P 
 
 f! 
 t 
 
 i ( 
 
 ■ 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 \m 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 M 
 
 'li 
 
 ! 
 
 iiiill^lJiiy^^ 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, i8g4, 
 <iAccessions No.S^ /^^ . Class No. 
 
 \ 
 
Hc/l^ 
 
 d 
 
 i/huu^cA</ 
 
 ^ r> 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/debateondoctrineOOpingrich 
 
A D.E BATE 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 UNIVERSAL SALVATION: 
 
 HELD IN 
 
 CINCINNATI, O., FROM MARCH 24, TO APRIL 1, 1845. 
 
 BETW EEN 
 
 REV. E. M. PINGREE, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST UNIVERSAlilST CHURCH, LOUISVILLB, KY. 
 
 REV. N. L. RICE, D. D. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CINCINNATI, O. 
 Taken down by a Reporter, 
 
 AND 
 REVISED BY THE PARTIES. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES. 
 
 G. J. JONES. NEW YORK: J. S. REDFIELD. 
 LOUISVILLE: NOBLE & DEAN. 
 
 1845. 
 
 |TJFI7BRSITYl 
 

 CERTIFICATE. 
 
 CiNciN]s^ATi, April 26, 1845. 
 HAViiirG carefully examined the Stenographer's Report of the 
 within discussion, and compared it with our notes and memoran- 
 dums, we hesitate not to commend it to the public, as a full exhibi- 
 tion of the facts, documents and arguments, used by us on the ques- 
 tion debated. E. M. Pingree, 
 
 N. L. Rice. 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by 
 
 J, A. JAMES, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 
 
 stereotyped by J. A. Jasnea 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN E. M. PINGREE AND N. L. RICE. 
 
 Proposal to Rev. "S. Jj, Rice. 
 
 Louisville J Nov, 9, 1844. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir — I have recently seen in different re- 
 ligious periodicals the following 
 
 " Proposal. — Dr. Robert J. Breckenridge, of Baltimore, 
 Revs. N. L. Rice, of Cincinnati, and Wm. S. Plumer, of 
 Virginia, will meet at any convenient time and place bishop 
 "Whelan and any two others whom he may select; or we 
 will meet any three Roman bishops, archbishops, cardinals, 
 priests, or deacons, and discuss with them this question — 
 'Is the Romish church the church of Christ]' The bishop 
 and his friends may affirm, and we will deny. Or we will 
 affirm that ' the Romish church is not the church of Christ,' 
 and they may deny. Or two of us will meet any two of 
 them on the terms stated above. The ordinary and equal 
 rules of such debate to be adopted hereafter. The above is 
 a standing proposal." 
 
 In the *' True Catholic," published in Louisville, I also 
 find the following note from your pen, copied from the 
 "Watchman of the South:" 
 
 "The Discussion. — Although the proposition for a public 
 discussion with the Papists, to which you did me the honor 
 to attach my name, was originally made without my knowl- 
 edge, yet, not doubting that the circumstances demanded it, 
 I cordially sanctioned it. I had no expectation, however, 
 that it would be acceded to. The Roman clergy have be- 
 come too wise to expose their cause thus. There is in error 
 a conscious weakness, which causes its advocates to shrink 
 from a thorough investigation of its claims. Your proposi- 
 tion, however, will prove to the unprejudiced, that we have 
 all confidence in the principles we advocate, and are willing 
 to have them subjected to the closest scrutiny. 
 
 Yours, truly, N. L. Rice." 
 
 3* 
 
VI CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Now, Rev. sir, in view of this, your challenge to the Ro- 
 manists, and especially of your remarks last quoted, in rela- 
 tion to the " conscious weakness of error," I would respectfully 
 make you the following proposal, to test '* the confidence you 
 have in the principles you advocate," relating to the immor- 
 tal destiny of the human race. I do this the more readily, 
 because you are known to be fond of public controversy, and 
 have the reputation of being a good disputant; so that you 
 will hardly decline the present offer of a discussion on the 
 merits of Universalism and Partialism. 
 
 Proposal. — I will meet you, Providence permitting, at any 
 convenient time, in the city of Louisville, and discuss with 
 you the question — " Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate ho- 
 liness and salvation of all men]" or, ^' Do the Scriptures 
 teach the endless misery of any portion of mankind?" either 
 or both, as you choose ; to be conducted according to the 
 usual and equal rules of controversy, as may be agreed upon 
 hereafter. 
 
 A similar proposal has been made to your friend, Doctor 
 Breckenridge, of Baltimore; and I think he has accepted it. 
 Another has been made to your other friend, the Rev. Mr. 
 Plumer, if I mistake not, and he has declined it. I hope 
 you, dear sir, will not decline this, but accept it at once; 
 for what is the question — " Is the Romish church the church 
 of Christ]" compared with that most momentous inquiry — 
 What is to be the immortal doom of the human soul ] Shall 
 it be pure and holy, finally, to rejoice forever in the glory of 
 heaven] or, Shall it remain impure and unholy, to curse 
 God and endure " all hell-horrors" throughout eternity ] 
 
 I moreover anticipate a ready acceptance of this invitation, 
 from the fact of your having recently discussed with the Rev. 
 Alexander Campbell, questions of infinitely less importance 
 than the one I now propose to you ; as of Baptism, its mode, 
 subjects, objects, &c. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience, I 
 remain, respectfully, your humble servant, 
 
 E. M. PiNGREE. 
 
 Reply to E. M. Pingree's diallenge. 
 
 Messrs. Editors — I received through the post-ofiSce, a few 
 days since, your paper of November 30th, in which I find 
 a proposition, or challenge, from one of you (Mr. Pingree) to 
 a public discussion of the merits of Universalism. I have 
 never given a challenge of this kind to any one. My name 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. Vll 
 
 was used by Dr. Plumer, in his proposition to the Roman 
 bishop of Virginia, without my knowledge, and, as I stated in 
 the article to which Mr. P. refers, the thing was approved by 
 me, because my confidence in his prudence forbade me tc 
 doubt that the circumstances fully justified his course. Yet 
 I am not opposed to public debates ; nor do I feel at liberty 
 to decline a proposition of the kind, provided the subject be 
 one, the discussion of which is desirable, and the challenger 
 be a man in whose ability to do the subject justice, his breth- 
 ren have confidence. 
 
 Much good, I doubt not, would result from a thorough 
 discussion of the merits of Universalism, properly conducted; 
 but whether Mr. Pingree is considered by his brethren capa- 
 ble of doing justice to the subject — whether they would be 
 willing to trust the defence of their views to him, I have no 
 means of knowing. If, however, the Universalists desire a 
 discussion, a few of their leading preachers and members can 
 easily signify through their paper their confidence in Mr. Pin- 
 gree's ability; or they can select a man in whom they have 
 confidence, and they shall be accommodated ; provided, the 
 discussion occurs in Cincinnati, (which, for obvious reasons, 
 is preferred to Louisville,) and be reported *by one or more 
 competent stenographers, and published. 
 
 I cannot consent to turn aside from other important en- 
 gagements, to enter into a thorough discussion of this sub- 
 ject, unless it be given to the public in a permanent form, 
 that it may be extensively read. Nor can I consent to meet 
 a man in whom his own party have not confidence ; for then 
 his failure to sustain himself would be attributed to the weak- 
 ness of the man, not to the indefensibleness of his cause, 
 and thus my labor would be lost. 
 
 Now, Messrs. Editors, you have my reply. I should not 
 have challenged you to a debate. My engagements are such 
 as fully occupy my time. But as you have chaMenged me, 
 thus making it impossible for me, without seeming to shrink 
 from the defence of truth, to avoid a discussion, you must 
 meet the responsibility. Very respectfully, 
 
 N. L. Rice. 
 
 Mr. Pln§^ree to Mr. Rice. 
 
 Cincinnati., Jan, 3, 1845. 
 Dear Sir — Your reply to my first letter reached me in 
 Jue course of publication of the " Star in the West," dated 
 December 14. 
 
Vlll CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 I invited you to an oral discussion, to be held in Lcuis- 
 ville. You have declined acceptance, for reasons which you 
 pronounce "obvious," and 1 prefer declining your invitation 
 to Cincinnati, for reasons which you will please consider 
 equally obvious ; and its publication in the manner you pro- 
 pose — from the fact that I now have a discussion nearly 
 ready for the press, on the same subject, lately held with the 
 Rev. John N. Waller. Thus far, therefore, we are even. 
 
 I now propose a sort of compromise, which may be the 
 means of meeting some of the conditions named in your let- 
 ter, making the discussion more " thorough" and satisfactory, 
 and more extensively read. I invite you to a luritten corres- 
 pondence on the questions noted in my firSt communication. 
 The editor of the " Star" has freely tendered me the use of his 
 columns as the medium of my letters, which you may con- 
 sider a sufficient evidence of my standing in the Universalist 
 denomination. All I now ask on your part, is, that you ob- 
 tain the use of the columns of a Presbyterian paper with one 
 third the circulation of the " Star," — about 3,500 copies — 
 v/hich you can readily do, if your friends have the same con- 
 fidence in you that mine have in me; each paper to publish 
 both sides. Wlien the discussion is ended, the letters may 
 be rendered permanent by publication in book form, if de- 
 sirable. 
 
 Owing to my unintentional delay in answering your letter, 
 I shall send you this to-day — so that it, and your reply, if re- 
 ceived in season — say next Monday noon — may be published 
 together in next week's " Star." Not presuming that you can 
 ascertain, so soo7i, whether you will be able to obtain the use 
 of a Presbyterian paper for the discussion, I only respectfully 
 ask an early expression of your willingness or unwillingness 
 to accept the present proposal, in case of succeeding in this 
 respect. Respectfully yours, E. M. Pingree. 
 
 Mr. Rice to Mr. Pingree. 
 
 Cincinnati, Jan. 4, 1845. 
 Mr. E. M. Pingree : 
 
 Dear &V— Your letter, in reply to mine, was received on 
 yesterday afternoon. Your challenge was published on Nov. 
 30th. My reply was sent in time, as I supposed, for the next 
 paper, but was not published till Dec. 14th. It is now three 
 tveeks since it appeared. Your letter does not explain the 
 cause of your delay in replying, which, from the zeal mani- 
 fested in your challenge, was certainly unexpected. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. IX 
 
 The contents of your letter are by no means such as 1 had 
 expected. You challenge me to a public discussion of the 
 merits of Universalism, and this, from the fact that Doctors 
 Plumer and Breckenridge were also challenged, I presume 
 was a concerted matter. I did not decline, but agreed to 
 accept your challenge on certain conditions. One was, that 
 I should have some evidence that your brethren are willing 
 to trust the defence of their views to you. This you do not 
 pretend to consider unreasonable. The second was, that the 
 debate should be in Cincinnati, not in Louisville. You will 
 scarcely pretend that the challenging party has the exclusive 
 right to determine the place where the discussion shall be held. 
 Certainly I was not prepared to believe, that a chivalrous 
 gentleman, like yourself, would first challenge me to a debate, 
 and then positively insist on my meeting him in his own 
 city. I preferred Cincinnati, chiefly because Universalism is 
 much more prevalent h6re, and in Ohio, than in Kentucky. 
 A discussion in this city, therefore, would excite more inter- 
 est; and I should have the opportunity of addressing au- 
 diences, a small portion of which, at least, are inclined to 
 Universalism. I can conceive of no reason why the Uni- 
 versalists, if they really desire a discussion, should decline 
 having it in Cincinnati. 
 
 The only other condition was, that the debate should be 
 published. This you decline, because you are about to pub- 
 lish a debate on the same subject, with another individual; 
 and yet you propose a written discussion, to be published 
 twice — first in two newspapers, and then in a book ! ! I I can- 
 not accept the new proposition. Newspaper discussions are 
 generally tedious, and soon become uninteresting. Indeed 1 
 presume Mr. P. did not expect me to accept it. It was pro- 
 bably considered the best method of terminating the matter. 
 
 In my reply, 1 stated that if the Universalists desired a 
 discussion, they were at liberty to select a man in whom 
 they have entire confidence. I did so, because they have 
 long* and constantly expressed the most earnest desire for 
 public discussion, and have complained, as well as boasted, 
 that their invitations and challenges were not accepted by 
 ministers of a different faith. Mr. Abel C. Thomas, now of 
 Cincinnati, stated, in a letter to Dr. Ely, of Philadelphia, 
 ^^that the Universalists anxiously desired a thorous^h invest it^ation 
 of the merits of the doctrine they profess ,•" and complained 
 " that it has been the general policy of the Partialists to avoid 
 and discourage all direct discussion with the Universalists. 
 
X CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 And the editor of the " Christian Warrior," a Universalist 
 paper, in an article headed " Consistency of the Presbyterian 
 Clergy,'^'' whilst condemning me in no very measured terms 
 for not having accepted a challenge in that paper, which I 
 never saw, thus discourses concerning Presbyterian minis- 
 ters : "They have assailed from their pulpits, and through 
 their newspapers, and by means of their tracts, and in nume- 
 rous other ways, the Universalists and their doctrine. We 
 have denied and disproved their assertions, through every 
 medium at our command, and challenged them again and 
 again to fair, open, manly, and candid discussion of our sen- 
 timents. But with very few exceptions, all such challenges 
 have been unheeded." And, after noticing Mr. Pingree's chal- 
 lenge, he says — ''We shall be anxious to hear from the wor- 
 thy challenger of the Catholics, and learn by what means he 
 will escape from the corner into which he is driven." 
 
 It was in view of complaints and boastings such as these, 
 that I gave the Universalists an opportunity, if they did not 
 choose to trust the defence of their views to Mr. Pingree, 
 (who, I learn, is a young man,) to select one in whom they 
 had the utmost confidence. Since they have now had a fair 
 opportunity for a thorough discussion of the merits of Uni- 
 versalism — an opportunity sought and obtained by their own 
 ministers — I hope they will henceforth cease either to com- 
 plain or to boast. Very respectfully, N. L. Rice. 
 
 Mr. Pingree to Mr. Rice. 
 
 Louisville, Jan, 9, 1845. 
 Mr. N. L. Rice : 
 
 Dear Sir — I received your last letter through the columns 
 of the "Star" of this week, and hasten to answer it; endea- 
 voring to do so in the same manner and spirit as if it con- 
 tained no sneers or insinuations about my wishing to " ter- 
 minate the matter," &c. Permit me to most earnestly assure 
 you, sir, that I do not wish to "terminate the matter;" and 
 it tvill not be " terminated " without a discussion — unless by 
 yourself. 
 
 I invited you to a discussion in Louisville : this was a part 
 of the proposal itself. And I did not anticipate the substitu- 
 tion of another place, or its publication by stenographers ; 
 still, I have not " positively insisted " on your " meeting me 
 in my own city." I preferred holding the discussion here, 
 because, of course, I more especially desire the promotion of 
 our Faith in this city and vicinity ; and because there have 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XI 
 
 been many discussions held in Cincinnati and neighborhood. 
 1 thought one more necessary and called for here, than else- 
 where. But I say no more of this condition of your accepting 
 my proposal ; for, although the place was as much a part of 
 the challenge, as the questions to be discussed, yet I do not 
 " claim the exclusive right to determine the place." 
 
 I will now — as I did not in my last letter — speak particular- 
 ly of your requiring the Universalists to express their willing- 
 ness " to trust the defence of their views to me." You say 1 
 " do not pretend to consider this unreasonable." Sir, I do con- 
 sider it unreasonable and out of place ; although I did not speak 
 of it directly in my preceding reply. I presume I am as exten- 
 sively, and for as long a time known as a disputant, (though a 
 "young man,") as yourself, besides being associated several 
 years with Rev. Mr. Gurley in the editorial department of the 
 " Star in the West." If you knew nothing of me, you might 
 have easily declined any controversy with me, on account of 
 my obscure position ; and have so saved me the virtual insult 
 of being required to be indorsed, in order to meet you in de- 
 bate. You could not imagine, Sir, that I would submit my- 
 self to any such humiliating terms; however much I might 
 desire a discussion with you. I trust you will pardon this 
 manner of speaking of myself, and 1 will psiss to notice ano- 
 ther matter — for what I have said must suffice on this sub- 
 ject — on my part at least. 
 
 A few words now in relation to another point of difference 
 between us — the publication of an oral discussion. You de- 
 sired the discussion to be *^ permanent " and ** thorough ,•" and 
 proposed that it be taken down by stenographers, and pub- 
 lished. I did not wish to publish it in that manner, because 
 I had been engaged in one, recently, on the same subject, 
 with another person, now nearly ready for the press ; at least 
 I did not wish to do it now, for obvious reasons. 
 
 On this account, and at the same time to meet your desire 
 for the discussion to be "permanent" and "thorough," I of- 
 fered the compromise contained in my last letter — that the dis- 
 cussion be a written one, carried on through the columns of a 
 Universalist and Presbyterian paper; and to be put in book- 
 form afterwards, "«/ desirable,'''* — a phrase you seem not to 
 have noticed, in your attempt to make me appear inconsistent 
 with myself. If you are really willing to discuss the merits 
 of Universalism and Partialism, as I have no doubt you are; 
 and desiFe its publication so as to reach and benefit the most 
 persons, especially Universalists, (of whom you say there 
 
XU CORRESrONDENCi!:. 
 
 are more in Cincinnati and Ohio, than here, as a reason why 
 the discussion should be there,) why not accede to this 
 proposal ! You would thus reach ten times, perhaps twenty 
 times as many Universalists through the " Star" alone, as by 
 an oral discussion; and I only asked you to furnish another 
 paper, so that I could be speaking to Presbyterians at the 
 same time. I was willing it should be made into a book af- 
 terwards, " if desirable ;" because it could be done thus with 
 much less trouble and expense than by stenographers, and 
 because the close of a written correspondence would be so long 
 after the publication of my discussion with Mr, Waller, that 
 I should have no objection to have another book put forth, on 
 the same subject ; should it then be found expedient or desi- 
 rable. Certainly, you did not imagine your remark, that 
 " newspaper discussions are generally tedious, and soon be- 
 come uninteresting," to be an "obvious reason" for not ac- 
 cepting my last offer. I believe the contrary to be true ; for 
 the most interesting and useful discussion of Universalism 
 and Partialism, ever published, was conducted in this man- 
 ner ; I mean the one between Dr. Ely and Rev. Mr. Thomas. 
 
 I have now, Mr. Rice, presented more in detail, than I at 
 first intended, the reasons for my preferring the discussion to 
 take the form proposed in my last. I sincerely hope they 
 may prove satisfactory to your mind ; and that, after careful- 
 ly reviewing the whole matter, you will readily yield your 
 assent to an offer so nearly meeting your wishes in several 
 respects. Before positively refusing it, I pray you to serious- 
 ly reflect on the propriety of your neglecting so favorable an 
 opportunity of speaking to several thousand persons, in rela- 
 tion to a doctrine that you believe is endangering their souls, - 
 and exposing them to endless and unutterable damnation. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you, at your earliest convenience, I 
 remain, with sentiments of respect. 
 
 Yours, &c., E. M. Pingree. 
 
 Mr. Rice to Mr. Pingree. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Pingree : 
 
 Dear Sir — Your letter of the 9th in reply to mine, came to 
 hand on yesterday. As I had declined your new proposition, 
 I supposed our correspondence at an end. Your last seems 
 designed as a defence of your course in relation to your chal- 
 lenge. It is not satisfactory — so it appears to me. 
 
 You say the place of holding the discussion (Louisville) 
 "was a part of the proposal itself." Yes, and you might, 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. Xlll 
 
 with equal propriety, have included in the proposal, as a com- 
 ponent part of it, all the preliminaries. I cannot but be sur- 
 prised that one so hng^ and so extensively known as a dispu- 
 tant, as you profess to have been, should attempt to make the 
 place of conducting a discussion a part of a challenge to dis- 
 cuss. - 
 
 Again, you say you have not positively insisted on my 
 meeting you in your own city. Yet you positively declined 
 meeting me in Cincinnati, and named no other place. This 
 looks very much like making ihe place (your own city) a sin^ 
 qua non. 
 
 After referring me to Mr. Gurley's having opened his col- 
 umns to you, as evidence of your standing amongst the Uni- 
 versalists — thus admitting my right to call for evidence — 
 you now profess to consider such a demand " unwarrantable 
 and out of place," even a "virtual insult." I cannot but 
 wonder that a demand so improper as you now consider this, 
 was silently passed, or rather'sanctioned in your reply. But 
 I am really unable to understand how an expression of confi- 
 dence in a man, on the part of his friends, can be humiliating 
 or degrading. Their refusal to express such confidence, might 
 be so. Mr. P., however, thinks he has been as extensive- 
 ly, and for as long a lime, known as a disputant, as myself. 
 This Miay be true, and therefore, I did not positively decline 
 meeting him, but desired some evidence of his standing as a 
 man of talents and learning amongst his brethren. wTien 1 
 received the challenpfe, I made some inquiries relative to this 
 point; but could gain no satisfactory information. 
 
 It is true, I have several times heard of Mr. P. as a gentle- 
 man accustomed to give challenges and engage in debates ; 
 but I am well aware, that in many instances, men who are 
 least qualified to conduct such discussions, are most frequent- 
 ly engaged in them. Moreover, there are many editors and 
 associate editors, who are poor disputants, and still poorer the- 
 ologians. 
 
 When I challenge a man to a public discussion, I cannot 
 afterwards inquire whether he is capable of conducting it ably; 
 but when a man publicly calls on me to turn aside from my 
 engagements and enter into a public discussion with him, it 
 is my right and my duty to inquire whether he is a man with 
 whom such a discussion can be properly conducted. Accord- 
 ingly, inasmuch as I had no acquaintance with Uni versalists, 
 and knew not whether Mr. P. was considered by them an able 
 disputant, I desired an expression of confidence from a few 
 2 
 
XIV CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 of them. Had they given it, he would not have been injured ; 
 as it is, he may. 
 
 Mr. P.'s reason for declining the publication of the debate, 
 viz : (that he thought to publish a debate on the same subject 
 with Mr. W.) would have been a good reason for his not giv- 
 ing me a challenge, but it is a poor reason, after having given 
 it, for declining the publication of it. Every reason for hav- 
 ing a discussion, is a reason for publishing it. If it is impor- 
 tant that the people of Louisville should hear it, though they 
 may read the one about to be published, surely it is no less 
 important that many others equally interested should read it. 
 
 But Mr. P. only increased the inconsistency of his course, 
 by declining its publication, and immediately proposing a 
 written discussion to be published in two papers. The tact 
 that he only proposed to publish it once, and twice, if desira- 
 ble ! alters not the case, nor does it remove the difficulty, to 
 say, he did not wish to publish it " in that manner," since the 
 manner is unimportant, provided the arguments be presented 
 so as to interest and convince the reader. 
 
 To prove that newspaper discussions do not become tedious 
 and uninteresting, Mr. P. says : " The most interesting and 
 useful discussion of Universalism and Partialism ever pub- 
 lished, was conducted in this manner ; I mean the one between 
 Dr. Ely and Rev. Mr. Thomas." This may be true, but Mr. 
 Thomas, as I remember, greatly preferred an oral debate ; and 
 it was to a discussion of this kind, that he challenged Dr. 
 Ely. The latter gentleman proposed a newspaper discus- 
 sion; whereupon Mr. Thomas, though he agreed to it, said — 
 " I am sorry you decline accepting either of the proposals 
 contained in the letter of December 14. I am sorry, because 
 I am confident that a public disputation, in the manner propo- 
 sed, would excite little partisan feeling, were you one of the 
 opponent preachers and myself the other. And more attention 
 would thus he directed to the disputed question than we can rea- 
 sonably expect to excite hy a written controversy,^'' (See Dis- 
 cussion, p. 17). I agree with Mr. Thomas,-and, therefore, 
 cannot allow Mr. P. to change his challenge from an oral de- 
 bate to a newspaper discussion. 
 
