, and abandon our profession,
our casc is wretched beyond expression. He has him-
self declared that he will another day disown those who
208
"LETTER VII.
now disown and forsake him; and in vain may we flat-
ter ourselves that we shall escape his just animadversion.
We may violate our engagements, but he will never
swerye from his declarations, either of reward or pun-
ishment. He will never contradict himself. And his
pledged to the performance of his threatenings, equally
with the accomplishment of his promises.” I should
not suppose any one would even attempt to reconcile a
passage which so clearly teaches future retribution with
your system. 2 Tim. 2. 11, 12, 13.
VIII. In the eighth place, I will notice that class of
passages which use the word perish for future punishment,
and saved for future happiness. Take the following as a
sample of the whole. .- For we are unto God a sweet
sayor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that
perish; to one we are the savor of death unto death, and
to the other the savor of life unto life.” The word perish
is used for some kind of misery; I am not concerned to
show its nature; it is the consequence or punishment of
rejecting the gospel. To be saved is to be made good,
That the punishment in this passage extends beyond
this life I have no doubt. The whole sentence may
be illustrated by the following paraphrase. “Our la-
bors as ministers of Christ are attended with various
success. Some of our hearers receive our doctrine,
and gladly accept the blessings and privileges of the
gospel; others despise and reject our important message,
and choose rather to remain and perish in ignorance,
idolatry and vice, than to embrace the glad tidings of
salvation; but whatever be the effect of our doctrine
upon our hearers, our fidelity and zeal in all cases are
equally exerted, and equally acceptable to God, in
whose estimation they are as the fragrant incense of a
LETTER VII.
209
costly sacrifice. To some, the doctrine of the gospel
is a fatal venom; it excites contempt and hatred, malice
and rage; they oppose it to the utmost; their guilt and
misery are aggravated; and their ruin is sealed; so that
the gospel, which should have been their salvation be-
comes their bane. Upon others the effect is widely
different. The doctrine of the gospel, approved by the
understanding and cherished in the heart, becomes a
reviving, invigorating, exhilarating principle, which dis-
pels their darkness, which soothes their sorrows, which
prepares them for, and will in due time advance them to
a happy and immortal state of being.” Now suppose
Paul had believed your doctrine, how different must have
been his declarations. He would have said something
like the following. "Our preaching produces different
effects upon our hearers. Some believe and obey the
gospel; they are made wiser and better and happier; at
the same time they expose themselves to serious incon-
veniences,' and severe trials, and cruel persecutions.
Some of them remain unconverted; they live in their
wretched heathen condition; they lose all the pleasures
of religion; they indeed escape all the revilings, and
indignities, and sufferings, and cruelties to which their
believing brethren are exposed. When they die how-
ever all will be on an equality; and as the longest life
is but short, no great can be gained by embracing the
gospel.” This however does not sound like 'any of the
apostolic instructions which I have read. And I must
conclude that the apostle to the gentiles taught future
rewards and punishments. 2 Cor. 2. 15, 16.
IX. In the ninth place, I will notice some of the
parables in which our Savior plainly taught the doc-
trine of future retribution. As a specimen of the whole
of this description, take the one which relates to the
rich man and Lazarus. These are the words of our
141
210
LETTER VII.
Savior. “ There was a certain rich man which was
clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously
every day. And there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and
desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the
rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked
his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died
and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom; the
rich man also died and was buried; and in hades he lift-
ed up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham
afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and
said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water
and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, son, remember that thou in thy life
time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus
evil things; but now he is comforted and thou art tor-
mented. And besides all this, between'us and you there
is a great gulph fixed; so that they who would pass from
hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that
would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee
therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my
father's house; for I have five brethren; that he may
testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of
torment. Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses
and the prophets, let them hear them. And he said,
nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from
the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, if
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Such
is the parable as recorded by Luke 16. 19-31.
Now one simple question naturally arises. Did our
Savior mean to confirm the belief of his hearers in re-
wards and punishments after death? You believe he
had no such design. I think he intended to teach the
LETTER VII.
211
doctrine of future retribution. I will now endeavor to
prove the correctness of my opinion. Before I proceed
to my direct evidence I will mention four rules which
all sound critics apply to the interpretation of our Sav-
ior's parables.
In the first place, you will remember that every par-
able is designed to inculcate some one essential truth,
or to impress upon the minds of the hearers some one
important duty. You will readily recall to mind several
illustrations of this observation. The parable of the
good Samaritan was designed to inculcate universal be-
nevolence. The parable of the prodigal son was intend-
ed to teach the paternal character of our Father in
heaven. The parable of the marriage feast was related
to impress the importance of personal holiness. The
parable of the ten virgins shows the necessity of watch-
fulness.
In the second place, you will remember that the at-
tendant circumstances in a parable do not all admit of
an allegorical exposition. Many of them are introduced
by way of imagery. They render the story more in-
teresting and striking. Illustrations of these remarks
may be drawn from almost any of the number. The
prodigal son eating husks, the dogs licking the sores,
the pouring of oil and wine upon the wounds of the half-
murdered traveller, may be mentioned as examples.
In the third place, you must determine the lesson of
each parable mainly by what precedes and what follows,
or by the particular occasion which gave rise to the nar-
ration. By turning to almost any of the number you
will see the truth of this assertion verified. Why did he
relate the parable of the pharisee and publican? Be-
cause there were certain present who trusted in them-
selves that they were righteous and despised others.
212
LETTER VII.
Why did he mention the story of the good Samaritan?
Because one asked who was his neighbor.
In the fourth place, you must not seek a meaning to
any parable which could not possibly have suggested
itself to the minds of the hearers. For in such a case
the story could have been neither pertinent, interesting,
nor profitable; it would neither have enlightened his
countrymen as to duty, nor given his disciples any new
views of the religion of which they were to be trustees;
consequently such instruction must have been unworthy
an inspired teacher.
Now the exposition which 'some of your writers have
given of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus
openly violates these fundamental principles of interpre-
tation, and consequently cannot stand the test of sound
criticism. I will examine the one which your oldest and
ablest divine has published. I will suppose for the sake
of avoiding names, and making my remarks more direct,
that you have adopted this explanation as your own, to
all intents and purposes. Now you draw from this rela-
tion not a single lesson of doctrine or duty. On the
contrary you find in it a full account of the gospel econ-
omy, of the whole christian system, as you think it
should exist. In order to make consistency you are
obliged to give the most forced interpretations possible
to every circumstance, and to magnify the most trivial
incidents into matters of high and deep import. You
call the rich man the high priest under the law. But
these priests were never wealthy; in fact poverty was
entailed upon the whole fraternity. You give an alle-
gorical interpretation to the man's property. You say
that “his riches consisted in the righteousness of the
law." You make the beggar represent the gentiles.
The beggar in the parable however desired to be fed
LETTER. VII. -
213
with crumbs from the rich man's table. And what do
you make of the high priest's table to which the gen-
tiles looked with such earnest longings? “ The tables
of stone on which the oracles of God were written."
A little knowledge of the greek language would have
shown you that a table to eat on and the one written
upon were never called by the same name. And what
are the crumbs from these tables? Instructions. Now
is this supposed fact verified by any historical evidence?
Were any portion of the gentiles ever peculiarly anx-
ious to derive instructions from the two tables of stone?
Suppose they were, according to your own statement
they never received the desired information. Though
the Jews compassed sea and land to make a single
proselyte, yet the person you call the high priest is un-
willing to bestow his instructions on these longing gen-
tiles. The dogs however were more merciful, for they
came and licked the sores. And who were these dogs!
No less personages than Socrates, Plato and all such
characters; the ancient heathen philosophers who en-
deavored to cure the moral infirmities of their disciples.
But notwithstanding the care of these kind dogs, the
gentiles die. Die to what? To idolatry, and after death
Abraham's bosom, that is, to his faith. Would it not
be a better figure to represent the apostles as angels of
death, since they were the agents in making the heathen
die to idolatry? But you employ these same angelic
apostles on a most eccentric mission. You send them
to convert the gentiles to Abraham's faith which most
believers suppose the gospel was designed to supersede.
And what do you understand by the death of the rich
man? The close of the dispensation of which the high
priest was minister. And what by his burial? “ His
being closed up in the earthly character and nature.”
214
LETTER VII.
This is a little beyond my depth, but no matter. Lifting
up his eyes in hell represents the high priest feeling a
conviction of the condemning power of the law. Is
this according to history? And also the ragings of the
fire represented by that on mount Sinai and by the
flaming appearance of the first stone on his breastplate.
Seeing Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom,
indicates the fulfilment of these words of our Savior,
" Ye shall see them come from the east and from the
west, the north and the south.” Lazarus being wil-
ling to go to the rich man, implies a missionary spirit
in the converted gentiles with regard to the Jews, and
the great gulph an indisposition on the part of the Al-
mighty to have that spirit gratified. Moses was this
high priest's father, the dispensation of the law his
father's house, and the five brethren that part of the
house of Israel represented by the five foolish virgins.
Which part this was we are not informed. Sending one
risen from the dead means “ one possessed of a knowl-
edge of the gospel, being dead as before described.”
Now I suppose every sound critic will pronounce
this exposition a miserable tissue of nonsense and ab-
surdity and ignorance. For my own part I refrain from
all remarks, for I dare not trust myself to give utter-
ance to my honest opinions respecting many of the
writings of your sect which I have been obliged to
peruse in preparing for this discussion. I would merely
ask, if this explanation looks any thing like the simpli-
city that is in Christ Jesus? Is not unity of design the
prominent characteristic in the parables of our Savior?
Must not this one be necessarily an exception? Re-
move a single component part of your structure and
the whole fabric falls to the ground. Not only so. If
you have given the true exposition, this parable was
altogether impertinent to the occasion. Nothing had
LETTER VII.
215
previously been said concerning the high priest or the
gentiles or Abraham; nothing that would lead to such
a meaning as you suppose. But this is not the worst
of the case. It is very manifest that those who heard
the story could have had no conception of its true im-
port. We are very certain the inspired apostles never
penetrated so deeply into its design. Nay, it is in the
highest degree probable that none but the author of
this exposition ever ascertained the whole meaning of
the anointed Jesus. And if his book containing this
specimen of originality should now be lost, there is not
one chance in ten thousand that any other person would
again discover so much hidden wisdom in the parable of
the rich man and Lazarus.
I will now present you with my exposition of the
parable. You may determine its intent and import
in some degree from the context. After relating the
parable of the unjust steward, our Savior warns his
disciples in the hearing of many others, against an
undue attachment to worldly possessions, which he
represents under the figure, of Mammon, a Syrian
divinity, answering to the classical Plutus, the god
of riches. “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
When the covetous pharisees heard all these things they
derided him. Here then you have the occasion on
which the following parable was related, and of course
you will look for something pertinent to the occasion.
The sacred historian would not have mentioned the de-
rision of the covetous pharisees, unless to have intro-
duced the discourse to which their derision gave rise.
Their scornful looks, words or actions, it appears broke
off his discourse to his disciples, and he turns immedi-
ately to them with these words: “Ye are they which
justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your
hearts.” He then assures them in the following verses
216
LETTER VII.
of the perpetuity of the inoral obligations of the law,
implies that it was not his office to relax or abrogate it,
but to render its requisitions the more strict. He then
proceeds to rebuke more particularly that sin which had
always been the most prominent in his reproaches of
the pharisees, a supreme love of wealth, which they
had sought by extortion from the widow, the orphan and
the fatherless.
Now to discern the point of the parable you must
remember the fundamental error of the pharisees om
this subject. When Jesus said, ye cannot serve God
and mammon, it was a hard saying to them. For they
had attempted to serve both; they had thought their ser-
vice acceptable in the sight of heaven; they had ima-
gined that while their hearts were bound up in this world's
goods, they were still faithful in their duty to God, were
objects of his special favor, and the heirs of his king-
dom. And this sin is the very point at which our Sa-
vior aims in this parable. His grand design is to teach
that riches do not commend a man to the favor of our
father, or confer permanent felicity; but that covetous-
ness must be punished hereafter. In order to do this
he represents an affluent man, surrounded by every ob-
ject of desire, seeking happiness in splendid attire and
sumptuous living. He neglects his social duties, is
selfish and unfeeling. A beggar is laid at his gate,
poor, diseased and miserable. He lays there from
day to day unheeded. He finds more sympathy from
the dogs than from his rich fellow man. At length
he dies and is buried. He is carried by angels into
Abraham's bosom. This phrase was common among
the Jews, and its meaning may be illustrated by the fol-
lowing quotation from the Babylonish Talmud. “Holy
men did all they could to detain Rabbi Judah here, but
angels carried him to heaven. Now he sits in Abraham's
LETTER VII.
217
bosom.” The rich man also died and was buried. He
is afterwards represented as being in hades. What is
the meaning of this word? You know that in classical
greek it denotes the subterranean receptacle, whither all
the dead who had been regularly buried passed, into a
state of either happiness or misery. Elyssium the
abode of the beatified spirits, and Tartarus the place
of punishment, were both considered compartments of
hades. The translators of the Septuagint render the
hebrew word sheol by this term hades. The word sheol
does not mean simply the grave in the Old Testament,
for you find instances in which the inhabitants are rep-
resented as alive and conversing. In these places it is
considered as a scene of life after death. I suppose that
no one acquainted with the subject will deny that hades
frequently means a state of conscious existence into
which men pass after death. The Jews, as appears
from their own writers, regarded hades as a vast sub-
terranean receptacle for souls, which contained in its
upper part, paradise; and in its lower gehenna. In this
hades the rich man goes. He is in torment. And here
is introduced a circumstance, tending forcibly in unison
with the main design of the parable, to show the worth-
lessness of riches. He is represented as calling to the
poor beggar for assistance. His riches avail him noth-
ing, and he would rejoice to change places with Laza-
rus. But this is not permitted. And here Abraham is
introduced to apply the moral of the parable, and the
amount of his preaching is simply this. When alive you
possessed what you considered the greatest good, which
from its very nature you could not bring with you into
the next existence. Lazarus indeed suffered severely
while on earth, but his sufferings were of such a nature
that death terminated them. Now you are necessarily
miserable, because you have lost the wealth in which
218
LETTER VII.
you trusted. He is happy because he has escaped from
those bodily sufferings which belong to earth. The rich
man is then made to express a tender concern for his
brothers who were following his example; and he wishes
to have Lazarus sent to warn them of their folly and
wickedness. He is answered, that if they will not keep
the moral law of the Old Testament, it would hardly
profit them to hear a messenger from the dead. How
simple, how clear, how beautiful the instruction of our
Savior.
the true intent and meaning of the parable. But the
case is really so plain that I am ashamed to use words
in such a cause. To suppose that our Savior figured
forth the jewish and christian dispensations in this par-
able is to substitute imagination for truth, and theory
for fact. I must therefore believe our 'divine master
meant to teach a retribution after death for the charac-
ter here formed. And I believe this, first, because the
phrase, Abraham's bosom, is used; second, because the
word hades is used; third, because the words die and
bury are used; fourth, because the rich man is repre-
sented as having lost his riches; fifth, because the
phrase in thy life time is used; sixth, because the rich
man is separated from his five brethren, who must have
been in the same situation as himself, if the rich man
my exposition naturally arises from the connexion and is
pertinent to the occasion. Many more particulars might
be mentioned, but these are sufficient for my present
purpose. Until this explanation can be fairly disproved
I must regard this parable as designed to inculcate the
doctrine of future rewards and punishments.
Thus have I given what appears to me to be the true
meaning of our Savior. Can any candid mind arrive at
LITTER VII.
219
a different conclusion from an examination of the scrip-
tures themselves ? I know of no serious objections
which can be presented to this exposition. You may
indeed say that it is a parable, and that we ought not to
derive any doctrine from a fictitious narration. So you
might affirm that the prodigal son and the good Samari-
tan are parables, and consequently we ought not to ap-
peal to them in proof of the paternal character of God,
or the duty of universal benevolence. All this avails
nothing. Many of our Savior's most important lessons
were conveyed in fictitious narrations. You may also
say that hades is used and not gehenna. It is not my
business to show that future punishment will be received
in any particular place. If we have evidence that men
conduct in this world, the question is settled. I could
indeed enter into this controversy about words, and pro-
bably make as great a display of learning as some other
men, but I do not deem this in the least essential to my
concerning the moral character of either of the parties.
In this I think you are greatly mistaken. Does not
our Savior aim directly to show the want of hospitality
and christian love in the rich man? Words cannot be
more decisive. And is not the supposition perfectly
natural that the beggar was righteous? To be sure all
the particulars in either case are not mentioned, but
enough is said to show us distinctly that riches can con-
fer no permanent felicity, that benevolence is a christ-
ian duty; that selfishness, covetousness and hardheart-
edness must lead to more or less future misery. Other
parables which plainly imply a future retribution must
be omitted. See Mat. 13. 24; 18. 23; 22. 2. Luke
14. 16; 16. 1-19; 19. 11
X. In the tenth place, I will notice those passages
220
LETTER VII.
which teach future rewards and punishments after the
resurrection. It is first necessary to show that the
righteous and wicked will survive the dissolution of the
body, or be raised to an immortal and incorruptible ex-
istence. This is clearly and indisputably proved by the
following sentence from Paul: “There shall be a
resurrection, both of the just and the unjust,” Here
then you learn the most important fact, that all of what-
ever character shall live again after their temporal death.
Will raising the unjust make them just and happy? In
reply to this question I give you the clear and decisive
answer of our Savior. These are his solemn words.
- The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they
that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and
they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of dam-
nation.” One would suppose this passage, so plain, so
striking, so conclusive, must settle the controversy con-
cerning future retribution forever. But some of your
writers have attempted to explain away its obvious
meaning and substitute a figurative one. Here then we
enter upon disputed ground. Let me state the opinions
which I reject and the one I receive. Acts 24. 15.
John 5. 28, 29.
I. You contend that our Savior meant a moral resur-
rection. I will give the exposition of two of your
prominent divines in their own words. Take the fol-
lowing from your oldest preacher. “ The true meaning
of the words of Jesus appears to be, that those Jews
who listened to the mild precepts of the gospel, pro-
claimed by Christ and his apostles, came forth from
spiritual death to the life of faith in the new covenant;.
but those Jews whọ rejected the doctrine of salvation,
crucified the Savior, and persecuted his apostles, were
those who had done evil, and they were roused from
LETTER VII.
221
the dormant state in which they lay, as in a covenant of
death and in a refuge of lies, by the voice of judgment,
and came forth to the resurrection of that damnation,
which is so particularly pointed out in the twenty-fourth
and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew." Take the fol-
lowing statement from your next oldest minister. ,66 It
is evident that the time of the resurrection of the dead,
is not meant, but the hour or time of the destruction of
Jerusalem. The jewish nation whom our Lord address-
ed, had long been in a state of moral and political
death. They were not only dead, but buried in their
lusts, or in the language of the prophet, were in the
graves. A few of them under our Lord's ministry had
heard his voice, and were raised to moral or spiritual
life, during the time expressed in the phrase, “now is,"
verse 25. But he says in the 28th, “ The hour is com-
ing in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth.” Come forth from what?
They shall come forth from the state of inactivity to
action, from this moral and political death. But this
coming forth shall be very different in some from others;
for, 1st. They that have done good shall come forth
unto the resurrection of life. To enter into life and
into the kingdom of God mean the same thing, and both
these refer to entering into our Lord's kingdom in this
world, which at the end of the jewish dispensation was
to come with power. 2d. And they that have done evil
unto the resurrection of damnation. This must be the
damnation of punishment inflicted on men at the end of
the jewish dispensation, and especially on that nation
who were so highly favored with our Lord's ministry.
They came forth to the resurrection of damnation or
punishment at this period.". Now the simple comparison
of these expositions with the passage itself is enough to
prove their incorrectness. I will however briefly state
222
LETTER VII.
a few reasons for rejecting these explanations. Ballou's
Lectures, p. 377. Universalist Magazine, Vol. 7, p.
103, 107.
1. In the first place, what is a moral resurrection? Is
it not a resurrection from sin to holiness? Is it not a
resurrection from doing evil to doing good? Surely.
Now you notice that all who are in the graves are to be
raised. On your theory all the Jews were soon to ex-
perience a moral resurrection. But the Savior speaks
of those who had done good. If they had done good they
were already holy. They needed no moral resurrec-
tion. For it is not they who are going to do good, but
those who have already done good, who have already
experienced the moral resurrection, who are to come
forth to happiness. Now if you can show how the be-
nighted Jews did good while in the graves of sin, igno.
rance and darkness, then I shall be prepared to learn
how they could be made holy a second time; and how
their holiness was to save them from temporal calami-
ties, when our Savior prophesied the most severe per-
secutions to his disciples. Then all who had done evil
are also to be raised? Is their's a inoral resurrection?
If so, why are they condemned after experiencing the
moral resurrection? How could they suffer any more
punishment after embracing the gospel than those who
had done good before the moral resurrection? When
you can reconcile all these contradictions I shall be pre-
pared to listen to your argument - until then I must be-
lieve your exposition in the very first instance makes
our Savior utter nonsense and falsehood.
2. In the second place, the greek word translated
graves occurs frequently in the christian scriptures. It
is used to mean real tombs, sepulchres, graves, in every
instance, It is never used figuratively, to mean the
darkness and ignorance of heathenism or judaism or
LETTER VII.
223
sinfulness. As no one will deny the truth of these as-
sertions, I need not produce quotations in their support.
Now is it not most unreasonable to give a new and un-
heard-of meaning to a greek word for the express pur-
pose of contradicting the obvious meaning of our Sa-
vior?
3. In the third place, the greek word translated res-
urrection occurs' several times in the christian scrip-
tures. When the 'resurrection of Jesus is spoken of,
this word is used in every instance except one. In
every case in which our Savior employed the word, it
means the resurrection of the dead, or the life beyond
for yourself. “The sadducees which say there is no
resurrection.” You know the subject of dispute be-
tween the pharisees and sadducees was the literal res-
shall she be?” This certainly refers to the period after
the death of the woman and seven husbands. “As
touching the resurrection of the dead.” Surely the lit-
eral dead. "I am the resurrection and the life.” The
author or agent of the resurrection of the dead, as the
connexion manifestly proves. - Thou shalt be recom-
pensed at the resurrection of the just.” No one would
think of doubting that this referred to a literal resurrec-
tion of the dead if he had not a system to support which
this meaning plainly contradicts. I have already given
an exposition of this passage. There is no need of my
quoting the parallel texts from the other evangelists.
Now these passages show, first, that Christ uniformly
used anastasis to denote a resurrection of the literally
dead; and secondly, that he so used it without the words
which mean the dead being conjoined. Consequently
this uniform usage of anastasis which I might also trace
through the epistles, is a strong reason for assigning it
224
LETTER VII.
the same sense in this passage. Is it not most unrea-
sonable then to give this word a figurative meaning in
this particular instance so as to destroy the whole force
of our Savior's declaration? Mat. 22, 23, 28, 31. Mark
12. 18, 23. Luke 14. 14; 20. 27, 35, 36. John 12. 24,
25.
4. In the fourth place, your exposition contradicts
facts. You say that our Savior meant the Jews. Did
he not use the word all? Do you say all means a part?
If it does in this case why may it not have the same
meaning when the apostle declares that God will have
all men to be saved? Be careful not to involve your-
self in the same condemnation you have so long heaped
upon your orthodox brethren. Now were all Jews
brought to a knowledge of Jesus in any sense; or did
they experience any kind of a moral resurrection? This
you will not pretend. Then you say that those who
had done good while in the graves of darkness and igno-
rance would be rewarded; that is, they would be the
first to embrace the Savior and be saved from the tem-
poral calamities coming upon their nation. Now our
Savior says that he came to call sinner's and not the
righteous to repentance; that publicans and harlots
would enter his school sooner than the pharisees. Not
the most moral then were received into this kingdom
first. You also believe that the christians were saved
from the destruction of Jerusalem by fleeing to Pella.
This statement rests on the single assertion of one
ecclesiastical historian who lived more than three hun-
dred years after the crucifixion. If this is sufficient
evidence to establish this fact, then let it rest. But if
the Jews who were destroyed were saved from all further
misery, and the christians were persecuted in the most
cruel manner, I see not how those that had done good
come forth to the resurrection of happiness, or those
LETTER VII.
225
who had done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.
In short your exposition of the passage is contradicted
by' all historical facts, and consequently cannot be true.
5. In the fifth place, your exposition makes the words
of our Savior altogether impertinent to the occasion.
You see for yourself that his discourse was introduced
by the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, and relates to
to make him talk about the destruction of Jerusalem in
this connexion would be absurd..
..6. In the sixth place, your interpretation makes non-
sense and falsehood of the whole passage. If anastasis
means a moral resurrection, mnemeiois must mean a
moral grave; a most harsh and unnatural figure. The
Jews are all to come forth from what? From these moral
graves. But did all come forth? Did all come at one
time? Those who have done good issued when they
became holy; and those who have done evil yet remain
in them. You see that the explanation will not hang
together. Those who had done good come forth to a
life of persecution; and those who had done evil to a
death of happiness. No more need be said to manifest:
the absurdity of your'exposition.'
7. In the seventh place, if the passage means what
you pretend, it could not have been understood by
gether useless. And what is the use of having it re-
cordeď for those to whom it has no reference?.
8. In the eighth place, some contend that John did
not write his gospel until after the destruction of Jeru-
salem. They say that the threatening in the twenty-
fifth of Matthew related to that event, and because this
prediction had been fulfilled, it was not recorded by the
beloved disciple. Now if this passage related to the
same event, would he have retained the one and re-
15
226
LETTER VII.
.
jected the other? Does not this fact destroy all proba-
bility in favor of your explanation?
9. In the ninth place, you support your exposition by
the greek phrase erchetai ora, which is rendered the hour
is coming. You contend that the true meaning of the
greek words is this, the hour is at hand. To this argu-
ment I'answer, first, that the time in the twenty-fifth
verse is designated by the very same greek words, con-
sequently they must refer to a more distant period in
the twenty-eighth; and second, there is at least one
passage in the New Testament in which the same greek
verb is used in the present tense, to denote a future.
life. Mat. 10. 30.