 If the Universalists still desire a thorough discussion of the 
 merits of their faith, as they have so constantly professed, 
 they can find a man who will relieve Mr. P. from his undesi- 
 rable situation by taking his place. If they do not, I certain- 
 ly have no desire to press them into it. Respectfully, 
 
 N. L. Rice. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XV 
 
 P. S. Mr, Editor — I wrote the above immediately on re- 
 ceiving Mr. Pingree's last; but having once declined his new- 
 proposition for a newspaper discussion, I thought it unneces- 
 sary further to reply. On Saturday, however, I received the 
 "Christian Warrior," of Jan. 25, in which I found in an edi- 
 torial article headed "The Challenge," the following: 
 
 " Dr. Rice has shown more courage than his friend Plum- 
 er. He has expressed a willingness to discuss the question 
 of endless misery with an efficient advocate of Universalism, 
 in Cincinnati, Ohio. There is no doubt but that he will soon 
 be accommodated with a competent man." 
 
 On receiving this paper, I determined to send you my reply 
 to Mr. Pingree, and to say, that I shall wait patiently for the 
 " efliciont advocate," hoping, however, if such an one is to be 
 forthcoming, 1 may licar from him at an early day. 
 
 Respectfully, N. L. Rice. 
 
 February 3, 1846. 
 
 Mr. Pingree to Mr. Rice. 
 
 Louisville, Feb, 7, 1845. 
 Mr. N. L. Rice : 
 
 Dear Sir — Your letter of the 3d inst. calls for a few words 
 of reply. Two or three points only require to be noticed ; for 
 I am not anxious to multiply words with you on the subject; 
 especially as your course in the matter so distinctly evinces a 
 determination "to terminate the affair," without a discussion. 
 
 I invited you to a discussion of Universalism and Partial- 
 ism, in Louisville. This proposal was made to you in such 
 a manner — suggested by your challenge to the Romish clergy, 
 that you could not consistently decline it, directly ; you there- 
 fore seemed to accept, but made such "conditions " and terms 
 as you could hardly expect would be acceded to. One was, 
 that the Universalists should express their confidence in me 
 as the advocate of their Faith. 
 
 Now, sir, you will permit me to say, that in time past, we 
 have often yielded to conditions offered by our opponents, in 
 their arrogant assumptions of superiority, rather than lose the 
 opportunity of reaching the Partialists, by means of a discus- 
 sion. We have done this long enough. It is now no longer 
 necessary. For one, I will not submit to it — I must be treat- 
 ed with on terms of equality, or on none. 
 
 I invited you to a discussion, on my own responsibility; 
 and thus would I meet you, or not at all. In noticing your 
 first reply, I did not speak of this " condition," particularly ; 
 
XVI CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 because I imagined you iTiiglit not insist upon it, in view of 
 my other proposal, and the manner of it. I was willing to 
 overlook the " virtual insult," for the sake of a discussion. 
 So am I now ,• but will not yield to the assumption. But in- 
 sisting upon this after what I have said — after being told that 
 I would not submit to such forms, makes the fact now most 
 palpable, that you wish " to terminate the aftair." 
 
 True, you give the Universalists an opportunity of putting 
 forth another man, to relieve me from the "undesirable situa- 
 tion :" but you must have been most confidently assured in 
 your own mind, that, under the circumstances, nothing of the 
 kind would be done. In reference to this whole matter, per- 
 mit me to say, that 1 should not consider it " degrading or 
 humiliating," for Universalists to express any confidence they 
 might have in me ; but it would be both, sir, for them or me 
 to yield to your demand for it. As for the "injury" that 
 may accrue to me, from not having this " expression of confi- 
 dence," I see nothing terrifying in the idea ; besides, the risk 
 of that is mine, not yours. 
 
 I trust my position is distinctly understood and apprecia- 
 ted by yourself and our readers. I am willing to endure the 
 language of your affected superiority ; but not willing to yield 
 to its arrogant demands. Your position now seems to be — 
 insisting on a condition that you know will not be complied 
 with on my part, or the substitution of another person, obli- 
 ged also to submit to the same humiliating terms, with addi- 
 tional aggravating circumstances ; " or no discussion." 
 
 One word more — thoun-h now hardly necessary — in relation 
 to the " place and mode " of the proposed discussion. You 
 err in saying that I "made the place (Louisville,) a sine qua 
 non,^'' and "absolutely declined meeting you in Cincinnati." 
 I did neither. I proposed Louisville, and preferred declining 
 Cincinnati, in connection with your proposed mode of pub- 
 lishing the discussion, for reasons then and since given. I 
 then made another proposal, that I supposed would meet your 
 wishes in the most important particulars ; but this oflfer you 
 also reject. Having expressed my preference for the contro- 
 versy to be carried on thus, rather than its publication by the 
 aid of reporters, and you having declined that way of conduct- 
 ing it, I had finally concluded to accede to your proposal of 
 Cincinnati as the place — however difiicult it might be, under 
 the circumstances ; that is, in case you did not persist in your 
 demand for an indorsement; — ^but your last letter virtually 
 " terminates the affair," on your part,. by its clear expression 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XVU 
 
 of your obstinacy in that respect. I was only induced to 
 waive the reasons above referred to, for the sake of probably 
 reaching the minds of so many Partialists, by the aid of one 
 who now stands so high among them as a theological debater. 
 Respectfully, E. M. Pingree. 
 
 I have published the correspondence in this form, be- 
 cause the editor of the Star, after retaining my last letter 
 to Mr. P. two weeks, and after having sent it to Mr. P. 
 that he might reply to it, actually refused to publish it, 
 and yet published Mr. Pingree's answer to it! I have 
 had some considerable acquaintance with editorial labors, 
 and with discussions, oral and written ; and I have known 
 editors to be guilty of acts of injustice, and even of mean- 
 ness ; but the editor of the " Star " deserves the credit of 
 having made a lower stoop than any editor with whom I 
 am acquainted. 
 
 Mr. Pingree, the associate editor, published in the Star 
 his challenge to me, and called for a reply through the 
 same channel. As he opened the correspondence of his 
 own accord, I had the right to close it. But although his 
 letter of Jan. 9th calls for a reply, the editor refuses to 
 publish it — ^giving his brother Pingree the opportunity to 
 open and close the correspondence. 
 
 This is not all. He sends my letter to Mr. Pingree, 
 that he may reply to it; and, whilst refusing to let his 
 readers see my letter, actually publishes Mr. P.'s reply ! ! 
 The reader will wonder how Mr. Gurley attempts to jus- 
 tify his conduct. Here is his language : 
 
 " The following letter was received from Br. Pingree a 
 short time before the editorial form was made up, and we 
 give it to our readers without Mr. Rice's letter, to which the 
 first part of it alludes, for the reason that we have not room 
 for said letter, and also the fact, that it is little more than a repe- 
 tition of what has before appeared in his communications. 
 We cannot afford to fill up our columns with matter from Mr. 
 Rice which makes no progress whatever towards a discussion." 
 
 His first reason is, that he has not room for said letter. 
 And how has it happened, that, just at this point, his 
 room has become so scarce? He had room enough for 
 Mr. P.'s challenge — and even room enough for his reply 
 
XVlll CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 to a suppressed letter ! The truth is, there was room 
 enough in the paper — but Mr. P. and Universalism were 
 in a narrow place ! He aimed to protect his brother and 
 his cause. 
 
 The second reason is — " that it is little more than a re- 
 petition of what has before appeared in his communica- 
 tions." If Mr. G. believed this statement to be true, why 
 did he send it to Mr. P., and tlien publish his repl}^? 
 Had he not replied to my previous communications ? The 
 letter was so nearly a repetition, that it was unnecessary 
 to publish it ; and yet it was so far from being a repeti- 
 tion, that Mr. P. says, it calls for a reply, and Mr. G. 
 thinks it well to publish that reply ! 
 
 But if the reader desires to see for himself the evidence 
 of Mr. Gurley's veracity, let him read my previous com- 
 munication, together with the last; and he will be com- 
 pelled to see that he has deliberately stated what is 
 palpably untrue. This, I am aware is a severe charge 
 against a professed preacher of the Gospel ; but the evi- 
 dence is all before the reader. Let him judge. He will 
 find in my last, a quotation from Mr. k, C. Thomas, and 
 another from the " Christian Warrior," which the editor 
 did not desire his readers to see. The editor of the 
 "Warrior" seems not to have discovered the insult offer- 
 ed Mr. P.; and no wonder, for he did not see it himself, 
 until NECESSITY, " tlic mother of invention," discovered 
 it to him. But the editor of the Warrior, doubtless, sup- 
 posing his brethren in Cincinnati more courageous than 
 they are, expresses the utmost confidence that an able 
 advocate of Universalism will be forthcoming! The 
 truth is, my letter was suppressed, not because it was 
 a repetition, but because it was not, and because it con- 
 tained things which Mr. P. could answer much better 
 if they were not seen. Chivalrous gentlemen these cham 
 pions of Universalism! 
 
 I am truly glad that I declined the newspaper discus 
 sion. A gentleman capable of conduct such as is her», 
 exhibited, could not be trusted, however solemn his prom 
 ises, to deal fairly and honestly. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XlX 
 
 Two serious difficulties lie in the way of a discussion 
 with Mr. Pingree, viz: 1. After diligent inquiry, I am 
 convinced that he is not regarded either hy the public or 
 by his brethren as capable of doing justice to the subject. 
 Consequently, if a complete victory were gained over 
 him, it would be ascribed, not to the weakness of the 
 cause, but to the imperfect qualifications of the man. 2. 
 But if this difficulty were removed, Mr. P. declines pub- 
 lishing the debate. I am wholly unwiUing to take the 
 time, undergo the labor, and incur the expense of tho- 
 roughly discussing the merits of Universalism, unless the 
 debate be published, that it may be extensively read. I 
 desire to meet a man, who, as a man of talents and learn- 
 ing, enjoys the entire confidence of his brethren, as well 
 as of the public, and to place the arguments on both sides 
 in the same volume, that inquirers ' after the truth, may 
 satisfactorily examine the whole subject. 
 
 But Mr. P. is quite apprehensive that any man who 
 would propose to take his place, must be under the hu- 
 miliating necessity of being indorsed. Not at all. I 
 will relieve him and his friends from all difficulty on this 
 head. Rev. Abel C. Thomas, of this city, is known to 
 the public as a gentleman of high standing in his church, 
 and an able disputant. He is also known to be favorable 
 to discussions of "this kind. If, then, he will take Mr. 
 Pingree's place, or agree to discuss the following question 
 proposed by Mr. Pingrec, viz: "Do the Scriptures teach 
 the ultimate holiness and happiness of all men ?" I will 
 meet him in debate, provided, that one or more steno- 
 graphers be employed, and the whole discussion given to 
 the public, in a permanent form. 
 
 I would not thus have referred to Mr. Thomas, but for 
 the course pursued by Messrs. Pingree and Giirley, and 
 the editor of the "Christian Warrior.'' The challenge 
 came from the Universalists, not from me ; and it has 
 been again pressed upon me, after the correspondence, as 
 I supposed, was closed. Moreover, the Universalists, 
 not excepting Mr. Thomas, have uniformly expressed an 
 anxious desire for such discussion, and have complained, 
 
XX CORRESPONDENCE . 
 
 and boasted, that ministers of a different faith, and espe- 
 cially Presbyterian ministers, would not meet them. 
 Thus called out, and twice publicly challenged to a dis- 
 cussion, and taunted with being unwilling to meet the 
 issue, I deem it my duty to the cause of truth, to let the 
 public see that I am prepared to afford the Universalists 
 the fairest opportunity to propagate their favorite senti- 
 ments, to prove that they will bear close examination. 
 
 N. L. Rice. 
 P. S. I will send a copy of the above to Mr. Thom- 
 as, and shall hope to hear from him at an early day. 
 
 L. N. R. 
 
 To the PuMic. 
 
 The late correspondence between Messrs. Pingree and 
 Rice, together with comments by the latter, appeared in the 
 Chronicle of the 19th instant. 
 
 Had Mr. Rice confined himself to a plain and true state- 
 ment of the circumstances attending my exclusion of his last 
 letter, I should have passed the matter in silence; but he has 
 seen proper to charge me with deliberately uttering what is 
 palpably untrue — and a few words of reply may not be out 
 of place. 
 
 I have asserted that his last letter is little more than a re- 
 petition of what had appeared in his previous communica- 
 tions. This is plainly, merely a question of fact — and there 
 must certainly be obliquity of conscience in a man who will 
 denominate difference of opinion a deliberate falsehood. His 
 letter contains the same old story about the place of discus- 
 sion — whether it should be oral or written — the manner of its 
 publication — the demand for indorsement, etc., together with 
 a few sentences of irrelevant matter. The public have the 
 evidence before them, and they will decide whether my asser- 
 tion of repetition be or be not sustained. They will also 
 judge whether Mr. Rice, in his charge of deliberate false- 
 hood, has shown as much gentility as his professions of piety 
 lead us to expect. 
 
 But he says, likewise, that there was room enough in the 
 Star for his last letter; and here again he charged me with 
 falsehood. I need only remark in reply, that Mr. Pingree 
 was in Cincinnati, on business, soon after I received Mr. 
 Rice's last letter; not having leisure to answer it forthwith, 
 he took it with him to Louisville. It was returned to me, 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XXI 
 
 together with tlie rejoinder, on Monday forenoon. My paper 
 is made up usually on Monday evening. The type was 
 nearly all set when those letters arrived ; and if any one 
 doubts my word, that we had not room for Mr. R's letter, he 
 can make inquiry of my printer. If Mr. R. feels that in 
 this matter he has regarded the decencies of social inter- 
 course, his sensibilities cannot be very acute. 
 
 Advancing a step in his fault-finding appeal, he asserts 
 that his last letter contained statements which I did not wish 
 my readers to see ; and this he charges as another reason for 
 its exclusion. There need really be no answer to such as- 
 sumption of insight into my thoughts. Does he judge others 
 by the standard of his own morals 1 Does he suspect the mo- 
 tives of others, because he is himself accustomed to utter 
 w^hat he does not really believe or feel? I hope not. 
 
 Having ascertained to my entire satisfaction that he did 
 not design to meet Mr. Pingree in debate, for the reason 
 given in his communication to the Chronicle; and well 
 knowing that the condition of indorsement cut off all pros- 
 pect of one, I finally thoutrht best not to publish his letter at 
 all. 1 had no idea of filling np the paper with matter from 
 him, which was not, in fact, designed to bring about a dis- 
 cussion with Mr. Pingree. For this decision on my part, 
 he utters various hard words, at which, he will please take 
 notice, I am far from being frightened. The arrogant claims 
 of such Orthodox preachers, 1 ceased to regard a long time 
 ago; and I |reat them, in my capacity as Editor, as 1 do all 
 other men of equal moral worth. Their loud denunciations 
 against those who do not happen to think as they do— their 
 professions of exclusive piety — their sneers and sarcasms, I 
 estimate according to their real worth, not according to the 
 value placed upon thom by their authors. When I give my 
 word that a man shall have the use of my paper for any 
 specific object, he need have no fear of being dealt with un- 
 fairly; but no Orthodox preacher (self-styled) need expect 
 that I will publish any thing he may choose to write, profes- 
 sedly to obtain a discussion with a certain Preacher of ours, 
 when in truth he has previously made up his mind that he 
 tuill not meet him. 
 
 That this was Mr. Rice's determination from the first, is 
 evident from the face of the correspondence, and is confirmed 
 by the closing comments. Were we disposed to imitate his 
 example, we might charge him with deliberate falsehoodf for 
 stating that " diligent inquiries" had convinced him that Mr. 
 
XXll CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 P.'s brethren do not consider him capable of doing justice to 
 the subject of Universalism. There are doubtless some, and 
 there may be many, who would prefer Mr. Thomas, and pos 
 sibly there are many Presbyterians who do not think Mr 
 Rice to be more than a head taller than any other man in all 
 the earth. But what then 1 I told Mr. Rice myself, not three 
 days before the correspondence appeared in the Chronicle, 
 that all the Universalist clergy of the West have full confi 
 deuce in Mr. Pingree's ability to discuss any question with 
 Mr. Rice — (and I will now add, or Mr. Rice's superiors) — 
 and among all the laymen of our denomination I have nevei 
 heard this confidence doubted. What then becomes of Mr 
 Rice's '-''diligent inquiries?'''' It is manifestly nothing but 
 sli'am, designed to add injury to the insult of demanded in- 
 dorsement. He had not manliness enough to meet the chal - 
 lenge on its merits; and so he ignominiously sought to evade 
 it by an attempt to disparage the challengrer. It amounted to 
 this : Sir, I will meet you in discussion on several conditions^ — 
 the first of which is, you shall allow me to spit in your face! 
 
 As a sort of screen, Mr. Rice now interposes the sugges- 
 tion of Mr. Thomas as a substitute for Mr. Pingree. All this 
 again is but another form in which the challenge of the latter 
 may be evaded. Mr. Rice knows perfectly well, for I so in- 
 formed him, in the interview before referred to, that an oral 
 debate with Mr. Thomas was out of the question — that his 
 he.ilth would not allow of the excitement and labor of such a 
 discussion, if indeed there were no other reasons satisfactor}?^ 
 to his own mind, for declining any invitation of the sort. But 
 Mr. Rice says, that Mr. Thomas has expressed a preference 
 for oral debate. This is true, as applied to a period of ten or 
 twelve years ago, as quoted in Mr. R.'s last letter. But will 
 Mr. Rice deny that he has read Mr. Thomas' last letter to 
 Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, of Baltimore ] It was written in Au- 
 gust, 1844, and published in the Star of January 4, 1845. In 
 this letter, Mr. T. expresses his preference for written discus- 
 sions ; and in an appended paragraph he states, in so many 
 words, that he would neither give nor accept any invitation 
 to oral controversy. Mr. R. will not deny that he knew all 
 this, and yet he most valorously suggests Mr. Thomas as a 
 substitute for Mr. Pingree — thus evincing about as much 
 courage as a duelist would manifest in challenging a Quaker 
 to mortal combat. 
 
 Mr. Rice gives not the slightest intimation of this recently 
 expressed preference for written discussion — and if this con- 
 
CORRESPONDENXE. XXlll 
 
 cealment be a proof of either his candor or honesty, lie must 
 needs be saved, if saved at all, without foresight of good 
 works. Probably, however, he cannot conceive of any change 
 of views, on any subject, and this may, perhaps, be the rea- 
 son why he so tenaciously clings to the dead body of Old 
 School Calvinism, as fashioned about two centuries ago in 
 Westminster Hall. Besides, the negotiation between Mr. 
 Thomas and Dr. Breckenridge for a discussion, invited by 
 the former, is still pending, and is probably delayed in con- 
 sequence of death in the family of Dr. B. And even were 
 not this the case, does Mr. Rice really suppose, that Mr. 
 Thomas would so far countenance insult and attempted in- 
 jury to his brother minister in Louisville, as to accede to any 
 proposal of substitution ] Let Mr. R. renew his "diligent in- 
 quiry," and he will obtain information without the formality 
 of indorsement, that Mr. P. is fully his equal in the public 
 confidence, and then let him make the atonement which the 
 circumstances demand. If this be not done, we shall have a 
 crowning illustration of the intimate connection between Mr. 
 Rice's faith and morals. 
 
 Mr. Rice represents that Mr. Pinjrree insists, that if the 
 debate takes place, it shall not be published. We do not so 
 understand him. He consents to its publication in view of 
 all the circumstances — so that, this objection to discussion, 
 as urged by Mr. Rice, is removed. 
 
 Having no desire for a war of words, I respectfully submit 
 the whole matter to the public. John A. Gurley. 
 
 Reply to Mr. Gurley. 
 
 With Mr. Gurley it is not my purpose to enter into a dis- 
 cussion of any kind. Yet some things in his article in the 
 ChroiNicle of the 22d, require a brief notice. 
 
 As a reason for refusing to publish my letter to Mr. Pingree, 
 he stated that it was little more than a repetition of what had 
 appeared in my previous communications. This statement, I 
 have said, is not true. The question is, as he says, merely 
 a question of fact ,• and therefore it is not, as he intimates in 
 the same sentence, a matter of opinion! Let us look, then, at 
 facts. 
 
 1. Mr. Pingree had stated in his letter, to which mine was 
 a reply, that the place of holding the discussion was part of 
 the proposition itself, but that he had not positively insisted 
 on Louisville as the place. Part of my letter was a reply to 
 these assertions. It was not repetition. 
 
XXIV CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 2. Mr. P. had also said, that he considered that my call 
 for explanation concerning his standing- in his church, "a vir- 
 tual insult." Part of my letter was in reply to this — giving 
 reasons why my course was not offensive. This was not 
 repetition* 
 
 3. Mr. P., to prove that newspaper discussions do not be- 
 come tedious and uninteresting, had referred to the discussion 
 between Messrs. Thomas and Ely. Another part of my lettei 
 was in reply to this, containing a quotation from Mr. Thomas, 
 in which he expresses a decided preference for an oral discus- 
 sion. This was not repetition, 
 
 4. My letter contained an important quotation from the 
 "Christian Warrior," a Universalist paper, which caused me 
 particularly to desire the publication of my reply. This was 
 not repetition. 
 
 Thus it appears, as a matter of fact, that at least five'sixths 
 of my letter was not repetition, but new matter; and yet Mr. 
 Gurley, with the letter before him, tells his readers that it is 
 little else than repetition ! ! Yes : and whilst so saying, both 
 he and Mr. Pingree agree in thinking a reply to the suppressed 
 letter necessary!! Did Mr. G. read my letter 1 If he did 
 not, how could he say it was chiefly repetition] If he did, 
 how could he say sol I have been thus particular to show 
 that I do not make serious charges against men on slight 
 grounds. 
 
 A word about want of room in his paper for my letter. Mr. 
 P., he says, took it to Louisville to prepare a reply, and sent 
 it back when the type for the paper was nearly all set. Is it 
 possible, that Mr. Pingree thought it necessary to take my 
 repetitions to Louisville to answer them? But what propriety 
 was there in giving my letter to Mr. P. before it was printed ? 
 Or, if he chose to do so, why did he not publish the reply 
 first, and Mr. P.'s rejoinder in the next number? Or why 
 not have published both in the next"? Or, if Mr. Gurley was 
 resolved, in violation of justice and editorial courtesy, to ex- 
 clude my letter, why did he not, for decency's sake, also ex- 
 clude the reply to it] These are difficult questions. 
 
 But Mr. Gurley has felt at liberty to publish several things 
 which were said in a private conversation. Here, again, he 
 chose to suppress a part of the truth. He says he informed 
 me, not three days before the correspondence was published, 
 that Mr. P. enjoys the entire confidence of the Universalist 
 clergy in the West, as an able disputant. True, he gave me 
 this information after I had informed him that the correspond- 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XXV 
 
 ence was in the hands of the printer, and would probably 
 appear the next day. It is also true, that I then stated to Mr. 
 G., that after considerable inquiry, my clear impression was, 
 that the public, and Presbyterians particularly, did not con- 
 sider Mr. P. as standing- so high, but that if he would say 
 publicly what he said privately, I would not hesitate to meet 
 him. I had inquired of a number of intelligent gentlemen, 
 ministers and laymen, of different churches, and such was 
 their belief. I requested some of my friends to inquire of 
 some of the leading Universal ists, and they decidedly prefer- 
 red that Mr. Thomas should conduct the discussion. / there- 
 fore preferred meeting him. 
 