II. I could mention many more reasons for rejecting
your exposition; but sufficient have been stated for
present purposes. I will now proceed to give you the
true meaning to the passage. I believe our Savior
meant to teach the future existence of all mankind, and
the certainty of a righteous retribution in the next con-
scious existence. Let us see if the connexion warrants
this belief. Go back to the beginning of the chapter.
Jesus cures an infirm man on the sabbath. His carry-
ing his bed excites the attention of the Jews. They find
out that his cure was effected by Jesus. They seek
to kill him for this benevolent deed. He observes, my
Father does not suspend his benevolent operations on
the sabbath, and why should I? The Jews were the
more indignant, because he professed his affinity to
God, and put himself on the same footing with Deity.
Jesus answers them in a connected discourse, the con-
nexion and sense of which I will give in a paraphrase.
You complain of my assuming an equality with God.
Does not an obedient and dutiful son imitate his father
in all things? In like manner I imitate my heavenly
Father. He loves me, and makes me the partner of
LETTER VII.
2.27
his councils, shows me all his own works, and empowers
me to perform similar operations upon earth, and he
will empower me to do greater works than any I have
yet performed, to excite your adrņiration of my power
and your attention to my instructions. It is my Father's
prerogative to raise the dead. He has delegated to me
the power of doing the same work as I please. He has
also appointed me the judge of mankind, so that all men
may honor me as bearing his image, and clothed in his
authority. As my powers are delegated to me by my
Father, and my works performed in imitation of him,
he that does not pay deference to my claims, and honor
me in my official capacity, fails in his allegiance' to
God. But he who allows my claims, and receives and
complies with the message which God sends through
me, will be eternally happy, is free from condemnation,
has passed from death unto life. The time is coming
when I shall attest the divinity of my claims by greater
miracles than you have yet seen. The dead will hear
my voice, and will rise from the bed, Jairius' daughter,
from the bier, the young man at Nain, from the grave,
Lazarus, at my bidding. As my Father has within him
a fountain of life, à vivifying power, he has entrusted to
me similar power; and in virtue of my messiahship, he
has delegated to me a power compared with which the
mere power of raising a few persons from death is in-
significant. He has appointed me the judge of man-
kind, and in the exercise of that office, the time will
come, when I shall call forth all the dead, the good to
happiness and the wicked to condemnation. To be
sure I have no inherent aptness for the office of a
judge. I judge according to the laws of my Father's
appointment, and therefore the retribution which I shall
administer will be a righteous one, because it will be in
accordance to my Father's will. Now I shall not offer
228
LETTER Vil.
one word to prove that this is the true exposition. It
must strike every one as perfectly natural and indispu-
tably true. :
XI. In the last place, I will briefly notice that strik-
ing and conclusive class of passages which teach a
future judgment. Several greek words are used to de-
note this process, but krino is the root of the whole.
Its primitive meaning, as determined by classical greek,
is to separate, to make a distinction. In this sense, it
occurs in Homer. Hence as every judgment implies a
discretionary act, the making of a distinction, the word
came to signify judge, which is its usual meaning in
classical greek and the septuagint. And as the same
persons exercised supreme executive power and admin-
istered justice, from this union of offices came the sense
to rule, which we find seldom or never in classical greek,
seldom in the septuagint, and in not more than three
undoubted instances in the christian scriptures. On the
contrary it means judge in very many places not con-
nected with the question of retribution. Now a judg-
ment implies an examination, a sentence of acquittal or
condemnation, an execution, or else it is null and void.
Consequently these texts most manifestly teach future
rewards and punishments. For why should we be judg-
ed unless to be acquitted or condemned?
1. Will the threatened judgment take place after
death? Let this question receive a satisfactory answer
from the sacred writer. These are the solemn words.
“ It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment.” Can language be more decisive? One
would suppose that so plain a declaration must satisfy
every candid mind. But as it directly contradicts your
system it is to be supposed that every possible effort
would be made to destroy its force. No success how-
ever has attended the labors of your critics on this text.
LETTER VII.
229
Three expositions have been given, differing diametri-
cally from each other, and each one so far-fetched and
so manifestly absurd that I cannot bring myself to give
them even a passing examination. To say that judg-
ment in this verse means returning to dust is truly ridic-
ulous; for what shadow of evidence is there for such an
exposition? What difference does it make to us what
becomes of our body? What punishment or reward is
there in this process? Judgment implies a reward as
well as punishment. To make the text refer to the
high priest, is still more contemptible if possible. I
might show the incongruity of such explanations by
substituting the new meanings; but in this particular
case I refrain from the work, since neither of these
definitions has secured the belief of any individuals with
whom I am acquainted. I must consider this passage
as conclusive evidence that men will be righteously
judged beyond the grave, and consequently rewarded or
punished according to the deeds done in the body. Heb.
9, 27.
2. Listen to another most conclusive passage. “And
he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to
testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the
judge of quick and dead.” Surely if he is to judge the
dead as well as the living there can be no question that
the judgment takes place beyond the grave. But you
contend that dead means those who are dead in tres-
passes and sins, and that Jesus was to judge these with
the converted at the destruction of Jerusalem. Now
make an application of your exposition. Peter was
delivering the first christian sermon to a gentile family.
He should have made the following address in order to
make his hearers understand his instruction. "My
heathen brethren, I am an apostle of Jesus Christ. He
commanded me to preach to the people. I am bound
230
LETTER VII.
to declare that God has commissioned him to judge the
living and the dead. You may not understand my
meaning. I will explain. In about forty years the
Romans will take Jerusalem. Many Jews will perish;
many will be scattered abroad. Those who have em-
braced christianity will escape these temporal calamities.
They will live to be persecuted, some for a longer and
some for a shorter period. By the dead then I mean
those Jews who will not listen to the gospel. By the ..
living I mean the christians who are saved from the
destruction. When therefore I use the word dead, I
mean only the few unbelieving Jews, and not the whole
heathen world; for they neither know nor care any thing
about Jesus. And when also I use the word living, I
mean only the few believers who are to be oppressed by
human persecutors and enemies. All those who perish
in this awful calamity are forever delivered from future
misery, and will be made holy in passing from this world
to heaven. All those who adhere to the true religion
will be admitted to the same mansions in our Father's
house when they shall have experienced more or less
earthly wretchedness. You thus see that this Jesus is
a mere figurative judge, that he is not seen by any who
are judged, that he is not known by many, and that no
one of the whole considers either a reward or punish-
ment as coming from him. He will rule you in a similar
manner. If you obey his precepts you will have more
or less happiness, and if you disobey, more or less mis-
ery.” Now if you can reconcile this with the other
parts of the discourse I am willing. I think this simple
and fair paraphrase on your principles sufficient to show
the absurdity of your exposition. I must therefore re-
gard this passage as teaching future rewards and pun-
ishments. Acts 10. 42.
3. Hear this solemn charge of Paul to Timothy. “I
LETTER VII.
231
charge thee therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who will judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom." This is equally plain
and decisive. The same remarks which I made above
will more fully expose the absurdity of your exposition
of this passage. I will therefore give you the apostle's
meaning in the following paraphrase. “I solemnly ad-
jure you, O Timothy, in the name and presence of that
great God who searches the hearts, who communicates
to all their several talents and qualifications for useful-
ness, and who strictly observes how these talents are
employed; I adjure you further, in the name and as in
the presence of our revered master Jesus Christ, who is
appointed to the high and glorious office of judging the
living and the dead, at whose tribunal we must hereafter
appear, who will make inquisition into our conduct and
reward us according to our works; yes, my friend, I
solemnly adjure you by the solemnities of that awful
day, to which as the disciples of Jesus we look forward
with anxious expectation, when Jesus shall appear again
in pomp and majesty, to raise the dead and to judge the
world; and by the glories of that celestial empire which
will then commence, and in the honors and triumphs of
which we hope, and, if faithful to our profession, shall
certainly bear a conspicuous part; upon all these weighty
and important considerations I adjure and charge you,
as a christian evangelist, proclaim the gospel upon all
occasions and in every place with energy and courage.”
Taking this view of the sentence every thing appears
rational, natural, consistent, striking and instructive. But
upon your supposition, the apostle has no meaning, but
talks nonsense and foolishness. By what rule do you make
the general terms, living and dead, mean the few Jews
and christians who should be particularly interested in
the destruction of Jerusalem? What pertinency had an
232
LETTER VII. -
allusion to the approaching calamity in this letter to
Timothy? I cannot command patience even to ask
questions where the case is so plain. I regard this pas-
sage as conclusive evidence of a future retribution. ?
Tim. 4. 1.
4. Read the following declaration. “Because he
hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the
world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath or-
dained.” This is likewise clear and decisive. Your
writers however give it the same meaning as the others,
and refer the judgment to the temporal calamities com-
ing on the jewish nation. You say the greek word,
oikoumene, rendered world, means the Roman empire,
including Judea, in five instances in the christian scrip-
tures. The simple classical meaning of this word is
the world. In more than half of the instances in which
it occurs in the New Testament, it manifestly includes
Judea. In no case does it mean the gentile world ex-
clusively. It sometimes means the Roman empire, and
sometimes the world taken in its amplest signification,
and sometimes it is used in that lower application in
which we often use colloquially the phrase all the world.
So that to confine it in this instance to a particular part
of the world is to assert rather than prove the position.
But even on this ground, what sense can be made of
the apostle's discourse. Did Jesus judge the Roman
empire within fifty years of the delivery of this mes-
sage? You also assert that the greek word, mello,
means about to be, or near at hand. But the same word
is used in the seventh chapter after this in connexion with
the resurrection of the dead, and no one supposes the
judgment of Christ will take place before that period.
Jesus speaks of his being appointed judge, and the
manner in which he will execute his office. Read my
paraphrase under the last head. Let him be the com-
LETTER VII.
233
mentator on this text. God gave assurance that all
Christ said about himself in this capacity was true by
raising him from the dead. If this is not satisfactory,
just apply your exposition to the passage itself. Acts
17. 31. John 12. 48.
5. Examine the following declaration. “For as many .
as have sinned not being under a law shall without a
law perish; and as many as have sinned under a law
shall by law be judged, in that day when God shall
judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to
my gospel." Two ideas are distinctly stated by the apos-
tle. First, he refers to men who had lived before;
and second, he affirms that they were to be judged
hereafter. This passage so manifestly teaches a judg-
ment after death that not one word need be said in
defence of this meaning. And to spend words to
expose your exposition would be labor lost. The
meaning of the whole may be learnt from the fol-
lowing paraphrase. .“ A righteous God will make a just
discrimination in the punishment of guilt; nor will he
visit the sins of those who possessed imperfect degrees
of moral information with the same severity with which
he will punish those who offend against the clear light
of divine revelation. Some sin against the obscure
intimations of unassisted reason only, being destitute of
the superior information communicated by a written law;
their offences shall be punished in the way reason may
dictate. Others offend against a written and positive
law, which prohibits the crime and declares the penalty;
by that law shall they be tried, and to its condemning
sentence shall they be doomed. There is a day coming
when the secrets of the heart shall be brought to light,
and every man's character shall be made manifest. In
that day God will allot the condition of all mankind in
exact correspondence to the truth of their character;
234
and the gospel, which it is my honorable commission to
publish to the world, announces that the medium through
which this grand event is to take place is the Lord Je-
sus Christ.” Rom. 2. 12, 16. .
6. Hear the account of Paul's discourse before a dis-
tinguished character. “ And as he reasoned of right-
eousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix
trembled." You say that the preacher threatened this
hearer with some temporal affliction. Did he possess the
gift of prophecy in this instance? Or did he guess that
his iniquities would bring down upon his head some
awful calamity. Suppose we put the verse into plain
english, so as to give the force of your exposition. “ Fe-
lix, you have been unrighteous and intemperate. Your
sins have rendered you miserable. You have been so
very wicked God will bring further torment upon you
very shortly, I imagine. But death will soon terminate
all your punishment. You will, arise from the dead a
culated to make a sinner tremble, I know of no argu-
ments which can change his opinion. I consider the
class of passages now quoted perfectly conclusive.
There are several other clear and striking texts of the
same character; but I have not room for their insertion
or exposition. I may simply refer you to the following
places. John 12. 48; 11. 24; 5. 21, 22, 29. 1 Peter
4.5. 2 Cor. 5. 10.
I have not room for any more passages of scripture
in this connexion. That all which I have quoted in
the present and two preceding communications either
teach or imply the doctrine of future retribution I have
no doubt. Were this my individual opinion merely I
should feel extremely diffident in giving it expression.
But I am supported in my conclusions respecting them
by the ablest and best commentators of all denomina-
LETTER VII.
235
tions. Not only so. After I had gone through the
christian scriptures, and selected all the passages which
appeared to me to have a bearing on the present con-
troversy, and arranged them in their respective classes,
I requested the late Professor of Biblical Literature in
the Divinity School in Cambridge to hear me read my
manuscript. He kindly consented, and no text has been
presented which he does not consider either as clearly
implying or plainly teaching future rewards and pun-
ishments. I take pleasure in mentioning this fact, be-
cause proper judges consider this gentleman the most
thorough and able and candid biblical critic in our
country. He has spent years in the study of the
New Testament; his judgment is not liable to be warp-
ed by personal or party considerations; and those who
are acquainted with his deep research, his minute ac-
curacy and his fearless examination, place almost un-
limited confidence in his decision. I would also ac-
knowledge my obligations for some of the contents of
my present letter to my friend, the Tutor in Hebrew
and Mathematics in Harvard University. I shall not
therefore feel the force of any sneers which individuals
of your sect may possibly express in relation to my ex-
positions. of scripture. I have likewise given paraphrases
of many texts from the epistles. Every one of the
number has been taken from the writings of a divine
whom the author of the Modern History of Universal-
ism declares to have been “ ardent in the defence of
universalism." You perceive therefore that men of
candor and learning whom you claim, furnish me with
the true meaning of many texts which clearly prove
my position. Now let me beseech you to read over
every passage in its original connexion. If but one of
the whole number teaches future rewards, and but one
of the whole number teaches future punishments, my
236
LETTER VII.
cause is gained. Can you affirm, in the sincerity of
your soul, that no one of the texts quoted were designed
to inculcate the doctrine of future retribution? I put
the question not only to your conscience but to the
consciences of every honest and intelligent believer in
christianity.
LETTER VIII.
MY DEAR Sir,
Your attention is now invited to some incidental ar-
guments in proof of a future retribution. By incidental
arguments I mean those which naturally arise from the
history of our religion. I mean those indisputable facts
which were never designed as evidence in this contro-
To my mind they are clear and conclusive, and of them-
selves sufficient to establish the truth of my position.
I could extend the number almost indefinitely, but my
limits will permit me to illustrate only five of the most
important.
I. My first incidental argument in proof of a future
retribution is drawn from the history and character of
our Savior. .
1. Suppose you should send a universalist missionary
to a colony who believed in a future retribution. Sup-
pose you should select your most talented, best edu-
cated, most respected preacher. Suppose you employ
him for the express purpose of declaring to them what
238
LETTER VIII.
you consider essential truth in relation to the condition
of mankind beyond the grave. Suppose he should enter
upon his ministerial labors with zeal and animation.
Suppose however that during the first year and a half
he should not allude to the doctrine of no future retri-
bution, which he was expressly commissioned to pro-
claim. What should you think of the man? Should
you not affirm that he was unfaithful to his employer,
unfaithful to the cause of truth, unfaithful to his heav-
enly Father? You certainly would. · Now apply this
illustration to our Savior. You believe that he was
sent by the universal Father to be the redeemer of
mankind. You believe that he was divinely commis-
sioned to proclaim the everlasting gospel. You believe
that his preaching was almost wholly confined to the
jewish nation. You believe that this people with the
punishments. You believe that Jesus declared to them
the gospel, the whole gospel and nothing but the gospel.
Now did he ever teach them that their belief in a future
retribution was erroneous ? No. Did he ever teach
them that a perfect retribution took place in this world?
rewards for the righteous and no punishments for the
wicked in a future existence? No. Did he ever teach
them that all would be happy when they entered the
next conscious being ? No. I answer all these ques-
tions in the negative, and I speak with great positive-
ness. For if any such instructions could have been
found in the scriptures they would have been printed in
large letters on the title page of all your publications.
I challenge you or any other person to mention one
single text which contains either of the ideas described.
Now you admit that the divine Savior knew what would
be the future condition of the sinful and holy. If then
LETTER VIII.
239
your doctrine of no futurè retribution be true, must you
not regard him as unfaithful, unfaithful to the Father
who gave him his commission, unfaithful to the cause
of truth, unfaithful to the souls of his hearers, since he
made no mention of the fact during his whole ministry?
You must if you would preserve consistency and judge.
him by the same rule you would apply to your mission-
ary. Yes, you must admit, either that Jesus was un-
faithful, or that your doctrine of no future retribution is
erroneous, or that it was not considered of sufficient
importance to be once mentioned. There is no other
alternative. You may take which side of the dilemma
you please. For my own part I have no hesitation in
expressing my honest convictions on this question.
And consequently I affirm, that if your doctrine of no
future retribution be true, I must regard our Savior as
unfaithful to his high office; my trust in him as an infal-
lible teacher is destroyed. On the other hand, if the
doctrine of future retribution be admitted, his course
appears wise, consistent and faithful; and he becomes
worthy of unlimited confidence.
2. Suppose your missionary should appear to his
hearers to teach distinctly, future rewards for the right-
eous and future punishments for the wicked. Suppose
he should use the same words and phrases which they
employed to express their belief in these sentiments.
Suppose they were perfectly satisfied with his teachings
in relation to this subject, and regarded his views as
sufficiently orthodox in this particular. What should
you think of his conduct? Should you not affirm, that
he was acting a deceitful part, in thus attempting to
make his hearers believe that his opinions on this ques-
tion were in union with their own; when in reality they
were directly the opposite, and when he had been ex-
pressly commissioned to proclaim the doctrine of no
240
LETTER VIII.
future retribution? You surely would. Now 'apply
this illustration to our Savior. His hearers believed in
future rewards and punishments. They used certain
words to express their belief on this subject. Jesus
knew that these words were employed and understood
in this particular sense. Still he freely used them. He
plainly and unequivocally declared, that the righteous
should be rewarded in ouränos or heaven, and that the
wicked should be punished in gehenna or hell. The
passages in which these words occur have already been
quoted; and it has been satisfactorily shown that his
hearers understand the former to imply future happiness,
and the latter future misery. He gave no intimation
that in his mind a different meaning was attached to the
words in question. They never expressed the least
dissatisfaction with his instructions on this point. Now
had he so much as intimated that there would be no
future retribution, you may rest assured that they
would have raised an outcry which must have been
heard to this period. He left the distinct impression
that the prevailing opinion of his nation on this topic
was correct. Now if he did not agree with them in
sentiment; if he knew there was to be no future retri-
bution; did he not act the part of a deceiver? Was it
not gross deception to make them believe that he held
to the doctrine of future rewards and punishments when
he did not? Certainly, ' If you are consistent you
must admit, either that the divine Jesus was guilty of
glaring' deceit, or that your belief is erroneous. I see
no other alternative. Take which horn of the dilemma
you please. For my own part I have no hesitation in
expressing my honest conviction on this point. I there-
fore affirm, that if the doctrine of no future retribution
be true, I must consider the Savior to be guilty of de-
ception, and consequently unworthy of trust. But if
LETTER VIII.
241
the doctrine of future rewards and punishments be cor-
rect, then his course appears wise, consistent and in-
structive; and he becomes entitled to our warmest con-
fidence. I suppose you will say that the Jews believed
in demons, and that our Savior used language in ac-
commodation to their prevailing sentiments. In answer
I would observe, that he taught great truths respecting
God which were designed to root out all minor errors
on this question. He assured them that our heavenly
Father regulated the minutest events of this world, even
the falling of a sparrow, and consequently there would
be no work left for evil spirits. But all his instructions
are specially adapted to confirm their belief in a future
retribution as a fundamental truth of all true religion.
So that an objection of this kind can have no force
against my argument.
3. Suppose some of the hearers of your missionary
should ask him the following question. “Reverend sir,
do you think that the number of those is small who shall
be saved?” Suppose he should answer in these words:
“My friends, use your most persevering endeavors to
secure your own salvation. Be assured, many will ex-
disappointed. Nor is this all. Ve yourselves shall see
Luther, and Zuingle, and Socinus, and Arminius, and
Wesley, and other worthy reformers in mansions of hap-
piness, while some of you shall be cast into darkness
and despair?" What should you think of such a declara-
tion? What should you say of his conduct? Should
affirm that he had uttered what he knew would leave a
false impression upon the minds of his visiters? You
surely would. Now apply this illustration to our Savior.
When he was on earth the following conversation occur-
red. “One asked him, master, are there few who shall
16
242
LETTER VIII.
be saved? He answered, Force your entrance througin
the straight gate; for many I assure you, will request
to be admitted who shall not prevail. If once the mas-
ter of the house shall have arisen and locked the door,
and ye standing without and knocking, say, master,
master, open to us, he will answer, I know not whence
ye are. Then ye will say, we have eaten and drunk
with thee, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he
will answer, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; re-
move hence all ye workers of unrighteousness. Then
will ensue weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall
see Abram, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets
received into the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves ex-
west, from the north, and from the south, and will place
themselves at table in the kingdom of God.” In refer-
ence to what salvation did a Jew ask this question?
Salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem? Surely
not; for the Jews did not believe such an event to be
possible. They expected to be the triumphant party.
Salvation from present sinfulness? Certainly not; for
they manifested no anxiety or uneasiness on this sub-
ject. No; the question was doubtless proposed in
accordance with the well known sentiment of the phari-
sees that all true Israelites were to share in the happiness
of the future life. And to what does the answer of our
Savior relate? To salvation from any temporal calami-
ties? Surely not; for those to whom he spoke could
not see Abram, Isaac and Jacob entering the christian
church. They could not see them raised from the dead
to be rewarded at the destruction of Jerusalem. They
could not see multitudes come from the four quarters of
the earth. They could not be saved from the most
cruel persecutions by becoming his disciples. No. The
distinct impression which he left on the minds of his
ē
LETTER VIII
243
hearers must have been this; that all would not be saved
from future punishment; that their chief concern was to
about the welfare of others until they had first secured
their own salvation from sinfulness. Now if he knew
there was no danger of any future misery; if he knew
that all would be saved the moment they enter upon the
next conscious existence, why did he not give the hon-
est inquirer a plain answer? Should a believer in future
retribution ask you the same question, would you hesitate
to furnish an honest reply, or should you mislead by
and happy after death, was he not guilty of falsehood in
affirming that some would not secure their salvation?
If you are consistent you must either pronounce him a
liar; or admit that your doctrine of no future retribution
is erroneous. I know of no other alternative. Take
which side of the dilemma you think proper. For my-
self I am ready to declare, that if your doctrine of no
future retribution be true, I must consider the inspired
Savior to have been guilty of falsehood, and consequently
unworthy of confidence; but if men are to be rewarded
and punished beyond the grave, then his answer to the
Jew appears consistent and striking, and his character
is delivered from the slightest suspicion of prevarication.
Luke 13. 23.
4. Suppose your missionary should learn that a num-
ber of his unconverted hearers were obliged to engage
in a bloody warfare. Suppose he should most earnestly
beseech them to repent and obey the gospel, receive
Jesus as their master and openly profess his name. Sup-
pose he should assure them at the same time that their
profession of religion would'expose them to the severest
persecutions and even to death itself. Suppose he knew,
that by becoming practical christians they would expe-
244
LETTER VIII.
rience less happiness and more misery in the present
life, than they would by remaining in an unbelieving
and sinful state? Suppose he firmly believed, that those
who died in their sins would enjoy equal felicity here-
after with those who lived in the most perfect manner
and suffered most in the cause of Christ. What should
you think of such proceedings? Would you not call
this a specimen of egregious folly? You would. Now
apply this illustration to our Savior. When on earth
he solemnly urged his disciples to adhere to his religion.
At the same time he assured them that their profession
would expose them to tribulation, persecution, cruelty,
death. Their sufferings must have been much greater
on account of their religion than they could have been
in an unconverted condition. Now is it reasonable to
suppose the benevolent Jesus would have urged them
to such exposures, if he knew their happiness hereaf-
ter would be no greater than that granted to their ene-
mies and murderers? If then he knew there was no
future retribution, did he not exhibit consummate folly
in entreating them to adhere firmly to his principles,
when he knew their obedience would render their con-
dition in the next world no better, and in the present
existence much worse? For one inspired apostle de-
clared, that if the christians of his day had no hope be-
yond this life, they were of all men most miserable. If
you are consistent, must you not admit that your doc-
trine of no future retribution is false, or pronounce the
anointed Savior guilty of folly and cruelty? Is there
any other alternative? Take which horn of the dilem-
ma you please. For my own part, if the doctrine of no
future retribution be true, I must regard Jesus as guilty
of great cruelty and foolishness, and consequently un-
worthy of confidence; but if rewards and punishments
are hereafter to be equitably distributed, his course ap-
LETTER VIII.
245
pears rational and commendable, and his character is
rescued from the least suspicion of weakness or unprin-
cipled ambition.
Thus, my dear sir, I have noticed a few particulars in
our Savior's history and character which I cannot re-
concile with your belief. If he either knew or believed
that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments
was false, I cannot excuse him from the charges of
unfaithfulness, deception, falsehood, folly and cruelty;
for his uniform mode of preaching and conduct can be
accounted for satisfactorily on no other supposition; and
consequently I must renounce my confidence in his
fidelity, honesty, integrity, wisdom. I make these as-
sertions in the deepest sincerity. They are not the
hasty expressions of an excited moment. I have given
days and weeks and months to the study of this subject.
I therefore state my most deliberate, most solemn con-
victions. Yes; the moment I adopt your belief in the
doctrine of no future retribution, that moment I must
reject the Savior as a faithless, deceitful, silly and cruel
impostor, if I exercise my reason according to the com-
mon rules of forming a judgment. But so long as I find
future rewards and punishments plainly taught in the
scriptures, so long I shall believe him to have been a
faithful, honest, wise and benevolent messenger from
heaven. If there is any way of answering this argu-
ment fairly I know it not; and I leave the evidence for
your candid consideration.
II. My second incidental argument in proof of a fu-
ture retribution is drawn from the history and character
of the apostles.
1. Suppose Jesus Christ should now appear in person
to twelve christian ministers. Suppose he should inform
them that the doctrine of a future righteous retribution
is not true. Suppose he should assure them that all
246
LETTER VIII.
.
mankind will be equally happy on their admission to the
next conscious existence. Would not these preachers
be amazed beyond measure at the appearance of the
Savior? Would they not be greatly astonished at his
solemn declarations? Would not their prejudices be
exceedingly shocked in having an important article blot-
ted at once from their creed? Would not such a com-
munication make a deep and lasting impression on their
minds? Would they not refer to the important period
of visitation and instruction in all their coming years
Would it be possible for them to conceal this important
disclosure in their own bosoms? No; not without the
greatest departure from the known laws of human nature;
not without a greater moral miracle than any of a phys-
ical character which Christ wrought. Had they never
referred to this event should you not believe they had
conspired to deceive the community and were unprinci-
pled impostors? You certainly would. Now apply this
illustration to the twelve apostles. They were selected
from those who firmly believed in future rewards and
punishments. Their belief was thoroughly incorporated
into their whole religious system. They would as soon
have thought of doubting a future existence as the doc-
trine of a future retribution. Now if our Savior had
once informed them that their belief on this point was
erroneous would not their prejudices have been greatly
shocked? Would they not have made an outcry which
no one could have mistaken? Would they not have
remembered the moment when their confidence in an
essential and undisputed article in their confession was
destroyed? Would they not have alluded to this cir-
cumstance both in their preaching and writings? Would
not this course have been natural, according to the
known and invariable laws of human nature? Now
what is the fact? Do the twelve or any one of the
LETTER VIII.
247
number ever allude to any such communication from
their divine master? Do they ever intimate that their
views concerning a future retribution had undergone a
radical change? Do they ever allude to any such ex-
citement as must necessarily have been produced by
such a disclosure? No. Not in a single instance.
Can you then believe that Jesus ever informed them that
their faith in future rewards and punishments was erro-
neous ? that the righteous and wicked would be equally
happy at the resurrection? It is impossible. If you
judge the apostles by the same rules you would apply to
the same number of christian ministers of the present
day, you must admit, either that Jesus never gave them
to understand that there would be no future retribution,
or that they acted a most miraculous part in never allu-
ding to such a communication and consequent change
in their faith, or that they conspired together to deceive
the world on this most important subject. No other alter-
native occurs to my mind. I must believe the apostles
retained their original belief in a future retribution, or
that they were cunning impostors. I find no difficulty
in making my choice; I give you the same liberty.
2. Suppose that Jesus Christ should personally com-
mand these twelve christian ministers to proclaim the
doctrine of no future retribution. Suppose they should
altogether disregard this injunction, and never preach
the truth on this point either in private or public. Should
you not consider them disobedient to their heavenly
master, and unfaithful to the cause of truth? You
would. Now apply this illustration to the apostles.
Jesus commissioned twelve to proclaim the everlasting
gospel. When he selected them from the other inhab-
itants of Judea they were of that class who believed in
future rewards and punishments. If they renounced
their belief in this doctrine, it must have been because
248
LETTER VIII.
Jesus pronounced it erroneous. And if he gave them
any such information, they were to impart it to mankind.
For he commanded them to deliver the message of gląd
tidings to every creature. If true, this doctrine of
no retribution must have constituted a very important
part of their communication. If they believed its truth,
they could not neglect preaching it without being
guilty of disobedience and unfaithfulness. Some of the
number recorded the instructions of their master; they
also preached to jewish and gentile converts who believ-
wicked beyond the grave. Now can you point to one
passage in the whole christian scriptures, in which the
simple fact that there will be no future retribution is
stated? Can you mention one instance in which they
taught this sentiment either to Jews or gentiles? Can
you find the idea recorded in' their letters? No. If
such texts existed they would have been exposed to the
gaze of mankind long before this period of the world.
You are assured that these inspired divines kept back
nothing that was profitable for their hearers. They
declared the whole counsel of God; and having omitted
to state your doctrine is proof positive that it constituted
no part of this counsel. Here then is the indisputable
fact. Can you reconcile their course of conduct with
your system? If they either knew or believed there
would be no future rewards or punishments; if Jesus
had commissioned them to proclaim this sentiment as a
part of his religion, were they not guilty of disobedience
in neglecting his instructions? and of unfaithfulness to
the cause of truth? and of deceit in not removing so
their hearers and readers? I must therefore believe,
either that Jesus never taught them your doctrine, and
that they had no belief in any such system, or that they
LETTER VIII.
· 249
were disobedient, deceitful, unfaithful hypocrites. I find
no difficulty in making my election, and I grant you the
same liberty.
3. Suppose these twelve christian ministers should
not only neglect to mention the doctrine of no future
retribution, but continue to preach rewards and pun-
ishments in the next existence in their accustomed
manner. Suppose they should use the same words and
phrases which they had formerly employed, in relation
to this subject; and the very words and phrases which
their hearers always understood to mean rewards for
the righteous and punishments for the wicked in a
future world. Would you not call them deceivers?
Surely you would. Now apply this illustration to the
apostles. They preached the same gospel which their
master promulgated. They also taught those truths
which they had previously believed, and which he
had confirmed by his testimony. They used the same
language to believers and unbelievers respecting a
future retribution which they had employed to express
their opinions on this subject before their conver-
sion. I have already given copious extracts from
their writings. I will trouble you with but one more
example. Paul was taken from the jewish church.
He was a pharisee of the strictest creed and the most
persecuting disposition. He was supernaturally called
to be an apostle. He received his knowledge of christ-
ianity directly from the ascended Jesus. Had he been
instructed in the doctrine of no future retribution he
would have declared it with great plainness and bold-
ness. But he pursued a contrary course. When an
opportunity arrived for him to give decisive evidence on
the question, we find him confirming his jewish breth
ren in their former belief respecting rewards and pun-
250
LETTER VIII.
ishments. Turn to the history of his ministry and you
find these words. " But when Paul perceived that the
one part were sadducees, and the other pharisees, he
cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a
pharisee, the son of a pharisee; of the hope and resur-
rection of the dead I am called in question.” And on
another occasion he used this explicit language. “There
shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and
the unjust.” Now you cannot mistake the force of
such declarations. You know the pharisees believed
that the good and bad would live again; the righteous
to be rewarded and the wicked to be punished. Paul
distinctly stated that he still adhered to this part of his
former faith; that he was still a pharisee in this parti-
cular, and appeals to his early friends in behalf of its
truth. See how his doctrine was received, not merely
on this occasion, but in all other places. It excited no
opposition except from the unbelieving sadducees. Now
when your preachers visit a society of believers in fu-
ture retribution, and proclaim their opposite belief, is
there not an outcry raised, and opposition maniſested,
and sometimes persecution practised? Look to the
hearers of our Savior, the hearers of his apostles, the
converts to whom the epistles were addressed. All, as
you know, were believers in future rewards and punish-
ments. Do you find one instance of complaint on ac-
count of any departure from their original belief on this
question? Not in a single case; and this is proof con-
clusive that they could not have preached any thing new
on this subject. Now if the apostles either knew or
believed the doctrine of no future retribution was true,
and still preached future rewards and punishments, or
left the impression on the minds of their hearers that
they believed this truth, must you not pronounce them
wilful deceivers? Surely. I must then believe, either
LETTER VIII.
251
that they had no belief in your system or that they were
base impostors. I have no difficulty in saying which;
take the same liberty.
4. Suppose that these twelve christian ministers, after
they knew there would be no rewards and punishments
beyond the grave, after they knew the future condition
of mankind would not be in the least affected by their
present conduct, should labor. to confirm their hearers
in the opposite belief. Suppose they should expose
themselves to all kinds of hardship, fatigue, suffering,
persecution, and even death itself, after they knew their
future happiness would be no greater than that of their
most vile and abandoned enemies and murderers.
Would you not say that they acted a very unwise and
foolish part? Would you not call it egregious folly to
expose themselves to such unmitigated misery for the
sake of inculcating error by their very example? You
would. Now apply this illustration to the apostles.
They cheerfully exposed themselves to every kind of
insult and indignity and torment, and even to the most
cruel and barbarous death. Take the case of Paul,
since he was called directly by the risen Savior; since
he received the whole gospel from his precious lips;
since he was caught up to the third heaven, and must
have known whether it contained any inhabitants, or
provided any rewards for the righteous; or whether the
vile and filthy and depraved were there uniting in the
song of redeeming love. What was his life? One
continued scene of labor, poverty, reproach, suffering
and sorrow. He was scourged, whipped, stoned, beaten
and tormented. What sensations did the condition of
his jewish brethren excite in his bosom? Continual
sorrow. How did he serve the Lord? With many
tears.' In what manner did he warn his Ephesian con-
verts for the space of two years? With tears.' How
252
LETTER VIII.
did he tell the Philippians that many among them were
enemies to the cross of Christ?“ Even weeping:”
But why all this zeal and crying and lamentation?. Be-
cause some of his hearers did not adhere so closely to
the gospel as to secure their share of earthly persecu-
tions? Because in a very few years all would be re-
leased from suffering, and never more experience any
torment? Now had he known or believed that all are
to be made holy and happy the moment they enter upon
the next conscious existence, how unwise his course?
How childish his tears? How foolish his submission
to persecutions? How silly his mental sorrow on
account of the disobedience of his converts? For
what did he thus labor and suffer? For mere no-
... thing. Do men pursue such courses from no motives?
The motive to do good is indeed powerful. But had
he known there was no future retribution; that those
to whom he preached were not made more happy on
account of their goodness since it would expose them
to unparalleled persecutions; must not his whole pro-
ceeding be ranked among the specimens of exquisite
foolishness? But take into account the future righteous
retributions of our Father, and you furnish an adequate
motive for all his patience and perseverance and exer-
tions. I must then believe, either that the apostles did
not believe your doctrine, or that they were great fools
in exposing themselves to such wretchedness without
any proper motive; I find no. difficulty in making my
election; I cheerfully grant you the same liberty.
Thus, my dear sir, you have a few incidents from the
history of the apostles. They were believers in a future
retribution previous to their conversion to christianity.
After this period they give no intimation that their former
faith on this subject was erroneous. They never preach
the doctrine of no future retribution in any shape or on
LETTER VIII.
253
any occasion, which they certainly would not have
omitted had it been taught by Jesus. They used the
same language respecting future rewards and punish-
ments which they had formerly employed for the same
purpose. They exposed themselves to an almost un-
broken series of insults and injuries for the sake of their
religion. Now if they knew the doctrine of no future
retribution to be true, I must regard them as guilty of
disobedience, dishonesty, deception, falsehood and folly.
I see no other alternative. This is my deliberate and
settled conviction. My mind is so constituted that I can
arrive at no other conclusion. But on the other hand
if men are to be rewarded and punished hereafter
according to their present characters, the whole course
of the apostles appears wise and praiseworthy;. deserving
our reverence and imitation. You may take which horn
of the dilemma you choose. For myself I cannot con-
sider the chosen messengers of the divine Savior such
consummate scoundrels and fools, and consequently I
adhere to their faith respecting the future condition of
mankind. .
III. My'third incidental argument in proof of a future
retribution is drawn from the history of the church.
1. You know that the apostles early established
christian churches in various places. You admit that
those individuals who composed them were believers in
a future retribution before their conversion from hethen-
ism and judaism. You acknowledge that pastors were
ordained over these several congregations, who were
also originally believers in future rewards and punish-
ments. Now if the inspired apostles had taught the
doctrine of no future retribution, would they not have
known and remembered the fact? Would they not have
imitated their example? Would not their successors
have proclaimed the same sentiments? Would not the
254
LETTER VIII.
preachers and hearers for the three first centuries have
received the truth on this question? Certainly, it could
not have been otherwise. ,Let us then appeal to the
testimony of the early Fathers. I have no special con-
cern with their opinions on the subject in dispute, for
they were uninspired and fallible mortals. But they
were surely qualified to bear witness in matters of fact.
They were prepared to state whether the doctrine of no
future retribution was handed down by the apostles and
received by christians in their day. On this question
they could not practise deception or conceal the living
truth. They had no possible motive to disguise their
own sentiments. You may rely therefore on their evi-
dence in support of facts of this description. Their
decision on this question must be satisfactory to every
candid inquirer. , .
2. Now what is the testimony of the christian .fa-
thers on this question? Do they inform us that the
doctrine of no future retribution was believed and preach-
ed by the apostles, or embraced by themselves and their
societies? Do they intimate that this doctrine had been
broached, that any controversy had arisen on the subject,
that any of their predecessors entertained such views?
Or on the other hand, do they testify that a belief in
rewards and punishments beyond the grave was handed
down from the apostolic age and universally received by
themselves and their contemporaries? To answer these
questions fully and fairly and satisfactorily, you must
either examine their writings which are extant, or you
must consult some person who has given them a faithful
examination. Is there a hint in any of their remaining
works, that the doctrine of no future retribution was ever
introduced into the christian church? No; I unhesita-
tingly answer in the negative. The truth of my asser-
tion I shall not stop to prove. One of your own sect
LETTER VIII.
255
1T
has written the ancient history of universalism," and
he has not brought forward a single instance of the
kind. Had any fact of this nature existed you may
rest assured that it would have appeared in large letters
on his pages. I regard the question as forever settled,
that no trace of your doctrine can be found in the
records of the church for many ages after the ascension
of our Savior; it necessarily follows that it was unknown
either to the apostles or their successors for many gen-
erations. Now will you affirm that the inspired apos-
tles and christians for sixteen or seventeen hundred
years were ignorant of this important doctrine; or will
you admit that it has no foundation in truth. Take
which side of the dilemma you please. For my own
part I cannot believe without evidence. I must there-
fore conclude that if your doctrine had been true, it
would have been known to the apostles; some traces of
it would have been found in the records of the christian
church; some controversies would have arisen on the
subject; some hints of its corruption and banishment
would have been discovered; but this not being the
case, I must reason consistently, and consequently I
must adopt the conclusion that the doctrine of no future
retribution was never known to the apostles or christian
fathers, and has no foundation in fact or reality.
3. What then do the ancient Fathers teach on this
subject? They are full and explicit in relation to the
future condition of mankind. Without a single excep-
tion they believed in future rewards and punishments.
The truth of this assertion I could demonstrate by an
abundance of passages from their writings, as a learned
friend who has thoroughly investigated this question has
furnished me with the necessary quotations. But as no
man of 'intelligence will deny the correctness of my
position, I deem it superfluous to fill my pages with the
256
extracts. I will however give a few sentences from some
of the more important Fathers. Take the following
from Justin who flourished about one hundred and forty,
years after Christ. " We christians maintain that the
souls of men united with their bodies will be punished.”
" If all men knew these things, no one would indulge
in sin for a short time, knowing he must go to everlast-
ing condemnation by fire, but would rather restrain
himself in every way and adorn himself with virtue, that
he might obtain the good which comes from God and
escape punishment.” “The souls of the pious remain
a worse, expecting the time of judgment; so those who
are worthy to appear before God will die no more, but
the others will be chastised as long as it pleases God
that they should exist and be chastised.” Take the
following from Turtullian who flourished about one hun-
dred and ninety-two. “ The souls of the mass of man-
kind after their separation from the body descend to the
parts below the earth, there to remain until the day of
judgment. The souls of the martyrs alone pass not
through this middle state, but are transferred immedi-
ately to heaven.” “But in what state, it may be asked,
does the soul remain during its abode in the lower parts
of the earth? Does it sleep? Sleep is an affection of
the body, not of the soul. When united to the body,
the soul does not sleep, much less when separated from
the body. No; the righteous judgments of God begin to
take effect in this intermediate state. The souls of the
good receive a foretaste of the happiness, and the souls
of the wicked, of the misery, which will be assigned
them as their everlasting portion, at the day of final ret-
ribution.” Take the following from Origen, who'flour-
ished about two hundred and thirty years after Christ.
“Various places will be assigned to men according to
LETTER VIII.
257
their merits; they will suffer in proportion to their wick-
edness." These are sufficient to show you the decision
of the ancient christians. Now how will you account
for the fact that they uniformly taught the doctrine of
future retribution? Had they ever heard that it was
false; had they supposed it was not plainly revealed in
the scriptures, would they have borne this harmonious
testimony to its truth? You must either suppose that
they all conspired to deceive after ages on this import-
ant question, a most absurd supposition; or you must
suppose that they boldly and fearlessly proclaimed what
they knew had been handed down from the apostles,
and what they believed to be indisputably true. Take
which horn of the dilemma you please. For my own
part I believe their testimony in this matter of fact is to
be implicitly received, and consequently I reject your
doctrine of no future retribution as a very modern in-
vention.
4. But perhaps you will tell me that a majority of the
christian Fathers believed in endless punishment, and
that my argument from their testimony will prove too
much. I admit the fact, but deny the inference. Some
unitarians make great account of this difference of opin-
ion among the early preachers in justification of the
course they pursue. They contend that if our Savior
and his apostles had plainly declared that the punish-
ment of the wicked would be endless, the fact would
have been universally known by their converts and the
Fathers, and consequently no occasion could have been
furnished for dispute' on this question, no divisions
could have arisen on this subject. On the other hand,
they argue that if Jesus and his apostles had plainly
and explicitly declared that all future punishment would
terminate in the final restoration of mankind to holiness
and happiness, this fact would have been universally
258
LETTIR VIII.
known, and consequently all occasion of disagree-
ment on this topic removed. But since they have not
spoken decidedly on either side, since the question of
the duration of punishment was not settled, occasion
was furnished for the discussions and disputes of the
early Fathers on this topic, and on this account you
find them advocating different sentiments. Some held
that the wicked would be raised to life and afterwards
annihilated, such as Arnobius and Justin Martyr. Others
believed in the final reformation and salvation of all
sinners, such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Diodorus
of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The larger
portion indeed used the word in reference to the future.
punishment of the wicked which we translate everlast-
ing or eternal. Now this division fully proves that the
doctrine of no future retribution was unknown in the
first ages of the church; and that the certainty of fu-
ture rewards and punishments was universally adopted,
although the duration of future punishment was left
unsettled. So that instead of the circumstance of the
disagreement among the Fathers proving too much, it
is precisely what some of my brethren appeal to in de-
.fence of their practice in leaving the duration of future
punishment undefined. .
What conclusion is to be drawn from the early history
of the church? The first preachers must have known
if the inspired apostles taught the doctrine of no future
retribution. They would have mentioned the fact had
it existed in some form or other. You find no allusion
to such a circumstance in the history of the period.
You find no trace of the doctrine in any christian writer
for many, very many centuries after the crucifixion. The
evidence is conclusive beyond a doubt that neither the
apostles nor their successors believed the doctrine. You
can neither trace its introduction into the church, nor
LETTER VIII.
259
its corruption, nor its expulsion. Consequently you
must conclude that it never had an existence, until very
recently. On the other hand, had Jesus and his apostles
taught the doctrine of a future retribution, this fact
would have been known. It would have appeared some-
where in the writings of the early Fathers. It does ap-
pear with great prominence, distinction, clearness. The
conclusion is irresistible that the doctrine is founded in
eternal truth. Now you must admit, either that the
christian Fathers were deceived or deceivers, or that
the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was
handed down from the apostolic age. You must also
admit, either that your doctrine of no future retribution
was never known among the early disciples, or that they
combined to practise an imposition upon all succeeding
ages. You must show when your doctrine was introduced
into the church, when corrupted, when banished, or
grant that it never had an existence among the be-
lievers for many centuries after our Savior. You may
take which side of these several dilemmas you please.
For my own part I regard the argument in proof of a
future retribution from the history of the church to be
perfectly satisfactory, conclusive and unanswerable.
IV. My fourth argument in proof of a future retribu-
tion is drawn from the character of the heavenly in-
habitants.
'1. All the inhabitants of heaven desire the salvation
of sinners. Jesus makes us acquainted with their
feelings in the parables of the lost sheep, the piece of
silver and the prodigal son. He represents our heav-
enly Father waiting to meet the returning penitent a
great way off. He assures us that there is joy in the
presence of the angels of God over one sinner that re-
penteth. Yea, he informs us that there “shall be joy
in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than
260
LETTER VIII.
over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repent-
ance.” How is this to be understood? Let me give
an illustration. You have five sons. Four of them
obey your commands, improve their time and talents
and privileges, abstain from vice and dissipation, form
christian characters, become ornaments to society, and
prove great blessings to all their connexions. The other
son pursues a different course, disregards your wishes
and instructions, neglects to improve his means and
opportunities for education, takes to profligate courses,
becomes thoroughly abandoned. Your paternal affec-
tion is not changed by his depravity. You love him
as your offspring. You labor, entreat, threaten. You
weep and pray and beg. But all to no purpose. When
your hope is nearly exhausted, signs of repentance are
visible. You encourage his good resolutions and aid
his progress. He becomes a worthy christian. Now
would not your heart rejoice in such a reformation?
Would it not occupy your thoughts, enter into your
secret devotions, make a part of your midnight dreams,
and burst forth in your friendly conversation. Should
you not feel more real joy at his return from wickedness,
than you had ever experienced on account of the four
who went not astray and needed not repentance? Is
and anxiety and almost despair? This then makes the
passage appear true and beautiful. Such are the feel-
ings of angels, of Jesus, of God towards sinners; and
such their gladness when one returns from his evil ways
to the service of his Maker. Yes, we are assured that
God taketh no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but
that they should reform and live. You thus learn the
disposition of the heavenly inhabitants' towards the
interest in their welfare, desire their salvation, do all
LETTER VIII.
261
to secure their holiness consistent with their moral free-
dom, and greatly rejoice when one is reformed.
2. Now how can you reconcile this disposition of the
heavenly inhabitants with your system? With my
views every thing appears natural, consistent, affecting.
We are free agents. Our goodness is of our own ac-
quisition. Our wickedness comes not by miracle. We
cannot be made holy without our own consent and
strenuous exertions. We cannot forsake our sinfulness
unless we choose and labor for reformation. We are
indeed rendered miserable by our depravity and happy
by our goodness. But the future consequences of our
conduct make us objects of special solicitude to the be-
nevolent inhabitants of heaven. And well may they
rejoice when a sinner is saved from future punishment.
There is something in this to call forth their interest,
their sympathy, their joy. But on your ground I cer-
tainly see no occasion for any thing of the kind. I see
not how God can help taking delight in the death of the
wicked. I should think all good beings ought to feel
great pleasure in such events. Why? Because while
the wicked live, they are doing evil to themselves and
others, they are daily and hourly miserable, they are
growing worse and worse. By removing them to another
existence, you deliver them from all their sufferings,
you put an end to their sinfulness, you save them the
bitterness of repentance, you give them a passport to
heavenly felicity; for they are to be pure and holy and
happy the moment they enter upon the next conscious
existence. Now is it an object of such intense solici-
tude and anxiety to the angels to have a man saved from
the punishment of sin for a few short days or years? If
they knew that all sinners would come among them in
a state of holiness as soon as they arose from the sleep
of death, could they have such feelings? If Jesus had
262
LETTER VIII.
taught that there was joy in heaven at the death of a
sinner, that God took pleasure in the death of the wicked,
every thing would have appeared consistent with your
doctrine of no future retribution; but as he has given
lessons of a directly opposite character, I must believe
n the future punishment of the wicked.
V. My fifth incidental argument in proof of a future
retribution is drawn from the prescribed conditions of
salvation.
1. Faith in Christ is one condition of salvation. This
truth is plainly and repeatedly taught in the gospel.
Read the concluding part of our Savior's commission to
his inspired apostles. “He that believeth and is bap-
tized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be
damned.” This declaration is explicit, and its truth is
confirmed by your own experience and observation.
You perceive that the obedient believer is saved from
his sinfulness and its attendant punishment, and you
know that so long as he remains 'holy he is in no danger
of future torment. You also see that the disobedient
unbeliever is condemned by his wickedness, and you
know he must remain miserable until he forsakes his
depravity. Take another confirmation of this truth from
Paul. “ If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Saved from what?
Sin and its consequences. How? By being influenced
to forsake whatever is wrong and form a christian char-
acter. Let Peter bear his testimony to the same senti-
ment. “Receiving the end of your faith even the sal-
vation of your souls.” What was the end of their faith?
What was it expected to accomplish? The salvation of
their souls from sin and its consequent punishment; the
production of moral goodness and its attendant reward.
Many more passages of a similar import might be quo-
LETTER VIII.
263
ted, but these are sufficient for all present purposes.
You see that this condition of salvation is unalterable in
its nature." You observe that all who practise what
Jesus has commanded exhibit a living faith in his moral
instructions, and are delivered from vice and iniquity.
You also notice that those who disobey his precepts
manifest a want of practical faith in his mission, and are
punished by their bad habits and wicked dispositions and
actions. You never find an individual saved from sin-
fulness without compliance with the christian instruc-
tions. Now you know that many who have enjoyed
gospel light leave this world in an unbelieving and sinful
state of mind and character. Does death destroy this
condition of salvation? This you must prove, or admit
that future retribution is true. Mark 16. 16. Rom.
10.9. 1 Pet. 1. 9.
2. Repentance or reformation is another condition of
salvation. This is also plainly declared in the gospel.