 But Mr. G. says, he informed me, at the same time, that 
 Mr. Thomas, in consequence of ill health, would not engage 
 in an oral discussion. This fact he states for the avowed 
 purpose of making the impression, that I proposed meeting" 
 Mr. T., knowing that he would not engage in such discussion. 
 It is true, that he informed me, after my manuscript had been 
 put into the printer's hands, that Mr. T., he thought, would 
 not engage in an oral debate; and it is also true, that I then 
 said to him, that if Mr. Thomas' health were such as he 
 represented, I would, in view of his standing in his church, 
 accommodate him with a written discussion. It is further 
 true, that Mr. G. expressed the opinion, that Mr. Thomas 
 would engage in a written discussion; and to facilitate the 
 matter, he proposed immediately to see him, which I approved. 
 Why did not Mr. G. state )^hese facts % Perhaps he had n9t 
 room; or, more probably, he thought they might spoil the 
 impression he sought to make. Is this the morality of Uni- 
 versalism ] or is Mr. Gurley peculiar in matters of this kind 1 
 
 Mr. G. asks, whether I will deny having read a letter of 
 Mr. Thomas to Dr. Breckenridge, in which, having changed 
 his mind, he expresses decided preference for written discus- 
 sions. I have never seen the letter ; nor had I heard of it. 
 What right had Mr. G. to assume that I had seen it, and on 
 that assumption to base the charge of "concealment 1" No ; 
 I neither suppress letters nor facts. 
 
 Mr. Gurley says, a neg^otiation for a discussion is pending 
 between Mr. Thomas and Dr. Breckenridge; but I learn from 
 the Christian Warrior that nothing has passed between them 
 smce last fall. This, however, will serve as an excuse. Mr. 
 Thomas has probably learned, by experience, more than his 
 y ounjofer brother. 
 
 But, to Bring this Ttoattf^r to a dose, Mr. GurleV, die edifo/ 
 3 
 
 OF THJ!^^, 
 
 jiUlflTBRSIT 
 
XXVI CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 cf the Universalist paper, and a Universalist minister, says, 
 •'thai all the Universalist clergy of the West have full confidence 
 in Mr, Pingreeh ability to discuss any question with Mr, Rice," 
 and he adds, " or with Mr, Iiice\s superiors," This is pre- 
 v;isely the information I desired to see communicated to the 
 public. I am willing to suppose that my information relating 
 to his standing amongst his brethren, was incorrect. Cer- 
 tainly Mr. Gurley ought to know. 
 
 Mr. Gurley also communicates important information on 
 another point, viz : that Mr, Pingree is now willing to have the 
 debate published. Of such disposition Mr. Pingree has not 
 dropped even a hint in his letters; but I am to suppose that 
 IMr. Gurley is authorized to make the statement. 
 
 I am now prepared to meet Mr. Pingree, and to discuss the 
 question proposed by him, viz : '''•Do the Scriptures teach the 
 ultimate holiness and salvation of all men7" I hope, now, we 
 shall have a final and speedy settlement of the matter; and I 
 may venture to hope that the Universalists of Cincinnati will 
 manifest their entire confidence in Mr. Pingree by opening 
 their church for the discussion. 
 
 Still, I confess, I have doubts on this subject. The ex- 
 ceeding sensitiveness of these challenging gentlemen, has pro- 
 duced, on my mind, the impression that they intend to have 
 no debate. They take offence too readily when no cause of 
 offence exists. The fact that I and my friends did not know 
 Mr. Pingree's standing amongst his brethren, and therefore 
 called for information, is no cause of offence to any reasonable 
 man. Since, however, they have put forth the challenge with 
 a tolerable portion of abuse, I deem it my duty to have a de- 
 bate or a retreat. N. L. Rice. 
 
 P. S. I shall send a copy of the above to Mr. Pingree, 
 which he will please receive in place of a letter; and I shall 
 hope to hear from him at his earliest convenience. 
 
 N. L. R. 
 
 Mr. Piii^ee to Mr. Rice. 
 
 Mr. Rice : 
 
 Dear Sir: — Within a few days past I have received several 
 Nos. of the "Daily Cincinnati Chronicle,'* containing our 
 correspondence on the subject of a proposed discussion ; the 
 last of which, of the 24th instant, came to hand this morning. 
 I do not enter into your controversy with my friend Mr. Gur- 
 ley; but come directly to the question, whether you and I shall 
 have a discussion on Universalism, or not. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. XXVll 
 
 Here is a narrative of affairs : I invited you to a discussion 
 of Universalism and Partialism, in Louisville; you declined; 
 but said you would debate in Cincinnati, in case I would 
 comply with two "conditions." 1. Be indorsed; and 2. 
 Have the discussion published by the aid of stenographers. 
 I did not like these terms — overlooking one, because I thought 
 you might not insist upon it, and offered a sort of compromise. 
 This you did not accept; and did insist upon my being "in- 
 dorsed." If you had not insisted on this, I had concluded to 
 accede to your proposal of Cincinnati as the place of holding 
 the discussion — as named in my last letter to you, published 
 in the "Star;" and, of course, to its publication as you pro- 
 posed. This for reasons referred to in that letter. 
 
 You now profess to be satisfied with the expression of the 
 fact of my possessing the confidence of the Universalist com- 
 munity. Then you consider all your terms complied with. 
 1. I now agree to go to Cincinnati; — 2. I agree to the publi- 
 cation of the discussion, if on fair and reasonable terms; — 3. 
 You agree to accept me as the advocate of Universalism, hav- 
 ing received, as you say, ^^ precisely the information you f?c- 
 sired.^^ 
 
 What next? You "venture to hope that the Universalists 
 of Cincinnati will Tnanifest their entire confidence in me, by 
 opening their church for the discussion." 
 
 I might have expected strange things of you; but not this. 
 If you had accepted my invitation to hold the discussion in 
 Louisville, I should of course have felt obliged to furnish a 
 church. But you refuse to come to Louisville ; you take me 
 to your own city, where you are settled, and have a church 
 and congreg-ation ; and then require me to furnish a house ! ! 
 Besides, asking it as an additional evidence, after you are sat- 
 isfied — test upon test — of the Universalists' confidence in me ! 
 In vie^y of the circumstances, this is the most unreasonable 
 and outrageous of all your " conditions ;" if, indeed, you make 
 it one. 
 
 Now, Sir, we have met you more than half way, for the 
 sake of a discussion ; and we think that is about far enough. 
 It is time for you to cease making tenns and conditions in re- 
 lation to this matter; and we '•^m^Lj h?i\e 3. final and speedy 
 settlement'* of the whole affair, so far as a controversy between 
 you and me is concerned. 
 
 If I accept your invitation to go to Cincinnati, you are bound 
 in all justice {and I shall expect this of you) to furnish a church 
 for the discussion. 
 
XXViii CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 You have my answer ; for I do not desire further to multi 
 ply words on this subject. The decision is now with you: ay 
 you say, " a debate or a retreat." 
 
 Respectfully, E. M. Pingree. 
 
 Mr. N. L. Rice. 
 
 Mr. Rice to Mr. Pingree. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Pingree : 
 
 Dear Sir : — From the earnestness with which you urged me 
 not to decline your challenge to a public discussion ; from the 
 anxiety expressed by your brother of the Christian Warrior 
 to learn by what means I would "escape from the comer' 
 into which you had "driven" me; from the constantly re- 
 peated complaints of Universalist preachers, that, much as 
 they desire such discussions, with those of a different faith, 
 and especially Presbyterians, we would not meet them; from 
 these, and other considerations, I had reason to expect to find 
 you and your friends, when your challenge should be accept- 
 ed, in a very pleasant humor, and fine spirits. I have been 
 somewhat disappointed. Your letter indicates quite a differ- 
 ent state of feeling. 
 
 I had the right to suppose, too, that the Universal ists of 
 Cincinnati would rejoice in the opportunity of opening their 
 church to such a discussion — especially as their views are to 
 be advocated by a gentleman who, as to talents and learning, 
 enjoys their entire confidence; and still more, as Mr. Thom- 
 as, while asserting the great desire of the Universalists as a 
 denomination, for a thorough investigation of their doctrines, 
 said to Dr. Ely : " The use of our meeting houses, as you very 
 well know, has frequently and earnestly been tendered to the op- 
 posers of the sentiments in which we rejoice. You are aware 
 that these evidences of our disposition to "try the spirits 
 whether they are of God," have seldom been so regarded as 
 to induce a compliance with our respectful solicitations." — 
 Theol. Dis. p. 240. 
 
 Presbyterians are not much in the habit of giving challen- 
 ges of this kind. Many of them have doubted the expedien- 
 cy of such discussions. This discussion has not been sought 
 by me or my friends, but has been urged upon me by you and 
 yours. My church is entirely too small to accommodate those 
 who will desire to attend. I, therefore, ventured to express 
 the hope that your Universalist friends, who have ever been 
 urgent for such discussions, and who seem to feel so much 
 confidence in Mr. P., would show their faith by their works — 
 
RtJLES OF DISCUSSION. XXlX 
 
 not because I require " an additional evidence" of your stand- 
 ing, but because the opening of their church would be in per- 
 fect accordance with professions so repeatedly made. 
 
 But most cheerfully we will furnish a house, if our Uni- 
 versalist friends are unwilling to allow us the use of theirs. 
 
 As it is desirable that the discussion should occur with the 
 least possible delay, and as the preliminary arrangements cari 
 be made more conreniently and expeditiously in Cincinnati 
 than elsewhere, I hope Mr. P. will, at his earliest convenience, 
 pay us a visit, or authorize some of his friends to act for him 
 in the premises. Respectfully, N. L. Rice. 
 
 RULES OF DISCUSSION 
 
 BETWEEN E. M. PINGREE AND N. L. RICE. 
 
 1. The discussion shall commence on Monday even- 
 ing, March 24th, to be held in the city of Cincinnati . 
 
 2. Agreed that each of the disputants will select one 
 Moderator, and these two shall select a third — who, to- 
 gether, shall constitute the Board of Moderators: Wm. 
 Greene, Esq., selected by E. M. Pingree, and Judge Cof- 
 fin, by N. L. Rice. These two selected Henry Starr, 
 Esq., as presiding Moderator, 
 
 3. The disputants shall occupy one half hour alternate- 
 ly. The debate shall commence at 7 o'clock, P. M. (un- 
 less the hour should be hereafter altered by consent of 
 parties,) and shall continue two and a half hours, 
 
 4. The discussion shall continue eight evenings. 
 
 5. On the final negative, no new matter shall be intro- 
 duced, except in reply to matter introduced for the first 
 time in the closing speech of the affirmant. 
 
 6. The proposition for discussion is the following: 
 " Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salva- 
 tion of all men?" 
 
 7. The disputants agree to employ a stenographer, who 
 shall take down and write out the whole debate for pub- 
 lication. 
 
 8^ 
 
XXX RULES OF DISCUSSION. 
 
 8. It shall be the privilege of the disputants to make 
 any verbal or grammatical changes in the stenographer's 
 report, that shall not alter the state of the argument, or 
 change any fact. 
 
 9. The copy-right of the Debate shall be sold to a pub- 
 lisher, or to an individual or individuals, in Cincinnati, 
 who will agree to publish it as early as possible after it 
 shall have been prepared for the press ; and the disputants 
 shall furnish a certified copy of the i)ebate to said pub- 
 lisher or publishers. E. M. Pingree, Jiff 
 
 N. L. Rice. 
 Cincinnati, March 19th, 1845. 
 
^ 0? TEM 
 
 [TjiriyBRsiTTj 
 
 '^iim 
 
 DISCUSSION 
 
 OF 
 
 UNIVERSALIS!. 
 
 [mr. pingree's opening speech.] 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, and respected auditors — We 
 are assembled, to-night, for the investigation of one of the 
 most important subjects that can occupy the mind of man ; 
 to wit, the final and immortal destiny of the whole 
 HUMAN RACE, — to scek an answer to the question whether 
 all men are finally to be made holy, happy, saved ; or wheth- 
 er some are to sin and suffer to all eternity. . I need not, 
 then, dwell on the important and thrilling interest of such 
 an inquiry ; and lience, also, I need not ask your earnest 
 attention to the discussion : yet I may be permitted to 
 ask, that I, so far as it is possible, as the advocate of 
 universal salvation on the present occasion, may receive 
 your candid and unprejudiced attention. Is this asking 
 too much, of this vast multitude ? I will name tlie reason 
 of this request ; or rather, you will see it in the few re- 
 marks I am about to make on the history of Universalism. 
 
 We hold, and I shall endeavor to prove in this discus- 
 sion, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches, the system 
 of Universalism ; but that in a very short time after the 
 age of the Apostles, Christianity became corrupted, and 
 was lost in darkness, to a great extent ; and almost all 
 the professed Christian church lost the sentiment of 
 the final holiness and salvation of all men. Darkness 
 reigned almost universally, for several centuries. Even 
 the reformation of Luther and Calvin did not set aside 
 all the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, 
 
32 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 and left that church to keep its sway over Christendom, in 
 retaining ahnost all the substantial errors it had so long 
 maintained undisputed. In fact, these are the prevailing 
 sentiments at the present day, in this community, and that 
 is the reason why I now ask again your candid and iinpre" 
 judiced atteiition. The vast majority are in favor of the 
 doctrines held by my opponent in this discussion, and are 
 opposed to Universalism. Our enemies, if I may so speak ; 
 ■our enemies have so misstated and misrepresented our doc- 
 trines and our whole system, that persons are in the habit 
 of associating us with every thing that is evil and horrible. 
 This you know. Hence the difficulty of obtaining a fair 
 hearing in a community generally composed of thos^ so 
 long accustomed to orthodox notions. I am therefore the 
 more thankful for the present opportunity of reaching 
 many minds, that in this world never w^ould have been 
 reached by the preacher of universal salvation. I thank 
 Mr. Rice, whose name and celebrity have been the means 
 of bringing together many who have the utmost confi- 
 dence in him and in the doctrines he holds, and who will 
 thus be reached by our doctrines, as we hold them, and 
 not as they have heard them represented I hope to be 
 able to present Universalism as it is, to an audience who 
 have been taught to despise Universalists, and who may 
 be induced to thiiik better of them and their doctrines 
 hereafter. I confidently expect at least to do this. 
 
 It may now be proper to state the system of Univer- 
 salism, in its main points. This may serve to correct 
 erroneous prepossessions in some minds, in reference to 
 our general Faith ; and will prepare the way better for the 
 discussion of the proposition before us, and relieve it from 
 some difficulties. 
 
 Universalists believe, then, in one God, the Father 
 of all human spirits ; — in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of God, the " mediator' between God and men," 
 the Saviour of the world ; — in his Holy Spirit of grace ; 
 that the Bible is a revelation from God, of the duty 
 and the destiny of man ; that the rewards of virtue are 
 certain, as is the just punishment of vice ; and that tliere 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. ^ 
 
 will be a resurrection of all the dead to a state of tm- 
 mortality, holiness, and salvation: and this last is the 
 first under discussion, on the present occason ; the final 
 holiness and salvation of all men. 
 
 Without further introductory remarks, therefore, I shall 
 proceed to state the proposition, define its terms, and en- 
 ter at once upon the argument. This is the proposition : 
 The Scriptures do teach the ultitnate holiness and salva- 
 tion of all men. Its terms do not need to be defined to 
 any great extent. Every body will understand the most 
 of them, without much definition. 
 
 By the Scriptures I understand the Holy Bible — the 
 volume containing the revelation of God to man, of his 
 duty and destiny. As to the word ultimate, there can 
 be no difference of opinion, as I apprehend. But I will 
 define it as referring to the final condition of the human 
 race, beyond lohich there is to be no opposite or different 
 condition. I do not affirm that all men are saved, in this 
 life. We know that all are not. The proposition is, that 
 all will be finally holy, and saved. The word holiness 
 is understood by all. To be made holy, is to be puri- 
 fied from sin, and rendered fit for the heavenly state. The 
 word salvation is more ambiguous. What, then, do I 
 mean by it ? What definition do I attach to it, in affirm- 
 ing the proposition under discussion 1 Do I mean to 
 teach, or to affirm, that men are to be saved in their sins? 
 No ; and I wish you to mark the statement, that there 
 may be no error on your part, or on that of Mr. Rice, as 
 to the precise thing I undertake to prove. I say, that 
 salvation does not take men to heaven in their sins — we 
 do not believe that. Nor is it a salvation from exposed- 
 ness to endless misery in the life to come. Nor do I de- 
 fine or defend salvation as a deliverance from deserved 
 punishment ; that is not in the proposition. This is it, 
 and I wish it to be marked : the deliverance of men 
 from sin, from suffering, and from death, into a state of 
 holiness, of happiness, and of immortality. That is 
 what we mean by salvation : that, and nothing else, and 
 nothing less. All men : this phrase we understand in a 
 
34 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 general sense ; especially as embracing all sinners — all 
 sinful mortals. 
 
 Now, any argument, or any passage of Scripture 
 brought by my opponent against any system other than 
 this, will not answer the purpose. We want arguments 
 an J texts against this proposition, as thus defined ; any 
 wandering into other matters, will not require, nor re- 
 ceive my attention. I shall present only a few passages 
 of Scripture, one at a time. They shall be strong, firm, 
 clear, explicit, and unequivocal. If I present a few such, 
 it is belter than that I should burden your mind with many 
 at a time. If my friend, Mr. Rice, will take up the few 
 strong passages, which I shall present, and take them out of 
 my hands, and show that they do not teach the ultimate ho- 
 liness and salvation of all mankind, I will acknowledge 
 that I am in error. He is invited to this work most ear- 
 nestly and heartily — to take these passages out of my 
 hands. By them I shall abide ; by them I am willing to 
 stand, or fall. If I am driven away from them, I will 
 confess my error, and give up the proposition, on their 
 being shown not to prove the proposition. 
 
 With this understanding as to the subject in hand, and 
 what I have engaged to advocate, allow me to remark 
 further, that it will not be enough for Mr. Rice to estab- 
 lish another and opposite doctrine. This, perhaps, he 
 may find the easiest way to discuss this proposition — to 
 bring up passages, which he claims as proofs of endless 
 sin and misery. But this will not be enough. He must 
 first take my proofs out of my hands, if he can, and 
 show that they do not prove the proposition. After 
 that, he is at liberty to go on, and prove any thing else 
 opposed to this ; and then I shall take such time as I may 
 have to answer his opposing doctrines ; though I am not 
 logically bound to devote much labor to that kind of ar- 
 gument. I mention this now, that there may be no mis- 
 understanding as to the course I intend to pursue. 
 
 Before entering directly upon the argument, allow me to 
 add one other remark. The word " salvation,^'' as used 
 in the proposition, I have defined ; but I shall not, for the 
 
OF UNTV'KRSALISM. 35 
 
 present, quote passages in defence of the proposition, 
 which contain the Word save, or sulvation ; because there 
 may be a difference of opinion as to the meaning of 
 the word. The word itself is ambiguous. But I shall 
 first prove the thing, in another form than by the use of 
 passages, containing the ivord " saved." 
 
 My first position, then, is, that in the resurrection 
 OF THE DEAD — of ALL the dead, a change is effected, that 
 introduces all men into a state of happiness, and is, in 
 fact, part of the salvation affirmed in the proposition. I 
 repeat : in the resurrection, all men are so changed, as 
 to be introduced into a state of holiness, happiness, and 
 immortality. 
 
 Now, the necessity of this change after death, arises 
 from the present condition of man on earth. Look at 
 the condition of the Pagan world. The best of these 
 never arrive at the means of grace in this world. They 
 have no opportunity to go to God, or to be saved, accord- 
 ing to the supposed common means of salvation. Such 
 is their condition in this life. The whole mass of the 
 Pagan world must therefore be swept into perdition for- 
 ever, unless changed q/'/er death; — so also infants. That 
 great mass of human beings that die before they are ac- 
 countable for their actions, are not perfectly fitted for hea- 
 ven, before death. What is the condition of infants here ? 
 They are not fit to enjoy a state of perfect purity, and 
 holiness, and happiness in heaven. They must be chan- 
 ged after death. Again, as to idiots, who know nothing, 
 and can know nothing ; who want renewing, both physi- 
 cally and morally ; who are in a state of darkness, blind- 
 ness, physica^^nd moral corruption, here, and who can- 
 not be accounSole for their actions ; yet, who are not fit 
 for heaven. Hence, the necessity for a change after 
 death. Further — the condition of the whole Christian 
 world, divided into sects, full of differences, strifes, con- 
 tentions ; having no unity of faith, or bonds of brother- 
 hood, one with another ; yet, in many respects, pious, 
 virtuous, moral, and walking uprightly before God ; — peo- 
 ple who expect to go to heaven when they die. But if 
 
36 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 they are not changed after death, they cannot do so. Even 
 the best Christians now on earth, must be changed after 
 death, to insure perfect unity of feehng among them. So 
 in reference to all men ; some require a greater change 
 and some a less ; yet all, without exception, require some 
 change after death, to make them fit for the abodes of 
 perfect purity and bliss in the immortal world ; for a state 
 of things in which they must be mentally and morally 
 changed, or else they cannot be completely happy. 
 
 Now, does the Bible teach this ? Yes ; the Bible 
 teaches that there is to be a change for all men, from 
 mortality, impurity, and suffering, to a state of immortal- 
 ity, purity, and happiness. 
 
 You must keep in mind, now and always, the charac- 
 ter of God, the Author of the Bible, and who is to decide 
 the destiny of mankind. God is our Father — the Fa- 
 ther of the spirits of all flesh ; and, according to John, 
 " God is Love :" in his very nature and essence, he is love. 
 He is " good," says the Psalmist, " unto all, and his tender ' 
 mercies are over all his works ^ This character of God 
 is not denied. Every body admits it — that God is the 
 Father of human spirits ; that He is good, all wise, al- 
 mighty, able to perform all his will concerning the desti- 
 ny of man ; and that He is unchangeably the same. 
 
 Having this in mind, I now proceed to my first scrip- 
 tural proof, which I derive from the fifteenth chapter of 
 the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians ; and I hope 
 that you all, and especially my friend, Mr. Rice, will pay 
 particular attention to it. It seems that certain Christians 
 of the Corinthian church, in the time of Paul, had fallen 
 into error, in regard to religious faith a^ practice, and 
 misunderstood the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
 dead. Some even de/aied the resurrection. Hence Paul 
 makes a full statement of this main Christian doctrine, 
 and a labored argument to establish it in their minds. 
 He is proceeding, as you will see, (it is not necessary now 
 to read the whole chapter,) to prove the resurrection of 
 all men, from the fact of Jesus Christ's resurrection, who 
 was " the first fruits of them that slept." If Christ is 
 
OF UNIVETISALISM. W 
 
 risen, then will men rise — if not, then death is an endless 
 sleep. We now have a distinct statement as to the re- 
 surrection : verse 20, " But now is Christ risen from the 
 dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For 
 .since by man came death, by man came also the resur- 
 rection from the dead ; For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive." Here we see that 
 ill who die in Adam shall be made alive " in Christ." 
 This shows the positive, certain, and absolute universal- 
 ity of the resurrection. Verse 23, " But every man in 
 his own order : Christ the first fruits, afterwards they 
 that are Christ's at his coming." This is the natural 
 order : Christ, the first fruits ; and then all are to be 
 Christ's ; for all are given to him, and shall then be 
 his, in spirit and character. What then? verse 24, 
 " 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 power. 
 For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his 
 feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death ;" 
 or, (omitting the words inserted by the translators,) the 
 last enemy shall be destroyed, death. " For he hath put 
 all things under his feet ; But when he saith all things 
 are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted 
 which drJ put all things under him. And when all 
 things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son 
 also, himself, be subject unto him that put all things un- 
 der him, that Go^ may be all in all." 
 