Listen to the following words of our Savior. - And
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations."! Repentance means the.
ness. Remission of sins means their forgiveness which
can be received only on reformation. All this you
know from observation and experience. When the
intemperate man reforms and becomes temperate his
sinfulness is pardoned; but some of the consequences
Paul's account of his preaching. "I have kept back
nothing that was profitable. unto you, but have showed
you and have taught you publicly, and from house to
house, testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks,
repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord
Jesus Christ.” Why did this inspired apostle consider
this preaching profitable to all classes of hearers? Be-
264
LETTER VIII.
cause without reformation no salvation could be experi-
enced. What is the testimony of Peter? - The Lord
is not slack concerning his promise as some men count
slackness; but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to re-
pentance.” Here the implication is plain that those
who did not repent must perish. God does not will or
determine that any should perish, for he has no pleasure
in the death of the wicked; but he grants free agency
to all, and desires every individual to reform his evil
ways. But why reform? So that we may not suffer
the punishment of our wickedness either here or here-
after. These quotations are sufficient for my present
purpose. You know that this condition of salvation is
unalterable in its nature in this world. You perceive
that all who reform are made happy in some degree by
their goodness. But you never knew a sinner become
good without repentance or reformation. You never
heard of a person's being sàved from his sins without
forsaking them. Now will this condition of salvation
be abolished at death. You know that many in christ-
ian lands leave the world unreformed. Will passing
through the grave change their character and furnish
them with holiness? This position you must prove, or
admit the doctrine of a future righteous retribution.
Luke 24. 47. Acts 20. 20. 2 Peter 3. 9.
3. Obedience to the laws of our Father is another
condition of salvation. This is likewise plainly declared
in the gospel. Hear the question of a jewish ruler and
our Savior's answer. “What good thing shall I do that
I. may have eternal life? If thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.” Would the divine Jesus
have made this reply, if he knew the young man could
have entered into life or happiness just as well by dis-
obeying the command? Take another of his declara-
LETTER VIII.
265
tions. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that do-
eth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” The
kingdom of heaven begins on earth, and you perceive
that no one enters without obedience to the divine will.
Look at the instruction of Paul. “God will render
unto every man according to his deeds; to them who by
patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and
honor and immortality, eternal life; but unto them that
are. contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.”
Here the condition of receiving eternal life is persever-
ance in, well doing. Now you can testify to the unal-
terable nature of this condition in the present world.
You never saw a sinner saved from sin without obedience
to the divine will. Will this condition be abolished at
death? Will those who leave this life in a deprayed
condition be made holy without obedience? This you
must prove, or admit the doctrine of future retribution.
Mat. 19. 16, 17; 7. 21. Rom. 2. 6.
4. The kingdom of heaven is closed to certain char-
acters. This is repeatedly declared in the gospel.
Hear Paul's statement. “Know ye not that the un-
righteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers,' nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom
of God." There are many other passages equally ex-
plicit. Now you will ask if this does not refer to the
present life? I admit that the kingdom of heaven is a
phrase very generally used to denote the reign of the
christian religion on earth. But that it sometimes
means a state beyond the grave is perfectly evident.
266
LETTER VIII.
What did our Savior say to his disciples at the last sup-
per?“ Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of
the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new
in the kingdom of God.” This of course refers to a
future existence. And in those passages which threaten
exclusion I have no doubt the meaning extends to an-
other world. For otherwise the apostles were guilty of
uttering the most common truisms. Suppose I should
make the following address to my people next Sunday. :
“Brethren, let me assure you that thieves and drunk-
ards and robbers a: 1 murderers are not christians.
While they remain in this wickedness they cannot enter
the school of Christ. But should they die impenitent
and unreformed, they will inherit the kingdom of heaven
the first moment they awake to an immortal life.” This
must have been Paul'sidea had he received your doctrine.
Is not this simple application of your principle of interpre-
tation sufficient to discover its absurdity? Read the fol-
lowing passages from the book of revelation. “And there
shall in nowise enter into it any thing that defileth, nei-
ther whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie.”
“For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers,
and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and
maketh a lie.” Now you would limit all the passages to
this life. But to make the sacred writers utter such
unnecessary remarks for the sake of supporting a system
seems to be charging upon them your own weakness
without any proof. Will all the vile characters men-
tioned be admitted to the kingdom of heaven hereafter
when they were too debased for christians to associate
with in this world? This you must prove or admit the
certainty of future retribution. 1 Cor. 6. 9. Mark 16.
25. Rev. 21. 27; 22: 15.
How stands the argument from the conditions of sal-
vation? Those who believe, repent and obey, are saved
LETTER VIII.
267
from their sinfulness and become righteous. Those
who refuse to comply with these requisitions remain
unreformed, unsaved and unholy. This we all see and
understand. Now you say these conditions relate only
to this life; I contend that they extend to the next. I
believe that those who die unsaved will need salvation
from their sinfulness before they can be happy; and no
way of reformation is discovered but by the free choice
and voluntary exercise of their own powers. You be-
lieve that all who die unsaved will be fitted for heaven
in some mysterious and miraculous manner before they
enter upon the next conscious existence, although your
belief is not supported by a particle, of evidence from
reason or scripture. Now I reject your opinion for
many reasons, three of which I will briefly mention.
1st. Neither our Savior nor his apostles has once de-
clared that the wicked shall be happy after death; or
saved without reformation. 2d. To limit the prescribed
conditions of salvation to this life makes our Savior and
his apostles appear very weak and silly in many of their
most important instructions. For what was the amount
of all their preaching to sinners on your supposition?
“ You cannot be a christian while you are a murderer.
You cannot have happiness while you live in wicked-
ness. Heaven is open to all of every class and de-
scription of characters; for your passage through the
grave will mould you all into one likeness.” 3d. There
are passages which prove conclusively that the conditions
of salvation are not limited to the present existence.
Take one or two for a specimen. Our Savior uses. this
language to his apostles. “Now the brother shall be-
tray the brother to death, and the father the son; and.
children shall rise up against their parents, and shall
cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of
all men for my name's sake; but he that shall endure to
268
LETTER VIII.
the end shall be saved.” Here you see that death, certain,
literal death, was predicted to them, and still they were
promised salvation if they endured to the end. From
what then could they be saved ? Not death, for this was
predicted. Not sin, nor temporal calamity, nor destruc-
tion of Jerusalem; for the salvation comes after death.
Surely the meaning is plain. If you continue faithful
to my cause until death, you shall be saved from future
misery; you shall be rewarded with a crown of life.
Read these words of our Savior. “He that findeth his
life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake
shall find it." Give this passage your interpretation.
“ If you reject me for the sake of escaping persecution
and death, you will be destroyed at Jerusalem.” This
reads very well. But take the other part. “If you lose
your life in my cause, you shall escape the destruction
of Jerusalem after you are dead." This makes non-
sense and falsehood. We must then refer this to the
future world, and believe that although we die in the
cause of goodness we shall be great gainers; and if we
secure all this world's goods and a long life by disobe-
dience, we shall be infinite losers. The writer to the
Hebrews makes this declaration. “Jesus Christ became
the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey
him.” Here the salvation is not temporal but eternal;
it is not to all but only the obedient. So that Christ
never saves any either here or hereafter except the
obedient. I think enough has been said to show that
the conditions of salvation extend beyond the grave;
and consequently I regard this argument in proof of a
future retribution perfectly conclusive and unanswerable.
Mark 13. 12, 13. Mat. 10. 39. Heb. 5. 9.
Thus, my dear sir, you have the five arguments which
I promised at the beginning of this communication.
Can you possibly reconcile the indisputable facts which
LETTER VIII.
269
I have presented with your doctrine of no future retri-
bution? I know of no way in which that can possibly
be effected. So long as these facts remain, so long the
evidence for future rewards and punishments must stand,
perfect and unanswerable. I appeal to you as a man of
candor, of honesty, of intelligence, and request you to
review each statement separately, and yield to the satis-
factory proofs advanced; or furnish a fair answer to my
reasoning, testimony and conclusions.
LETTER IX.
My Dear Sir,
I will now attend to your objections to the doctrine
of future rewards and punishments. I have examined
many of the publications of your party to ascertain what
they contain on this point. Some of their objections are
so inappropriate that I cannot consider them deserving
a moment's attention. Others may be turned with tenfold
power against your own views. All which relate to end-
less misery I omit of course. None that I have discov-
ered have much plausibility. I will however endeavor to
answer all that I believe can have the least influence upon
candid minds of any description.
I. One objection to a future righteous retribution may
be expressed in this language. “We do not find future
rewards and punishments taught in the Old Testament,
and if the Jews lived without this knowledge, why can-
not christians?" In answer I submit the three following
remarks.
1. You contend that the Jews were not divinely taught
the doctrine of a future retribution Some of your party
also assert that the knowledge of a future life is not
272
LETTER IX.
revealed in their scriptures. Now if they lived without
knowing any thing of another existence, why cannot
christians? If they had no crucified Savior, why was
the death of Jesus needed? What need was there of
giving us any further revelation, since the favored people
lived and died in ignorance of its discoveries? You
perceive that this mode of reasoning proves too much,
and consequently destroys the whole force of your ob-
jection.
2. Suppose I should admit that the Jews were not
taught the doctrine of a future retribution. What fol-
lows? Why, that the revelation of this truth was abso-
lutely needed to produce obedience to the divine laws.
Read the history of that singular nation. Were they
not a stubborn and rebellious race? Were they not
constantly murmuring against heaven? Did they not
frequently relapse into idolatry? Just pause a moment
and consider the nature of this crime, especially to those
who had such indisputable tokens of the divine presence?
Look at the conduct even of several of their greatest,
wisest and best characters. Is it not perfectly evident
from the state of morals among them in almost every
period of their existence that some more powerful mo-
tives were needed to produce reformation and holiness?
Your very objection then furnishes a most powerful
argument against your own system.
3. I will briefly state what I believe to be the exact
truth on this question. The Jews early cherished some
faint belief in another existence, and of some kind of
rewards and punishments hereafter for the conduct of
the present world. This I think can be satisfactorily
proved. That they entertained this belief in the time
of our Savior, with the exception of one sect, no intel-
ligent person can doubt. That their faith in both these
facts was feeble and inoperative every one must ac-
LETTER ix.
273
knowledge. That the intimations of these doctrines in
their sacred writings are few and obscure no one will
deny; and I think these facts are calculated to teach ús
that such indistinct and inoperative views of the nature
and character of the future life are unable to furnish any
high degree of virtue or piety. The Jews of the pres-
ent day believe in another existence, in the spirituality
of the soul, and in a righteous retribution for the deeds
done in the body, as I was lately informed by a most
learned and estimable man of their church; and they
profess to derive these articles of belief from the Old
Testament. You perceive then that the very circum-
stance you mention as an objection to my doctrine fur-
nishes one of the strongest presumptions in its favor. I
have no doubt great injury has been done to the cause
of truth by quoting passages from the hebrew scriptures
in proof of future rewards and punishments, which have
no real bearing on the point. But because men have
wrongly applied some texts, does this destroy my argu-
ment? How. very often have your preachers quoted
texts from the same source to prove your doctrines,
when not one of the number was designed to favor such
sentiments? I consider your first objection fairly and
fully refuted. .
II. A second objection to a future righteous retribu-
tion may be thus stated. “We frequently hear more
said in one modern sermon concerning future rewards
and punishments than we find in all the discourses of
our Savior and his apostles, and hence we conclude the
doctrine is of human origin.” In reply I offer the three
following observations.
1. I hear more said about the doctrine of no future
retribution in one universalist discourse than I find in
the whole bible. Point me to the passage in which
either Moses or the prophets ever taught such a senti-
18
274
LETTER IX.
ment. Mention the chapter and verse in which either
Jesus or his disciples gave the least hint of such an
opinion. Can you do either? Now you will remember
that the inspired preachers of the gospel addressed those
who believed in future rewards and punishments. ' Your
ministers frequently enjoy opportunities of preaching to
those who entertain a similar belief. Do they observe
the same guarded, silence on their peculiar views? Do
their sermons resemble in this particular those recorded
in the christian scriptures? On your own mode of rea-
soning must I not pronounce your system of human
origin and contrivance? And does not your objection
return against yourself with redoubled power?
manner in which many persons embrace universalism.
They have been accustomed to hear the calvinistic doc-
trine of a burning and endless hell proclaimed with
great frequency and boldness. They perceive that ma-
ny passages of scripture are quoted in its defence. They
have only a superficial acquaintance with the sacred
writings. They are at length aroused to meditate on
this important subject. They cannot reconcile such a
sentiment with the goodness or mercy or paternal char-
acter of their heavenly Father, or with the benevolence
and compassion and mission of their Savior. They turn
to the bible and give it a hasty perusal. They find but
here and there a passage which appears to prove the
truth of such a doctrine, when they expected to discover
scores on almost every page. They ascertain that many
which have been quoted for this purpose have no con-
plausible explanations of a different nature can be given
to many more. Finding the testimony of scripture so
different from what they anticipated, they rush to the
opposite extreme. They conclude there can be no fu-
LETTER IX.
275
.
ture retribution because it is not formally and explicitly
declared on all occasions. I have no doubt this is one
prolific source of conversion to your opinions. And the
very statement of these particulars will serve to show
the futility of your objection,
3. I will now state what I believe to be the real truth
on this question. I have already alluded to the hebrew
scriptures. In a former communication I gave some
hints in explanation of the circumstances under which
the gospel was promulgated. Ideas of a similar char-
acter must be mentioned in this connexion. Our Savior
'ture retribution, as your own writers admit. Conse-
quently they had no occasion to introduce the doctrine
as any thing unknown or doubted or disbelieved. They
appealed to it as a motive and thus gave their confirma-
tion of its truth and importance. You will remember
that they had many new truths to deliver, many con-
troversies to settle, much unbelief and wickedness to
overcome. You cannot expect therefore that they would
be constantly introducing a sentiment which no one
rejected. Keep these particulars in mind when you
further reply. I once took up a corrected translation of
the New Testament. I perused it carefully in reference
to this question. I wished to ascertain how often and on
what occasions the doctrine of future retribution was
recognised; implied or distinctly taught. I kept in mind
the belief of the hearers. And I must affirm, that I
discovered an acknowledgment of the doctrine in every
place whëre the circumstances“ either required or per-
mittéd. I considered it ingrained into the whole system
of christianity. It is regarded as a central and indis-
putable and fundamental principle. And had I found it
ofteñer mentioned I'ai not sure but I should have called
276
LETTER IX.
.
it a forgery in those instances; for it would have appeared
forced, unnatural, unnecessary. I should make pre-
cisely the same remarks concerning a future life. It is
but seldom introduced in a distinct and formal manner,
but almost uniformly taken for granted. The same state
of mind which would unfit a person for finding a future
retribution in the gospel would cause him to deny a ſu-
ture existence. By recollecting these important facts
you will perceive that the very infrequency with which
future rewards and punishments are formally introduced
furnishes one of the strongest arguments for their truth.
So that your second objection appears to me to be fairly
and fully refuted.
III. A third objection to a future righteous retribution
may be stated in these terms. - The doctrine of future
rewards and punishments was believed by the heathen;
it never made them virtuous; why then do we need such
a belief to make us holy?" In answer I will make three
separate remarks.
1. You will remember that but few of the gentiles had
a practical belief in a future existence. They indeed
hoped to live after death. They had some evidence for
their faith. But neither their belief nor expectation
was sufficiently powerful for the great purposes of mo-
rality and consolation. This is evident from the fact,
that when their wisest and best philosophers buried en-
deared friends their grief was inconsolable. Their lam-
entations were heart-rending. Their expected support
vanished like mist before the rising sun. And they
were also all their life-time subject to bondage on ac-
count of the fear of death. What did they fear? The
mere pain of dying? Not at all. Such a supposition
is contradicted by the facts of history.. No They
feared annihilation. If then their belief in a future life
was so faint and powerless, their faith in a future retri-
LETTER IX.
277
bution could have exerted but precious little influence
on their conduct; and consequently it is no objection to
this doctrine to appeal to the moral condition of the
heathen.
2. You must also remember that the heathen had lit-
tle or no knowledge of the true God. 'They neither
understood nor felt his paternal character. They knew
nothing of Jesus. They had neither seen his perfect
example, nor read the history of his life. They were
generally destitute of the means of a proper education.
They were under the influence of ignorance and error
in almost every particular. They received no religious
instruction. They had no perfect code of morals. And
to expect such nations to lead christian lives, merely
because they had a belief in a future retribution as firm
as their faith in another existence, would be the height
of absurdity. Their sages declared that it was in vain
to expect a general reformation until heaven should
interfere in their behalf. They did not comprehend the
nature, extent or obligations of virtue; and they did not
reduce to practice all the knowledge of duty which they
did possess. So that to object to the doctrine of future
retribution, because the benighted heathen were not
influenced by it to live a sober, righteous and godly life,
is extremely illiberal and foolish. ..
3. But the moral condition of the heathen furnishes
an unanswerable argument against your system instead
of an objection to the doctrine of a future retribution.
For you must remember that they were human beings.
They possessed human feelings. They were no more
insensible to mental or bodily pain than christians.
They had as keen a penetration into the sufferings of
others. They could as distinctly perceive that sin was
punished on earth. All that you know on this subject
they knew. Still their knowledge did not produce re-
278
LETTER IX.
formation and good morals. This it should have done
if it is sufficient for the moral welfare of the world.
But not having done this, is not an unanswerable argu-
ment furnished against the moral power and influence
of your system? Surely. Not only so. What gave
them their belief in a future retribution? Their own
knowledge and experience and observation. · They
noticed the inequalities of the present existence. They
saw the virtuous persecuted and overwhelmed with af-
fliction. They saw the wicked prosperous and rioting
in the pleasures of earth. Their own hearts and con-
sciences caused them to utter such exclamations as the
following. If the gods are just there must be another
existence, so that the good may be rewarded and the
wicked punished. Your appeal to the state of the
heathen then is turned against your own system, and
instead of furnishing an objection to a future retribu-
tion, is one of the strongest arguments in its favor.
IV. A fourth objection to a future righteous retri-
bution may be thus stated. “You appeal to fear, the
lowest passion in human nature, when you preach fu-
ture misery; now obedience to the divine will ought to
flow. from the principle of filial love.” In answer I
submit the following remarks.
1. Did not our Creator.originally implant the passion
of fear in the human heart? Did not Adam manifest its
power when he had disobeyed his maker? Did not
Cain exhibit its influence when he had committed mur-
der? Has it not been experienced in a greater or less
degree by almost every member of the human family?
Did not fear dwell even with the anointed Jesus? Is it
not now the most influential principle in the bosom of
mankind. Certainly; you will not return a negative
answer to these inquiries. Why then did a Father of
infinite love so arrange our constitution? For good or
LETTER IX.
279
for evil purposes? For good surely, because a being
of infinite wisdom and benevolence could not endow us
with any principle which should necessarily be pro-
ductive of evil. What good then was this passion of
fear designed to effect? It was intended to deter us
from sin, so as to save us from its punishment; and
thus to promote our real happiness by securing our
obedience to the divine law. Is it then wrong to appeal
to the passion of fear which was implanted for the pro-
duction of the greatest blessings? Your objection
therefore is of no force, and applies more directly to
the Author of our nature, than to those who make use
of its various principles for the purposes originally in-
tended.
.2. Is not an appeal made to the passion of fear by
every government human and divine? You are a
father. Do you never warn, your children to avoid
certain actions and courses of conduct? Do you not
assure them that disobedience will be punished in some
way or other, sooner or later? Do you not even threaten
them with positive infliction in certain aggravated
caşes? And what is all this but a direct appeal to fear?
Your neighbor is an instructer of youth. How does
he regulate his pupils? Does he not warn them of the
evil consequences of idleness and disobedience? Does
he not threaten to deprive them of some privileges or
even to inflict corporal punishments, when no other re-
medies will answer? And what is all this but an appeal
to the passion of fear? And what are the laws of our
country? Do they not mention penalties of almost every
description? Are not these almost daily inflicted on
transgressors? Are not many deterred from the com-
mission of crime by fear of human punishments? Surely.
And are not most men daily actuated by this principle?
Why do you resist temptation? Why do you shun the
280
LETTER IX.
precipice? Why do you protect your body from the
weather? Because you fear the consequences of an
opposite conduct. And are there not hundreds and
thousands of the best christians on earth who were in-
duced by fear of punishment to consider their ways,
reform their characters, acquire habits of virtue and
piety? And even in your own preaching do you never
appeal to this principle? O yes. You speak of 'an
earthly hell whenever expediency requires. What is
the difference in telling the sinner that the consequences
of his wickedness will last till death, or in extending
them beyond the grave? In the principle itself, there
is no difference whatever. You.therefore appeal to this
same lowest passion in human nature; and thus destroy
the force of your own objection.
3. Has not our heavenly Father; has not the anointed
Savior; have not the inspired apostles, repeatedly ap-
pealed to the passion of fear? Take a few examples.
In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,
What do you call this? Let us hear the conclusion of
the whole matter. Fear God and keep his command-
ments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God
will bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil. Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell. Here something after the death
of the body is to be feared. Knowing the terrors of
the Lord we persuade mėn. I could multiply extracts
of a similar character almost without number. And
are not all these a direct appeal to the passion of fear?
Now can we imitate better examples than those men-
tioned? Can we know more on this subject than our
Savior? Shall we be in danger of deceiving people if
we use the same language in addressing believers in a
LETTER IX.
281
future retribution, which he and his apostles used in
preaching to a similar class of hearers? If they did
not stop when every threatening was delivered to assure
their converts that all retribution was limited to this
world, ought we to deviate from their common practice.
If they took no.pains to prevent their warnings from
being misunderstood, need we feel any anxiety when
using similar expressions? Now I cheerfully admit
that fear is the lowest passion in human nature. I
uniformly preach that our obedience should flow from a
filial love to our heavenly Father. But this principle
is not always sufficiently powerful to produce reforma-
tion, or restrain from wickedness, or stimulate to per-
severence in holiness. This we all know from our own
experience and observation. And consequently a remedy
is provided in this passion, and an example of appeal
to it furnished by the highest authority. I also believe
that this like every other principle of our nature may
be abused and has been shamefully abused, and no one
hạs exposed these abuses more fearlessly than myself.
Your objection is therefore turned against your own
course with redoubled force.':
V. A fifth'. objection to a future righteous retribution
may be expressed in the following terms. “When you
preach future rewards, you appeal to the principle of
selfishness; you make religion a mere mercenary service;
now we ought to love and serve our Father without any
expectation of future recompense.” Three observa-
tions will place this subject in a proper light.
1. There is a great difference between selfishness and
self-love. Selfishness regards present interest to the
neglect of the future; private welfare to the neglect of
public. Self-love takes into account the whole of hu-
man existence, and the happiness of the whole family.
This is the proper principle of human action; and this
282
LETTER 1.
is the principle to which I appeal. Let me illustrate.
You are placed in this world by a kind Father. He
created you for happiness. . He planted certain laws in
your nature, and revealed them more plainly in his word
so that you may secure the grand object of your crea-
tion. You are destined to survive the dissolution of
the body and live forever in a spiritual world. Your
rational and moral nature undergoes no change except
through your own exertions and the influence of cir-
cumstances. I therefore use every possible motive to
induce you to obey these laws so as to secure real hap-
piness both for time and eternity.' Obedience may
sometimes produce great suffering, require great self-
denial, expose to great persecution; but the future re-
compense comes in here as a support and stimulus to
exertion. If this life has no connexion with another,
then this misery might in many cases be avoided by
disobedience. In my estimation therefore you appeal
wholly to the principle of selfishness, for you advise
people to secure the greatest possible degree of earthly
happiness, without any regard to the future existence.
You teach that every man is fully and equitably reward-
ed and punished on earth; and thus give license for as
much injury to our neighbors as will' yield us more
satisfaction than misery at the present time. If this is
not gross selfishness then I know nothing of the subject.
So that your objection applies more especially to your
own system. ,
2. Now do we not appeal to the principle of self-love
in our dealings with those under our authority? Do we
ever appeal really to any higher principle? You exhort
your children to be virtuous. Why? Simply that they
may be happy. You entreat your pupils to be indus-
trious. Why? Simply that their increased knowledge
may increase their happiness. We beseech our hearers
LETTER IX.
283
to be righteous. Why? Simply that their goodness
· may qualify them for higher degrees of felicity. Now
is there not something more pure, noble, elevated, in
laboring for a future existence in connexion with the
present, than in confining our views to this short pil-
grimage? Which is the most direct appeal to selfish-
ness, to tell a man his christian goodness will effect his
enjoyment only in this life, or in assuring him that its
consequences will be endless? I leave you to decide
these questions. I think you will find that the charge
of selfishness belongs peculiarly to your system.
3. Have we not scriptural authority for such appeals?
Read the promised rewards of our Savior. Did they
not extend beyond the grave? Take those which I have
already quoted as a sample. Did he not himself look for
joy beyond the crucifixion? Was not the hope of this
reward a powerful motive, in inducing him to submit to
the suffering and ignominy of the cross? Was it not
this expectation which supported the apostles under all
their trials and persecutions, nerved them for conflict
and for martyrdom? And what has sustained the afflict-
ed children of God in every age and country? The
expectation of a heavenly reward. Take this away and
you destroy the strongest incentive to great and noble
deeds. I say then to all, be holy. Why? That you
may be happy now, happy in death, happy in another
existence. And if this is an appeal to selfishness, then
I am supported by the example and authority of the divine
Savior.
VI. A sixth objection to a future righteous retribution
may be thus stated. " A good father will not punish his
children without giving them ample warning; many have
no satisfactory evidence that the wicked will be hereafter
punished; consequently they must escape future torment
284
LETTER IX.
because God is a father of infinite goodness." In reply
I will submit three observations. .
1. Look at the punishments of transgression in this
world. Your neighbor accidentally swallows poison.
Sickness the most excruciating follows. This is the
punishment of his disobedience to one of the laws of
his nature. Was his physical suffering any the less on
account of his innocence and ignorance? Did he have
full and ample warning of the approaching calamity ?
You expose yourself to great fatigue and danger. To
preserve your health you drink stimulating liquor. You
come thoroughly intoxicated. Is your bodily pain any the
less on account of your innocence and ignorance? You
are caught abroad in a thunder storm. You do not un-
derstand the principles of natural philosophy. You seek
height attracts the lightning, and you are instantly kill-
ed. Is' the consequence of your disobedience to the
laws of nature any the less severe on account of your
innocence and ignorance? No. I could produce hun-
dreds of similar examples. You find persons often se-
verely punished without the slightest warning. We
learn from experience to avoid the causes of misery.
Your objection then applies to the punishments of the
present world in its full force.