 Now that is jlhe consummation, the reign of Christ 
 over men. All men shall be subdued unto him, in his 
 kingdom ; and the kingdom is to be delivered to the 
 Father ; and God, who is love, and the Father of our 
 spirits, is to be all in all ! ! This is the glorious consum- 
 mation which we affirm in the proposition, relating to 
 the destiny of man. 
 
 Let us pause here, and consider this passage. The 
 
 kingdom which the Son is to deliver up to the Father, 
 
 is the kingdom which the Father gave to the Son 1800 
 
 years ago, when his kingdom was established. He now 
 
 4 
 
38 AN ORAL DISCUSSION ^ 
 
 reigns, and rules, and judges men according to their 
 works. When this work is done, all are made pure and 
 holy ; then his kingdom is to be delivered back to God, 
 and " God is to be all in all." This shows what the 
 condition of mankind is to be, when raised from the 
 dead. 
 
 I pass, now, over several intermediate verses not bear- 
 ing directly on our present inquiry, and come to the 35th 
 verse: "But some will say, How are the dead raised up, 
 and with what body do they come ?" That was the inquiry 
 then ; not. How do they die ? That is the inquiry now : 
 How do they die? — in what state of mind and heart are 
 they at the moment of death? This was not the ques- 
 tion put by the apostle Paul. It was, "How are they 
 raised up, and with what body do they come?^'* The 
 apostle answers the question thus, ver. 36: "Thou fool! 
 that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die ; 
 and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body 
 that shall be, but bare grain; (this is his illustration ;) it 
 may chance of Avheat, x)r of some other grain ; but God 
 giveth it a body as it hath pleased him — and to every seed 
 his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh : but there 
 is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, an- 
 other of fishes, and another of birds. There are also ce- 
 lestial bodies, and bodies ttTrestrial ; but the glory of the 
 celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 
 There is one glory of the sun, another of the moon, and 
 another glory of the stars : for one star differeth from an- 
 other in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." 
 How ? why, as one star differeth from another, so tlie re- 
 surrection state differeth from the earthly state; the hu- 
 man being, in the resurrection, differs from the earthly, 
 mortal body, as one star differeth from another in glory 
 And how ? mark the answer. The apostle proceeds : " It 
 is sown in corruption,'''' Is it raised thus? No; "It is 
 raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor." Is it 
 raised in dishonor? So men say now. Paul says not 
 so; "It is raised in glory." That is to be the change 
 effected in all men, after death, as I affirmed in the be- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 39 
 
 ginning of the argument. But again: "It is sown in 
 weakness : it is raised in power. It is sown a natural 
 body — it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural 
 body and there is a spiritual body." And so it is written: 
 "the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last 
 Adam was made a quickening spirit." — [Time expired, 
 
 I will resume the subject, at this point, in my next 
 speech. 
 
 [mr. rice's first reply.] 
 
 I hope, my friends, we shall have the silent and solemn 
 attention of this very large audience ; for unless there be 
 entire stillness, it will be impossible that the speakers can 
 be heard. 
 
 This discussion, as many of you are aware, did not 
 originate with me, but was entered upon in consequence 
 of a challenge from my zealous friend, Mr. Pingree, 
 whose delight it seems to be to propagate, as extensively 
 as possible, his modern faith. I am happy, however, in 
 having the opportunity to meet the gentleman, because 
 the public have been certified by a prominent clergyman 
 of the Universalist church, that he enjoys the entire con- 
 fidence of his denomination, both laity and clergy — that 
 they regard him not only as my equals but as decidedly 
 my superior. I have the right, therefore, to conclude, 
 that, should he prove unable to sustain the principles of 
 Universalism in this discussion, his failure must be attri- 
 buted not to the weakness of the man, but to the indefen- 
 sibleness of his cause. 
 
 The question about to be discussed, has been stated. 
 Mr. Pingree undertakes to prove, that the Scriptures teach 
 the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men, I agree 
 with him in regarding the subject as one of incalculable 
 importance — a subject, consequently, which claims from 
 every one a candid and prayerful investigation : for sure- 
 ly it is not the true interest of any human being to be de- 
 ceived on a subject involving his eternal happiness. 
 
 There are two or three points in which the gentleman 
 and myself agree, viz: 1. That the question before us is 
 to be determined by an appeal simply to the Scriptures. 
 
40 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The question is — "Do the Scriptures leach tiie altimate 
 hohness and salvation of all men?" 2. That holiness is 
 an essential pre-requisite to happiness ; and consequently, 
 none can be saved unless they become holy. 3. That all 
 who are converted to God and sanctified in the present 
 life, will be saved. On these three points we agree ; but 
 on the following, we differ, viz: Mr Pingi'ee maintains, 
 that all those tvho die in their sins, will be ultimately holy 
 and happy. He does not, indeed, contend that they will 
 be made happy in their sins ; for, as already remarked, 
 we agree that holiness is essential to happiness. But he 
 does affirm, that all who die in. their sins, unreconciled 
 and unsanctified, will be made ultimately both holy and 
 happy. This I deny: and here we join issue. 
 
 Let it be distinctly understood, then, that what the 
 Scriptures say of the salvation of those who are recon- 
 ciled and sanctified, in this life, proves nothing for Uni- 
 versalism. Since we both agree that all such will be saved, 
 it will be necessary for Mr. Pingree to prove that those 
 who die in sin will, after death, be reconciled and sancti- 
 fied. Strictly speaking, I have nothing to prove ; I have 
 only to show the fallacy of his reasoning, and that he does 
 not prove his proposition — that the Scriptures teach the ul- 
 timate holiness and salvation of all men. Still, however, 
 I expect to establish two important truths, viz: 1. That 
 the Scriptures teach the doctrine oi future punishment' — 
 a punishment after death. 2. That that punishment will 
 be etcrnaL The reason why I discuss the subject thus, 
 will probably appear hereafter. 
 
 Since Mr. Pingree denies all future punishment, I hope 
 he will rely simph^ on his own principles, and not attempt 
 to sustain himself by resorting to those of the Restora- 
 tionists, who admit the doctrine of future punishment, but 
 deny that it will be eternal. 
 
 But before entering upon the argument, I must protest 
 against the attempt of my friend, Mr. Pingree, to dictate to 
 me concerning the course I am to pursue in this discussion. 
 He tells you, it will not do for me to overturn his doctrine 
 by proving the truth of the opposite doctrine, bu^ that I 
 
OF UMlVERSALISM. 41 
 
 must follow him, step by step ; and, after having answer- 
 ed each of his arguments, I may present such as I have 
 to offer ; and, if he has time, he will attend to them. Do 
 not mathematicians often disprove a proposition by pro- 
 ving the opposite to be true? I may prove a doctrine 
 false, eitlicr by directly assailing the argument on which 
 it depends, or by establishing the trutli of the opposite 
 doctrine. Both modes are legitimate. Mr. Pingree under- 
 takes to establish the doctrine that all men will be saved. 
 May I not disprove this, by proving that some will be lost? 
 And if I establish the truth, that some will be lost, have 
 I not refuted his doctrine, whether I follow him or not ? 
 If I prove the truth of the opposite doctrine, the question 
 is settled forever, according to admitted principles of rea- 
 soning. I intend, however, to follow the gentleman, and 
 to answer all the arginiients he may offer. 
 
 The Gospel, he informs us, teaches Universalism ; and 
 he has given us some information concerning the liistory 
 of this doctrine. I am glad that he has touched on this 
 subject. The great design of the Gospel, it seems, was 
 to teach the doctrine of Universalism — the ultimate holi- 
 ness and salvation of all men; and yet this most momen- 
 tous truth, he infonns us, was very soon lost sight of, and 
 for many long centuries the Christian church was envel- 
 oped in gross darkness. Only here and there a solitary 
 individual, it would seem, caught even a distant glimpse 
 of the most prominent and most important doctrine of 
 tlie word of God! It is indeed remarkable, that, from 
 the earliest period of the Christian era to which history 
 can take us back, till the memorable year A. D. 1818, not 
 a Universalist of the modern school appeared on earth ! 
 And, strange as it may appear, the father of modern Uni- 
 versalism now lives in Boston! We cannot help won- 
 dering, that, during eighteen centuries^ the most impor- 
 tant as well as the most prominent doctrine of the Gospel, 
 should have been lost sight of by the whole Christian 
 church ! 
 
 Luther and Calvm, the gentleman says, dM not renounce 
 all error. No; for if Universalism be true, they failed 
 4* 
 
42 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 to discover any portion of the truth ; and all Ohristendoni 
 is in a similar predicament. For, until very recently, 
 they have held not one doctrine in common with it, ex- 
 cept the doctrine of the resurrection ; and even in regard 
 to this, the Universalists differ materially from almost all 
 others. We are, then, forced to the conclusion, that if 
 Universalism be true, the whole Christian world have 
 been, for eighteen centuries, ignorant of the fundamental 
 principles of the Gospel! On this subject I may have 
 somethinp" more to say presently. 
 
 I was gratified to hear from the gentleman an outline 
 of the faith of Universalists; but I regret that his state^ 
 ment was so perfectly indefinite. Universalists, he saysj 
 believe in one God, the Father of all. Very well. They 
 also believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. But who is the 
 Lord Jesus Christ? What is his character? On this 
 most important point, Universalists differ infinitely from 
 almost the whole Christian world. They believe him to 
 be a C7^eated, dependent being — a mere man; whilst the 
 overwhelming mass of the readers of the Scriptures have 
 believed him to be truly God, as well as man. Again: 
 Universalists, he says, believe in the Holy Spirit of grace. 
 But who or what is meant by the Holy Spirit? Here 
 again Universalists differ infinitely from the faith of the 
 Chris tian church in all ages ; for they deny his personal- 
 ity and divinity. Universalists also believe in rewards 
 and punishments ; but they believe that every man suffers 
 all that his sins deserve in the present life, and that none 
 are to expect rewards of righteousness hereafter. Thus 
 we discover, that although the Universalist creed, as giv- 
 en by Mr. Pingree, would seem to differ but little from the 
 views of Christians generally, there is in truth infinite 
 difference. 
 
 The question to be discussed, was stated clearly by the 
 gentleman. I do not object to his explanation of the Avord 
 ''''Ultimate.'^'' I am not so clear, however, about^the word 
 ''■ salvation.'''' He told us he did not believe in a salva- 
 tion of men in sin. Nor does he believe in a salvation 
 from exposedness to endless misery^ for he denies that 
 
OF TJNIVERSALISM. 43 
 
 men are exposed to such misery. Nor does he believe 
 in salvation from merited punishment ; for he maintains, 
 that all are in fact punished precisely as they deserve. I 
 desire, then, to know from what this salvation delivers 
 men, since it does not deliver them from merited punish" 
 ment here or hereafter. We know that the word salva- 
 tion signifies deliverance from evils to which men are 
 justly exposed. Mr. Pingree says, it is deliverance /rom 
 sin. But, I ask, are men exposed to sinning eternally? I 
 hope the gentleman will inform us whether he believes that 
 men are exposed to sinning forever. If they are not, the 
 salvation in which he believes is not an eternal salvation. 
 If he says they are, I shall be prepared to consider his 
 salvation. 
 
 He further informs us, that this' salvation is from suf- 
 fering. What suffering, I ask ? Not the suffering to which 
 men are exposed in this fife ; for he expressly told us, 
 that they suffer as much as their sins deserve. Nor is it 
 salvation from suffering hereafter; for the gentleman de- 
 nies that men are exposed to suffering after death. From 
 what suffering, then, does this salvation deliver men? 
 
 But this is a salvation from death, lie informs us. 
 From what death, I ask ? From natural deatli ? No ; for 
 all do actually suffer this. Is it, then, salvation from 
 eternal death ? No ; for he says, men are not exposed to 
 death hereafter. How, then, are men saved from death 
 in eternity, to which they are not exposed? From what 
 death, I emphatically ask, does this salvation deliver them ? 
 will the gentleman enlighten us on this subject? The 
 fact is — if Universalism is true, there is no such thing 
 as salvation. Men endure all the suffering to which they are 
 exposed, and, consequently, are saved from nothing, either 
 in this world or in the world to come ! I am truly glad 
 that Mr. Pingree attempted to define the important word 
 salvation. It throws light upon his system of doctrine! 
 
 He informs us, that it is his purpose to offer a few, and 
 only a few argimients, clear and strong, which he most ear- 
 nestly invites me to answer; and most cheerfully will I do it. 
 
 The doctrine he undertakes to maintain, is that in 
 
44 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the resurrection of the dead a change is to be effect- 
 ed^ which will introduce all men into a state of holi^ 
 ness and salvation. But there are some serious difficul- 
 ties attending this proposition, viz: 1. It leaves ns per- 
 fectly in the dark concerning the state of the sojjl between 
 death and the resurrection. The period intervening may- 
 be very long. A long time must pass between the death 
 of multitudes of the human family, and the resurrection. 
 What becomes of their souls during that long period? 2. 
 The passage of Scripture on which the gentleman relies 
 to prove his doctrine [1 Cor. xv.] speaks only of the re- 
 surrection of the body. The resurrection will change 
 the bodies, not the soids of men. It is to be effected by 
 the exertion o^ mere physical power, G^evieCiowihe body. 
 By his almighty energy God will raise the bodies of men 
 from the dead, and change them, so that they Avill become 
 spiritual and immortal. But is it true, that the mind, the 
 spirit, is to be made holy by physical poiuer, exerted on 
 the body? Will the gentleman inform us, whether he 
 holds the doctrine that holiness can be produced by the 
 exertion of physical power ? Truly, this would be a new 
 species of holiness ! 
 
 But Mr. Pingree tells us, the Pagans must be changed at 
 the resurrection, or they must all be lost — that they have no 
 opportunity in this w^orld to be saved. The Scriptures 
 teach us, that the heathen are responsible only for the 
 light they have — that if they shall be punished, it will be 
 for their sins committed against the light of nature and of 
 conscience. Just so Christians are responsible in a high- 
 er degree for the greater light enjoyed by them. The 
 principle on which the divine government proceeds, as 
 our Saviour teaches, is — that where much is given, much 
 is required. . The justice of this principle is perfectly 
 manifest. But the gentleman's argument is worth noth- 
 ing, unless we take it for granted, that the heathen cannot 
 be sanctified before death. 1 should be pleased to hear 
 him attempt to prove, that God cannot, if he choose, sanc- 
 tify any of them before death ; for if he can, then his ar- 
 gument must be given up. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 46 
 
 Infants and idiots, too, he says, must be changed at the 
 resurrection, or they must be lost. Here again he as- 
 sumes it as if granted, that they cannot be sanctified be- 
 fore death. I verily believe that God can, by his Holy 
 Spirit, sanctify infants and idiots before their souls are 
 separated from their bodies ; and I believe, moreover, that 
 he does sanctify them, and that they are borne by angels 
 to Abraham's bosom. Where is the evidence that this 
 change must occur at the resurrection? Mr. Pingree as- 
 serts, that they must be changed after death ; but we have 
 in the Scriptures instances of the regeneration of infants 
 before death. 
 
 He points us to the differences existing iu the Christian 
 wrorld, and tells us, that though moral, upright, and pious, 
 all Christians need a change after -death. I answer, if 
 they are upright and pious, the work of sanctificalion is 
 begun in their souls ; and how can he prove, that God 
 cannot, or will not finish the work before their souls de- 
 part from their bodies ? How does he know that at the 
 moment of death their sanctification is not perfect ? The 
 gentleman assumes what he never can prove — that God 
 cannot complete the sanctification of his people until after 
 death. Why can he not ? Will Mr. Pingree give us a rea- 
 son? The difference between us is just this; I maintain, 
 that some are sanctified and saved before death; whilst he 
 asserts, that all must be changed after death, in the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 But the Bible, he tells us, teaches that all are to be 
 changed in the resurrection ; and in proceeding to prove 
 this, he reminds us, that God is good to all, is the Father 
 of our spirits, seeks the happiness of his creatures, &c. 
 I am quite willing to keep these things in mind, and to 
 answer any argument he may choose to found upon them 
 Let us examine his Scripture testimony. He read to us 
 1 Cor. XV. 22, and the succeeding verses ; " As in Adam all 
 die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." Two insur- 
 mountable difficulties attend this argument, viz: 1. The 
 Apostle is speaking simply of the resurrection of the 
 body. Suppose, then, we grant that he here speaks of 
 
46 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the resurrection of all men ; does he say, that all are to be 
 changed and made holy in the resurrection? Does he in- 
 timate, that the resurrection oi the body will make those 
 holy who die in sin ? We believe, that there will be a 
 resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, as the same 
 Apostle elsewhere teaches; but we ask, how can the re- 
 surrection of the body, purify the soul? 1 had supposed 
 that sin belongs not to matter, but to mind ; and I know 
 not how the gentleman has ascertained, that a change in 
 the former, can impart holiness to the latter. 
 
 2. But the context limits the resurrection here spoken 
 of, to the righteous. The whole chapter evidently treats 
 of the resurrection only of the just. We read in this chap- 
 ter of the first Adam and the second Adam. Each is a 
 representative. And as all connected with Adam, die in 
 consequence of his fall; so all connected with Christ, shall 
 attain to the resurrection of the just. Such is the mean- 
 ing of Paul, as is evident from the connection ; for he im- 
 mediately adds — " But every man in his own order, Christ 
 the first-fruits, afterioards they that are Chris fs at his 
 coming^ Nowletus inquire, 2/?Aoa?'e O/ms/'sF Paul 
 himself answers the question ; "Now if any man have not 
 the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his," Rom. viii. 9. If 
 then, the Spirit of Christ be not in a man, he cannot be 
 his at his coming, and, therefore, cannot participate in this 
 glorious resurrection. He cannot be made holy and hap- 
 py at the resurrection. The immediate context limits the 
 language of the Apostle to those who have the Spirit of 
 Christ, and who, therefore, are his. 
 
 This interpretation of Paul's language is confirmed by 
 reference, 1 Thess. iv. 14, where it is said — " If we be- 
 lieve that Jesus died, and rose again, even so them also 
 which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him." Are 
 those who die in sin, ever said to sleep in Jesus ? 
 
 There is one remarkable passage of Scripture which 
 Mr. Pingree seems to have overlooked. It is found in the 
 Gospel by John, ch. v. 25, 28, 29. Here the Saviour 
 speaks first of the spiritual resurrection — " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the 
 
</F UNIVERSALISM. 47 
 
 dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they 
 that hear, shall live." Then he proceeds to speak of the 
 literal or physical resurrection^" Marvel not at this " 
 —I am about to declare unto you something more won- 
 derful than this spiritual resurrection — "For 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, urtto 
 the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, to the 
 resurrection of damnation." If we are to believe the Uni- 
 versalists, all will be raised to life and glory ; but here we 
 are taught, that some shall be raised to life, and others to 
 damnation. Here we have an argument proving future 
 punishment, not only after death, but also after the gene- 
 ral resurrection of the dead. The gentleman, from some 
 cause or other, overlooked this portion of Scripture. 
 
 In Luke xiv. 14, we read of the resurrection of the 
 just. The Saviour said to his host, " When thou makest 
 a feast, call the poor, 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." 
 Here the Saviour not only speaks of the resurrection of 
 the just, but teaches that the righteous will be recom- 
 pensed at that period — a truth denied by Universalism. 
 
 But that there is to be a glorious resurrection, to which 
 only the righteous will attain, is clearly taught in Paul's 
 Epistle to the Philippians, chap. iii. 10, 11. He here 
 represents himself as suffering the loss of all things, that 
 he might be found in Christ, " that I may know him," 
 says he, " and the power of his resurrection, and the fel- 
 lowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto 
 his death ; i/*, by any means, I might aftaia unto the 
 resurrection of the dead,^^ Paul tliought it necessary to 
 make great exertions, to undergo great self-denial and 
 labor in order to attain to the blessed resurrection of tlie 
 dead ; but Mr. Pingree would liave us believe, that he 
 would have attained it without the least exertion ! If 
 Universalism be true, Paul labored under a great mistake ; 
 for he thought it necessary to labor to secure that resur- 
 rection which he could not possibly have avoided secur 
 
48 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ing ! For Universalism teaches, that all will be raised 
 holy and happy. How much trouble my friend, Mr. 
 Pingree, might have saved Paul, if only he had been with 
 him ! He could have informed him, that all his sacrifices 
 in order to attain to the resurrection of the dead, were 
 wholly unnecessary and unavailing ! ! ! 
 
 The falsity of the doctrine that all will be made holy 
 and happy in the resurrection, is proved most clearly by 
 another portion of Scripture. Heb. xi. 35, "Women re- 
 ceived their dead raised to life again : and others were 
 tortured, not accepting deliverance; thai they might ob- 
 tain a better resurrection^ These servants of God 
 endured sore persecutions. They had trial of cruel 
 mockings and scourgiiigs, of bonds and imprisonment. 
 They were stoned, they were saAvn, asunder, were tempt- 
 ed, M^ere slain with the sword. All this they endured, 
 refusing to accept deliverance, "that they might obtain a 
 better resurrection." They desired not the resurrection 
 of the ungodly "to shame and everlastiiig contempt." 
 They knew of 2i better resurrection ; and they sought it 
 through fiery trials. But Mr. Pingree says, all their 
 labors, toils and sufferings were in vain. There is, he 
 tells us, but one resurrection, and that is the better one ! 
 Verily tliose servants of God must have been greatly in 
 the dark; quite as much deluded is Christians since their 
 day. They, as we do, thought it necessary to persevere 
 unto death through great trials, that they might obtain the 
 better resurrection; but Universalism asserts, that "they 
 would have obtained it quite as certainly without the 
 least exertion ! 1 ! [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pingree's second speech.] 
 Respected Auditors: My friend, Mr. Eice, remarked 
 in commencing his speech, that he did not originate this 
 discussion. Well, what of that ? He says, that / origi- 
 nated it. I admit that I gave him the invitation ; and what 
 ofit?^whatifIdid? 
 
 Regarding the confidence, my friend says, Universalists 
 place in me, and that T am his equal and superior, accord- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 49 
 
 ing to the statement of a prominent individual in our 
 church, I would say one thing : That individual did not 
 say that I was Mr. Rice's equal or superior ; but that I 
 was able to meet him or his superiors, I suppose he did 
 not mean to say, that I was Mr. Rice's superior, physically 
 or mentally ; but, considering the strength of my cause, I 
 was able to meet him or his superiors. 
 
 So, if I fail, he says, it will not be attributable to the 
 man, but to the doctrine. It is my firm hope there will 
 be NO FAILURE — I do not look for it. In this, I do not 
 rely upon my own strength ; but upon that of the doc- 
 trines I defend. I have said thus much, because Mr. Rice 
 referred to the matter, I do not propose to allude to it 
 again. My friend says, that we agree that those who 
 are converted in this life, are saved. Aye, that is true. 
 But I do not believe that any are made entirely pure and 
 holy in this life. I believe that all require a change after 
 this life, to make them entirely fit to enter the abodes of 
 purity and bliss hereafter : and I can show you that. my 
 friend himself, if he rests on the Creed he holds, does not 
 believe men to be entirely and perfectly sanctified in this 
 life. I am glad that I know always where to find my 
 friend. Some believers in endless damnation, are partly 
 Arminians, and partly Calvinists. There is no ground 
 on which to find them. Not so with my friend, Mr. 
 Rice. His system is before us ; and you will allow, that 
 if he presents any arguments which are in violation of 
 his system of faith, I can compel him to give up either 
 his faith or his argument, Mr. Rice holds, that ail 
 men die sinners ; that all men are sinners, till they die. 
 Even the pious saints, who are converted, require, there- 
 fore, a change after death, to fit them for heaven ; because 
 they do sin as long as they live. I want Mr. Rice's help 
 a litde in this matter, though I do not depend on it, for 
 proof of my proposition. I can produce proof enough 
 in the Bible ; but as some may have more faith in Mr. 
 Rice, than in the Bible, it may be well to quote from his 
 Creed, in relation to this matter. 
 