2. Now I believe that christians have more evidence
of future punishment than is given in many instances in
this world. The sense of accountableness is implanted
in your nature. Sin produces a fear of some mysterious
retribution. The murderer carries a hell in his own
bosom. It does not burn less fiercely as he draws to-
wards the close of his mortal pilgrimage. . And on the
bed of death its torments are painful beyond description.
LETTER IX.
285
On your ground he should now rejoice that the hour of
deliverance had arrived. So in other cases. · Let a man
be sincere in his views of the gospel, let him lead a
conscientious and christian life, and he will remain
calm and undisturbed in his last earthly moments. It is
not essential to this result, that he should embrace one
particular form of christianity; there have been happy
death-beds in all denominations. But let a person live
a wicked life, and no system of faith can give him com-
fort in the hour of departure, if he remains impenitent.
There is a feeling of accountableness which cannot be
silenced. Now if your doctrine be correct the most
abandoned sinner need feel no uneasiness in his last
moments. He need not repent of his iniquity, because
he has already received his full punishment. He need
not fear any thing beyond the grave, for nothing but
unmingled happiness awaits his entrance into eternity.
Such should be his condition if your theory is correct.
How different is the testimony of facts. Not an in-
dividual who reads these pages will regret any of his
good deeds when on the bed of death; nor rejoice in
any of his deviations from the path of rectitude. Not
an individual who neglects his duties and lives a sinful
life, if he retains the full exercise of his reason in his
last moments, but will fear future misery. The warnings
therefore of future torment are greater than are given
in cases of temporal retribution.
3. I confine these remarks to those who have been
blessed with christian instruction. I believe future re-
tribution will be perfectly equitable. Those who have
sinned without law must be judged without law. Allow-
ances will be made for all necessary deficiencies. An
omniscient Father is able to make each one realize that
perfect justice has been executed. We are told that
Jesus will judge the world in righteousness. The secrets
286
LETTER IX,
of all hearts shall be laid open. It will then appear
how much warning each one received of future retribu-
tion. Can he' who was early taught his accountableness
to an omnipresent governor; can he who felt deep com-
punctions of conscience for every deviation from the
path of rectitude; can he who has read the instructions
of our Savior; can he who has witnessed the inequali-
ties of the present condition; can he who has been called
by the providence of God to severe afflictions; can such
a person affirm that he received no clear intimations of
future rewards and punishments? Can he rid himself of
a feeling of accountableness to some higher power?
Can he divest himself of the fear of future judgment?
Can he forget his various transgressions? Can be wor-
ship his Father without a love of holiness? No. Every
sinner carries in his own bosom an unanswerable argu-
ment for the certainty of a righteous retribution. Many
have professed to disbelieve this truth, but when aroused
to repentance and reformation, they have declared that
they could never make themselves really believe what
they pretended. I have no doubt this is now the case
with many. So that your objection is turned against
your own system.
VII. A seventh objection to a future righteous retri-
bution may be expressed in the following language. “Is
it not most reasonable that the sinner should be punished
in the same state in which he commits his crimes? Is
it not most unreasonable that he should be recompensed
in a second existence for the conduct of the first? On:
this supposition may not a person suffer in a third-life
for the wickedness of the second?” In answer l'offer
three observations.
1. How is divine retribution administered in this world?
Précisely on this objectionable principle. Take as many
examples as you please. Childhood is a preparation for
LETTER IX.
287
youth. Youth is a preparation for manhood. Manhood
is a preparation for old age. Youth is made happy or
miserable by the habits of childhood. Manhood is made
useful and honorable and happy or useless, degraded and
wretched, by the virtues or vices of youth. Old age is
rendered joyful or unhappy by the character formed in
youth and manhood. This you know from your own
experience and observation. Is youth the same state as
old age? Surely not. Then is it not unreasonable that
old age should be punished for the dissipation of youth?
I need not dwell upon a point so clear. We see for
ourselves that throughout the whole of our mortal life,
retribution extends from one state to another. We see
that men are rewarded and punished in one state for
their conduct in a preceding state. So that your objec-
tion applies with equal force against the present admin-
istration of the divine government as it does to a future
retribution.
2. A future retribution seems absolutely necessary to
vindicate the character of our Savior. He constantly
urged the acquisition of holiness. He directed his fol-
lowers to make any sacrifices, to practise any self-denial,
to submit to the loss of all earthly possessions, to lose
even their lives, rather than do wrong, rather than de-
sert his cause, rather than become wicked. He repeat-
edly informed them that moral excellence was of the
first importance, of the greatest worth, of more value
than any temporal blessings. Now if we are to derive
no benefit hereafter from our present labors; . if our
christian characters are to moulder into dust; if our
holiness must be left this side of eternity, then I can
see no proofs of diġinity in our Savior's example or in-
structions. The character of our Father also suffers
under your system. Take but one instance. Many
sinners, die in the very moment of committing some hor-
288
LETTER IX.
rid crime. Where do they receive their punishment?
Not in this world surely. Had they lived, their suffer-
ings would have been aggravated and long continued.
If they enter heaven without any misery for the sin
committed, do they not escape deserved punishment?
What then becomes of the impartiality of our Father?
Such questions I know have been proposed to your
cannot give honest answers without abandoning the doc-
subject and throw dust before the eyes of their ignorant
readers, while the only important point in dispute is
wholly evaded. · Unless the consequences of our good
and bad deeds follow us beyond the grave we cannot
respect the character either of Jesus or his heavenly
Father.
3. But there is one most important principle. in our
Savior's instructions which seems to have been greatly
overlooked by most denominations. It is this. He
does not make any account of death in his discourses.
He speaks of human beings going forward without in-
terruption. He connects both worlds by the most in-
timate relationship. The next is a mere continuation
- of this. Whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall
never die. The expression in the original is much
stronger than in our translation. Now just carry this
idea to the interpretation of his teachings and you will
find it of immense assistance in ascertaining their true
meaning. When speaking of the prosperity and glory
of his church his view extends to the future existence.
When mentioning the rewards of his followers he ex-
tends the retribution to another world. When predict-
ing the punishment of the wicked he stops not at the
door of death. He sees through the partition which
separates the present from the future.' Look at the
LETTER IX.
289
following passage. Then will the king say to those at
his right hand, come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the formation of the
world; for I was hungry and ye gave me food; I was
thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye
lodged me; I was naked and ye clothed me; I was sick
and ye assisted me; I was in prison and ye visited me.
Regard this language in the highest degree figurative
if you please, still you can produce no facts from history
to prove that the early christians received an earthly
reward in any degree, corresponding to his sublime
promises. You must enter the world where persecution
ceased. The same is true of very many of the lessons
of our Savior. So that in every sense your objection
is fully answered.
VIII. The last objection which I shall notice may be
thus stated. "If the arguments for future retribution
prove any thing, they prove too much; for they prove
that many saints, such as David, Paul, Calvin, our
pious forefathers, and others who have committed great
crimes, must hereafter suffer the consequences of their
wickedness; and this is more than the advocates of the
doctrine wish proved.” In answer I will make three
remarks..
1. I cheerfully admit that the arguments for a future
retribution do prove that every individual must suffer
the just consequences of his iniquity in some form or
other. This constitutes the excellency and the fear-
fulness of the doctrine; for this establishes the impar-
tiality of our Father, and warns every person that he
must eat of the fruits of his own doings. I therefore
believe that David will experience less, happiness on
account of his transgressions; for you have evidence
in his own writings that they tormented him in a greater
or less degree while on earth. I do also believe that
19
290
LETTER IX.
Paul's share of future happiness will be diminished on
account of his cruel persecutions, although he aimed at
the promotion of the divine glory;, for you know the
recollection of them rendered him truly humble and
gave him no small share of uneasiness, as you learn
from his repeated reference to the subject. I do like-
wise believe that.Calvin' must suffer the natural conse-
quences of his unchristian temper and unrighteous deeds,
although he was sincere in his opinions and aimed to
promote the glory of God. I further believe that our
forefathers were imperfect christians, and like all the
children of our impartial parent must be rewarded pre-
cisely according to their deeds. What I say concern-
ing others I believe in relation to myself. He that
knowingly disobeys must suffer severely, while he that
ignorantly transgresses shall be beaten with few stripes.
Retribution must be just and equitable, or our Father
is not impartial. We are assured that he is no respecter
of persons, and consequently will reward every man
precisely according to his character.
2. I am not however surprised that this objection has
been stated. Orthodox opinions and preaching and con-
versation have called it into existence. They teach us
that the elect will not suffer hereafter for the sins of this
life. Many whom they claim as among this number
have been guilty of great wickedness. Many whom
they rank with the reprobate have sustained much better
characters. They assure us that if God changes the
heart of the most abandoned wretch on earth at the last
moment of his mortal existence he will escape all future
punishment. Here is the doctrine of universalism.
You merely say that all are elected. The principle in
both is the same. Yours is much the most rational and
benevolent of the two; for it does not ascribe so great
a degree of partialism to the universal Father. And I
LETTER IX.
291
believe most firmly that the calvinistic notions of election
and instantaneous conversion have been at the founda-
tion of your success in obtaining adherents. There is
but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous; and
but half a step from calvinism to universalism. I reject
both as irrational and unscriptural. , I believe in a
perfect God, in a perfect retribution; iņ no partialism
in the one, in no favoritism in the other.
3. The erroneous views which prevail in relation to
the nature of future retỉibution have aided both sys-
tems. Many suppose that they can be made happy
by entering heaven. If they can but secure an en-
trance within its enclosure they expect to enjoy perfect
felicity. They do not seem to know that the kingdom
of heaven must be within them; that their real happiness
must always depend upon the moral state of their soul;
that a sinful person would find the society and employ-
ments of purified spirits their greatest torment. Others
believe that hell is a place of fire and brimstone, or
something external which will give them misery. They
do not seem to know that hell consists in the depraved
state of the soul, and that so long as their depravity
continues their punishment must remain. Future hap-
piness is the natural consequence of religious goodness.
Future misery is the natural consequence of sinfulness.
No one can become sinful or holy without his own con-
sent and exertions. · No one can become happy without
holiness. So when we speak of christians suffering
the natural consequences of their wickedness in another
life, many profess to be astonished. They believe that
all who can get into heaven will be perfectly happy and
all who go to hell must be perfectly miserable. They .
give figurative language a literal interpretation. They
do not consult the plain teachings of scripture and the
clear deductions of reason. Look into society and you
292
LETTER IX.
may see every variety of character. Strip each indi-
vidual of all disguises. Let the true state of the soul
in every instance be known. Remove all external
causes of happiness and misery. And what would be
the consequence? Why the person of most goodness
would experience the most happiness. The person of
most wickedness would suffer most wretchedness. Be-
tween these two there would be every degree of suffer-
ing and enjoyment. Each individual would have as
much of heaven as he possessed holiness; and as much
of hell as he retained of depravity. Not very dissimilar I
conceive will be our condition on entering the next ex-
istence. All will in this way know themselves thor-
oughly. By taking this view you can see how the sins
any one has committed must detract from his qualifica-
tions for felicity, and consequently you can understand
how the happiness of a saint may be less on account of
great crimes. We are told that in our Father's house
are many mansions, and so provision is made for every
degree of moral excellence; provision is made for re-
warding or punishing every individual precisely accord-
ing to his deserts. And as these views prevail in the
community the doctrines of a partial or a total election
will be abandoned.
Thus, my dear sir, have I answered the principal ob-
jections to the doctrine of a future righteous retribution.
I have not intended to omit any of the least conse-
quence. Some you know have already been noticed;
others will claim a share of attention before I finish the
discussion. Let me ask you to examine my answers,
and inform me of the instances in which they do not
appear satisfactory.
LETTER X.
My Dear Sir,
I will now endeavor to refute the arguments which
your writers have advanced in support of the doctrine
of no future retribution. I know indeed that one who
formerly ranked among your ablest preachers made the
following declaration. " It is not pretended as we know
of, that the scriptures prove there will be no future pun-
ishment.” But within the few last years passages have
been quoted in proof of this belief. One of your num-
ber has published an hundred arguments in defence o
universalism. I perused the tract with the greatest
astonishment. I cannot make myself believe that the
author supposed the texts adduced presented any deci-
sive evidence in favor of his distinguishing views. Be-
fore I proceed to the main business of this communi-
cation, I will make a few remarks on the kind of testimony
needed for your purpose. :
In the first place, to prove your system true, you want
clear, direct, explicit statements of the fact, that a per-
fect retribution takes place on earth, and that there will
294
LETTER X.
be neither rewards nor punishments hereafter for the
deeds done in the body. Passages of scripture which
teach such sentiments would put an end to the contro-
versy. None of this description can be produced. This
single circumstance is enough to satisfy my mind of the
unscriptural character of your theory.
In the second place, many of your proof texts are
quoted from the Old Testament. On your own princi-
ples of interpretation, these passages are nothing to
your purpose. For you contend that a future life was
not made known to the Jews, and consequently to sup-
pose that future happiness was promised to all is a gross
absurdity and contradiction. This very admission on
your part destroys at once all evidence from this quarter.
I shall however briefly allude to some of the quotations
you make from the hebrew scriptures, for the purpose of
showing their irrelevancy.
· In the third place, you quote many passages from the
New Testament which have no bearing upon the ques-
tion, at issue. Take one illustration. You say that
Jesus died for the salvation of all mankind. I admit
the truth of your assertion. But does this statement
prove that those who die impenitent and unreformed
will be saved from all future misery? By no means.
Then it has nothing to do with the controversy. It may
prove restorationism, but has no connexion with univer-
salism. I must however give a passing notice to such
quotations to exhibit their inappropriateness.
In the fourth place, most of the texts you quote appear
to me to furnish the strongest possible evidence against
your own doctrine. Take one example. You affirm
that Jesus is to be the Savior of all men. Very well.
How is the sinner saved? Only by becoming holy.
Now many leave this world unreformed. If Jesus is to
effect their salvation in the only way revealed, then
· LETTER X.
295
surely there is a future retribution. If on the other
hand they are saved by passing from this. world to
another, or by a miracle at the resurrection, then Jesus
has no concern in their salvation; he is in no sense their
Savior. These passages you perceive may prove res-
torationism, but have no bearing upon universalism. I
shall however give a few specimens to show their insuf-
ficiency for your purpose. .
Finally, I must be permitted to state the distinct and
deep impression left on my mind from the perusal of a
large portion of the writings of your denomination. It
is this. The authors of these works seem to me to have
determined that the doctrine of no future retribution
shall be established on some foundation. An effort is
then made to explain away all opposing texts. In this
business various contradictory expositions are given;
some at times plausible, some nonsensical, and some
manifestly absurd. Then every passage which might
lead an unthinking reader to doubt is produced in defence
of your doctrine, and supported by many round asser-
tions, and no small share of sneers at opposite views. I
could illustrate these remarks. by many selections did
iny limits permit; but as I shall have occasion hereafter
to adduce a few specimens of your interpretations of
scripture, I proceed to the appropriate business of the
present letter.
I. You assert that God made a covenant with Abra-
ham, that in him and his seed all nations should be
blessed. You refer to a class of passages in the bible
in proof of your position. You then infer that there
will be no future retribution. Now your inference does
not follow from your premises. For your proof texts
do not say when the promised blessing shall be received.
They do not intimate that a perfect retribution takes
place on earth, or that there shall be no rewards and
296
LETTER X.
punishments beyond the grave, and consequently have
no bearing on the question at issue.
II. You assert that God has declared with an oath,
that unto him every knee shall bow and every tongue
confess. You refer to a class of passages in proof of
the truth of your assertion. You then infer the doc-
trine of no future retribution. Now your inference has
no connexion with your premises. For your proof texts
neither declare nor intimate, that a perfect retribution
takes place in this world, nor that there shall be no
rewards and punishments beyond the grave, and conse-
quently have nothing to do with the controversy.''
III. You assert that God has purposed and willed the .
salvation of all men. You mention a class of texts in
proof of your statement. You then infer that all retri-
bution is confined to this life. Now your conclusion
does not follow from your premises. For your passages
of scripture neither affirm nor intimate that all are re-
warded and punished according to their deeds on earth,
nor that all shall be saved from future rewards and pun-
ishments, and consequently are not at all to your purpose.
IV. You assert that God will not retain his anger
forever; and you adduce passages in proof of your
position. You then infer that all will be made happy the
moment they enter upon the next conscious existence.
Now your conclusion is not legitimately drawn. For
your texts neither prove that a perfect retribution takes
place in this world, nor that the divine anger or punish-
ment will cease with temporal death; and consequently
have no bearing upon the controverted question.
V. You assert that God is the Father of the whole
human family; and you produce a class of passages
which prove this assertion to be true. You then inſer
that none are to be rewarded or punished hereafter for
the conduct of this life. This is not sound reasoning.
LETTER X.
297
Is not God as much the Father of all men now as he
ever will be? Does this fact prevent men from running
into sin and experiencing its consequences? Does this
prevent the sinner from reaping the bitter fruits of his
transgressions long after his reformation? What rea-
son then have you for supposing that his paternal love
will operate só differently after death? None at all;
and consequently this class of passages proves nothing
in favor of your system.
• VI. You assert that the gift of God is eternal life;
and you prove this position by a passage or two from
the scriptures. You then infer that there will be no fu-
ture retribution. Your conclusion does not legitimately
follow. Is not the present life the free gift of our
Father? Have we done any thing to merit an earthly
existence? Surely not. But does the possession of this
gift-make us all happy? Does it destroy our free agency?
Does it prevent us from suffering the natural conse-
quences of our transgressions? Now can you do any thing
ther; and given through Jesus, since he has furnished
incontestable evidence of your immortality. But because
you are to have another life, does it follow that men will.
not be rewarded and punished according to the deeds
done in the body? By no means. Perhaps however
you will say that eternal life means eternal happiness.
Very well. This does not prove your position. For
you are not informed when this happiness shall com-
mence. You are told of some who received it when
they became christians. You never heard of any one
securing this blessing without moral goodness. You
know that this gift is promised upon certain conditions.
Your health is the gift of God in precisely the same
manner. Without your own exertions you cannot secure
298
LETTER X.
the blessing. Without your own consent and labor you
cannot be a christian this side of eternity. If you can
point out any way in which a man can be made holy
without his own choice and exertions, then you will have
more ground on which to stand. But since this is a
moral impossibility, this class of texts neither asserts
nor implies that there shall be no future retribution, and
consequently is nothing to your purpose.
VII: You assert that Jesus is the Savior of the world,
and you prove this by some quotations. You then infer
that none will be hereafter rewarded and punished for
the deeds done in the body. Your conclusion is drawn
toó hastily. This whole class of passages is the strong-
est possible proof against your doctrine. For you know
that many leave this world whom Jesus has not saved.
If he is to be their Savior, there must be some disci-
plinary process in the future life, and consequently the
doctrine of future retribution is established. If they
are saved by death, or the resurrection, or a miracle,
then Jesus is not their Savior, and has no share in their
salvation. If then all men are to be saved by Jesus
there must be future rewards and punishments beyond
the grave.
VIII. You assert that Jesus shall subdue every ene-
my, abolish death, destroy the devil and hell; and in
proof of your assertion you refer to certain passages of
scripture. You then infer that there will be no future
retribution. This is most sophistical reasoning. When
is Christ to subdue all enemies? In this life? Surely
not. If then he has any hand in their conversion it
must be after death; and if they need this reformation
then, of course there must be future punishment. If
they are made holy. in any other process, then he has
nothing to do in their subjugation. Consequently this
LETTER X.
299
against your doctrine. .
IX. You assert that he who is dead is freed from sin;
and you take a passage from its connexion to prove this
statement. You then infer that no one will be miserable
after death. Your conclusion is lame, even if your
premises were correct. For a man may be freed from
sin and still suffer its consequences. Here is a person.
· who has been a common drunkard for twenty years. He
has now thoroughly reformed. He is free from the sin
of intemperance; but is he free from its consequences, the
loss of health, character, property, reputation, confi-
dence, wasted time and privileges? Surely. not. If
then you could free a man from sin by death, its conse-
quences might long remain to give him torment. But
the text mentioned has no such meaning. Formerly it
was 'appealed to with great confidence; now I do not
know that even the most uneducated preacher in your
connexion would quote it in proof of your system; so
that there is no occasion to give a formal exposition of
I have thus passed over very lightly the many proof
texts to which reference is frequently made in support
of the doctrine of universalism. You must see that not
one of the number has the least possible connexion with
the question at issue. Some of them have a direct
bearing on the subject of the duration of future punish-
ment; but this is a point with which I have nothing to
do in my present work. I hope therefore no man will
ever again quote a single passage from the whole num-
ber mentioned above, in proof of the doctrine of no
future punishment; for I could not excuse one who
should be guilty of such a measure from either gross
ignorance or wilful dishonesty. I will now proceed to
the three arguments on which great dependence is
300
placed in defending your system; and will endeavor to
show you that these have still less connexion with the
subject in debate than even the former supposed proofs.
X. Your system formerly rested on the following
foundation. “All sin originates in the flesh, is pun-
ished in the flesh, and terminates with the flesh. The
soul cannot sin, and when liberated must be happy;
death sets it free and heaven becomes its home.”. A
few years since one of your present preachers undertook
to prove that we have no immortal souls, that the whole
man moulders in the dust until the resurrection, and is
then to come forth qualified for future felicity, as pure
glass is made from sand and other ingredients. This
new system was readily embraced by many who began
to discover that the apology for an argument on which
their old scheme rested, began to evaporate before the
rising sun of truth. How the members of your denom-
ination are divided between these two contradictory the-
ories I am unable to state. I will give them both a
passing notice.
and that the soul cannot commit sin, as the old heathen
doctrine that matter is the source of all evil. This has
long since been exploded as a gross absurdity. A little
acquaintance with works of philosophy would have
saved your writers the mortification of having advocated
the false systems of the gentiles. I would recommend
to those who still adhere to this rotten foundation of
universalism to make themselves somewhat acquainted
with the principles of human nature and mental phi-
losophy.
2. You take an entirely erroneous view of the nature
and sources of sin. You suppose sin to begin and end
well enough provided the body would give it no trouble.
LETTER X.
301
If so the soul is no agent and has no share in the pro-
cess by which moral evil is produced. Now have you
never learnt that sin consists in disobedience to the
moral law of God, as well as to the physical laws which
he has implanted in our constitution? Can the body or
the flesh disobey this moral law? Surely not. Then
obedience must be rendered by something else; and
what is this something else, but the soul; the internal
agent; the only agent; indeed all that constitutes the
man a moral being? To say then that the body or flesh
disobeys the moral law is a gross absurdity.
3. But you contend that sin is produced by tempta-
tions arising from the flesh. Suppose for the sake of
argument I admit this. How is sin produced? Why,
the soul yields to the temptations when they might have
been resisted and should have been resisted. This the
soul knows and feels. This constitutes the sin. This
causes the soul to feel guilty; and severe remorse is
the consequence. How happens this that the soul is
punished for the sins of the body? Which is the great-
est torment a sinner experiences, mental or bodily, in
the spirit or the flesh? You cannot hesitate to mention.
the soul. On your ground this is altogether wrong;
and if the soul now suffers because it has yielded to
temptation and committed sin, what is to prevent its
suffering in a future state for the same offences? Nothing.
Perhaps indeed the flesh in many cases furnishes the
occasion, but it is the soul clone that sins, by employing
its moral powers in disobedience rather than in obedi-
ence. This every person must know from his own ex-
perience and observation; and none but those wedded
to a system can have the effrontery to deny so palpable
a truth. So that your system has no support from fact.
4. You ask whether it is not the cravings of appetite
which induce the hungry man to steal food; whether it
302
LETTER Š.
is not a vitiated taste which leads a man to intemperance?
These are doubtless inducements and nothing more, and
on your theory nothing but the appetite and the taste
ought to be punished; while you know that the soul is
in both cases the real sufferer. The appetites or the
cravings are not the sin. They might have been gov-
erned and resisted. Because they were indulged the
offence was committed. The sin consisted in yielding
to the temptation. The man of hunger and intemperance
had the moral power to resist the calls of the appetites.
On your ground I cannot see what in the world the soul
has to do while here. It seems to be imprisoned to no
purpose in the body. It merits 'no reward. It only
remains to suffer exceedingly for yielding to tempta-
tions, and then it is to be pure and holy the moment it
enters another world.
5. But you quote one or two passages of scripture in
support of your position. « The dust shall return to the
earth as it was and the spirit to God who gave it.” For
what purpose does the spirit return to God? To be
happy in heaven? Nothing of the kind is mentioned.
To be judged? Surely every one must give account of
himself to God. If then the soul is sinful, must it not
experience great remorse and torment? Are we not
informed that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living God? Does the child who has disobeyed
his father delight in his presence or find happiness in
his society? Does he not shun him and feel uneasy
when under the inspection of his benignant eye? And
can you believe that the spirit who has blasphemed the
name of God, despised his counsel's, disregarded his
laws, neglected his worship, will find heaven in return-
ing to his more immediate presence? Impossible. You
also assuré us that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God. You make the phrase kingdom of
LETTER X.
303
God refer to this world in all cases except those in which
it will aid your cause to give it an opposite meaning.
Christ's glorious body, but this will not change the moral
character of our soul. Did not Christ have precisely the
same moral character after his resurrection as before his
crucifixion? Surely. How then can laying aside flesh
and blood change our characters? I have dwelt longer
on this argument so called than I intended. Of all
theories ever broached I consider it one of the most
A
your party will now engage in its defence, and conse-
quently I will pass it over as an exploded error both of
heathen and christian writers. .
XI. You draw an argument for the doctrine of no
future retribution from our Savior's answer to the sad-
ducees respecting the woman who had seven husbands.
I perceive that those of your denomination who believe
in no conscious state between death and the resurrection,
place great dependence on this passage. The sadducees
had no belief in a future existence. They watched our
Savior so as to puzzle him with some difficult question.
Read the following account. “Then came to him cer-
tain of the sadducees, which deny that there is any res-
urrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote
unto us, if any man's brother die, having a wife, and
he die without children, that his brother should take his
wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were
therefore seven brethren; and the first took a wife and
died without children. And the second took her to wife
and he died childless. And the third took her; and in
like manner the seven : also; and they left no children
and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore
in the resurrection whose wife of them is she, for seven
had her to wife? And Jesus answering, said unto them,
1
304
LETTER &.
The children of this world marry and are given in mar-
riage, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain
that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither
marry, nor are given in marriage; neither can they die
any more, for they are equal unto the angels; and are
the children of God being the children of the resurrec-
tion. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses show-
ed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for
all live unto him. Then certain of the scribes answer-
ing, said, Master, thou hast well said. And after that
the durst not ask him any question at all.” Thus you
have the whole narration. Luke 20.29. Mark 12. 20.
Mat. 22. 25. .
Now you believe our Savior here taught, that all
should be happy in the resurrection state. You feel au-
thorized from the above conversation to declare, that you
"now know of no condition for man beyond the grave,
but that in which he is as the angels of God in heaven."
You appeal then with great confidence to this passage of
scripture in proof of your doctrine of no future retri-
bution. I reject your exposition for many reasons, a
few of which I will now mention.
1. In this passage our Savior has not taught the
doctrine of no future retribution. He has not uttered a
word or syllable which either affirms or implies that men
are rewarded or punished precisely according to their
deeds in this world. He has not intimated that the
wicked shall experience no punishment beyond the
grave, or the righteous shall receive no reward in another
existence. Neither of these ideas are either stated,
implied, or recognised in his words. This I think you
will admit; and consequently the quotation has no con- .
nexion with thc controversy.
LETTER X.
305
2. The hearers of our Savior did not understand him
to teach the doctrine of no future retribution in this pas-
sage. Suppose he was now on earth. Suppose some
infidels, some unitarian ministers, and some orthodox
preachers were assembled in his presence. Suppose
the infidels should ask him the following questions.
“Sir, a woman of our acquaintance has had seven
husbands. You profess to teach a future existence
which we deny. Can you tell us to which of the number
the woman will belong in the next world?" Suppose
he should return the following answer. "Men neither
marry nor are given in marriage in another life. All
are to be raised pure and holy. All will be happy like
the angels in heaven." What would the orthodox di-
vines say on hearing such sentiments? Would they
utter the following exclamation? - Sir you have now
spoken important truth.” By no means. What would
the infidels say to his remarks? Would they not exult
that the orthodox doctrine of future punishment was,
denied and destroyed ? Surely. And what would be
the course of the unitarians? Would they not mention
the answer of our Savior wherever they went, and pro-
claim the new doctrine with all zeal? This you must
admit.
Now apply this illustration to our Savior and his hear-
ers. Some sadducees who deny a future existence ask
him the following question. “In the resurrection,
whose wife of them shall she be, for seven had her to
wife?” He answers in these words. - They which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given
in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they
are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God,
being the children of the resurrection.” Some of the
jewish scribes were present who believed in future
20
306
LETTER .
retributions. What exclamation did they utter? Hear
their own words. “Master, thou hast well said."
Had they understood him to teach the doctrine of no
future punishment could they have used this language?
Could they have commended him for destroying at one
blow an important article of their creed? No; no man
in his senses will contend for this; consequently they
could not have understood him to teach any thing in-
consistent with their belief in relation to a future retri-
bution. And what did the unbelieving sadducees say
on this occasion? Did they exult in hearing the doc-
trine of their orthodox neighbors destroyed? No. They
acted precisely as if the doctrines believed by the scribes,
the doctrines of a future life and future retribution, had
been confirmed. For we are informed that they dare
not ask him any more questions. And what said the
apostles who heard the whole conversation?. When
called to follow their master they believed in a future
reward and punishments. Did they express any dis-
satisfaction with his answer? None at all. Did they
ever mention this conversation in any of their subse-
quent preaching? We have no evidence of any such
reference. Did they once intimate that their former
faith on this subject had been destroyed? No. When
preaching to those who believed in future rewards and
punishments, did they allude to their belief on this point
as if it was erroneous? Did they not confirm them in
it by all their instructions and examples? Surely. It is
then clear as the sun in the firmament that the hearers
of our Savior did not understand him to teach the doc-
trine of no future punishment in this passage. And I
really hope that your preachers will no longer quote
this conversation in proof of their system, until they
can remove this unanswerable objection to such an ex-
position.
LETTER Xv
307
3. Our Savior never designed to teach the doctrine
of no future retribution in this passage. This is per-
fectly evident from the question proposed and the answer
given. You perceive that the sadducee made no refer-
ence whatever either to rewards or punishments in a
seen in his inquiry. Now had either of the husbands
or the wife been ranked among the unrighteous, he
would naturally have mentioned the circumstance. He
could then have proposed a question of no small diffi-
culty. He could have asked, to which of the righteous
husbands the wicked wife would hereafter belong? And
a solution of this inquiry would have settled forever the
controversy in relation to a future retribution. But he
had known the character of these seven brethren and
the one wife, for he says they were with us," as re-
corded in a parallel passage; and he intimates that they
had obeyed the law of Moses even in the particular of
individuals whom he had known, and its only design
was to ascertain to which of the seven husbands the
one wife would belong in another life. This only point
our Savior kept in distinct view in his answer. He
says that the children of this world marry, but when they
enter the next existence they do not marry. Why?
Because they can die no more, and consequently there
is no need of marriage to fill the vacancies made by
death. They are equal unto the angels. Equal in
what? In knowledge and holiness and happiness? No,
nothing of this nature is even hinted. No. They are
like the angels in two things, in not marrying and in not
dying; they are spiritual and immortal þeings. They
are the children of God. Why? Because they are
the children of the resurrection; because they are alive
again after death; for none but living souls are children
308
LETTER X.
of God; he is not a God of the dead, for when a person
is in death he cannot acknowledge his Maker. Are not
all now on earth his children. Surely. Why so? Be-
cause they are living creatures; made and preserved
and blessed by their common parent; but does this re-
lationship prevent their committing sin and suffering pun-
ishment? Now will those who die unreformed be the
children of God in any different sense hereafter? No-
thing of the kind is implied in the scriptures. Then
they may suffer hereafter for their wickedness as well
as here without any injury to the paternal character. I
think you must be convinced then that there was nothing
either in the question or answer, which shows the least
design on the part of our Savior to teach the doctrine
of no future, retribution.
4. The whole passage harmonizes with the doctrine
of future rewards and punishments. For what are the
principal facts which our Savior mentions? When we
enter the next existence we shall neither marry nor be
given in marriage. This I believe. We shall be like
angels in not marrying and not dying. This I believe.
We shall be spiritual and immortal. All who are rais-
ed will be the children of God, because he has given
them a second life, in the same manner as they were
his children on earth, because he gave them a first
existence. This I believe. These are the prominent
ideas which our Savior advanced. They harmonize
perfectly with my views. But because we shall be made
spiritual and immortal, it by no means follows that the
wicked will be happy, or the righteous go unrewarded.
You plainly perceive that the whole passage expresses
the sentiments of those who believe in a future righteous
retribution. '
5. I cannot reconcile one sentence of our Savior's
answer with your doctrine of no future retribution. · He
LETTER X.
309
speaks of those who " shall be accounted worthy to obtain
that world. To account implies some examination, some
discrimination, some judgment; and is not this to be
performed by the author of the resurrection? To be
worthy means to be deserving. Can this apply to the
body? Surely not; for Paul assures us that in his flesh
dwelt no good thing Consequently we cannot say that
the body deserves to be raised. This word then must
be taken in a moral sense; it relates to a character;
and the inference is plain that some were undeserving.
The phrase, that world, does not necessarily mean the
future life; it may imply a state of happiness in con-
nexion with the resurrection. Let us then see how the
sentence reads with this explanation. Those whom God
shall consider deserving of happiness, as well as the
resurrection from the dead. This is consistent with the
character of the seven brethren, and not in the least
inconsistent with the spiritual and immortal existence.
If then some deserve that world, and also the resurrec-
tion from the dead, the implication is plain that some are
undeserving, though they may secure the resurrection.
Does not this sentence then recognise the doctrine of
future punishment?
6. Your exposition of this passage makes our Savior
contradict himself when speaking on the subject of the
resurrection. He used the word resurrection in three
other places. In the first case he affirms that those
who have manifested benevolence shall be rewarded at
the resurrection of the just. In the second instance, he
good, to the resurrection of happiness; and those who
had done evil, to the resurrection of misery. In the
third example, he calls himself the resurrection and the
the life or happiness he mentions can be received only
310
LETTER X.
by becoming holy, then he may raise us, and still we
may not have secured this heavenly life. Now you
give the word resurrection a figurative meaning in all
these passages, because they plainly condemn your doc-
trine. Why not give it the same signification in the
conversation under review? You have as much evi-
dence and in fact more for such an interpretation. The
shakers do indeed act consistently in this respect. They
call themselves the children of the resurrection, because
they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Nor is
this all. You must take into account all our Savior's
instructions. I have produced, many passages to show
you that he repeatedly taught future rewards and pun-
ishments. Now can you suppose he would contradict
himself? Is it not singular that you can find only this
conversation which you dare mention as favoring your
doctrine? Have I not said enough to establish my po-
sition? I have shown that not a word or syllable of this
passage either declares or implies your doctrine of no
future retribution; that the hearers of our Savior did
not understand him to teach any such sentiment; that he
did not design to convey any such idea; that the whole
passage harmonizes with my belief; that one sentence
cannot be reconciled with your system, and that your
exposition makes our Savior contradict his other repeated
instructions. , I really hope therefore that your preach-
ers and writers will no longer manifest their ignorance
in quoting this passage of scripture in proof of the
doctrine of no future retribution. .
XII. You appeal with great confidence to the fifteenth
chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians in proof of
the doctrine of no future retribution. I will therefore
take a general survey of the whole ground, and show
you that nothing to your purpose can be derived from
this quarter. I think I can also convince you that the
LETTER X.
311
chapter itself furnishes sufficient evidence to upset your
whole system.
1. Not a single verse in the whole chapter either
teaches or implies the doctrine of no future retribution.
Let us examine separately every one which has been
quoted for this purpose.
The first instance is the following. “As in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Now
this death is either temporal or spiritual. In both
senses the declaration is virtually true. All must die a
natural death. All who arrive at years of discretion
become sinners, and consequently die a spiritual death.
In Christ all shall be made alive. This life is either the
next existence or future happiness. In the first sense
it is true, for God has given us a future life through
Christ. In the other particular it may be true, for in
this world we become spiritually alive and happy only
through Christ. And if those who die wicked and im-
penitent cannot be made alive only through Christ, then
they must suffer in a future world until fully reformed
and qualified by holiness for happiness. So that even
on this ground this verse is in direct opposition to your
doctrine. It does not say that all shall be made spirit-
ually alive or happy when they enter upon the next
conscious existence. It does say that all shall be made
alive in Christ, and of course all must know, love and
obey him before they can experience christian salvation.
1 Cor. 15. 22.,
The next passage is the following. “But every man
in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterward they
that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end,
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule,
and all authority, and all power: For he must reign,
till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Now you
312
LETTER X.
will first notice that here is no proof whatever of your
theory. Do any or all of these sentences teach, either
that a perfect retribution takes place on earth, or that
there shall be no rewards or punishments beyond the
grave? No. But the whole passage is in direct oppo-
sition to your scheme. Dissect and examine eaeh mem-
ber for yourself. “Every man shall be raised in his
proper class.” If all are in one class, and are to be
made happy at the same time, what does this mean? By
making different classes the apostle surely destroys your
doctrine of no distinctions beyond the grave. Christ is
the first fruits.' In what condition was he raised? Im-
mortal and incorruptible. Still he had the same mental
and moral character, the same memory and knowledge,
the same affections and love, the same virtue and piety,
as before his death. So that if all are raised after this
model the wicked will surely come forth to condemna-
tion. This idea destroys your notion of a new creation,
and a holy character given by miracle. . Then are to be
raised those who are Christ's. Who are these?, All
the good. Look through the scriptures and you will
find none but the obedient mentioned as belonging to
the Savior. I need not then show how this plainly con-
tradicts your theory. At the coming of Christ. When
is this to be? When this phrase occurs in other places,
you say it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Here
it suits your convenience to have it relate to the day of
resurrection at the end of the world. One of your wri-
ters has lately had the courage to be consistent, and
refers this coming and resurrection to the same de-
struction of the jewish city and polity. Then cometh
the end. When? Why, when he shall have subdued
all enemies, and given up the kingdom to; the Father.
Then some are to be subdued after the resurrection of
those who are Christ’s. Certainly. Then your doctrine
LETTER X.
313
is wholly upset; for if Christ is to subdue any after the
resurrection, then they are not made holy by miracle
nor delivered from future punishment. You thus per-
ceive that these verses are also in direct opposition to
your docrine. 1 Cor. 15. 23, 25.
The next class of passages are the following. "As
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall bear
the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren,
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, .
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold I
show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall
all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality." You see that
not, one hint of your doctrine appears. The apostle
declares that all must bear the image of the heavenly.
Very well. Was he addressing christians or the whole
world? You must prove that the latter are meant be-
fore you gain an argument even for restoration. For he
does not say when this event would take place; neither
does he imply in direct contradiction to what he had
previously said that all are to escape future punishment.
He then teaches that we are to be raised incorruptible.
This is the great word of which so much use is made.
What is its meaning? You assert that it means one
who cannot be corrupted; one who cannot commit ini-
quity; one who cannot suffer punishment. Now such
a definition is perfectly absurd; for on this ground we
should all become machines or Gods. Is there a chris-
tian, is there an angel in heaven, is there an archangel
around the throne, who cannot be corrupted, who cannot
be tempted to sinfulness? Is it not in the power of the
Almighty to place such temptations before any of his
314
LETTER .
creatures as to lead them into wickedness? Do not all
free agents have to exert their moral power to withstand
the allurements to iniquity? Does not the very'essence
of virtue consist in this rigid adherence to the path of
rectitude. Now do you suppose our free agency is to
be destroyed, or that we are to become perfect Gods?
placed beyond the power of temptation and the need of
exertion. Your definition of the word then is truly
ridiculous. Now look at the connexion, lay aside your
party biases, and you will find no difficulty in obtaining
the true meaning of the passage. In this world our
bodies decay and corrupt and perish; in the next exist-
ence we shall not have flesh and blood; we shall have a
spiritual body which cannot decay and become corrupt-
ed. For we are to live forever; we are to be raised
immortal; we must therefore have a spiritual body which
can never see corruption. Those who remain on earth
at the time of the last trump will not die. Their animal
bodies will be changed to spiritual and incorruptible
bodies; and then we may exultingly say, O grave where
is thy victory? This you must perceive to be the true
meaning of the word from the whole connexion. Every
thing is so plain that I cannot possibly bring myself to
offer further evidence in support of this exposition, ex-
cept one passage of Paul from another epistle. These
are his words. “For our conversation is in heaven;
from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things
unto himself." "I think this must be decisive. The
words incorruptible and immortal do not therefore have
any reference whatever to the moral character on which
happiness and misery must depend. They mean that
LETTER X.
315
we shall have spiritual bodies : which are adapted to a
spiritual world, and which can never sink into corruption;
and that in this condition we shall never 'die but live
forever. All this we may possess and still be tormented
in our minds with the most severe agony. How any of
your writers could have appealed to this epistle in de-
fence of your doctrine of no future retribution I cannot
understand. The very texts they quote imply a senti-
ment directly the opposite. I need say no more to prove
that you can produce nothing to your purpose from this
chapter. 1 Cor. 15. 49, 53. Phil. 3. 21.
2. This chapter itself furnishes satisfactory evidence
that Paul did not believe the doctrine of no ſuture retri-
bution. Take a very few passages for examination.
Read the following declaration. “If in this life only
we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miser-
able.” Now this passage destroys at once your system.
You contend that all. men are rewarded and punished
precisely according to their deeds in the present world.
You believe that our future condition is not to be effected
by our present character. Apply these sentiments to
the assertion of the apostle. If he and his converts
were the most miserable of men, then they must have
been the most wicked. We know they were among the
best of their period; consequently they were not re-
warded according to their goodness and your belief in
this particular is proved to be erroneous. What sup-
ported them under their great and unparalleled mise-
ries? The hope of another existence in which they
should receive the recompense of their labors; and of
course the doctrine of future reward is plainly implied.
The following paraphrase will express the meaning of
the apostle. “ Since we who are exposed daily to re-
proach, persecution, and sufferings of every kind, for
the sake of Christ and his cause, have no hope of iemu-
316
LETTER Å.
neration or relief but that which we derive from faith in
Christ, and from the promises of the gospel; if these
should fail us at last, if it should prove after all that Je-
sus is an impostor and his gospel a fable, we are then
the most pitiable, the most unfortunate of mankind; be-
cause we have sacrificed our health, our peace, our
character, our comfort, every thing which makes life
worth enjoying, and in return we'receive nothing but
disappointment, disgrace and ruin.” I think it must be
evident to every candid mind that a believer in your
system could never have written this sentence.
• Take the following passages.And why stand we
in jeopardy every hour? . If after the manner of men I
have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth
it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink for
to-morrow we die. Be not deceived; evil communica-
tions corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness
and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God.”
Here again you perceive a contradiction to your whole
system. On your ground he should have put himself
in danger every hour; for he would be rewarded in this
life for his sacrifices. What advantage did he derive
from his contests with the unchristian opposers?. On your
ground he received all the advantage he deserved.
Suppose he should live again, is he hereafter to be bene-
fited for his exposure, his contests, his sufferings?
Not in the least according to your theory. And why
does he exhort to righteousness and reformation? Would
they make the converts any happier in this life? He
had said their very profession and goodness exposed
them to every affliction; and if these were to be of no
advantage in another existence, how can you reconcile
such advice with honesty? These sentences could
never have been written by a believer in your doctrine
of no future retribution. The following paraphrase will
LETTER X.
317
aid you in obtaining the true meaning of the apostle.
“ If the gospel be true, and if there be a resurrection of
the dead, the teachers of the christian religion are act-
ing a wise, and laudable part in proclaiming the doctrine
of eternal life, and in exposing themselves to daily haz-
ard' for the sake of diffusing christian truth; for they
are serving their fellow creatures in their most essential
interests, and their labor shall not be finally in vain,
even with regard to themselves. But if there be no
resurrection of the dead, it would be the excess of folly
to persist in an office of so great hazard and so little
use. If during my whole stay at Ephesus, I have en-
countered the most savage treatment from wicked and
interested men, who were ready to devour me like beasts
of prey, this conflict as well as many others, I have en-
dured with resolution and cheerfulness, animated by the
hope of a recompense at the resurrection of the just.
But upon the principles that some among you adopt,
what have I to expect? It were better for us all, if
there be no resurrection, and no future life, to renounce
the christian religion which requires temperance, self-
denial and self-government, and to adopt at once the
licentious maxims of the Epicurean philosophy. As
life is short, and we have nothing to expect hereafter,
let us make the most of it while we live, and indulge
ourselves without restraint in the gratifications of sense
and appetite. Do not suffer yourselves to be imposed
upon by this plausible and dangerous maxim, and do
not associate with those who would inculcate such per-
nicious advice.” You perceive that the argument ap-
plies with equal force against your doctrine as the one
then believed by some that there would be no future
life. The whole object of the apostle is to urge to per-
severance in the christian cause, with the expectation
of escaping future punishment, and receiving future
318
LETTER X.
reward. So that a more direct attack upon your system
need not be named. 1 Cor. 15. 30, 34.
Take one more specimen. The apostle concludes
his whole argument in these words. " Therefore, my
beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, immovable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” If
you can read through the whole chapter, and then
say that this last verse does not teach the doctrine of
future rewards, I will furnish satisfactory evidence of
this position. The case is really so plain that I am
ashamed to enter into a formal defence of its truth. As
to this world you know their labor was worse than in
vain; it exposed them to the greatest torments; it pro-
voked such persecutions that they were the most misera-
ble of mankind, consequently, it must secure a future
reward or it would be forever vain. I will quote no
more passages at present. Now you must reconcile
this chapter with all the other writings of the apostle.
Have I not shown beyond all controversy that he taught
future rewards and punishments? And would he con-
tradict in this single chapter the whole tenor of his
preaching and letters? Impossible. I must therefore
conclude that this chapter furnishes in itself sufficient
evidence to upset your whole system.
I have thus answered every argument that I thought
could have the least influence with candid and intelli-
gent readers. If there are others on which you place
any reliance, let them be named, and I will immediately
give them my attention. How feeble must be the
foundation of a religious system which can furnish no
better evidence of its truth; a system which is opposed
to all sound philosophy, to the general current of reve-
lation, to all the great facts of christianity; and which
cannot produce one single passage from the whole bible
LETTER X.
319
which either teaches its character or implies its correct-
ness. Whether a little less boasting on the part of
little less denunciation, and a little more modesty, and
a little more candor, and a little more liberality, would
not be becoming, I leave for you to decide.
LETTER XI.
My Dear Sir,
I will now state some of my objections to modern
universalism. I shall express my honest convictions
without the least reserve. · You will remember that I
am attacking a system of error and not the characters
or motives of its defenders. You will therefore take no
offence at the great plainness of speech which I must
adopt.
I. Modern universalism is an unscriptural system.
This is my firm belief. A few of the reasons which
confirm this opinion may be briefly stated.
1. The scriptures do not teach the system of modern
universalism.. Can you mention a single passage, which
contains the idea, that the righteous are always and
equitably and fully rewarded by their righteousness in
this world? Can you mention a single passage, which
contains the idea, that the wicked are always and equita-
bly and fully punished by their wickedness in the pre-
sent existence? Can you mention a single passage,
which contains the idea, that the righteous shall not be
rewarded hereafter by the righteousness here acquired?
21
322
LETTER XI.
Can you mention one passage, which contains the idea,
that the wicked shall not be punished hereafter by the
wickedness here committed? Can you mention one
passage, which contains the idea, that all mankind are
to'be made happy the first moment they enter upon the
next conscious existence? Can you mention a passage
which contains the idea, that all are to be on a perfect
equality in the future life, and that their future condi-
tion will not be affected by the characters here formed?
No. I have no hesitation in answering these questions
in the negative. You cannot find one text in the whole
bible which teaches your distinguishing sentiments. Is
not your system unscriptural?
2. The scriptures teach doctrines in direct opposition
to modern universalism. Have I not produced plain
passages, which clearly prove that sin does not always
punish the sinner sufficiently? Have I not produced
plain passages, which clearly prove that corporal pun-
ishments were inflicted upon transgressors by divine
authority? Have I not produced plain passages, which
clearly prove that the wicked were not always punished
according to their sinfulness, and that the righteous
were not always rewarded according to their goodness?
Have I not produced plain passages, which clearly prove
that the righteous are hereafter to be rewarded for their
conduct in this world, and that the wicked are to be
hereafter punished for their earthly transgressions?
Have I not mentioned many indisputable facts which
cannot be reconciled with your peculiar views, without
destroying the characters of Jesus and his apostles?
Are not all these positions directly subversive of your
theories? And do they not fully prove that your sys-
tem is unscriptural.
13. The origin of modern universalism proves its un-
scriptural character. Two of your ministers have writ-
LETTER XI.
323
ten the ancient and modern histories of universalism.
Their publications. are wrongly named. They should
have been called the ancient and modern histories of res-
torationism. All that relates to universalism might have
been comprised in a small appendix. Now what accounts
do they give us of your peculiar sentiments? Do they
find them recorded in the writings of early or later christ-
ians? Do they trace them distinctly from the apostles
to the present day? Nothing of the kind. They furnish
no satisfactory evidence of their existence in the church
until within a very recent period. They indeed make
some assertions to the contrary. But have they found
any thing in proof of their positions which is convincing
to their own minds? Could I have produced no better
testimony to show that the doctrine of a future retribu-
tion was embraced by the ancient disciples, would they
not have sneered at my reasoning and ridiculed my con-
clusions? Now if our Savior and his apostles taught
your system, I consider it a moral impossibility that it
could have been so universally banished from the church.
Some clear and indisputable traces of its introduction,
corruption and banishment must have been discovered.
Nor is this all. If the scriptures contain your distin-.
guishing sentiments, would they not have been found
by some of the many learned critics, candid inquirers
after truth, impartial theologians who have lived since
the apostolic age? I must affirm that these facts satisfy
me of the unscriptural character of your doctrines..
4. The manner in which your system has been de-
fended proves its unscriptural character. Sometimes it
has rested on one foundation and sometimes on another
of a directly opposite character. Sometimes it was
said that the soul remained pure and could not suffer
after its release from the body. Sometimes it was pre-
tended that all sin originatės in the flesh, is punished
324
LETTER XI.'
in the flesh, and moulders to dust with the flesh. Some-
times it is argued that men have no immortal souls, that
all sleep until the resurrection, and that we shall then
be qualified for happiness by miracle. Sometimes one
passage of scripture is adduced and sometimes another.
Of late the whole stress of one party has been laid on
our Savior's answer to the sadducees, and on the chapter
of Paul in relation to the resurrection. And then the
efforts made to destroy the meaning of those passages
which teach or imply future retribution have been remark-
able. Several different and even contradictory explana-
tions have been given of the most important. Exposi-
tions have been published which outrage every principle
of sound criticism and every dictate of common sense.
Let me present you with a few specimens from those
who rank among your first divines. Take the following
from Luke. “And I say unto you, my friends, be not
afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no
more that they can do; but I will forewarn you whom
ye shall fear; fear him which after he hath killed, hath
power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you fear him.”
Now read the universalist explanation. “And I say
unto you, my friends, be not so much afraid of them,
(the Jews) who have power only to scourge you in their
synagogues, and to administer cruel tortures to your
bodies, but have no authority to take your lives, as of
that more extensive authority, (the Romans), to which
your brethren the Jews will deliver you, by bringing
you before governors and kings; for this power can,
after inflicting cruelties on your bodies, doom your lives
and bodies to be destroyed in gehenna." Take another
example from the same author. "And as it is appoint-
ed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
Here you have the meaning. “And as it is appointed
unto men once to die, means, as it is appointed unto the
LETTER XI.