 I refer to a system of doctrines he dare not deny : viz : 
 5 
 
50 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. I first read 
 Chap. VI. Sect. V. " This corrruption of nature, during 
 this life, (mark the language,) doth remain in those that 
 are regenerated ; and although it be through Christ par- 
 doned and sanctified, yet both itself, and all the motions 
 thereof, are truly and properly sin^ Thus much as to 
 the regenerated. But again ; in Chap. IX. Sect. IV., we 
 have this declaration : " When God converts a sinner, 
 and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him 
 from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace 
 alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is 
 spiritually good : yet, so that, (now mark,) by reason of 
 his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, 
 will that which is good, but doth also that which is evil.*' 
 Saints, therefore, sin during life. But once again, 
 Chap. XIII. Sect. II. "This sanctification is throughout 
 in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life : there abideth 
 still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence 
 ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh fight- 
 ing against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." 
 
 Now with regard to the change after death, one pas- 
 sage more, in connection with what I have ofiered. In 
 the 86th question of the Larger Catechism, connected 
 with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, it is asked, 
 " What is the communion in glory with Christ, which 
 the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately 
 after death?^^ That is the question ; now for the answer. 
 " The communion in glory with Christ which the mem- 
 bers of the invisible church enjoy after death, is in 
 that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and 
 received into the highest heavens, where they behold the 
 face of God in light and glory ; waiting for the full re- 
 demption of their bodies, which, even in death, continue 
 united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, 
 till at the last day they be again reunited to their souls." 
 Here is the fact announced, that all sin as long as they 
 live, and require to be changed after death. The Con- 
 fession says, " i/nmefftoe/y" after death. Now if Mr. 
 Rice will show the correctness of his own faith, he will 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 51 
 
 have no difficulty in receiving the sentiment we affirm- 
 that there must be a change for all, after death* 
 
 I pass now over some minor remarks, and proceed 
 to argue the subject in hand. As to the terms of the 
 proposition, my friend, Mr. Rice, attempted to show some 
 difficulty, in reference to salvation not being from ex- 
 posedness to sin and suffering in the life to come. In 
 relation to all his inquiries as to deliverance from sin, 
 suffering, and death, all I say now, (I shall come to the 
 reasons hereafter,) is, that the word salvation alludes to 
 our present evil condition, and to death itself. We sin 
 here, suffer liere, and die ; for we are here " made subject 
 to vanity." We are not saved from dying : all die. But 
 God saves us from death, by raising us again immortal, 
 and exempt from sin, suffering, and death hereafter. This 
 is the deliverance we expect; all can understand it, so 
 far as the proposition in debate is concerned. 
 
 My friend finds difficulty in the resurrection spoken of 
 by Paul, being an exertion of physical power only ; and 
 wants to know how this can make us holy. 
 
 It is enough, now, to say, that the resurrection, accord- 
 ing to Scripture, is effected by Divine power, through 
 Jesus Christ, by which we are to be clothed with a glori- 
 ous future life, relieved from further liability to sin, suffer- 
 ing or death. Man is not exposed to endless suffering in 
 the life to come ; for God, in his mercy, through liis Son, 
 has DETERMINED, by his own power, to establish a different 
 state of tilings, by which we are all to be introduced into 
 a state where we shall not be liable, as we are here, to 
 sin, to suffering, and to death. 
 
 My friend speaks of infants, idiots and Pagans. We 
 suppose these die unfit for heaven, because they give 7io 
 evidence of sanctification in this life. Infants and idiots 
 show no signs of sanctification here. But of Pagans es- 
 pecially, he says, they are judged according to the light 
 they have. True ; but that is not the point. The ques- 
 tion is not how much they are rewarded or punished, or 
 how much light they have. This is the question : Shall 
 the whole Pagan world be lost, endlessly, because they 
 
52 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 have not the light of the Gospel here ? It is not the 
 question, how much they suffer; but whether they are 
 saved or lost forever. They are not like Christians. 
 They are brought into existence, under the Providence 
 of God, where they cannot have the light necessary to 
 salvation, according to Mr. Rice's views. He does not 
 explain himself. I will assist him, from the first chapter 
 and first section of his Confession of Faith, that he may 
 know where he stands in relation to this inquiry : " Al- 
 though the light of nature and the works of creation and 
 Providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and 
 power of God, as to leave men inexcusable ; (mark this H 
 yet they are not sufficient (mark, they are not sufficient,) 
 to give that knowledge of God, and of his will which is 
 NECESSARY uuto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, 
 at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself,, 
 and to declare his will unto his church," etc. Here is 
 expressed the sentiment that Pagans have light enough 
 to DAMN THEM, but fiot cnough to save them! ! — brought 
 into being under the Providence of God, under circum- 
 stances to be inevitably lost; or else they must be changed 
 after death ; for they are not changed before death, Re- 
 member the character of God; — that he is the Father of 
 all human spirits ; that his nature is love ; that he is good 
 to all his creatures ; yet that he brings into being the great 
 mass of his human creatures under circumstances that 
 forever forbid their being happy, and makes their life an 
 endless, remediless curse ! ! And this Being is called 
 " the Father of mercies, and the God of all grace and 
 consolation r^ 
 
 We now come again to 1 Cor. xv. I will first finish 
 reading this chapter, as much as may be necessary to the 
 question before us, and then notice the other passages 
 which my friend has quoted. 
 
 I will add one more remaik, however, before proceed- 
 ing in the argument, on the principle of refuting one 
 doctrine of the Bible, by proving an opposite. In moral 
 questions, this is not sufficient: more is required of my 
 friend in the present controversy. If my proofs are not set 
 
OF UNIVERSALIS^. 53 
 
 aside, but stand untouched, and another system is estab- 
 lished from the Bible, (panting it could be,) what is the 
 effect ? One system in the Bible ; another system in the 
 Bible, opposite to this ; what does the inquirer do ? He 
 throws it aside as teaching two opposite doctrines, as self- 
 contradictory, and unworthy of attention or credence. 
 No ; he must take my proofs out of my hands, and set 
 them aside, first ; and then, if he wishes to establish some- 
 thing different, he may do it, if he can. 
 
 Besides presenting my own proofs, I shall notice Mr. 
 Rice's arguments on passages supposed to teacli an oppo- 
 site doctrine, so far as I shall have time, or shall find it 
 necessary, without neglecting my own affirmative proofs ; 
 and I would request him to select a few of his strongest 
 passages, and bring them forward, at once. You well 
 know, and so does Mr. Rice, that in this discussion, I 
 shall not have time to enter upon an exposition of every 
 passage that may seem to bear upon the subject. We 
 must take 2Lfew of the strongest and most relied on, and 
 settle the question by them. I recommend this course to 
 my friend — I suggest it, and offer it a^ a request. Of 
 course, he is not bound to follow it any further than he 
 chooses. 
 
 I now resume my argument from 1 Cor. xv. When 
 I closed my last speech, I was reading the 45th verse. I 
 now begin at the 46th ; " Howbeit, that was not first which 
 is spiritual, but that which is natural ; and afterward that 
 which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy ; 
 the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the 
 earthy, such are they that are earthy ; and as is the hea- 
 venly, such are they also which are heavenly. And as 
 we have borne the image of the earthy, so shall we also 
 bear the image of the heavenly. ^^ I affirm that this re- 
 veals more than a mere change of the physical body, and 
 relates to a condition in the future life, in addition to a 
 physical change. This includes the affirmation, in part, 
 of the proposition before us. Ver. 50, "Now this I say, 
 brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God ; (which is a kingdom of righteousness, and 
 6* 
 
64 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit :) neither doth corruption 
 inherit redemption." Now it is affirmed by Mr. Rice, 
 that this whole chapter refers only to the resurrection of 
 the body, which, he says, is by an exertion solely of phys- 
 ical power, and has nothing to do with the soul of man. 
 See here : If the body, after the resurrection, is incorrupti- 
 ble, the whole man is incorruptible. Mark the declaration : 
 " Corruption cannot inherit incorruption.^^ Mr. Rice 
 says, sin belongs to the mind. Well, will a corrupt mind 
 "inherit" an incorruptible body? Does he suppose God 
 will put a corrupt soul into an incorruptible body ? I 
 apprehend not ; because " corruption cannot inherit in- 
 corruption," says the Apostle, ver. 51, " 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." 
 " The dead :" my friend says, the ^''just " alone, I am 
 disposed to dispute this assertion. It refers to all — 
 to as many as die in Adam. See the antithesis : all that 
 die in Adam, shall be made alive in Christ. Then he 
 afterwards shows the condition of those who are raised. 
 But I will read on, ver. 53 : " For this corruptible must put 
 on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortali- 
 ty. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorrup- 
 tion, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then 
 shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is 
 swallowed up in victory. O death ! where is thy sting ? 
 O grave ! where is thy victory ?" 
 
 I remark here, that the word, translated " grave," in 
 this place, is not the same word translated "graves," in 
 John v., where the dead are spoken of, as coming out of 
 "/^e graves ;^^ and which I affirm now, is not the resur- 
 rection of all the naturally dead to the immortal life. 
 The " grave " here, is not the saine as the " graves " 
 there. But let us read on: verse 56: "The sting of 
 death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But 
 thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory , through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." Death is here declared to be destroyed 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 55 
 
 together with sin, its " sting." There is thenceforth to 
 be no more sin, nor death. Verse 58, " Therefore, my 
 beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, (because the doctrine is 
 so fully established, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,) 
 immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, 
 for as much as ye know that your labor is not in vain in 
 the Lord." Thus the chapter closes. 
 
 And thus is shown the condition to which all the race 
 of mankind is finally destined. This we present for your 
 present consideration : The resurrection of all who die in 
 Adam — a resurrection to a state of immortality, incorrup- 
 tion, and glory, without sin or suffering, forever. 
 
 My friend quoted the words, " Every man in his own 
 order; Christ the first fruits, and afterwards, they that 
 are Christ's at his coming." Now sinners, says he, 
 " have not the spirit of Christ ;" and are therefore not his. 
 In one respect, they are not now. The Father loves the 
 Saviour, and "has given all things into his hands " — the 
 " heathen for an inheritance, and the xittemiost parts of 
 the earth for a possession," says the Psalmist. So, then, 
 all are Christ's, in one sense. It does not speak about 
 their being his, characteristically. The time ivas,, when 
 none had his spirit : then none were Christ's in the sense 
 spoken of by my friend, Mr. Rice. But all are i3:iven to 
 him, and finally, as I am proving, all shall be like him, 
 bearing his " image." This work shall be completedin the 
 resurrection of all who die in Adam, " in Christ." 
 
 I will now briefiy notice the passage from the fifth of 
 John, and make a few suggestions, affirming, first of all, 
 that it does not relate to the resurrection of the naturally 
 dead to the state of immortality, spoken of in 1 Cor. xv. 
 My friend has said already that a spiritual resurrection 
 is spoken of in the 24th verse : " Jle that believeth on 
 him, etc., shall not come unto condemnation, but hath 
 everlasting life ;" [my friend does not deny, nor will he, 
 that ^' everlasting life ^^ there applies to the present state 
 of existence ;] " and is passed from death unto Hfe,^^ 
 That is the resurrection spoken of. Following on, in the 
 next verse, we read, " Verily, verily I say unto you, the 
 
66 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 hour is coming and now is, when the dead — those in 
 " the graves " — shall hear the voice of the Son of God, 
 and they that hear shall live." This is a moral life, is it 
 not? enjoyed on earth. Let us read on: "For as the 
 Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
 to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to 
 execute judg^nent also ; because he is the Son of man." 
 ^hat else besides executing judgment ? " Marvel not 
 at this — the povi^er given to Christ, of executing "judg- 
 ment" — for 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 
 damnation." Here are a few inquiries and suggestions 
 to be made, to which I call Mr. Rice's careful attention ; 
 especially as he has presented this passage. 
 
 [^Time expired » 
 
 [mr. rice's second reply.] 
 As Mr. Pingree desires me to follow him, I will, for 
 the present, accommodate him, and will briefly reply to 
 his desultory remarks. I did not censure him for chal- 
 lenging me to this discussion ; for, although not in the 
 habit of giving such challenges, I am somewhat favorable 
 to public discussions, and am always willing to be called* 
 out m the defence of the great principles of revealed 
 truth. The truth, I believe, is always gainer by being 
 brought into contact with error. 
 
 The gentleman is mistaken concerning the language of 
 his friend, Mr. Gurley. He stated, that Mr. Pingree was 
 considered by the TJniversalist clergy of the West, not 
 only able to meet me or my superiors in the discussion 
 of the question before us, but of any other subject. He 
 spoke, therefore, not of the strength of the TJniversalist 
 faith, but of the ability of Mr. Pingree. / must insist 
 upon it, that he is a great man ! He is right in hoping, 
 that he will not fail in the defence of his cause. I hope 
 he will keep his spirits up and figlit manfully. 
 
 My friend, it is true, has one advantage of me : he 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 57 
 
 knows where to find me. Universalists seem to have 
 almost no settled principles, but are found here and there, 
 and everywhere, except in the Bible ! I think it proba- 
 ble, however, that I shall be able frequently to find my 
 friend as he proceeds in hrs argument. 
 
 The gentleman quotes our Confession of Faith. Does 
 he expect thus to prove, that the Scriptures teach the 
 ultimate holiness and happiness of all men ? In relation 
 to the condition of the soul after death, we believe that in 
 the moment of death, at the moment when the soul is 
 separated from the body, it is perfectly sanctified, and 
 ascends to heaven. Hence the expression " immediately 
 after death." We believe that none are perfectly sancti- 
 fied in this life, but that at the moment of death the soul 
 of the believer is perfectly purified. But Mr. Pingree 
 maintains, not that men are sanctified in death, nor im- 
 mediately after death, but that in the resurrection of the 
 body, at some unknown future period, all will be made 
 holy. What, then, I again ask, becomes of the soul dur- 
 ing the period intervening between death and the resur- 
 rection ? This is surely a most important inquiry. Will 
 Mr. Pingree answer it ? 
 
 I could not fairly understand the gentleman's ideas 
 concerning that important word salvation. Salvation, I 
 had thought, was deliverance from some evil or evils to 
 which men are exposed. He tells us, the salvation of 
 which he speaks, is deliverance from, sin. Does he be- 
 lieve, that men are exposed to sin after death ? Does he 
 hold, that men are liable to sin eternally ? If not, there 
 is, according to his creed, no salvation from sin. For lie 
 admits, that all are not saved from sin in this life ; and he 
 does not pretend to believe, that they are exposed to sin 
 hereafter. Then, I ask, in what sense are they saved 
 from sin ? How can they be delivered from that to which 
 they are not exposed? 
 
 But, he says, men were made subject to vanity, to 
 svffering. Well, does this salvation deliver them from 
 suffering ? He admits, that they are not delivered from 
 suffering in this life. Then, I ask, does he believe, that 
 
58 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 men are, by any law, exposed to sufiering hereafter? If 
 so, by what law ? If not, how can they be said to be 
 delivered from sufferings to which they are not exposed? 
 The truth is, there is no such thing as salvation in the 
 system ; and, if Universalism is true, the word salvation 
 ought to be obliterated from the Scriptures ! 
 
 The gentleman speaks of the resurrection effected by 
 the power of God in Christ, as placing men in a state in 
 which they will not be exposed to sin, suffer and die 
 hereafter, as in this world. This doctrine I confess myself 
 unable to comprehend. Is not the resurrection effected 
 by the exertion of mere physical power upon the body ? 
 How is it possible that the exertion of such power on the 
 body, can make men holy ? Holiness consists in love 
 supreme to God and equal love to men. It belongs ex- 
 clusively to the affections of the mind. How the exertion 
 of physical power upon the body, can change the affec- 
 tions of the mind, I am unable to comprehend. I know 
 of no principle either of philosophy or of theology upon 
 which such a doctrine can be based. I do hope, the gen- 
 tleman will try to give us some explanation and some 
 evidence, philosophical, theological, or of some other 
 kind, of this singular doctrine ! 
 
 The gentleman assumed, without proof, that infants die 
 unsanctified, and on this assumption based his doctrine, 
 that they must undergo a change after death. I replied, 
 that they may be sanctified before death. He now calls 
 on me to prove that those dying in infancy, are sanctified 
 before death. He has assumed they are not, and upon 
 this assumption his argument is founded. It is for him, 
 therefore, to prove his assumption true. Has he adduced 
 any other evidence, than his mere assertion, that they die 
 unholy? If he cannot prove this fact, he must abandon 
 the argument founded upon it. 
 
 The gentleman seems to regard it as a hard case, since the 
 heathen did not ask of God to be created, (!) that they should 
 have been brought into their present condition. Is God 
 to be held responsible for the sins they commit, against 
 the light they have ? Since they are responsible only im 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 69 
 
 the light God has given them, where is the peculiar hard- 
 ship of their condition ? How can it be unjust to punish 
 them for the sins they choose to commit? God does no 
 more than this, as the inspired Paul teaches us. "For," 
 says he, "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who 
 hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which 
 may be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath 
 showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him 
 from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being un- 
 derstood by the things that are made, even his eternal 
 power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,^* 
 Rom. i: 18 — 21. If, then, as the apostle declares, they 
 are without excuse, where is the injustice and cruelty of 
 punishing them for their sins ? In the following chapter, 
 the apostle teaches us that all will be judged by the light 
 they have: "For as many as have sinned without law" — 
 that is, without the revealed law of God — "shall perish 
 without law: and as many as have sinned in the law, 
 shall be judged by the law," &;c. I'he heathen are liable 
 to punishment, therefore, only for sinning against the light 
 they have. Where, then, is the injustice? 
 
 But let us examine the passage in the Confession of 
 Faith, read by the gendeman : " Although the light of na- 
 ture, and the works of creation and Providence, do so far 
 manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to 
 leave men inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give 
 that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is neces- 
 sary unto salvation ; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sun- 
 dry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and 
 to declare that his will unto his church," &c. — Ch. 1. 
 The men who are here declared inexcusable, are not the 
 heathen, as the gentleman would have us believe, but all 
 men* Inasmuch as the light of nature was not sufficient 
 to save them, God was pleased to reveal to them his will. 
 If the heathen are now destitute of this revelation, how 
 came they into this condition? Paul shall answer: "And 
 even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, 
 God gave them over to a reprobate mind," Rom. i. 28, 
 
60 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Was God unjust in thus giving them up to their own 
 hearts' lusts? 
 
 But the argument of the gentleman depends upon the 
 assumption that all the heathen must be saved. I call 
 upon him to prove, from the Scriptures, that this is true. 
 When he does so, I shall be prepared to attend to his ar- 
 gument. 
 
 It will not do, he says, for me to disprove his doctrine 
 by proving the truth of the opposite doctrine, because it 
 would follow that the Bible teaches contradictory doc- 
 trines: and thus men would be made infidels. By no 
 means : it would follow only, that Mr. Pingree has mis- 
 interpreted the Bible. He is not so powerful a logician 
 as to convince any one, that the Scriptures teach contra- 
 dictory doctrines. Should I prove, clearly, that the Scrip- 
 tures teach the doctrine for which I contend, I am persua- 
 ded no one would disbelieve their inspiration, even 
 though I should not particularly answer all his arguments. 
 
 In reply to his request that I would select a few pas- 
 sages in proof of the doctrine of future punishment, I can 
 only say, that I shall probably adduce a goodly number of 
 them ; and I am perfectly willing that he should sustain 
 his views by as many as he can find. I have no request 
 to make of him. He is. perfectly welcome to pursue any 
 course he may prefer. 
 
 I inquired whether Mr. Pingree believes, that holiness 
 can result from the exertion of mere physical power upon 
 the body. He says, the passages in 1 Cor. xv. relate to 
 somethiiig more than physical power. Will he inform 
 us what more there is in the resurrection of the body from 
 the grave, than the exertion of physical power? I can 
 see nothing more in it. But, said he, "look here!" And 
 I was looking, with both my eyes, to see the whole mys- 
 tery solved; and the astounding proposition he announced, 
 was, that the body, at the resurrection, will be made in- 
 cormptible ! And with an air of triumph, he asked — will 
 God put a corrupt soul into an incorruptible body? Let 
 us read 1 Cor. xv. 50, 53 : " Now this I say, brethren, 
 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 61 
 
 neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold 1 
 show you a mystery. We, [who, but Christians whom 
 he addresses ?]] we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
 changed, &;c. For this corruptible must put on incorrup- 
 tion, and this mortal must put on immortality." What 
 does the apostle say, shall put on incorruption ? The 
 body of flesh and blood, which now is subject to sickness 
 and death. It shall become a spiritual, immortal body. 
 The question, then, amounts to this : Will God put a sin- 
 ful soul into an immortal body ? Why, I suppose he wilL 
 Why should he not? Since men here employ the mem- 
 bers of their body in sinning, there is reason why here- 
 after soul and body should suffer together. 
 
 But, as I have already proved, tlie apostle is not speak- 
 ing, in this chapter, of the resurrection of those who die 
 in sin. He first proves the resurrection of Christ from 
 the dead. He then says, "As in Adam all die, so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." But to prevent any mis- 
 take,, he immediately adds — "But every one in his own 
 order; Christ the first fruits; affenvard they that are 
 ChrisVs at his comin^,^^ Then he says, " we shall be 
 changed." Who? They that are Christ's at his com- 
 ing, not they who die in their sins. But suppose I 
 admit, for argument's sake, that the apostle here speaks 
 of all the dead, the question still returns — how can the 
 resurrection of the body make the sold holy? 
 
 The exclamation — "O grave where is thy victory?" 
 must relate, not to the wicked who die in their sins, but 
 (as the context clearly proves) to the righteous — those who 
 are Christ's at his coming. And they only are Christ's, 
 as he himself declares, (Rom. viii. 9,) who have the Spi- 
 rit of Christ. 
 
 The gentleman referred to two passages of Scripture, 
 to prove that all men are Christ's. One is — " The Father 
 hath committed all things to his hands." Yes — and we 
 are also taught that Christ is. "the head over all things to 
 the church,^^ Eph. i. 22. All authority is given him 
 in heaven and in earth; and this authority he now exer- 
 cises for the protection and for the ultimate salvation and 
 6 
 
62 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 glory of his church. But, does this prove that all men — 
 those who die in sin — are Christ's, in any sense that se- 
 cures salvation? 
 
 The second passage — "I will give thee the "heathen for 
 thine inheritance," &c., is simply a prediction concern- 
 ing the future extension of Christ's kingdom amongst all 
 the nations of the earth. Can Mr. Pingree produce a single 
 passage of Scripture which teaches that God gave to his 
 Son, for his inheritance, those who die in their sins ? He 
 cannot. These scriptures, then, do not prove that all men 
 will be Christ's --at his coming; and, consequently, they 
 cannot prove that all will be raised from the dead holy and 
 happy. None, as I have before proved, can attain to that 
 blessed resurrection, but those who "fall asleep in Christ.'''' 
 
 The last verse in the 15th chapter proves all that I have 
 said on this subject. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, 
 be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work 
 of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is 
 not in vain in the Lord." Inasinuch, says Paul, as you 
 have in prospect this glorious resurrection, be steadfast, 
 and abound in the work of the Lord; for your work is 
 not in vain. But according to the doctrine of Mr. Pin- 
 gree, their labor was in vain; for he says, all will be 
 well, whether men abound in the work of the Lord or 
 not. According to his doctrine, they would as certainly 
 get to heaven without abounding in the Lord's work, as by 
 so doing. Paul, however, exhorted Christians to perse- 
 vere in well doing, that they might attain to the resurrec- 
 tion of the just — assuring them that they labored not in 
 vain in the Lord. Thus we have shown, conclusively, 
 that he was speaking of the resurrection of the righteous 
 only. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, there was a time when none 
 were Christ's. Yes — and those who continue in that 
 state, cannot attain to "the resurrection of the just." But 
 all who, in this life, repent and believe in Christ, have the 
 promise of eternal life. 
 
 The passage in John v., my friend suggests, does not 
 relate to the resurrection of the body. Indeed, if I un- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 63 
 
 derstood him correctly, he denied the doctrine of the res- 
 urrection ! But look at the lan^age of our Saviour : 
 " Verily I say unto you, the hour is Qoming when they 
 that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son 
 of God,".<fec. If this does not mean those that are lite- 
 rally dead and buried, what in the name of reason does it 
 mean ? How is it possible that language could be more 
 clear and explicit? The very strongest expressions 
 language can afford, are employed — " They that are in 
 their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; 
 they that have done good, to the resurrection of life ; and 
 they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damna- 
 tion." I must wait for further light from the gentleman 
 on this passage. In the mean time I will offer my lirst 
 direct argument against Universalism, viz : 
 
 1. 7 he NOVELTY of the doctrine. In investigating the 
 claims of Universalism to our confidence, we are surpri- 
 sed to learn its exceedingly modern origin. The Bible, 
 it is admitted, is a plain book, at least on all important 
 points of faith. It is designed to make known the will 
 of God, not to the learned only, but to all classes of men ; 
 and on fundamental points of doctrine, it is easily under- 
 stood. This will not be disputed. Is it credible, then, 
 that the great truth it was designed to teach, lay concealed 
 from all its readers, for eighteen hundred years ? — that 
 during that long period, not a human being learned from 
 the Scriptures, the very truth, which, above all others, the 
 Saviour and the inspired writers designed to teach ! There 
 are indeed minor points of faith, in regard to which the 
 teaching of the Scriptures is less clear, and about which 
 good men may honestly differ. But it will not be denied, 
 that the great truth the Gospel was designed to teach, 
 should be presented with great clearness. Yet, wonder- 
 ful as it may appear, until the year 1818, no human 
 being, so far as I can learn, saw in the Scriptures Univer- 
 salism, as defended by Mr. Pingree ; and in that memo- 
 rable year, as already remarked, the discovery was made 
 by a single individual ! True, in the early ages of Chris- 
 tianity, Aere were a few who got a distant glimpse of the 
 
64 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 doctrine of universal salvation. Origen, for example, in 
 the third century, is said to have been a kind of Univer- 
 salist; but his Universalism was as different from that 
 defended by Mr. Pingree, as day from night. He believ- 
 ed in the pre-existence and transmigration of souls ; and 
 he adopted principles of interpreting the Scriptures, which, 
 as Universalists themselves admit, were profoundly ab- 
 surd. The Gnostics also are claimed as having been Uni- 
 versalists at an early day; but Universalists admit that 
 they held to the most monstrous errors, both in philoso- 
 phy and in theology. Indeed, it is not a little remarka- 
 ble, that the only persons who, according to themselves, 
 got even a distant glance at the most prominent doctrine 
 of the Gospel, in the early ages of Christianity, were 
 persons, who, on all other points, held errors the most 
 foolish and absurd! 
 
 But modern Universalism was unknown, until the 
 year 1818, when a young man, living in New England, 
 about nineteen years of age, made the wonderful discov- 
 ery ! ! ! The name of this extraordinary man, is Ho- 
 sea Ballon. He w^as the son of a Baptist preacher, 
 who made a profession of religion about the age of nine- 
 teen ; and although possessed of no extraordinary talents, 
 with limited education and but few facilities for acquiring 
 knowledge, yet before he had reached his twenty-first 
 year, he was a preacher of Universalism ! And he was 
 induced to embrace this faith, not from a careful exami- 
 nation of the Scriptures, but because his feelings were 
 opposed to future punishment, and he could not answer 
 certain infidel objections against the Bible ! Can we be- 
 lieve, that this young man, whose judgment was not yet 
 mature, whose beard had scarcely grown out, really bet- 
 ter understood the Gospel of Christ, than all the learned 
 and pious readers of it during eighteen hundred years ! 
 What a wonderful man he must have been ! Surely if we 
 admit his pretensions, we must also believe him inspired ! 
 I leaye this intelligent audience to determine, whether it 
 is more probable, that this young man was deluded, or 
 that the whole Christian world, during eighteen centuries, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 65 
 
 were wholly in the dark as to the teaching of the word 
 of God. . .^ 
 
 This argument is yet more weighty, when we take iriy 
 to consideration the fact, that Universalism is not a result^, 
 reached by carrying out principles previously admitted to 
 be true, but is reached by asserting principles directly 
 opposite to those almost universally believed ! It denies 
 the Divinity of Christ, the personality and Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit, the doctrine that God created man a holy 
 being, the doctrine of the fall of man, maintaining that 
 God created him an imperfect being. It denies the doc- , 
 trine of the atonement, i. e. the vicarious sufferings of 
 Christ, and the doctrine of future rewards and punish- - 
 ments — asserting, that in the next world the infidel, even 
 the most ungodly, will be quite as happy, as even the ^ 
 apostles of Jesus Christ ! ! ! 
 
 If Universalism is true, not one of the prominent doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, if we except the doctrine of the res- 
 urrection, has ever been understood by the great body of 
 Christians 1 Till the year 1818, we are obliged to believe 
 the whole Christian church remained profoundly ignorant 
 of the very fundamental truths of the Gospel ! Yet we 
 are assured by our Universalist friends, that their prin- 
 ciples are taught in the Scriptures with almost the clear- 
 ness of light ; and Hosea Ballou and his followers can see 
 th^m there without the least difficulty. But how shall 
 we account for the unacountable fact, that of all the learn- 
 ed, pious, humble, Bible-reading Christians, not one before 
 1818, understood the great truth, which, above all others, 
 it was the design of Christ and his apostles to teach, in 
 that plain book — the Bible ? They penised its sacred 
 pages ; they turned their eyes to its clear light ; they pri- 
 zed above life, what they believed to be its glorious 
 truths ; they counted all things loss for the excellency of 
 the knowledge of Christ; they lived and died with their 
 eyes turned to the cross of Christ ; but all in vain ! 
 Scarce a ray of light did they ever obtain ! They died in 
 midnight darkness ! ! Yet Hosea Ballou, at the age of 
 twenty-one, had emerged from the midnight darkness, 
 6* 
 
66 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 and stood almost in the clear and unclouded light of the 
 Gospel ! ! ! [7\"me expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's third speech.] 
 
 I should judge, my respected auditors, from the course 
 of argument, if it may be dignified by the term, pur- 
 sued by my friend for the last half of his last speech, 
 that he would have been a good Romanist, in the days of 
 Luther and Calvin. He would have been a most stern 
 and inflexible advocate of the supreme authority of the 
 "mother" church — the professed '^ universal church." 
 
 But to come back to the beginning of my friend's last 
 speech. Here we find some personal matters, and I sel- 
 dom refer to them in debate ; but it is sometimes necessa^ 
 ry to do so. He affirms, and I know not but he is cor- 
 rect, that there is another clause in the letter of my friend, 
 Rev. Mr. Gurley, viz : " that I was able to meet him or 
 his superiors, on this or any other subject." The indi- 
 vidual referred to, perhaps said so ; but he expected, 
 doubtless, that I should be on the right side of whatever 
 subject it might be. 
 
 Now as to the sanctification of believers immediately 
 after death. He does not deny that all men are sinners 
 till they die. His own faith is, that even the most right- 
 eous die sinners ; and that they are sanctified " immedi- 
 ately after death." 
 
 We have the inquiry again as to the meaning of "sa/- 
 vation.^^ He asks if we can be saved from anything 
 hereafter to which we are not exposed. My friends, un- 
 derstand me. I say, that our present conditio?! is one ot 
 sin and suffering; and that salvation is the bringing us out 
 of that state into a state of holiness, happiness, and im- 
 mortality. Is not that plain enough ? If Mr. Rice don't 
 understand me, you all do ; do you not ? " Salvation" 
 is used to denote what is sometimes meant by various 
 other forms of expression. It is sometimes equivalent to 
 " to cleanse " — " to purify " — where men are represen- 
 ted as corrupt and impure ; and sometimes " to heal^'* 
 when men are spoken of as diseased. In a word, it takes 
 
OF UNn[VERSALlS:VI» 67 
 
 man as he is, in his present condition of sin, suffer- 
 ing, and death, and deUvers him from it. That is salva- 
 tion ; and not from a mere exposedness to misery in the 
 life to come. 
 
 As to the sanctification of infants, etc., in tliis Hfe, the 
 affirmative is his ; the burden of proof rests on him. I 
 am not bound to prove the contrary. 
 
 In relation to what Mr. Rice said about Pagans, and 
 the hardship of punishing them for sins committed against 
 light, and about the justice of this; who has denied 
 that ? Do Universalis ts deny the propriety of punishing 
 Pagans for sinning contrary to the light they have ? Sure- 
 ly not. But they do deny the justice of making them 
 endlessly miserable, for the sins of this \\^c. That is a 
 diiferent thing — to make life an endless curse to them ; 
 a very different thing this, from justly punishing them for 
 sins against light. Does it not appear so to you 1 Tiiat 
 was not the point. The question was, can they be sav- 
 ed? My friend believes they cannot. His faith is 
 that the Pagan world has not the opportunity to be saved ; 
 that God has placed them on the earth with just light 
 enough to endlessly damn them, but not enough to save 
 them ; that God meant them to be damned in endless 
 misery. They may cry for mercy, and plead their igno- 
 rance, and walk according to all the light they have ; yet 
 they cannot possibly be saved. Perliaps he will dispute 
 that he holds that sentiment. I will therefore read 
 from his Confession of Faith, Chap. X. Sec. IV. After 
 speaking of some infants being " elect," it says, " others, 
 not elected, although they may be called by the ministry 
 of the word, and may have some common operations of 
 the Spirit, yet they never tnily come to Christ, and 
 therefore cannot be saved !" Try as they may, they can- 
 not be saved : God has foreordained them to endless 
 damnation ! ! What else ? The Confession proceeds ; 
 " much less can men, not professing the Christian reli- 
 gion, be saved in any other way whatever." How full, 
 how explicit the language! The Confession goes on; "be 
 they never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 
68 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the light of Nature^ and the laws of that religion they do 
 profess ; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very 
 'pernicious, and to be detested. ^^ Mr. Rice had better be 
 careful how he admits that any Pagan may be saved, 
 either after or before death. I will read one more pas- 
 sage. The 60th question of the Larger Catechism, is as 
 follows ; "Can they — not merely will they ? — can they 
 who have never heard the Gospel, and so know not Je- 
 sus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living 
 according to the light of Nature ? Answer : They who, 
 never having heard the Gospel, know not .Jesus Christ, 
 and believe not in him, %rj^ CANNOT BE SAVED ! be 
 they never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
 the light of Nature or the laws* of that religion which 
 they profess ; neither is there salvation in any other, but 
 in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of his body, 
 the church." Now, the point is not, whether Pagans 
 Stxe justly punished ; but whether they are consigned to 
 ENDLESS PERDITION, whcu God givcs them no operation 
 of the Spirit, by which they can be saved — only " some 
 COMMON OPERATIONS " thcrcof ! Let Mr. Rice meet me 
 7'ight there ; and not talk about punishing Pagans, ac- 
 cording to their light. We do not deny that they are 
 punished for sins against the light ; but we do deny, that 
 not having light enough to save them, they are justly sent 
 to endless damnation ! ! 
 
 Then we have passages of Scripture from the 1st and 
 2nd of Romans ; " for as many as have sinned without 
 law, shall also perish without law ; and as many as have 
 sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law." Aye, 
 true ; but we deny, that they are doomed to endless, 
 remediless sufferings in the life to come. It is true,' 
 they " perish ;" but God raises them to a better state, to 
 an immortal, incorruptible life. Thus their life will not 
 be to them an endless curse ! " But they that sin under 
 the law," the gentleman quotes, " shall be judged by the 
 law." See here ! where, in all the Book of God, is there 
 an allusion made to a law to which is annexed the pen- 
 alty o/* ENDLESS MISERY ? I ask him for it. This passage 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. d9 
 
 will not bear on the point, unless he shows that the pun- 
 ishment annexed to the law is endless. This I challenge 
 him to do ! 
 
 He inquires if there is any harm done to the Pagans 
 by punishing them for their sins ? See here ! that is not 
 it. God places Pagans, by his own will and providence, 
 where they have no chance for salvation, according to 
 the Partialist's terms of salvation. Notice the argument : 
 Pagans die ; now if they are raised from the dead, and 
 endowed with immortality, merely for the purpose of 
 TORMENTING them forever, we say that injustice and harm 
 are done to them ; we do say, that it is hard ! 
 
 My friend says, as to the resurrection, that I affirmed 
 it implied more than physical force. This is what I said: 
 that there is something more spoken of than the change 
 of the physical body, relating to a state hereafter. Mr. 
 Rice says, that Paul speaks only of the body. What 
 body does the gentleman allude to ? That in the 
 " graves ?" They have not the bodies in them. They are 
 destroyed, scattered far and wide, burnt, reduced to their 
 original elements, or incorporated in other bodies ; they 
 are not in their graves. Does that passage relate only to 
 bodies in the graves ? Then it concerns not all men ; for 
 the great mass of bodies are not there. Is it not so ? 
 
 In regard to the 15th of 1st Cor., he emphasises the 
 word, "WE," as applicable only to Christian believers, 
 the righteous. Well, some of those very people denied 
 the resurrection. " Som,e among you^\ says Paul, " say 
 there is no resurrection of the dead." Were they then 
 all righteous ? Some of them manifestly erred, at least. 
 Paul shows how some of them wandered from the faith, 
 even in the apostolic times. Some Corinthians said 
 there was no resurrection. But admitting the word 
 " we" applied only to those whom the Apostle was ad- 
 dressing, as to the resurrection, allow me to remark, that 
 if the word is to be thus far restricted, it should be re- 
 stricted to the righteous Corinthians then living, Wliat 
 has Mr. Rice to do with the resurrection, in that case ? 
 what have you? what has any body? If the word is 
 
70 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 limited at all, it should be limited more than my friend 
 would like, perhaps. He would like to be one of those 
 to whom the Apostle makes the promise ; but it will not 
 do, on his mode of reasoning. I suppose Paul to have 
 included all men, all descended from Adam, who are to 
 be brought out of the earthy into the heavenly condition. 
 Mr. Rice says I ought to prove more fully the change 
 in our circumstances after death, in the resurrection by 
 Divine power ; a better change than a mere physical 
 one. You recollect that I quoted a passage which said, 
 that all should "be subdued to Christ;" — there is some- 
 thing MORE than a physical resurrection. To be "sub- 
 dued" to Christ, is to be made holy, that "God may be 
 all in all !" Is not that sometliing more than a mere phy- 
 sical change ? I put the question, and leave my friend to 
 answer it, for our information. 
 
 I affirm again, that something more is intended than 
 the resurrection of the body. According to Paul, we do 
 " not sow that body which shall be ;" but God will pro- 
 vide a spiritual body at the resurrection. Mr. Rice asks, 
 if the resurrection of the body can make the soul holy ? 
 I have already answered, by showing that Paul means 
 something else than a physical change, and teaches a 
 change, whereby " God will become all in all !" 
 
 We come now to the passage in the 5th of John ; 
 " Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming in the which 
 all that are in the graves shall hear his voice," etc. I have 
 already read the context. The state of death here, from 
 which these were to be raised, is moral ; this death and 
 this resurrection, both relating to conditions in this life, 
 " Graves" here represents the condition of men on earth ; 
 an expression borrowed from the darkness and gloom of 
 the tombs, to represent moral degradation, ignorance, and 
 blindness. Take it literally, and it implies that all who 
 die are in the tombs. But are all who die placed in 
 "graves?" in tombs P No; the passage only relates to 
 man as he is, in a state of moral darkness ; and is wholly 
 figurative. The judgment spoken of takes place in this 
 life ; those that do good, when they hear the voice of the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 71 
 
 Son of God, come forth to life ; and they that do evil, 
 to condemnation. . If the passage is to he understood 
 literally, and to relate to the final judgment, or a generaL 
 r6Surrection,''Avhat is to become of those who have done 
 neither good nor evil?r Does it take in all that great 
 mass of the human race, who die before they iiave done 
 good or evil ? Is there no resurrection for infants, idiots, 
 etc. ? Certainly not, if this passage relates to the final 
 resurrection of all the literally, naturally dead ; because 
 it speaks of the resurrection of those only who have 
 DONE GOOD OR EVIL. I Call the attention of the gentle- 
 man to this suggestion. 
 
 He speaks much of the novelty of our sentiments ; but 
 our interpretation of .this passage, at least, is not novel ; 
 we have the authority of those who believe in future 
 punishment, for referring it to the moral condition of man 
 in this life. Before quoting their language, however, 
 allow me to refer to a passage in Ezekiel, illustrative of 
 the use of the word " graves," in John v. The Lord is 
 speaking of the Jewish people in captivity, in a state 
 of degradation and moral darkness ; and he addresses 
 them thus — Ezek. xxxvii ; " O, my people ! I will open 
 your GRAVES, and cause you to come vp out of your 
 GRAVES, and bring you into the land of Israel." Here 
 the word "graves" is usedi figuratively, (\G\\o\Aug the 
 moral condition of the Jews at that time, while living on 
 the earth. A change from that condition was „ represent- 
 ed as a coming " forth out of their graves." So of those 
 in 5th John, who, while in their graves, were to hear the 
 Gospel — the " voice of the Son of God ;" they that did 
 well, after hearing it, were to have " everlasting life ;" 
 and they that did evil were to come into condemnation. 
 Dr. Lightfoot, a very eminent critic among tlie Orthodox, 
 acknowledges, though first referring the passage to the 
 literally dead, that these words would bear the meaning 
 I now put upon them, " These words," says he, " might 
 also be applied to a spiritual resurrection, as were the 
 former ; and so coming out of graves meaneth — (Ezek. 
 xxxvii. 12.) The words of the verse following being 
 
72 AN ORAL BISCUSSION 
 
 only translated and glossed thus : " and they shall come 
 forth, they that do good, after they hear his voice in the 
 Gospel, to the resurrection of life ; and they that do evil, 
 after they hear the Gospel, unto the resurrection of dam- 
 nation." 
 
 Rev. Newcome Cappe, though not recognized as Or- 
 thodox, was a believer in future punishment ; and he 
 applies this passage similarly. Of course, he felt com- 
 pelled, from the context and from sound criticism, al- 
 though against his own general doctrine, to refer it to a 
 moral death in this life, 
 
 "Let not vvhat I say amaze you; suffer not yourselves to 
 be lost in groundless hesitating and unprofitable wonder: be- 
 lieve me, for it is true, not only that the hour is very near at 
 hand, when some, v/ho are now perfectly inattentive and in- 
 sensible to my call, shall hear the voice in which I will ad- 
 dress them from my approaching state of exaltation, and, being 
 obedient thereto, shall live ; but it is alike true, that though 
 yet farther off, yet the time is at no great distance, within the 
 compass of this present generation, when all that are now in 
 the graves, who at present sit in darkness and the shadow of 
 death — the whole body of the Jewish people — shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God, summoning them to judgment ; and 
 being then at length all awakened to perceive who and what 
 he is, shall come forth out of their present state of darkness 
 and ignorance, to a new state of mind — to a resurrection, 
 which, to those who have been obedient to the calls of Prov- 
 idence, shall issue in the preservation of their lives, amidst 
 the calamities which shall overwhelm their country — to those 
 who have refused to hearken to them, shall issue in their con- 
 demnation, to fall among them that fall, and to take their 
 share in all the bitterness of the calamities Ihat are hastening 
 to involve this country. Matt, xxiv 10-13, Luke xiii. 25-30." 
 CriU Rem. i. 322-325. 
 
 I merely read these authorities to show that men 
 believing in future punishment, felt them.selves obliged, 
 apparently against their will, to refer the passage, as we 
 do, to the present life; and because this concession is 
 made against their system, which they would not have 
 made, unless compelled in candor to do so- 
 
 I have now passed over the argument in part; out as 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 73 
 
 I am on the subject of the resurrection, I will add a 
 passage from the 22d of Matthew. You remember that 
 Paul said he hoped in God for the resurrection of the 
 dead, both of the just and the unjust; and that the argu- 
 ment drawn therefrom was, that the' resurrection could 
 not be one resulting in suffering endless torment, for 
 which the benevolent Apostle Paul hoped ! ! 
 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's third reply.] 
 
 It is very important to keep distinctly before us, the ques- 
 tion under discussion. It is this : " Do the Scriptures 
 teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men ? 
 The doctrine maintained by Mr. Pingree, is — that in the 
 resurrection of the dead, a change is to be effected, which 
 will introduce all men into a state of holiness and salva- 
 tion. 
 
 In the discussion of this question, it matters little 
 whether the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian 
 church, teaches the doctrine of infant damnation, or not. 
 This has nothing whatever to do with the question, 
 whether the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and 
 salvation of all men. Mr. Pingree, however, chose to 
 read a passage from our Confession, in which it speaks of 
 "elect infants dying in infancy" as sanctified and saved 
 by the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ. The language, 
 he says, implies that some infants dying in infancy, are 
 not of the elect, and therefore are lost. I presume, it 
 will be admitted, that the Presbyterian church understands 
 her own creed. Now I challenge the gentleman to pro- 
 duce one respectable Presbyterian writer who has taught 
 such a doctrine, or has so understood our Confession of 
 Faith. If he cannot do it, I leave the audience to deter- 
 mine, whether the Presbyterian church understands her 
 own creed, or whether she must apply to Mr. Pingree to 
 explain it for her ! 
 
 It is likewise of no importance, in discussing the ques- 
 tion before us, whether our Confession of Faith teaches 
 the reprobation of some men. But as the gentleman 
 7 
 
74 AN' ORAL DISCTJSSION 
 
 thought proper to read a passage relating to the future 
 destiny of the wicked, I call upon him to inform this au- 
 dience, whether that book does not teach, that men are 
 free moral agents; and whether it teaches, that God 
 will ever punish any of the human race except '''for their 
 sin,^^ I call for information. 
 
 Nor is it of any importance to the question before us, 
 whether our Confession teaches, that the heathen cannot be 
 saved by the light of Nature. The Scriptures declare, that 
 " by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justifi- 
 ed " before God. Our creed teaches, in accordance with 
 this, that even Christians cannot so live, as to be justified 
 and saved by the works of the law ; and it holds forth the 
 same doctrine concerning the heathen. It teaches, there- 
 fore, that, all who shall ever be saved, will be saved by the 
 grace of God in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures teach, 
 precisely the same doctrine. 
 