325
passadeople sment
men who are high priests, to die once a year, by proxy,
in their sacrifices; and after this the judgment,'means,
after the, high priest died in his sacrifice, he entered
into the most holy place, bearing the judgment of the
people, or the justification of the people." Take an-
other explanation of the same passage. “What judg-
ment comes after death? I answer the judgment God
pronounced on all mankind; dust thou art and unto dust
thou shalt return.” I could fill a volume with similar
specimens. While reading the various criticisms of
your writers, the words of the poet have been deeply
impressed on my mind. “A little learning is a danger-
ous thing."
5. Modern universalism destroys the impartiality of
our Father. Have I not proved that no perfect retri-
bution takes place on earth? Have I not produced
satisfactory evidence that all are not rewarded and pun-
ished according to their deeds? Have I not clearly
shown that the wicked frequently escape deserved pun-
ishment, and the righteous receive undeserved inflic-
tion? Have I not shown that an inequality in the means
of improvement and happiness, of rewards and punish-
ments, exists in this world? Does not the bible assure
us that God is the Father of all, that he is no respecter
of persons, that he will render unto every man according
to his deeds? Unless the inequalities of the present life
are hereafter equalized you cannot preserve his impar-
tiality. You must admit that he manifested partialism
towards individuals and nations. And does not this
destroy his strictly paternal character, and consequently
render such a belief unscriptural?
6. Modern universalism makes our heavenly Father
a cruel and vindictive being. Why does an earthly
parent punish his disobedient child? To produce refor-
mation and improvement. What is the design of the
326
LETTER XI.
divine punishment?' Discipline and correction? Or
revenge and torture? Look at yonder hardened wretch
who has been suffering the painful consequences of his
sins for twenty years. His torment has been gradually
increasing with his wickedness. No reformation is yet
produced. In all probability he will drop into the grave
unreformed. Why has God tormented him so severely
and for so long a period? To gratify his own resentment,
or to produce repentance and holiness? If you say the
former, then you make God a cruel tyrant; if you say
the latter, then you must admit that the benevolent de-
sign has not yet been accomplished; and consequently
he must continue to suffer until punishment produces its
proper results. Now you may find hundreds and thou-
sands whom punishment has not reformed; and if God
is infinitely benevolent and perfectly just, their discipline
must continue until it terminates in salvation. And
since God is represented as a kind and merciful Father,
does not your doctrine become unscriptural?
7. Modern universalism takes the work of the Savior
out of his hands. He came to redeem men from their
iniquities. He accomplishes this salvation by moral
means. Many leave the world unreformed. If they
enter upon heavenly happiness when they awake from
the sleep of death, then Jesus has no share in their
redemption. They are made holy either by passing
through the grave, or by the resurrection, or by an im-
mediate miracle; in either case the work is taken from
the hands of him who was appointed to subdue, every
enemy to the universal Father. Does not such a sup-
position contradict the teachings of revelation, and thus
become unscriptural?
8. Modern universalism makes the labors and suffer-
ings and instructions of our Savior and his apostles of
no real value. For what did they exert themselves?
LETTER XI.
327
To save a few Jews from the destruction of Jerusalem.
For what did they expose themselves to the most severe
persecutions? To save a remnant of the chosen people
from temporal death. For what were their lessons of
wisdom given? To rescue some of their brethren from
a few moments of bodily pain. All of those who were
destroyed in the calamity went to heaven. The few
who were delivered and redeemed were exposed to afflic-
tions and tortures more excruciating than temporal death.
Yes; your mode of explaining the scriptures confines
almost all their efforts to this paltry, insignificant pur-
pose. And is not this an unscriptural interpretation?
9. Modern universalism destroys all of christianity
which can be of serious interest to us of the present
period. You limit all threatened punishment to the
present world. On the same principles of interpretation,
you must also limit all the promises of happiness to this
life. There is no possible way in which you can hon-
estly avoid this conclusion. I am glad to find some of
your writers consistent. One has lately undertaken to
show that those passages which teach the resurrec-
tion of the dead must be confined to the mortal existence;
that the day of resurrection commenced at the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem; that all the descriptions which relate to
this event in the epistles are to be thus applied. There can
be no other honest course. Now in what passages is a
future life declared? What is to be the future condition
of mankind? What have we to do with the history
of transactions which have long since transpired? What
christianity remains for our use? How many passages
will be left for our particular benefit? I do hope that
you will endeavor to ascertain to what results your
principles of interpretation must necessarily lead. I
must consider a system unscriptural which confines
christianity to a particular period and for a temporal
purpose.
328
LETTER XI.
10. Modern universalism saps the foundation of chris-
tian morality. There is a right and a wrong in every
thing. Jesus instructs ụs to adhere to the right in all
cases, although our obedience should expose us to great
self-denial, severe persecution, the most excruciating
tortures, and even death itself. And why should this
be done if this world has no connexion with another?
On your ground, the rule of conduct must come to
nothing more than atheistical morality. You are to
take such courses as will insure the greatest degree of
present happiness. This can frequently be obtained by
deviations from the path of rectitude. Conscience must
become nearly powerless when all fear of an hereafter
is removed. And consequently the principle of expe-
diency becomes the standard of duty. Is not this un-
christian, and is not a system which necessarily leads to
this result unscriptural?
I could mention many more reasons did my limits
permit. These are sufficient to convince you that I
have not taken up my present opinion without examina-
tion or evidence. If these arguments are sound, as I
verily believe, they ought to awaken an alarm in your
mind. You have no desire to uphold an unscriptural
system. Then follow out the few hints I have men-
tioned; see if you can furnish a text from which to
preach your distinguishing views; see if the passages I
have quoted do not destroy your theories; see if you can
find any distinct traces of your sentiments in the early
ages of the church; look at the various defences which
have been written; .examine the history of Jesus and
his apostles; ascertain if the character of your heavenly
Father remains untouched, and decide for yourself,
whether modern universalism is unscriptural, the inven-
tion of men, or whether it is the very gospel which Je-
sus taught and in proof of which he laid down his pre-
cious life.
LETTER XI.
329
* II. Modern universalism is an irrational system. I
shall attempt to prove, that it is not the dictate of rea-
son, that it does not coincide with the decisions of rea-
son, that it is opposed to the soundest conclusions of
reason. A few of the arguments which confirm this
opinion I will briefly state.
1. Modern universalism is not the dictate of reason.
Look at the great company of reasonable beings whose
history is known. Has their reason declared that a
perfect retribution took place on earth? Has their rea-
son discovered that men will be neither rewarded nor
punished beyond the grave for the deeds done in the
body? Has their reason adopted the conclusion that
all mankind will be happy the moment they enter upon
the next conscious existence? Has their reason taught
that all will be upon an equality in the heavenly world?
No. You will admit that no such views have generally
prevailed in any age, in any nation, in any religion; and
consequently your system is proved irrational.
2. Human reason has taught doctrines directly con-
trary to modern universalism. It has proclaimed that a
perfect retribution does not take place on earth. It has
concluded that men must be rewarded and punished
hereafter for the deeds done in the body. It has deter-
mined that distinctions must hereafter be made according
to moral goodness. Are not all these views opposed to
your theories? And have not the great majority in all
times and places and churches adopted these deductions
of reason? This you will admit, and consequently your
system is proved irrational. My four next reasons are
taken from a late volume of discourses by Dr. Channing.
Since the ideas are expressed with so much more beauty
and power than I could possibly give them, no apology
is needed for borrowing his language.
3. “It is maintained by some among us, that punish-
LETTER XI.
ment is confined to the present state; that in changing
worlds we shall change our characters; that moral evil
is to be buried with the body in the grave. As this opin-
ion is spread industriously, and as it tends to diminish
the dread of sin, it deserves some notice. To my mind
a more irrational doctrine was never broached. In the
first place, it contradicts all our experience of the nature
and laws of mind. There is nothing more striking in
Our present knowledge, thoughts, feelings, characters,
are the results of former impressions, passions, and purt
suits. We are at this moment what the past has made
us; and to suppose, that, at death, the influences of our
whole past course are to cease on our minds, and that a
character is to spring up at war with what has preceded
it, is to suppose the most important law or principle of
the mind to be violated, is to destroy all analogy between
the present and the future, and to substitute for experi-
ence the wildest dreams of fancy. In truth, such a
sudden revolution in the character, as is here supposed,
transformed, can hardly seem to himself or to others the
same being. It is equivalent to the creation of a new
soul.”
4. “Let me next ask, what fact can be adduced in
proof or illustration of the power ascribed to death, of
changing and purifying the mind?. What is death?
It is the dissolution of certain limbs and organs by which
the soul now acts. But these, however closely connected
with the mind, are entirely distinct from its powers, from
thought and will, from conscience and affection. Why
should the last grow pure from the dissolution of the
first? Why shall the mind put on a new character, by
laying aside the gross instruments through which it now
operates? At death, the hands, the feet, the eye, and
LETTER XI.
331
the ear perish. But they often perish during life; and
does character change with them? It is true that our
animal appetites are weakened and sometimes destroyed
by the decay of the bodily organs on which they depend.
But our deeper principles of action, and the moral
complexion of the mind, are not therefore reversed. It
often happens, that the sensualist, broken down by dis-
ease, which excess has induced, comes to loathe the
luxuries to which he was once enslaved; but do his
selfishness, his low habits of thought, his insensibility to
God, decline and perish with his animal desires? Lop
off the criminal's hands, does the disposition to do
mischief vanish with them? When the feet mortify, do
we see a corresponding mortification of the will to go
astray? The loss of sight or hearing is a partial death;
but is a single vice plucked from the mind, or one of its
strong passions palsied, by this destruction of its chief
corporeal instruments?”
5. “Again; the idea that by dying, or changing
worlds, a man may be made better or virtuous, shows an
ignorance of the nature of moral goodness or virtue.
This belongs to free beings; it supposes moral liberty. A
man cannot be made virtuous, as an instrument may be
put in tune, by a foreign hand, by an outward force.
is the fruit of exertion. It supposes conquest of temp-
tation. It cannot be given from abroad to one who has
wasted life, or steeped himself in crime. To suppose
moral goodness breathed from abroad into the guilty
mind, just as health may be imparted to a sick body, is
to overlook the distinction between corporeal and intel-
lectual natures, and to degrade a free being into a ma-
6. “I will only add, that to suppose no connexion to
exist between the present and the future character,
332
LETTER XI.
is to take away the use of the present state. Why are
we placed in a state of discipline, exposed to temptation,
encompassed with suffering, if without discipline, and
by a soverign act of omnipotence, we are all of us, be
our present characters what they may, soon and sud-
denly to be made perfect in virtue, and perfect in happi-
ness?".
“Let us not listen for a moment to a doctrine so
irrational, as that our present characters do not follow
us into a future world. If we are to live again, let us
settle it as a sure fact, that we shall carry with us our
present minds, such as we now make them; that we
shall reap good or ill according to their improvement or
corruption; and, of consequence, that every act, which
affects character will reach in its influences beyond the
grave, and have a bearing on our future weal or wo.
We are now framing our future lot. He who does a
bad deed says, more strongly than words can utter, 'I
cast'away a portion of future good, I resolve on future
pain!'”
7. I regard modern universalism as a cruel doctrine.
Here is a christian wife. She has had 'five children.
They lived to the age of youth, and excited the strong-
est hopes of their friends. One after another was taken
in the very bloom of innocence. All have departed.
In the mean time the health of their mother was origin-
ally feeble. She has been gradually sinking. For
many years she has not known a well day. Hours and
hours she has suffered the most excruciating pains. She
still lingers in a state of extreme debility and suffering.
Now you visit her with your system. You make a di-
rect application to her case in these words. "Madam,
I bring you the consolations of the gospel. Your Father
is an impartial being. He rewards and punishes in this
life exactly according to the deeds done in the body.
LETTER XI.
333
You appear to have been long and greatly miserable.
Of course you must be ranked among the most depraved.
Though your sins have been concealed from the eyes of
the world, there is doubtless great pollution within. I
would therefore exhort you to repent, to forsake your
evil ways, and thus secure temporal happiness.” Should
you call this the message of kindness or of cruelty? It
sounds to me very much like the language of Job's
comforters whom the Lord considered guilty of false-
hood. If you are consistent with your views I know
not how you can help giving such instructions in all
cases of great aflliction. And is not this grossly irra-
tional ?
8. Modern universalism makes condition the criterion
of character. Every sinner is punished exactly ac-
cording to his wickedness. Here is a man in great
prosperity. His riches have increased. His children
His mind is not disturbed by anxiety or remorse or pain.
him the sentiments of your system. “Sir, I rejoice in
your acquaintance. I must pronounce you the best
christian I ever knew. The Lord has shown you spe-
cial favors, on account of your superior holiness. You
experience no misery. Happiness dwells in your bosom
from day to day without intermission. Persevere in the
way you have begun and the blessing of heaven shall
attend you to the grave.” You call upon his next
neighbor, a poor, sorrow-stricken, disconsolate widow.
You ask if her rich neighbor is not one of the most
perfect of mortals. You learn that he is regarded by
those who know him best, a dishonest, unprincipled, un-
believing, libertine. You hear of his acts of fraud,
violence, cruelty, seduction, which make you shudder
at the recital. You learn that he has no belief in God
334
LETTER XI.
or futurity, no fear of hell or expectation of heaven, no
conscience and no rule of duty but sheer selfishness.
You find that he is one of the exceptions to common
rules. His peculiar constitutional temperament, his
almost perfect health, his thorough unbelief, his tempo-
ral prosperity, all conspire to produce this tranquillity
and apparent enjoyment. Is it rational then to deter-
mine a man's character by his outward or inward con-
dition?
Such are a few of the reasons for my belief. I hope
you will give them a candid consideration. I commend
to your special notice the extracts with which I 'have
enriched my pages. If any fair answer can be given to
these arguments I know it not; but I am ready to listen
to manly discussion and sound reasoning. .
III. The tendency of modern universalism is pernicious.
You will not of course expect me to speak of its actual
influence on those who have embraced the system.
This would be foreign from my present object and on
many accounts improper. The scheme as it now exists
is of very recent origin. It is not received by religious
societies in any other country. In our own land it is
united with views of a redeeming character. Many
preachers who are supposed to believe in its truth sel-
dom or never proclaim it with distinctness and boldness.
Many persons who are ranked in the denomination have
no definite notions on the subject, and many are decided
restorationists. The number of those who have made
a public profession of religion is very small in compari-
son with the whole body. A portion of these hold to
future rewards and punishments. Probably not more
than five hundred in the United States who avow their
firm belief in the peculiar doctrines of the party belong
to the church. Most of these had formed christian
characters under other influences, opinions and preach-
LETTER XI.
335
ing. They doubtless exhibit as correct morals as the
same number in other denominations. It would not be
candid to express any opinion of those who do not pro-
fess to be believers in christianity. I have indeed been
informed by some who have been preachers in the con-
nexion that the influence of the system is actually per-
nicious, and that unbiased and disinterested witnesses
must arrive at this conclusion from personal observation.
It is my intention to mention a few of the reasons which
convince me that the natural tendency of the system is
pernicious, rather than to describe its actual influence.
Sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable any one to
speak with perfect confidence in relation to the last par-
ticular. You will therefore allow me the same liberty
that you take yourself in relation to calvinism. .
1. Does not modern universalism naturally tend to
open infidelity? So it appears to my mind. And I am
confirmed in this opinion by some existing facts. Have
not several of your preachers publicly renounced
christianity? Is not one of the oldest and ablest of the
number now editing an atheistical publication, and lec-
turing to a society of unbelievers? Has he not been
permitted to deliver his philippics against all natural and
revealed religion in several universalist churches? And
have not the papers of the denomination remained silent
on the subject? Have not several who were formerly
among your most active agents arrayed themselves in
opposition to the gospel? Have any of your clergy
attempted to stay the progress of infidelity by their
writings? One indeed aimed to expose the principles
of the free inquirers. He was soon accused by them of
having been one of their number. The evidence pre-
sented by them in support of the charge, and his own
confession after an unsuccessful vindication, have left
little or no doubt on the minds of candid readers as to
336
LETTER XI.
his former condition. Still no investigation is attempt-
ed. Others are declared to be in the same predic-
ament. Some who have left your sect for the soci-
eties of the skeptics declare that the principles of
reasoning and interpretation you adopt lead directly
to the rejection of all revelation. They also affirm
that no small number who remain in your enclosure
have no firm belief in the divine origin of christian-
ity. I have no wish to enlarge on this topic. These
facts are before the public. and in the mouths of the
community. And what conclusion will people adopt
from the existing circumstances? Perhaps you can
answer this question better if I should make a supposi-
tion. Well, şuppose then that one of our oldest and
ablest ministers should establish an atheistical paper in
the metropolis, attack all religion with ridicule and
sophistry, lecture weekly either in the city or in some
unitarian churches in the vicinity on his infidel princi-
ples. Suppose that others, ministers and hearers, should
follow his example in some degree, and do all in their
power for the overthrow of every thing most precious
to mortal man. Suppose that no one of our denomina-
tion should raise a finger to convince the apostates of
their errors or to confirm the remaining in the truth.
What conclusion should you draw from such startling
facts? Now your belief in revelation is unwavering.
You have no more sympathy with the unbelieving than
I have. And because some of your party have avowed
their infidelity, and others of the same views remain
among you, it is no sufficient reason for renouncing
your system. But it is a sufficient reason to induce
you to investigate anew the foundations of your faith, to
examine the reasoning by which it is defended, to try
the principles of interpretation by which you escape
from the obvious meaning of the Savior and apostles.
LETTER XI.
337
And this is what I hope you will be induced to perform;
and that your preachers who have sufficient leisure to
write controversial books will find time to do something
for the defence of christianity.
2. Does not modern universalism tend to destroy the
christian ordinances? You have many societies formed
in different parts of the union. Perhaps there are fifty
or sixty in Maine. I am informed that scarcely half a
dozen churches have been gathered in the state. Simi-
lar remarks might be made in relation to other places.
Even where the ordinance of the supper is celebrated
the number of communicants is generally very small.
A friend of mine once remained to the communion in
the church where your oldest and ablest divine officiates,
and he found but thirteen present. I suppose the whole
number who have made an open profession in your so-
cieties, including the believers in restoration, is less than
two thousand. This is a point easily settled. Give the
exact numbers in each place and the controversy in
question is at an end. Mere denial of my statement
will not produce conviction. Now if your communion
table was hedged up with creeds there would be some
good excuse for this deficiency. I am not so supersti-
tious as to suppose there is more real goodness in a
person simply because he partakes of the consecrated
elements. But I regard the subject in this light. If a
man has a firm belief in the gospel; if he loves the Lord
Jesus in sincerity; if he wishes to form a christian
character; if he desires to improve all the means of
grace within his reach, he will generally feel disposed
to comply with the request of his ascended Master; he
will be unwilling to neglect this act of gratitude and
this opportunity, of personal advancement in holiness.
Though there may be as good christians out of the
church as within her enclosures, yet the observance of
22
338
· LETTER XI.
this rite is now considered an evidence of a person's
interest in the gospel of Jesus. Does not this prevail-
ing neglect of the ordinances seem to indicate that too
many take up your system as a matter of speculation,
and not as an inducement to greater progress in reli-
gious goodness?
3. Does not modern universalism tend to the destruc-
tion of gospel preaching? How many societies have
been formed in your order within the last twenty years?
The number is large. How many of them are now in
existence; how many of them in a flourishing condition;
and how many that support a stated ministry? I cannot
give an accurate answer to these questions. By look-
ing over files of your papers, and your modern history
of universalism, and comparing the statements there
found with existing facts I am led to the following con-
clusions. Many societies have dwindled into insignifi-
cance. Many more have a name to live but are virtually
dead. Many have but a few sabbaths' preaching in the
course of the year. Some have sold their churches.
Some are in a more prosperous condition. A change
of ministers is almost constantly taking place. There
are some exceptions to these statements. Then the
character of your preaching generally. Is it in accord-
ance with the commission given by our Savior to his
apostles. Is it the grand object of your ministers to
make their hearers practical christians; to make them
love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves?
Or do they spend much time in ridiculing and condem-
ning other denominations; in defending the peculiar
dogmas of your creed, and in explaining away those
passages which seem to teach a contrary doctrine? I
leave these questions for each one to answer for him-
self. I am no enemy to doctrinal or controversial
preaching at proper times. But I conceive that we
LETTER XI.
339
have accomplished no very valuable object until we
have induced our hearers to live sober, righteous and
godly lives. And I have come to the conclusion from
the facts which have come to my knowledge, that many
of the members in your societies take no deep interest
in correct practical preaching.
4. Does not modern universalism tend to sectarianism?
If unitarians, residing in orthodox parishes, were admit-
ted to the christian ordinances, and not publicly con-
demned for their honest convictions, I should consider
it a sectarian proceeding for any minister of our denomi-
nation to interfere in their behalf; and encourage them
to form a separate society. But if they were excluded
from the baptismal font and the table of the communion;
if they were denied the christian name and sentenced
to future misery, for their sincere belief, I should feel it
my duty to aid them in the maintenance of their reli-
gious rights. And any thing I could do for their pros-
perity I should not regard as sectarian. You ought to
pursue a similar course. Now if a minister of your
şect should go to an individual in a unitarian parish in
which all was peace and harmony, where the believer
in your doctrine was denied no privilege, no right, no
hope, where he retained his christian name and stand-
ing and influence, and urge him to furnish a hall for
preaching, to collect all he could gather into a new
ecclesiastical body, I should call this thoroughly secta-
rian. That such a course has been pursued, that another
preacher declared he should go into every place in which
he could get hearers, and do all in his power to make
proselytes to his system, I do know. And that several
of the party have shown no great delicacy in obtrud-
ing their services into the parishes of their brethren
I suppose no one will deny. Now I am not con-
demning any christian measures for the spread of what
340
LETTER XI.
is believed to be truth. But it is repeatedly said in my
hearing, that universalists manifest as much sectarian
zeal as the orthodox, as much bigotry and narrowmind-
edness, as much denunciation and disorganizing disposi-
tion, without the strong motive arising from the calvin-
istic creed. Whether this is literally the fact or not I
leave others to determine. I indeed feel engaged in
the promotion of unitarianism. Why? Because I think
it is the pure truth of the gospel and will make more
and better christians. I had rather be instrumental in
making one pious disciple than five hundred nominal
unitarians. Now is it the principal object in all the exer-
tions of your preachers to make men truly good; rather
than to build up a party? ;
5. Does not modern universalism tend to the destruc-
tion of civil government? You believe that sin itself
punishes the sinner sufficiently. If so all human inflic-
tions are undeserved and unjust. Take the highway
robber. He is imprisoned for life. This is a most se-
vere punishment. If his crime produces sufficient tor-
ment then all this is unrighteous. If then you are
sincere in your opinion you must protest against all
human interference in cases of wickedness. You must
affirm that every criminal is justly and adequately re-
compensed by his deeds of iniquity. You must labor
for the abolition of all civil laws. Yes. If I honestly
believed your system I would discover consistency in
my conduct. I wish to remove all possible evils. If
God or the sin itself always punishes the transgressor
according to his guilt, then surely there is no greater
curse than civil governments. I should therefore labor
day and night to abolish all human penalties. Could
I be instrumental in effecting such an object what
would be the consequences? Go into society tomorrow.
Proclaim that all men are rewarded and punished pre-
LETTER XI.
341
cisely according to their deeds. Scatter all written
laws to the four quarters of heaven. Assure every
man that he may do as he pleases, the consequences of
would follow? Anarchy, confusion, murder, every evil
work. Are you not bound then by your very belief to
begin the destruction of all penal enactments, or ac-
knowledge that your views are not capable of being
reduced to practice without destroying society?
6. Does not modern universalism seem to offer a
bounty on wickedness? Here are twin brothers. One
labors hard and unremittingly in the formation of a
christian character. He attains to great moral excel-
lence. The other gives himself to dissipation. He be-
comes thoroughly abandoned. At fifty both die. The
christian has already prepared himself for heaven. He
is admitted. The other is made over by miracle and
placed upon an equality with his brother. Is not this
holding out an encouragement to irreligion and sinful-
ness? Here are two young men without any decided
moral principle, like many that we find in the world.
One is an atheist, and the other a universalist. They
are governed by the same motives which operate more
or less in all hearts of the same description. The atheist
asks himself what course of conduct he shall pursue.
The following train of thoughts passes through his mind.
“ Here I am upon this earth. How I came here I have
no knowledge. They say there is a God in heaven. I
have no belief in any supreme Being. I have no hope
of another life after death. This world is all I can call
my own. Now I have seen enough of mankind to know
that most happiness is secured by doing about what is
give me any serious torment. I will remain on the
sure side of the question.” The universalist adopts the
342
LETTER XI.
following views. “I am placed in this world for happi-
ness. I know that sin produces some misery, how much
I know not from experience. I must live again after
death. I must be happy in heaven. This I cannot help.
This is not left to my choice. My God will make me
good and happy at any rate. I will therefore indulge my-
self in the pleasures of earth. I will enter those paths
which ministers forbid. I am strongly tempted to such
courses by my appetites and passions. I do not believe
the punishment will be half so great as the enjoyment.
On the whole I shall be a gainer. But if at any time I
find myself involved in distress, and I do not see a fair
prospect of securing more comfort than sorrow, I will
release myself from all earthly suffering. I will escape
from human justice to heavenly glory." I ask if these
are not natural suppositions? Does not your system
hold out a bounty to wickedness and irreligion?
7. Does not modern universalism tend to suicide?
Here is a mechanic. He maintains a fair reputation.
He has a promising family. He is tempted to steal
from his employer. He thinks the theft may be kept an
everlasting secret. He yields and takes the tempting
money. At length discovery is made. He is to be
will feel disgraced. His good name will be destroyed.
Confidence in his honesty cannot soon be restored.
Shall he submit to all this punishment? Or shall he by
an easy death avoid all misery and enter heaven? If
he acts in accordance with the motives which generally
regulate human conduct he will surely depart. Now
look into the world. How many do you see who are
placed in even a worse predicament? How many who
have no prospect before them but suffering, or igno-
miny, or punishment? Is it not the dictate of sound wis-
dom to shun the evil and seek the good? I cannot
LETTER XI.