 To prove his doctrine, that a change will be effected in 
 the resurrection from the dead which will introduce all 
 men into a state of holiness and salvation, Mr. Pingree 
 has adduced but one portion of Scripture, viz: the 15th 
 chapter of 1 Corinthians. He contends, that the heathen 
 must be changed at the resurrection, because God has 
 dealt hardly with them, in bringing them into existence in 
 their present state. Hence, he infers, that justice re- 
 quires him hereafter to raise them to a state of holiness 
 and salvation. If this be true, their salvation will be not 
 by grace, but by law and justice! But, if God is under 
 no obligation to save them, how can he be charged with 
 injustice and cruelty, if he should not do it ? I have, how- 
 ever, called on my friend to produce the passage of Scrip- 
 ture, which proves that God will save all the heathen; 
 and I understand him to say, he can do it. Until the 
 scripture shall be adduced, it is vain for him to deal in 
 bold assertions. He and I are both wholly ignorant of 
 God's purposes, except so far as they may be known 
 from his written word. 
 
 In replying to Mr. Pingree, I have presented a few ar- 
 guments against Universalism, which I will just repeat, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 75 
 
 and then pass to the further consideration of his last 
 speecli. 
 
 I. My iirst argument against Universalism, was its 
 novelty — its exceedingly modern origin. It appears to 
 me, and, I think, it must appear to this audience, wholly- 
 incredible, that during eighteen hundred years not a hu- 
 man being understood the Gospel, even its great funda- 
 mental doctrines. If Universalism be true, the whole 
 Christian church — all the most pious and learned, as well 
 as the unlearned — not only failed to understand the teach- 
 ing of Christ and his Apostles ; but they understood 
 them to teach precisely the opposite of the truths which 
 it was their chief design to inculcate ! ! ! And none, we 
 are to believe, ever understood them, until, in the memo- 
 rable year 1818, a young man about twenty-one years of 
 age, made the wonderful discovery, that they intended to 
 teach the doctrines of modern Universalism ! Those 
 who can believe this, will scarcely be convinced by any 
 argument that can be offered. 
 
 II. My second argument is this : That if Universal- 
 ism be true, there is no such thing as salvation. Salva- 
 tion, as all lexicons testify, is deliverance from evils to 
 which those saved are exposed. But Mr. Pingree tells 
 us, the salvation of which he speaks, does not deliver all 
 men from sin in this life. Nor does it save them from 
 any punishment due to their transgressions, here or here- 
 after. Nor is it deliverance from exposedness lo smning 
 forever ; for, to this, he holds, men are not exposed. 
 From what, then, I emphatically ask, does this salvation 
 deliver them ? It is salvation from nothing ! 
 
 I must here notice a remark of the gentleman, which I 
 overlooked at the proper time. In reply to my argument 
 founded on the novelty of Universalism, he told you, that 
 had I lived in the days of the Reformation, in the 16th 
 century, I would have been a zealous defender of Popery 
 —would have charged Luther with introducing novelties, 
 &c. Does the gentleman pretend, that the condition of 
 the Christian world was the same in 1818, as in the be- 
 ginning of the 16th century? Was the Bible then in the 
 
76 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 hands of the people ; and was it read and studied by 
 thousands, and tens of thousands of the wisest and best 
 men, as when Ballon broached the doctrine of Universal- 
 ism ? Were human traditions not then deemed of equal 
 authority with the Scriptures? Did Luther propose a 
 radical reformation of a people accustomed to read and 
 search the sacred Scriptures, and whose morals were 
 quite as pure as his own? Did he tell such persons, 
 that they had utterly failed to understand the plainest and 
 most important truths of the Gospel ? The Waldenses, 
 for example, had long been accustomed to read the Scrip- 
 tures, and to take them as their only rule of faith and life. 
 Did Luther propose a radical reformation amongst them ? 
 Far from it ! No ; Mr. Ballou's reformation is indeed of 
 a peculiar character. It is a radical 'reformation of the 
 faith of those who are in the habit of searching the word 
 of God, of taking it as " a lamp to their feet and a light 
 to their path." It seeks to reform those who, to say the 
 very least, are quite as moral and as upright as their re- 
 formers ! This reformation, I repeat, 'is entirely peculiar. 
 III. My third argument is — That the Scriptures 7nost 
 clearly teach that some of the human race will be raised 
 from the dead to condemnation. Consequently, it is not 
 true, that at the resurrection all will become holy and 
 happy. Mr. Pingree has sought to establish his doctrine 
 by reference to 1 Cor. xv. His argument, however, labors 
 under insuperable difficulties. For, in the first place, if 
 we admit, that the Apostle is speaking of the resurrec- 
 tion of all the dead, he says not a word indicating that 
 any who die in sin, will be made holy by the resurrec- 
 tion of their bodies. In the second place, .the context 
 proves conclusively, that his discourse relates exclusive- 
 ly to the resurrection of the righteous. For, as I have 
 proved, when he says — " As in Adam all die, so in Christ 
 shall all be made alive " — ^lie immediately adds — " But 
 every one in his own order, Christ the first-fruits ; 
 afterward, they that are Chrisfs at his cojming,^^ The 
 word all is thus limited to those who are Christ's. Can 
 the gentleman prove, that those who die in sin, will be 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 77 
 
 Christ's at his coming ? Has not Paul himself, said— 
 " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of 
 his ?" Besides, in tlie preceding part of the chapter un- 
 der consideration, he confines tliis resurrection to those 
 " who have fallen asleep in Christ." If there be no res- 
 urrection, he argues, then Christ is not risen; "and if 
 Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your 
 faith is also vain ;" and in verse xviii. he says — " Then 
 they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are perish- 
 ed," But Christ, says he, is risen, and become the first- 
 fruits of them that slept ; and consequently, they who fall 
 asleep in him, will be raised with him. 
 
 But Mr. Pingree tells us, if we limit the language of 
 the Apostle to the righteous, we must limit it to the 
 church at Corinth ! Surely he does not read his Bible 
 carefully. To whom is this Epistle addressed by Paul ? 
 Ch. i. ver. 2 ; " Unto the church of God which is at Cor- 
 inth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to 
 be saints, with all that in every place cull upon the name 
 of Jesus Christ,^'' etc. This language gives all the limi- 
 tation I desire, viz : to all that in every place call on the 
 name of Jesus. Since, then, the context confines the lan- 
 guage of Paul to the resurrection of those who are 
 Christ's — to the righteous, it cannot prove, that those 
 who die in their sins, will be made holy and happy by 
 the resurrection. 
 
 The 25th verse adds weight to the argument — "For 
 he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his 
 feet." There will still be enemies of Christ; and they 
 are to be put under his feet. Does this language mean, 
 that they will be reconciled to him ? Does this expres- 
 sion mean, that they will be made holy and happy? 
 No — the righteous shall reign with Christ; but the wick- 
 ed, his enemies, will be put under his feet. 
 
 There are several other passages of Scripture that 
 speak exclusively of the resurrection of the righteous, 
 in distinction from the unjust. In 1 Thess. iv. 14, Paul 
 says, "For if w^e believe that Jesus died and rose again, 
 even so them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with 
 7* 
 
78 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Aim." These are they Avho are Christ's at his coming, 
 and who shall attain to the resurrection of the just. So, 
 as already shown, Paul represents himself as gladly suf- 
 fering the loss of all things, and as making great and 
 constant efforts, ''if by any means he might attain to the 
 resurrection of the deacl,"" Phil. iii. 10, 11. And yet, if 
 Universalism be true, he could not possibly have avoided 
 attaining it ! And in Heb. xi. 35, we read of those who 
 suffered the sorest persecutions, refusing to accept deliv- 
 erance, that they might gain " a better resurrection,''^ 
 And yet, according to the doctrine of Mr. Pingree, there 
 is but one resurrection, and that is the best possible resur- 
 rection I So in Luke xiv. 14, the Saviour encourages 
 those who do good, to expect a recompense " at the res- 
 urrection of the justy 
 
 In Luke xx. 35, 36, we find still further evidence, that 
 some will fail to attain to the resurrection of the just. In 
 answer to a question put by the Sadducees, the Saviour 
 said, " But they which shall be accoimted ivorthy to pb- 
 tain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, 
 neither marry, nor are given in marriage." This lan- 
 guage clearly implies, that some will not be counted wor- 
 thy to obtain that world and the blessed resurrection of 
 the just. In the 36th verse of the same chapter, a sim- 
 ilar expression is found, which confinns what I have said : 
 " Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be 
 accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall 
 come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Ev- 
 idently those Avho did not watch and pray, could not be 
 accounted worthy to escape them. The expression, 
 "they that are accounted worthy," therefore, necessarily 
 implies, that all would not be so accounted, and therefore 
 all could not attain to the resurrection of the just. 
 
 In Acts xxiv. 15, we read of the resurrection both of 
 the just and of the unjust : "And have hope toward God, 
 which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a 
 resurrection, both of the just and of the unjust^ Ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of Mr. Pingree, there can be ud^ 
 resurrection of the unjust : since all at the resurrection will 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 79 
 
 be just — all are to be raised holy and happy. Paul, 
 however, believed in a resurrection of both classes ; and, 
 moreover, he said, the Pharisees held the same doctrine. 
 Now we know, that the Pharisees believed, the wicked 
 would be raised to condemnation. 
 
 The passage in the 5th chapter of the Gospel by John, 
 is one of the very plainest in the Bible, and therefoi-e one 
 of the most difficult to evade. As if to make it impossi- 
 ble to misunderstand his meaning, the Saviour speaks first 
 of the spiritual resurrection, and then immediately of the 
 resurrection of the body. "Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him 
 that sent me, hath everlasting life," that is, a life is begun 
 in this world, which is destined to continue forever. 
 ^* Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and 
 now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
 God : and they that hear shall live." Here we have the 
 resurrection of the spirititally dead. But he immediately 
 proceeds to say, " Marvel not at this : for 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, 
 to the resurrection of damnation." Now observe, he 
 tells us, in the 25th verse, the hour ^^now is^^ for the 
 spiritual resurrection ; for the Gospel was now to be 
 preached, and through it many were to be made spirit- 
 ually alive. But in verse 28, he tells us something more 
 wonderful still ; nnd he says distinctly, not that the hour 
 now is, but that the hour "i5 coming,^' when all that are 
 in their graves, shall be raised from the dead. 
 
 The gentleman's exposition of this passage is singular 
 enough. But lest I should not fairly state his views, I 
 will read from one of his leading authors, entitled, ** 77ie 
 Fro and Con of Universalism'' p. 224: "On the whole, 
 then, it must, 1 think, be manifest to the enlightened rea- 
 der, that the import of the passages before us is, that 
 Christ, by the word of his Gospel, and the ministry of 
 his Apostles, was about to call men forth from the graves 
 of superstition and ignorance, in which they had long 
 
80 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 been bnried ; that, as they came forth to the li^ht of the 
 tratlj, ihcy ehould experience justification, or condemna- 
 tion, according as their past actions had or had not been 
 in accordance with its dictates, or according as their dis- 
 position was to receive or reject this Gospel." Observe, 
 " the graves," we are here told, are graves of ignorance 
 and super siidon ; and men are to be called out of these 
 graves. They that have done good in their graves of 
 ignorance and superstition, are to come forth to life ! and 
 they who did evil in their graves of ignorance and super- 
 stition, are to come out of this ignorance and superstition 
 into condemn^ction ! ! ! A singular resurrection this ! It 
 amounts to this : they who have done good in their depra- 
 vity, shall come forth out of it to life; and they who have 
 done evil in their depravity, shall come out of their de- 
 pravity to damnation ! What utter nonsense Universalism 
 makes of God's word. 
 
 The language employed in this passage, as already 
 remarked, is as strong and as clear, as it could possibly be 
 made. Let us compare it with a similar passage in Matt. 
 xxvii. 52, 53 : " And the graves were opened ; and many 
 bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of 
 the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy 
 city, and appeared unto many." Observe, the same lan- 
 guage is here used, which is found in John v., they "came 
 out of the graves ;^^ and here, all admit, a literal resurrec- 
 tion of the body is meant. Or, will the gendeman say, 
 the graves here spoken of, are only graves of their depra- 
 vity, out of which the saints came ! 
 
 There is another difficulty attending Mr. Pingree's ex- 
 position of John V. Mr. Balfour, a leading writer among 
 the Universalists, in his Inquiry, pp. 222, 223, says, John 
 wrote his Gospel, not for the Jews, but for the Gentiles ; 
 that he wrote it after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 that he omitted all the discourses of our Saviour in which 
 he spoke of that event. If, then, Balfour is right, the 
 passage before us can have no reference whatever to 
 God's judgments upon Jerusalem. 
 
 But Mr. Pingree attempts to fortify himself by quoting 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 81 
 
 orthodox writers. He quotes Dr. Lightfoot as saying — 
 " These words might also be applied to a spiritual resur- 
 rection." Lightfoot, however, understood the passage 
 just as I do ; but he remarked, that it might, by accom- 
 modation, be applied to the spiritual resurrection. He 
 also quoted Newcome Cappe as a writer on our side, who 
 concedes the correctness of the Universalist exposition of 
 the passage under consideration. Now what will the 
 audience think, when I inform them, that this Newcome 
 Cappe was a Restorationist — a Universalist of the old 
 school ! No wonder he made concessions favorable to 
 Mr. Pingree's doctrine ! Mr. Paige himself, the author 
 from whom Mr. Pingree quoted, admits the fact that 
 Cappe was a Restorationist. He says, " Before exhibit- 
 ing the following testimony, it seems proper to remark, 
 once more* that the Rev. Newcome Cappe believed, most 
 firmly, in a future retribution, or, in other words, misery 
 in the future life. TVhether he believed that misery will 
 be endless, or not, is of no consequence, so far as the 
 present question is concerned." — Selec, pp. 174, 175. 
 The Restorationists, of whom Cappe was one, are quite 
 willing, no doubt, to make concessions favorable to Uni- 
 versalism. 
 
 This same Paige gets from Dr.Doddridge a concession 
 in favor of the Universalist exposition of the text under 
 consideration. And how do you imagine he obtains it ? 
 Why, he takes Doddridge's comment on the 25th verse, 
 and puts it under the 28th and 29th verses ! ! This is 
 not all. Mr. Paige also gets an important concession 
 from Dr. Whitby, and by a similar manoeuvre. He takes 
 Whitby's comment on 1 Peter iv. 6, and places it under 
 John V. 28, 29 ! ! ! It is by such dishonesty that Mr. 
 Paige obtains concessions from orthodox writers in favor 
 of Universalism. He takes what a writer sayB concern- 
 ing one portion of Scripture, and places it under another 
 portion as his exposition of it ! I have now sufficiently 
 answered the gentleman's argument for Universalism, 
 founded on the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 I have called upon him to inform us. how the resurrec- 
 
82 AN ORAX DISCUSSION 
 
 tion of the body by an exertion of physical power, will 
 impart lioliness to the soul. He replies, that there is 
 '''something more'''' than the exertion of physical power; 
 and this expression was repeated several times. Will he 
 please inform us what this " something more " is ? Or 
 is it true, that Universalism, after all its boasting, seeks to 
 hide behind the indefinite expression, '^ something more ^^^ 
 whilst her champion refuses to tell us what that " some- 
 thing more" is ! 
 
 IV. My fourth argum,ent against Universalism.^ is, 
 that it teaches the Materiality and mortality of the 
 soul; whilst the Scriptures clearly teach precisely the 
 opposite, Mr. Pingree, you will remember, maintains, 
 that i7i the resurrection a change will be effected by which 
 all men will be introduced into a state of holiness and 
 salvation. He does not, therefore, believe that the soul 
 is holy and happy after death and before the resurrection. 
 Nor does he believe that it is unholy and unhappy ; for he 
 denies all future punishment. If, then, the soul, after 
 deatli, is neither holy and happy, nor unholy and unhappy; 
 we are forced to the conclusion, that man dies, soul and 
 body, just as his horse dies ! And after death, he has no 
 existence, until the archangel's trump shall awake the dead. 
 Against this doctrine, renounced by all respectable philo- 
 sophers as well as by almost all men, Christians and Pa- 
 gans, I enter my solemn protest. The gentleman will 
 not deny, that the materiality and mortality of the soul is 
 a doctrine held and taught by the standard writers of his 
 denomination. If he should, I am prepared to quote them, 
 and will do so in my next speech. [_Time expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's fourth speech.] 
 Respected Jiuditors: I propose, first, to review briefly 
 the last speech of my friend, Mr. Rice, and then proceed 
 with my argument. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, it is strange that the whole church went 
 astray, so far as Universalists affirm, soon after the times 
 of the Apostles. I will just here show how 31r. Rice 
 answers this question. I find, in his Discussion with Mr 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 83 
 
 Campbell on the subject of Baptism, (page 529,) this pas- 
 sage: **The WHOLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, (remember!) as I 
 have before remarked, at an early day was corrupted in 
 the same way, and vital piety was buried and almost ex- 
 tinguished under a multitude of forms and ceremonies." 
 This is fully as much as I have said, tiere we have Mr. 
 Rice answering Mr. Rice's objection. 
 
 But he talks much about the novelty of Universalism. 
 Universalism affirms the final salvation of all men. This 
 doctrine is not a new one : for it was held as far back as 
 ecclesiastical history extends. This he does not deny. 
 It is true that corruptions from Paganism entered, bring- 
 ing with them the sentiment of torture in the future life. 
 Those Universaiists may have held views on other sub- 
 jects perfectly ridiculous. "The whole church was cor- 
 rupted," as Mr. Rice affirms, and remained so for ages. 
 Well, in the time of Calvin and Luther there came a 
 Reformation, and a presentation of the Bible to all. Yet 
 they did not obtain all the light, according to Protestants 
 of this age; for even Luther held to consubsfantiation, 
 which is near to transubstantiation. Mr. Rice does not 
 admit that. He claims to have further light than Luther. 
 We claim to have further light than Mr. Rice. 
 
 A word in relation to the doctrine of no future punish- 
 ment, which, however, is not the proposition before us ; 
 and the assertion that it was never discovered till 1818. 
 Mr. Rice is not correct in this assertion. I have in my 
 possession a book written in England, 200 years ago, by 
 Samuel Richardson, advocating the doctrine of no future 
 punishment. "That young man" was not the first dis- 
 coverer. This fact is enough to set aside Mr. Rice's 
 statement, and this is all that can be required of me, for 
 the present, on this point. 
 
 It appears strange to me, that a man engaged so earn- 
 estly in opposition to the views of the old Roman Catho- 
 lic church, which calls his own faith novel, should 
 object to my faith on account of its novelty. So earn- 
 estly, indeed, is he opposed to the Romish church, that 
 they consider him not very scrupulous in his means of 
 
84 AN OkAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Opposition. I am reminded here of the reply of a Qua- 
 ker, of whom a Presbyterian asked, "Where was your 
 rehgion before the days of George Fox?" The Quaker 
 replied, "Friend, where thine never was — in the Bi- 
 ble!" So I now say to Mr. Rice, in relation to Univer- 
 salism and its novelty. 
 
 As to his second argument, it is no argument at all. 
 He says we must rely upon Lexicons to explain the 
 word " salvation." Then I am not allowed to define the 
 terms of my own proposition ; am I ? but must prove 
 universal salvation, according to the definitions of Lexi- 
 cons ! Not so ; I have stated what / mean by the terms 
 of the proposition; and the doctrine thus defined, I in- 
 tend to prove by the Scriptures. 
 
 My friend comes again to the resurrection. He speaks 
 of those who die in sin, and asks if they are raised to the 
 incorruptible state. Have I not proved, by Mr. Rice's 
 Confession of Faith, that he believes that the saints die 
 in sin ? He said he was glad that I quoted it, and I am 
 glad that he is glad ; for it proves that the saints require 
 a change after deaths according to Presbyterianism. But 
 I have more proof. Perhaps the (confession of Faith is 
 not so good authority as Mr. Rice himself. On page 
 742, of his Discussion with Mr. Campbell, he says: 
 
 " Heaven is a holy place. An infinitely holy God reigns 
 there; and holy angels bow around his throne. God has 
 taught us that nothing impure can enter into the holy city ; 
 that none from earth but ' the spirits of just men made perfect' 
 can approach his presence. Men are deeply depraved. Even 
 the MOST GODLY groan under indwelling corruption. Tell them, 
 that they must, by their own exertions, in view of the motives 
 of the Gospel, prepare themselves to see God; and they will 
 sit down and weep in despair. A man is suddenly called to 
 die," etc. 
 
 That is, when he is called to die, he is imperfect. So, 
 then, the saints die sinners^ and require a chajige after 
 death. This is plain ; is it not ? 
 
 With regard to the passage quoted, about " not accept- 
 ing deliverance," and a "better resurrection," I ask, a 
 "better resurrection" than what? Why, "better" than 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 85 
 
 to natural Hfe; not "better" than the resurrection to 
 endless misery. 
 
 .Did Paul expect, by his oivn efforts, to " attain" the 
 resurrection to immortality ? His expression is, " not as 
 though I had attained, or were already perfect." He 
 means by that, that he desires a higher resurrection, a 
 state nearer perfection, in the present life. So none of 
 those passages quoted relate to the resurrection of all the 
 naturally dead. The 15th chapter of 1st Cor. relates to 
 all that die in Adam, and thus differs from all those pas- 
 sages. As to the passage in Acts, it is equally true that 
 there is no difference of condition spoken of, concerning 
 those who were to experience that resurrection. Paul 
 HOPED for the resurrection of the "just and the unjust," 
 because he believed all would be saved — the unjust be- 
 come just'. 
 
 Is it to be supposed that the benevolent Apostle 
 " hoped " for a resurrection of the unjust which would 
 make them unjust forever? which would cause them to 
 rebel against God's government, and curse and blaspheme 
 his holy name to all eternity ! ? Would he hope for this ? 
 Did he believe it? Can you believe it? 
 
 We find John v. quoted again, and Mr. Rice speaking 
 of a resurrection from " the graves" of superstition, igno- 
 rance, and depravity, in which " they have done good," 
 etc. But that was not my suggestion; I said nothing 
 about depravity. I said that all are not in their ''graves,'^ 
 literally speaking. The bodies of many are not there! 
 Some have been burned ; some drowned ; some devoured 
 by wild beasts, and others have mingled with the ele- 
 ments again. Every particle of dust that is blown about, 
 may be some portion of their bodies. It cannot mean 
 the graves of the literally dead, therefore. The bodies 
 are not there. It does not refer to the resurrection of the 
 natural or material body. That, the Scriptures do not 
 teach. They teach that we are to have spiritual bodies ; 
 and dwell in heaven in bodies, not of the flesh, skin, and 
 bones, we have here, but in incorruptible, immortal, spir- 
 itual bodies. But, savs Mr. Rice, those saints who came 
 8 
 
86 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 out of the graves near Jerusalem, at tlie crucifixion of 
 Christ, and walked into the city, had natural bodies. 
 How does he know it ? and what resurrection was that ? 
 The final resurrection to an immortal state ? Probably 
 not ; we have no evidence but that they died again ; and I 
 suppose they did, — as did Lazarus, doubtless, after his 
 resurrection from the grave. He was raised up, in his nat- 
 ural body; but it was not the resurrection to immortality. 
 
 But again on John v.; " they who have done good," or 
 "evil;" who are they? All the naturally dead 1 If so, 
 how are infants embraced in the resurrection 1 for they 
 have themselves done 7ieiiher good, nor evil. They are 
 excluded, by this interpretation ; and this shows it was a 
 moral resurrection, not a natural, physical one ; — that the 
 words were used with a figurative signification. 
 