343
answer for others, but for myself, I am willing to state
my deliberate conviction. If I should ever be placed
in such circumstances, and had as firm a belief in your
doctrine as I have in the opposite, I should not hesitate
one moment. I have no fear of death whatever. And
I should be most foolish not to escape from weeks
of misery to perfect and endless happiness when the
simple act of releasing myself from earth would not
cost me so much pain as I experience every hour. Nor
is this all. I think I have some benevolent feeling. I
wish to see every one enjoying happiness. It gives me
anguish to witness mental or bodily suffering. I fre-
quently meet with individuals whom I believe must have
great torment during their earthly existence.. If I had
a firm belief in your doctrine, I could not help advising
such to suicide. I should be bound to this course by
my very benevolence, by my great desire to relieve
them from suffering. I see not how I could do other-
wise, and act like a wise and good and benevolent chris-
tian. Now I believe wilful suicide is a crime, and that
we have no right to desert the post in which our Maker
has placed us; and for desertion I believe we shall have
to render a solemn account. I wish you to look at this
point candidly. I certainly think I have done so. And
if I know my own heart, I should act and advise as I
have mentioned, provided my belief in your doctrine was
as strong as in the opposite truth.
8. Does not modern universalism greatly tend to dis-
courage exertions for mental and moral improvement?
Some of your older preachers have ridiculed the neces-
sity of human learning for the ministry. But few of the
order have thought it necessary to make any great pre-
paration for the office. Men are taken from some me-
chanical employment, and in a few weeks ushered into
the pulpit. Some exertions have lately been made to
344
LETTER XI.
establish a literary institution for your order in Maine,
and funds have been solicited in this vicinity, but with-
out any signal success. And if the cultivation which
the mind now receives is to be of no service hereafter,
the motive to exertion is surely diminished. The same
may be said of moral goodness. How often have some
of your party sneered at the idea of our present attain-
ments having any bearing on our future condition.
Efforts have been made to convince people that the dif-
ference between men in real goodness is very small.
Prayers and other means of spiritual advancement have
been slightingly mentioned. And all this I know is
consistent with your creed. But the question is this.
Would not a belief that our mental and moral attain-
ments are to be carried with us to the future life increase
our exertions in educating ourselves and others ? Cer-
tainly; you will not deny so plain a conclusion. Then
your system must naturally tend to diminish exertions
in behalf of learning and holiness.
Thus, my dear sir, I have thrown out a few hints on
an important subject. I could enumerate many more
objections to modern universalism if my limits permitted.
These are however of a serious character and if well
sustained ought to lead you to reflection and examination.
How they can be fairly answered I know not. Can
the community then be expected to encourage such
views if they desire pure and rational religion to pre-
vail?
LETTER XII.
My Dear Sir,
My discussion is finished. My correspondence will
now be closed with a few general observations. You
are well aware that different views of divine punishment
are advocated by the different denominations. Which
view is best adapted to prevent sin and encourage holi-
ness? To this question I will return a brief and explicit
answer.
The universalist view of the divine punishment is this.
Men are punished for their sins in this world and no
where else. On minds truly christian this sentiment
may produce no injurious effects. But look into the
world. Are all practical believers? Are all really
virtuous and pious? Are not a large portion of children
and youth destitute of holiness? Are they not governed
by principles of expediency? Preach to them your
doctrine. Tell them plainly that they will be punished
for every sin they, commit in some form or other. As-
sure them that they will be sure of heaven the moment
they enter upon the next conscious existence, let them
do what they may on earth. And what influence will
346
: LETTER XII.
such preaching produce? Many cannot make themselves
believe what they hear. They fear something hereafter.
The sense of accountableness to an omniscient judge
interposes to save them from the temptation to iniquity.
Others will think that the punishment for many vices is
trifling. They are willing to risk the consequences.
They do not become very abandoned. They live
that loose, careless, indifferent sort of life which is a
great enemy to genuine holiness. So that upon the
whole I regard the influence of this view of divine pun-
ishment as decidedly injurious. I have no doubt on the
question. All the reasoning in creation cannot convince
me to the contrary. I have been young. I have min-
gled freely with various classes of society. And I know
that the fear of future punishment has deterred many a
youth from entering upon the downward road to destruc-
tion.
The calvinistic view of divine punishment is this. It
allows as much temporal punishment as the universalist.
The believer in this doctrine indeed uses different words
to express his ideas. He believes it is neither equitably
administered nor sufficient in degree. He believes that
the elect will not hereafter suffer for their present sin-
fulness. · He believes the non-elect will be exposed to
excruciating and endless torments. The tendency of
this view is decidedly injurious. To the person who
considers himself of the number of the elect its influence
is precisely the same as universalism; and a very large
portion endeavor to shelter themselves under this cove-
nant. Others believe that God can and doubtless will
change their hearts either before death or at the moment
of dissolution, and with such the effect is nothing more
than universalism. Others again regard such threaten-
ings as unreasonable. They deem it impossible for
God to inflict severe and endless torments upon a child
LETTER XII.
347
for what sin he can commit in this short life. He how-
ever forms no definite notions on the subject of future
retribution, and might as well believe in universalism.
Another class are driven by this doctrine to skepticism
and infidelity. They cannot reconcile it with the char-
acter of a good Father. They are assured that it is
taught in the scriptures. They renounce their belief in
revelation. Hundreds in our land may be found to
answer this description. The last class are sincere
believers in the view mentioned; and are driven by it
to despair and in some cases to insanity. I have spoken
plainly, but, as I firmly believe, the words of truth and
soberness.
The rational and scriptural view is this. God is a
perfect Father. He made us for happiness. He loves
us all with an infinite affection. He gives us free
agency. When we disobey the laws of our nature we
are punished; when we observe his precepts we are
rewarded. Every thing bad in our thoughts, words,
deeds, has a bearing upon our future destiny. We cannot
escape from the consequences of sin for a long period
even if we reform. If we do not repent the work be-
comes every day more difficult. As we leave this world
we enter upon the next existence. God is still a Father.
Jesus is still a Savior. The angels are filled with love.
Man is still a free agent. He cannot be happy without
holiness. He cannot become holy without his own
consent and most strenuous exertions. The principles
of the divine government remain unaltered. Punish-
ment must attend or follow sinfulness. No blame rests
upon any but the free moral agent who has made him-
self wretched, and who must remain in torment until
reformation ensues. When that time will arrive God
only knows. This I believe to be the rational and scrip-
tural view; and this I believe to be of the best possible
348
LETTER XII.
moral tendency. For the character of our Father, the
free agency of man, and the doctrine of a perfect and
impartial retribution are preserved.
Thus have I given you a mere outline of the argument
for a future righteous retribution. I could have extend-
ed my reasoning and proofs to an indefinite length. If
however you are not convinced of the truth of my posi-
tions by the evidence presented, I have no expectation
that you will ever be converted to my opinions by any
rational or scriptural arguments.
I have confined my remarks to one point. I have
advanced no evidence but such as appeared to me to be
intelligible to the simplest understanding, and to have
a direct bearing on the controversy. I have quoted
many passages of scripture, and more texts are already
selected and approved by the highest authority in our
country. I have endeavored to answer every important
objection to my views which your writers have stated;
and to refute the arguments by which they have defend-
ed your system. If any objection or argument of weight
has been omitted I shall feel great regret.
ces. I trust you have found no unkind or unchristian
language. I have indeed spoken my mind with great
plainness and freedom. I have given free and full utter-
ance to my feelings respecting your distinguishing senti-
ments. This you will not condemn or dislike. I have
not impugned the motives or slandered the characters
alluded to the conduct of individuals, and express-
ed my opinion of the qualifications of some of your crit-
ics for the important work of exposition. I think I have
not done unto others differently from what I should be
willing others should do unto me in return. I think
you can have no cause of complaint on the score of un-
charitableness.
LETTER XII.
349
I have endeavored to avoid all appearance of dis-
play in learning. In reading the writings of some of
your ministers I have experienced no small share of dis-
gust. I have seen criticisms upon greek words by those
who evidently have no knowledge of the language. I
think some have been guilty of this who could not read
a page of classical greek to save their lives. Now I do
not blame a man for being ignorant of the ancient lan-
guages, because this may be unavoidable. But to im-
pose upon the ignorant, simply because you can tell the
letters of the alphabet, or have a mere smattering of this
kind of knowledge, is truly censurable. I do feel that
I am deserving of some credit for not exposing fully the
ignorance and pedantry of some of your authors.
I hope you will read what I have written with can-
dor and decide for yourself concerning its merits. And
if you are disposed to return an answer to these letters,
I hope you will pursue a fair and christian course. You
recollect the answer of the orthodox to my letters on
religious liberty. You then pronounced that production
sophistical, evasive, unfair, ungentlemanly and altogether
inconclusive. I know you will shun the peculiar faults
of that review. You will however permit me to remind
you of several particulars to be avoided.
I hope you will not charge me with misrepresentation.
I have given a definite statement of the sentiments which
I meant to attack. I have quoted from your writers
some passages to show that others hold the same views
with yourself. If you do not now believe those opinions,
you will not accuse me of misrepresenting the belief of
universalists. Perhaps you may deny the inferences I
have made in certain cases. If so show me the way in
which they can be avoided.
I hope you will not charge me with contradicting
myself. This is a very common mode of attack when
350
LETTER XII.
all fair arguments fail. The infidels pursue this course
in relation to the bible. I lately read one of their
pamphlets called the scripturian's creed. Passages are
taken from their connexion and when placed beside each
other have an appearance of discrepancy. Examine the
context and all difficulty vanishes. I cannot give the
compiler of the work credit for common honesty, nor
the person who should be led to reject the truth of the
gospel from its perusal credit for common sense. Now
it would be no difficult matter to take sentences from
their connexion and make it appear at first sight that I
had contradicted myself in a few instances. But on
looking to the context and receiving a few words of ex-
planation from other parts of the work, I trust all will
appear consistent. I think you will not be guilty of this
mean subterfuge so often adopted by those who are de-
feated.
I hope you will remember what kind of an answer to
the present publication will be necessary to satisfy can-
did readers before you undertake the work. I have
presented a large number of arguments and very many
passages of scripture in proof of my positions. Now
you may refute one or a dozen arguments; you may
explain away one or a dozen passages of scripture, and
still you have accomplished nothing to your purpose.
You must refute every argument; you must destroy the
obvious meaning of every passage of scripture, before
your work will be accomplished. I trust you will not
be guilty of the meanness of taking one or more of the
weakest arguments, and one or more of the less conclu-
sive texts, and holding them up before your readers as
fair specimens of the whole work. I have known this
done by those whom you pronounced unfair and dis-
honorable.
I hope you will meet every question and proof in a
LETTER XII.
351
fair and open manner. Sometimes I have noticed a
good deal of mystification in the writings of some of
your order. When they could not answer an objection
or argument, they would talk about the subject, raise a
great cloud of words before the eyes of their readers;
evade the real point at issue, and cry victory. It is too
late in the day for success to attend such measures. If
you would hope to secure the attention of candid and
honest inquirers after truth, you must meet the question
fairly: you must furnish a conclusive answer to the
argument. Or you must acknowledge that you know
of no way in which the position can be overthrown. I
trust therefore that you will not stoop to the degrading
business of mystifying the subject in debate.
I hope.you will avoid the infidel mode of attack. You
have seen in what manner one of your former preachers
assails all natural and revealed religion. He cannot
answer the arguments by which they are supported, and
so he resorts to sneers, ridicule, assertions, objections.
Now there is no subject however sacred or well attested
but may be ridiculed. You may say something against
every truth in existence. You may make round and
strong declarations. But with sensible men all such
attacks have little weight. They are generally the in-
dications of a feeble mind or a weak cause. And none
but superficial reasoners, and blinded partisans, and
willing slaves, can be satisfied with an answer of this
description.
I hope you will avoid personalities and blackguard
and dishonesty. I ought to apologize for expressing
such a hope. I have no good reason to expect any
thing of the kind from your pen. But I have seen so
much of this in one or two of your writers that I could
not omit the caution. You may wish to know if I shall
reply to any answers that may be made to my publica-
352
LETTER XII.
tion. Any thing like fair argument, manly discussion,
sound criticism, I hold myself bound to notice in some
form or other. Offensive personalities, attacks upon
character, low scurrility, overbearing sophistry, disgust-
ing blackguardism, vulgar billingsgate, I have no dispo-
sition to answer; but if it should become necessary in
the cause of truth and honesty to hurl such dirty missiles
back, you may depend that I shall not shrink from the
contest while life and health remain. I am acquainted
fear the results of such miserable warfare. I have not
entered upon this controversy without first counting the
cost. I firmly believe that I am engaged in the defence
of everlasting and infinitely important truth; and I shall
not be driven to desert the post of duty by any unchrist-
ian measures of my opponents. As an appropriate con-
clusion to my work I present you the following extract
from the late volume of Dr. Channing.
“I proceed now to an important and solemn remark,
in illustration of the evil of sin. It is plainly implied in
Scripture, that we shall suffer much more from sin, evil
tempers, irreligion, in the future world, than we suffer
here. This is one main distinction between the two states.
In the present world, sin does indeed bring with it many
pains, but not full or exact retribution, and sometimes it
is obvious. The present world is a state for the forma-
tion of character. It is meant to be a state of trial, where
we are to act freely, to have opportunities of wrong as
well as right action, and to become virtuous amidst temp-
tation. Now such a purpose requires, that sin, or wrong-
doing, should not regularly and infallibly produce its full
and immediate punishment. , For suppose, my hearers,
that at the very instant of a bad purpose or a bad deed,
a sore and awful penalty were unfailingly to light upon
LETTER XII.
353
you; would this be consistent with trial? would you have
moral freedom? would you not live under compulsion?
Who would do wrong, if judgment were to come like
lightning after every evil deed? In such a world, fear
would suspend our liberty and supersede conscience.
Accordingly sin, though, as we have seen, it produces
great misery, is still left to compass many of its objects,
often to prosper, often to be gain. Vice, bad as it is,
has often many pleasures in its train. The worst men
partake, equally with the good, the light of the sun, the
rain, the harvest, the accommodations and improvements
of civilized life, and sometimes accumulate more largely
outward goods. And thus sin has its pleasures, and es-
capes many of its natural and proper fruits. We live
in a world where, if we please, we may forget ourselves,
may delude ourselves, may intoxicate our minds with
false hopes, and may find for a time a deceitful joy in
an evil course. In this respect the future will differ
from the present world. After death, character will
produce its full effect. According to the Scriptures,
the color of our future existence will be wholly deter-
mined by the habits and principles which we carry into
it. The circumstances which in this life prevent vice,
sin, wrong-doing; from inflicting pain, will not operate
hereafter. There the evil inind will be exposed to its
own terrible agency, and nothing, nothing will interfere
between the transgressor and his own awakened con-
science. I ask you to pause and weigh this distinction
between the present and future. In the present life,
we have, as I have said, the means of escape, amusing,
and forgetting ourselves. Once, in the course of every
daily revolution of the sun, we all of us find refuge, and
many a long refuge, in sleep; and he who has lived
without God, and in violation of his duty, hears not, for
hours, a whisper of the monitor within. But sleep is
.23
354
LETTER XII.
a function of our present animal frame, and let not the
transgressor anticipate this boon in the world of retribu-
tion before him. It may be, and he has reason to fear,
that in that state repose will not weigh down his eyelids,
that conscience will not slumber there, that night and
day the same reproaching voice is to cry within, that
unrepented sin will fasten with unrelaxing grasp on the
ever-waking soul. What an immense change in condi-
tion would the removal of this single alleviation of suf-
ſering produce?
- Again; in the present state how many pleasant sights,
scenes, voices, motions, draw us from ourselves; and he
who has done wrong, how easily may he forget it, per-
haps mock at it, under the bright light of this sun, on
this fair earth, at the table of luxury, and amidst cheer-
ful associates. In the state of retribution, he who has
abused the present state, will find no such means of
escaping the wages of sin. The precise mode in which
such a man is to exist hereafter, I know not. But I
know, that it will offer nothing to amuse him, to dissipate
thought, to turn him away from himself; nothing to
which he can fly for refuge from the inward penalties of
transgression.
- In the present life, I have said, the outward creation,
by its interesting objects, draws the evil man from him-
self. It seems to me probable, that, in the future, the
whole creation will, through sin, be turned into a source
of suffering, and will perpetually throw back the evil
mind on its own transgressions. I can briefly state the
reflections which lead to this anticipation. The Scrip-
tures strongly imply, if not positively teach, that in the
future life we shall exist in connexion with some mate-
rial frame; and the doctrine is sustained by reason; for
it can hardly be thought, that in a creation which is
marked by gradual change and progress, we should
LETTER XII.
355
make at once the mighty transition from our present
into a purely spiritual or unembodied existence. Now
in the present state we find, that the mind has an im-
mense power over the body, and, when diseased, often
communicates disease to its sympathizing companion. I
believe, that, in the future state, the mind will have this
power of conforming its outward frame to itself, incom-
parably more than here. We must never forget, that,
in that world, mind or character is to exert an all-pow-
erful sway; and accordingly, it is rational to believe,
that the corrupt and deformed mind, which wants moral
goodness or a spirit of concord with God and the uni-
verse, will create for itself, as its fit dwelling, a deformed
body, which will also want concord or harmony with all
things around it. Suppose this to exist, and the whole
creation which now amuses, may become an instrument
of suffering, fixing the soul with a more harrowing con-
sciousness on itself. You know that even now, in
consequence of certain derangements of the nervous
system, the beautiful light gives acute pain, and sounds,
which once delighted us, become shrill and distressing.
How often this excessive irritableness of the body has
its original in moral disorders, perhaps few of us sus-
pect. I apprehend, indeed, that we should be all amazed,
were we to learn to what extent the body is continually
incapacitated for enjoyment, and made susceptible of
suffering, by sins of the heart and life. That delicate
part of our organization, on which sensibility, pain, and
pleasure depend, is, I believe, peculiarly alive to the
touch of moral evil. How easily, then, may the mind
hereafter frame the future body according to itself, so
that, in proportion to its vice, it will receive, through its
organs and senses, impressions of gloom, which it will
feel to be the natural productions of its own depravity,
and which will in this way give a terrible energy to
conscience! For myself, I see no need of a local hell
356
LETTER XII.
for the sinner after death. When I reflect, how, in the
present world, a guilty mind has power to deform the
countenance, to undermine health, to poison pleasure,
to darken the fairest scenes of nature, to turn prosperity
into a curse, I can easily understand how, in the world
to come, sin, working without obstruction according to
its own nature, should spread the gloom of a dungeon
over the whole creation, and, wherever it goes, should
turn the universe into a hell.
“In these remarks I presume not to be the prophet of
the future world. I only wish you to feel how terribly
sin is hereafter to work its own misery, and how false
and dangerous it is to argue from your present power of
escaping its consequences, that you may escape them in
the life to come. Let each of us be assured, that by
abusing this world, we shall not earn a better. The
Scriptures announce a state of more exact and rigorous
retribution than the present. Let this truth sink into
our hearts. It shows us, what I have aimed to estab-
lish, that to do wrong is to incur the greatest of calam-
ities, that sin is the chief of evils. May I not say, that
nothing else deserves the name? No other evil will
follow us beyond the grave. Poverty, disease, the
world's scorn, the pain of bereaved affection, these cease
at the grave. The purified spirit lays down there every
burden. One and only one evil can be carried from this
world to the next, and that is, the evil within us, moral
evil, guilt, crime, ungoverned passion, the depraved
mind, the memory of a wasted or ill-spent life, the char-
acter which has grown up under neglect of God's voice
in the soul and in his word. This, this will go with us,
to stamp itself on our future frames, to darken our future
being, to separate us like an impassable gulf from our
Creator and from pure and happy beings, to be as a
consuming fire and an undying worm."
THE END.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
U
I
1
I
11
U
IUNI
III
1
11
11
11
1
|
11
HD
III
3 9015 08586 2707

“
-

上
​”
畫書
​11
,
AM
.
""
.
..
.
.
*
中​!"
1
-
*
*
.
:
:
事
​:
| xi
,
,
量单
​"
H
生​。
.
if';
了
​,
r
F4
”
,
yw子​。
,
事事有​:
型
​';
.
手
​-
T,
不一​,平
​書
​;,
是
​,
:
「事
​重量​,事實上​,
受害者
​- 量子
​(
4
)
the
體重事事​。
目前主事者
​「
是
​。
N,
类​: 44.
重
​大學
​|
..
.
”
1
單車
​·基德-
​.
It I
書4:
4
.
.
1
"
重量​,
事
​"
能量
​ifff毒事​,
..
..
.
.
っ
​.
.
重青
​,
售
​IE,
.
.
.
,
,
...
.
事
​,
.
車型是单身​,
,
.
筆
​.
有在
​一
​,
E
*
.
:
1
.
.
!”
..
.
事
​.
.
吉普車是​。
車
​。
等等
​:
量​,
.
本事​,事事會
​.
.
is,
.
11:
有
​.”
..
*
:
:
中
​. T
.
11.
車
​·
..
:
.
t
,
,,,
有
​;*
5,
-
|
.
.
.
.
11
.
#
4
4
4
。
,
,
,
..
.
.
等
​走
​th
If
。
鲁
​是不是
​*
“.
*
.re
**
,
.
.
.
:
,
高中
​,
...
,
.
章​。
由
​.
b
「.
:
重量​。
“,
.
,
"
T
|
“
。
.
為
​}
,
没事實
​中
​her,
| | 單身
​.-中
​:
.
|
.
A:4AM战​”
:
|
:
P
..
「.
...
「可
​“
|
.
.
.
.
,
:
,
::
f事了​。
*
,
*
*
*
,
重看看
​.…
|
,
いますのでトTRY
「
:ric
*
*
**.it
一
​,
鲁
​1
*
1
了
​,
:
・
作者
​*
・
.
4:
・
「ii畢書
​其中​“
「
41.
。
。“书
​--
*
。
"
事實上​,事
​=-
事非事
​」
。
,
.
**
”
5.....
。
..
南
​”
.
|
....
.
一直
​”了
​.
。
!
,
畫書​。
1.
是
​11-
量​,
量產​!
11
.
"",
是非​,单非​,
本自
​量看​,看了​。
|
「重​,聲音
​"
...
.
1
.
•
+
--
-
-,
“
中
​",
,
.
|i
4
是
​1
.
書畫​,書背
​。
,
|
.
,
,
事​,
.
h
事​。
是鼻​,
書
​'
售
​量排​...
s
非事事非非
​="
。
一對
​",
4
,
爭
​"
,
「
一
​"
一
​*
#
4
"
,
本
​}
...
,
"1,
“ 重 ​,
事
​事重重​-14
:看重
​。
事​。
一​,行事鲁W
了我
​....
一是​,
,
在
​章動身了​。
事
​二是
​ie":
,
“…)
.
年
​重量1
,
鲁事要
​,
'-
」
重事​,
一
​* ,
:
,
書套餐​」,
- 重
​TEL
,
“这事情是​:
事事
​|
p
學 ​” ,
.. 」
, 1
工作​,111
.
..
書審學​- 4
1
,
事
​是
​。
書
​,
,
,
「
拿了声​:
1. 1
事者​”。
,
其
​中学
​F量​,重重​。
斗​,
鲁
​,
11,
1
生
​事事事
​3.
事半
​|
、
”
-,
,
|
fr
:
中
​,
”
了
​,
事
​量等
​,事件 ​| 事
​ty
“其實 ​,
..。
T
。
!」
=
"
'Ti
"; .
鲁​,
鲁鲁​。
-
1
,
看看
​量
​:
“事​”
「正​。
,
是
​:
工作上​,在事长​,
11
:::
:
,
一
​t
事實​。
學生事事
​|
基本都是中
​,
「
拳星
​·
“等量​“平
​r,
重
​,
工事
​;,
「
·
事
​,
.
1.
...
出事​,
..
「
,
”
-
.
||
.
主
​*
,
,
,
.
,
,
-
-
-
.
声
​,
,
,
.
了
​:
,
,,
看
​”
-
1
,
=
,
,
1.
+
",
“是會一直重​,上下​,
,
重重重重重
​了事
​善書
​i
首
​等
​.
.
.
4
事的事​,
番
​事
​.
it...
中
​,
書
​.
。
,
事
​*,
等
​F4
「
-
..
畫
​車
​,
*.
。
事​,是一
​F
| F事書
​其他
​.
.
”
“
:
.
之一​”
市一中市
​,
重疊​,
.
.
重量
​*
*,
.
其中
​事
​10
老
​*
.
.
11:
.
..
14
1.
*“
协
​...
r
是
​"
4
,
等
​年
​掌事​,
事書
​.
4
时
​y
4
,
I
'
''
.
'
.
.
其
​个
​一
​Y
“11
。
.
一事​,
,
当
​1
,
了
​.
「
是
​.
。」
臺中
​。
事
​"
(售重​,
重
​T
”
學學生事​.
1.
",
重量​:
賽事
​:
轉书
​1
.
.
:
|-
“
:
“事事有
​1
作中​,
工​,
中​,
上​,單​;;
1
,
事件 ​9
王者
​畫等事宜​。
重
​賽事 ​-
事實事事非事事
​重重​,
事 ​事書
​..
|
皇
​.
'
“
*
....
hy
**,
?
?
三重​;
.
*
,
重量
​*
严重​”:
事​,
離是非
​事​。
.十
​”
14
*.
rF., #
*
.
鲁​,
「
可是
​起
​年​,是一
​鲁鲁​,鲁鲁
​,
,
書
​::
“
:生作文
​' 岁​,
.rr.
十十
​rrrtt
| | 中国非
​,
量​,等等​,都是
​有許多事​,
無毒​,
“
'
高
​”。
事事
​,
事
​事
​重量
​-
一直是本
​背
​「
事​,
|- 畢竟
​*
為
​与管理
​”。
是
​*
,
增到​,
,
,
-
,
。
| jix
,
學
​車
​,
了
​。
。
「主量
​.
但是
​-
.
|
.
-
運​,
1H
事​。
.
有
​!
F
Airi,
重量​,
|
{:
,
14
“
是是​,
书
​