 What has Mr. Rice to do with the doctrine of judging 
 men ^' according to their works P^^ I will show you 
 what he believes on the subject, by reading a passage on 
 the 16th page of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith: 
 " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his 
 glory, some men and angels 2ire predestinated unto everlast- 
 ing life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 
 Those angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, 
 are particularly and imchangeably designed, and their 
 number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either 
 increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are 
 predestinated unto life, God before the founda'wn of the 
 world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable 
 purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his 
 7vill, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of 
 his mere free grace and /oi?e (mark !) wiTHi>uT any for e- 
 sighf of faith or good works, or perseverence in either 
 of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions 
 or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his 
 glorious grace." We see, therefore, according to my 
 friend, Mr: Rice's doctrine, (and it will not do for him to 
 present any argument here to overthrow his Creed ;) that 
 man's destiny hereafter depends on the grace and decree 
 OF. God, without respect to faith, or works, or conditions 
 
OJ" UNIV£RSALISM. 87 
 
 of any kind ; i. e. God foreordained some of his chil- 
 dren, at the beginning, to be endlessly happy, and some 
 to be endlessly miserable ! Now what has my friend to do 
 with "good works?" He need not .quote passages to 
 prove good works necessary to salvation* They have 
 no bearing on this question. It depends, according to his 
 own doctrine, upon the absolute will of God, determined 
 before the world began; and the number of the saved 
 then determined on, can be neither increased nor dimin^ 
 ished. 
 
 My friend attempted to ridicule the explanation I gave 
 of the 5th chapter of John, as to the word "graves" — 
 which I said had a figurative meaning, and was applied to 
 moral darkness in this life. See here ! Was not Corne- 
 lius the centurion in a state of ignorance and moral dark- 
 ness ? Yet he was a good man, and did good, and was 
 benevolent and just to all. Still it was necessary for him 
 to hear the Gospel, in order to be saved. He did hear 
 it, and was saved. Now here is an instance in point. 
 Cornelius was a good man ; yet he required to be saved, 
 with the Gosper salvation. He was in the condition re- 
 presented by " the graves," in John v. 
 
 So in the case of the ten virgins ; five of whom were 
 wise, and five foolish. When the Bridegroom came, five 
 were prepared, and five were not. They were all in dark- 
 ness during the night in which they wailed for the Bride- 
 groom. Yet some in that darkness, did well ; and some 
 did evil, and so were cast into a state of condemnation, or 
 " damnation," — cast ont ; and this passage also will serve 
 to illustrate the 6th of John. 
 
 Mr. Rice says that, according to a Universalist writer, 
 John wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. What 
 has that to do with this subject? Have I said any thing 
 about. the destruction of Jerusalem ? I have quoted from 
 Matthew. If I quoted from John, I do not recollect it. 
 
 He speaks of Paine* s Selections. I hope he will look 
 at the title page of that work. It is not Paine, whom 
 some might think to be the infidel writer, Thomas 
 Paine ; but Rev. Lucius R. Paigb. 
 
88 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 We now come again to 1 Cor. xv. My friend agaiii 
 asks, What is that something more? and says that I hide 
 behind it. My friends, did I not tell you what that '' some- 
 thing more " was ? I ask you all, Did I not explain it ? 
 I showed that all were to be subdued to the Saviour, that 
 God might be " all in all." That was something m^ore 
 than a mere physical resurrection ; was it not ? You see I 
 have not hid behind it. 
 
 But he says Christ shall " put his enemies under his 
 feet." What are the enemies referred to ? Are they 
 not sin, and the devil, and death — the *' last enemy " ? 
 Does it include men, the same that are said to be " suh- 
 dited " unto Christ? These are not said to be put under 
 his feet ; they are not included in this category. Besides, 
 I did not quote that verse to show that men shall be re- 
 conciled to God. I quoted the text which said all men 
 shall be subdued unto the Saviour, that God might "be all 
 in all ;" and that is a part of the " something more," which 
 the gentleman cannot see. Hence he can find nothing but 
 a mere physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians xv. He 
 speaks, too, of its being only an exercise of physical 
 power. On this point, I will read from the 635th page of 
 Mr. Rice's Discussion with Mr. Campbell : " Now if 
 God could originally create man holy, ivithout words or 
 arguments^ who shall presume to assert that he cannot 
 create him anew, and restore his lost image, without 
 them ; or that he has now no power over the human mind 
 beyond that of argument and motive ?" And yet he calls 
 the resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. only a mere exertion of 
 physical power ! not affecting man's moral state. Thus 
 I make Mr. Rice meet his own statements. 
 
 Again : my friend says it is his fourth argument, that 
 Universalism makes the soul material and mortal. That 
 depends on the meaning attached to the word " soul," in 
 its existing constitution with the body. For example, if 
 he means the word used as it is in the Bible, sometimes : 
 as where it is said that Jesus Christ laid down his soul, 
 or life, in death, and that the soul ^' shall die,^^ etc., it is 
 mortal. But if he means the spiritual part of our nature, 
 
OF UNIVERSAXISM. 89 
 
 it is not mortal nor material, I do not believe in the 
 m>ateriality or mortality of the spirit. 
 
 He insists upon my explaining what becomes of the 
 soul between death and the resurrection. I can give no 
 other answer to this question than the language of the 
 Bible : " The body returns to the dust as it was, and the 
 spirit to God who gave it." I have no more precise in- 
 formation on tliis subject. I am now through with my 
 friend's last speech. It is not necessary to strengthen 
 my argument from 1 Cor. xv. It stands strong and firm. 
 All who die in Adam — that is, all the human race — are 
 to be made alive in Christ. It is not confined to the 
 saints at Corinth, or elsewhere. Mr. Rice quoted the 
 first verses of the Epistle, to show that it was addressed 
 to all Christians, everywhere. Even if that is to be the 
 rule of limitation, it was addressed only to those living at 
 that time, 
 
 I said, when I last sat down, I would produce another 
 argument concerning the resurrection. I will now pro- 
 ceed, and quote the 22d of Matthew, and the 20th of liuke. 
 The Sadducees asked the Saviour, if a women had seven 
 husbands on earth, whose wife would she be in the resur- 
 rection ? They supposed the future world would be like 
 this, and that there would be some diflTiculty about her 
 husbands. But what reply does the Saviour make to the 
 question ? " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor 
 THE POWER OF GoD ; (mark that word ! ) for in the resur- 
 rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but 
 are as the angels of God in heaven." That is to be the 
 ' condition of man in the resurrection. It is not such here ; 
 and this is the change which the Saviour declares is to 
 take place in the resurrection. 
 
 I will now quote Luke xx. 27 — 38, where more is said, 
 than in Matt. xxii. " The children of this world marry 
 and are given in marriage : but they which shall be ac- 
 counted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection 
 from the dead, neither marry nor are given in niarria<;e : 
 neither can they die any more ; for they are equal unlo 
 the angels^ and are the children of God, being the chll- 
 8* 
 
90 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 dren of the resurrection." Who are " accounted worthy 
 to obtain the resurrection ?" Paul says, all that die in 
 Adam. That settles this question. Does not Mr. Rice 
 himself believe, that all men are to be raised ? or does he 
 believe that some are annihilated ? He does not believe 
 in annihilation. This passage expresses the resurrection 
 of all men. Mr. Rice says it refers only to the resurrec- 
 tion of the just. If only those shall be holy in the resur- 
 rection that have done good on earth, I again ask, and 
 press the question, what becomes of infants ? ■ Are they 
 "v^orthy" to obtain the resurrection, by having done 
 good? or not? But, "neither can they die any more." 
 There is something more than merely not marrying and 
 giving in marriage. The passage expresses a great change 
 of condition, " And are the children of God, being the 
 children of the resurrection," says the Saviour. And the 
 resurrection here, is the resurrection of all. The term is 
 evidently used by our Saviour, in a larger sense than Mr. 
 Rice understands it. To show this, Jesus adds in the 
 next verse, " Now that the dead are raised, even Moses 
 showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God 
 of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 
 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living : 
 |C?" FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM !" Mark the lan- 
 guage of the Saviour, as contrasted with Mr. Rice's ar- 
 gument, drawn from the phrase, " accounted worthy*" It 
 is apparent now, that God accounts all men worthy of 
 being raised from the dead ; for, in reference to that fu- 
 ture life, the Son of God declares, " all live unto him !" 
 [Time expired, 
 
 [mr. rice's fourth reply.] 
 My friend, Mr. Pingree, seems to think it quite reas- 
 onable, that that young man in "the land of steady hab- 
 its," at the age of twenty-one, brought to light the true 
 doctrines of the Gospel, which had been concealed from 
 the view of all men for eighteen hundred years ! And he 
 seems anxious to place me in a similar predicament. He 
 tells you, that in my debate with Alexander Campbell, I 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM* 91 
 
 fefeited, that ac an early period the Christian church was 
 overrun with error. This is true ; and it is also true, 
 that at that period the Scriptures were not in the hands 
 of the people. The art of printing, was then unknown ; 
 and every copy of the Sacred Volume was written with 
 the pen. So that not one in a thousand, perhaps not one 
 in five thousand of even professing Christians possessed 
 It. It is further true, that the great majority of Christians 
 were converts from Poganism, who needed all the instruc- 
 tion afforded by the clear light of the Gospel, to divest 
 them of their superstitious notions. Will the gentleman 
 pretend, that the condition of the Church in 1818, was 
 similar ? Are the cases at all parallel ? During the last 
 three hundred years the Bible has been in tjie hands of 
 the peoplc-*^acccssible to all. Moreover it has occupied 
 the attention of the wisest and best men, who have spent 
 their lives in the laborious and prayerful study of its in- 
 spired trutbs. And yet a young man, scarcely twenty- 
 one years of age, pretends to reform radically the faith of 
 such men ! Philosopliers, theologians, and critics, even 
 the most eminent, are thrown into the shade by this hope- 
 ful youth ! ! ! This reformation is indeed most peculiar 
 in its character. 
 
 Luiher and Calvin, my friend, Mr. Pingree, says, had 
 not obtained all the light the Scriptures can impart. 
 No — ^and if we are to believe Universahsts, they had no 
 light at all ! They believed in a Trinity of persons in 
 the Godhead. Mr. Ballon discovered, that this is a great 
 error. They believed, that God created man holy, in his 
 own image. Mr. Ballou says, man was created an im- 
 perfect being. It is quite absurd, according to him, to 
 believe that Adam was more holy than other men. They 
 believed, that the first parents of our race fell, through 
 temptation, from their original purity. This, according 
 to Mr. Ballou, is nonsense. They believed that ,Iesus 
 Christ is God as well as man. Ballou discovered, that 
 he is a mere man. They firmly believed, that the only 
 ground on which a sinner can reasonably hope for salva- 
 tion, is the vicarious sufl^erings of Christ — that Jesus died 
 
92 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 in our stead. Ballou pronounces this doctrine " carnal' 
 ity and death ;^'' and he utterly denies the doctrine of the 
 atonement. They beHeved, that the sins of every peni- 
 tent person are forgiven. Ballou pronounces this doclTine 
 false, and contends, that every individual suffers as much 
 as he deserves to suffer for every sin he commits — that 
 all receive full rewards and punishments in this life, not 
 hereafter. I might go on thus to contrast every doctrine 
 held by the Reformers with modern Universalism. I re- 
 peat the declaration, if Universalism is true, Luther and 
 Calvin did not gain even a glimpse of the true Gospel; 
 they groped in midnight darkness ; and so have all the 
 readers of the Bible, till the rise of that hopeful young 
 man! They who can believe this, must possess a power 
 of believing to which I have no claim. 
 
 A word concerning the early history of Universalism. 
 It is admitted, that at an early day there were some who 
 held to the Restorationist form of Universalism. They, 
 however, believed that those who died in their sins, would 
 undergo the torments of hell for a long and indefinite 
 period after death. I was really not prepared to find 
 Universalists of the present day acknowledging as breth- 
 ren tlie Gnostic heretics of ancient times. They, it 
 seems, were the first Universalists ;^ and they believed 
 that the true God did not create this world : that matter is 
 inherently evil, and that pure spirits, created by the true 
 God, had unfortunately got into material bodies. They 
 denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and 
 the inspiration of a considerable portion of the Scriptures, 
 admitting only a small part of the Bible to be God's 
 word! Mr. Pingree is heartily welcome to all the ad- 
 vantage he can gain by fraternizing with these primitive 
 Universalists! Even Mr. Balfour, the author of Ancient 
 Historic of Universalum, admits, that they held philo- 
 sophical opinions the most absurd and ridiculous, so much 
 so that one might suppose them chargeable with lunacy! 
 
 The first man, admitted to be called a Christ'ian, who 
 held to universal salvation, was Origen in the third cen- 
 tury; who, though a learned man, embraced principles 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM* 93 
 
 both of philosophy and of theology admitted to be most 
 . absurd. He believed in the pre-existence and transmi- 
 ^ation of souls ; and as the souls of men, according to 
 his philosophy, had existed in another state before they 
 entered 1hese bodies; so he supposed the souls of the 
 wicked would pass into other bodies, and after suffering 
 intolerably during a period indefinitly Jong, would finally 
 get to heaven. His method of interpreting the Scriptures 
 was not more rational, than his philosophy. "To the 
 Sacred writings in general," says Balfour, "he attributed 
 three distinct senses — 1. The literal^ which in no case 
 is of great importance, and sometimes entirely useless; 
 2. The morale superior in value to the former; and, 3. 
 The mysiical or spiritual sense, the most excellent of 
 all." And, I believe, he subdivided this last into some 
 two other senses ! By the aid of his false philosophy 
 and his absurd principles of interpretation, he reached the 
 Restorationist doctrine ! Is it not most marvellous, that 
 the only persons, who, in ancient times, got even a 
 ^impse of the true light of the Gospel, were those who 
 adopted principles the most absurd ; whilst all who were 
 guided by common sense and sound principles, groped in 
 midnight darkness ! 
 
 But Mr. Pingree says, there was one other man, about 
 two hundred years ago, who held to Universalism in its 
 present form. I never heard of him before. It appears, 
 then, that there were two Universalists in eighteen hun- 
 dred years!!! 
 
 The gentleman would have you think it very absurd in 
 me to oppose Popery, and yet object to these new disco- 
 veries. I oppose Popery, because it does not take the 
 Bible alone, but an immense mass of human traditions, as 
 the rule of faith; because the people are not permitted to 
 read and understand the word of God for themselves, but 
 must be guided by the interpretations of a corrupt clergy. 
 But I do not make war upon the great body of pious read- 
 ers of the Scriptures, as if they were ignorant of the very 
 simplest principles of the Gospel. I hope never to have 
 such a conceit of my own wisdom, as to denounce the 
 
94 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 great body of the most learned and godly men, who have 
 spent their lives in the prayerful study of the Scriptures, 
 and have sacrificed every thing for the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 The Quaker said, his religioii was in the Bible ; and 
 Mr. Pingree says that his is also there. Truly it must 
 lie very deep^ since not one in ten thousand of the pioua 
 readers of the Bible ever saw it there ! 
 
 I have shown, that if Universalism be true, there is no 
 such thing in the Gospel, as salvation. But Mr. Pingree 
 says, he had the right to define the words used in his 
 own proposition* This is indeed a singular claim. I 
 had supposed that in stating propositions for discussion, 
 men were expected to use words in their ordinary accep- 
 tation. But having engaged me in the discussion, he now, 
 it seems, claims the right to give new meanings to old 
 words I This, however, will not do ; for salvation is a 
 Bible word. If we admit that he may define the word in 
 the proposition as he pleases, we cannot allow him the 
 same liberty with the word, as it occurs in the Scriptures, 
 The difficulty is this : If Universalism be true, the word 
 salvation ought to be expunged from the Bible ; for, ac- 
 cording to this doctrine, Christ does not save men from any 
 evil to which they were exposed ! 
 
 The Scriptures, however, inform us distinctly what the 
 salvation of the Gospel is. Thus, in Matth. i. 21, we 
 read — " Thou shalt call his name JESUS : for he shall 
 save his people from their sins^^ — not merely from sin- 
 ningy as Mr. Pingree would have us believe, but from their 
 si7is. That is, Christ shall save his people from the ruinous 
 consequences of the sins they have committed. This is 
 the salvation in which I believe ; but it is not Universalist 
 salvation. The docrine of Universalism is, that every 
 man is actually punished as much as his sins deserve in 
 this life. The claims of justice, they say, are fully met 
 in this world ; and therefore men cannot be justly punish- 
 ed hereafter. Theirs is not a salvation of men ''from 
 their sin^." 
 
 Mr .^Pingree still insists, that according to our Confes- 
 sion of Faith even Christians die in sin. Suppose he 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 95 
 
 were correct in this represention. There is a vast differ- 
 ence between being perfectly sanctified immediately after 
 death, and thus entering into heaven, and being made 
 holy not until the time of the resurrection of the dead ! 
 But the framers of our Confession of Faith intended sim- 
 ply to deny the doctrine of a purgatory, on the one hand, 
 and the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life, on the 
 other. Consequently they teach, that perfect sanctification 
 takes place at the moment of death, in the act of the sepa- 
 ration of the soul from the body. 
 
 The gentleman again quotes my debate with Mr. Camp- 
 bell, and tells you, I held then that sanctification is effected 
 by the power of God, and that even the most godly need 
 this divine influence. So I say yet. I was then proving 
 the necessity of the special influences of the Holy Spirit 
 in the sanctification of the soul. I said then, and I say 
 now, that no human being can be fitted for heaven but by 
 the gracious influences of the Spirit of God. The Holy 
 Spirit begins and carries on the good work, until in the 
 moment of death the soul, perfectly sanctified, is presented 
 before the throne of God with exceeding joy. 
 
 Let us now attend to the Scripture argument. In Heb. 
 xi. 35, as I have proved, believers are represented as hav- 
 ing endured the most terrible persecutions, " not accept- 
 ing deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrec- 
 tion.'*^ What is the gentleman's reply ? Why, he says, 
 the resurrection was better than natural life in this world ! 
 A better resurrection than natural life ! ! Could there be 
 a resurrection to natural life, before death ? * Or will Mr. 
 Pingree say, that because they were in danger of oying, 
 they might be represented as raised from the dead? Why, 
 he seems resolved to sustain his cause, even though it 
 require him to change the meaning of half the words in 
 the English language ! 
 
 No ; the obvious meaning of the language is this : they 
 sought by persevering in obedience a better resurrection 
 than they could attain, if they should dip in their sins, 
 
 Paul, too, the inspired Apostle, counted all things but 
 loss, and pressed through great trials, " if by any means 
 
96 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 he might attain to the resurrection of the dead." But, 
 says my friend, Mr. Pingree, surely he did not expect to 
 be saved by his own efforts. No ; nor did he expect to 
 be saved without his own eftbrts. Observe his language, 
 "i/" by any means I might attain to the resurrection of 
 the dead." What resurrection is this ? Why, says the 
 gentleman, he only wished to get up higher in this life ! 
 Paul was spiritually alive, but he desired to be holier ; and 
 this, according to Mr. Pingree, is " the resurrection of the 
 deadlJI^^ He is obliged to represent Paul, the inspired 
 Aposde, as spiritucilly dead, in order to prevent this pas- 
 sage from destroying Universalism !- Why, if we believe 
 his interpretation of the Apostle's language, we must sup- 
 pose all Christians spiritualty dead, that aspirations after 
 higher degrees of holiness may be called "the resurrection 
 of the dead!" The gentleman must resort to these ab- 
 surdities, or abandon Universalism. 
 
 But, singularly enough, he insists, that, inasmuch as Paul 
 hoped for the resurrection, " both of the just and of the 
 unjust," all must be just or holy at the resurrection. 
 Would Paul, he asks, be so cruel as to hope for the resur- 
 rection of the unjust to eternal punishment? Christians, 
 I presume, hope for the resurrection and rejoice in the an- 
 ticipation of it, riot because the unjust wall be condemned, 
 but noiwithstanding their condemnation. I rejoice that 
 man is rmmoHxd^ though many w^ill not avail themselves 
 of the means afforded them to make their immortality a 
 blessing. So did Paul hope for the resurrection, though 
 to the unjust it will not prove a blessing. But that he 
 did not believe, that all w^ould be made holy and happy 
 at the resurrection, is evident, because he said that in this 
 doctrine he agreed with the Pliarisees, who certainly did 
 not believe the wdcked w^ould be raised to sakation. 
 
 The gentleman will never succeed in sustaining his 
 singular exposition of John v. 28, 29. We cannot under- 
 stand how men could do good in their graves of ignorance 
 and superstition! He says, Cornelius, the pious centu- 
 rion, was thus raised, when, by command of God, Peter 
 went and preached to him the Gospel, I)o the Scriptures 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 97 
 
 say, that he was in the grave? He enjoyed the light of 
 the Old Testament ; by that light he walked, was greatly 
 blessed of God, and was even favored with a revelation. 
 He was already an eminently good man ; but Peter was 
 sent to give him further instruction, that he might be aided 
 in preparation for heaven. But it is even more absurd, if 
 possible, to speak of bringing the wicked out of ignorance 
 and superstition to damnation ! 
 
 Mr. Pingree objects, that all are not in graves, and 
 therefore the Saviour's language will not apply to the res- 
 urrection of the body. I answer, the Jews were accus- 
 tomed uniformly to bury their dead ; and therefore they 
 were accustomed to speak of the dead as being in their 
 graves. A similar mode of expression obtains universally 
 amongst us. In the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, to which 
 the gentleman has referred, the bones of the dead are rep- 
 resented (verse 2) as lying "in the open valley; and lo, 
 they were very dry ;" and yet in verse 12 it is said: 
 " TTius saith the Lord, Behold, O my people, / wiU open 
 your graves, and cause you to come up out of your 
 graves," &c. The dead lay in the open valley ; and yet 
 they are said immediately afterwards to be in their 
 graves. Thus we have abundant evidence, that the Jews 
 were accustomed to speak of all the dead as in their 
 graves; and so the Saviour spoke in the passage under 
 consideration. 
 
 But the infants ! what is to become of them, the gentle- 
 man inquires ; they have done neither good nor evil. Are 
 they not to be raised from the dead? I answer, the 
 Scriptures were designed for the instruction of those who 
 can understand them ; and therefore they say but little 
 concerning infants. Or, if he will be better pleased with 
 his Universalist brother, author of the Pro and Con of 
 Universalism, he says, every human being has done both 
 good and evil. He asks, " Is there a single human being 
 who has not done good ? Is there a human being who 
 has not done evil ? " p. 222. 
 
 The simple truth is, the Scriptures divide the whole 
 human family into two classes, the righteous and the 
 
 
98 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 wicked — those who have done good, and those who have 
 done evil ; and they do not turn aside on all occasions to 
 speak of infants. 
 
 The gentleman asks, with what propriety I speak of 
 good works as necessary to salvation ; and he gives a quo- 
 tation and a caricature of the doctrine of our Confession 
 of Faith. I wish he would take the trouble to understand 
 something about our doctrines, before he attempts to state 
 them. What is our doctrine ? We hold that God deter- 
 mined to regenerate a multitude of sinners, not because 
 he foresaw that they would of themselves do good works, 
 but in order that they might perform them. Men cannot 
 merit heaven by their good works ; nor yet can they be 
 saved without them. The faith whith unites them to 
 Christ, produces obedience^it "works by love," and 
 purifies the heart. Good works are the evidence of the 
 genuineness of faith ; and to them God has promised a 
 gracious reward. 
 
 The "enemies" spoken of in 1 Cor. xv., and whom 
 Christ, it is said, will put "under his feet," the gentleman 
 tells us, are sin and death. The difficulty is, the Apostle 
 does not say so. He says, Jesus Christ will put " all " 
 his enemies under his feet. If there were only two of 
 them, would the Apostle have spoken of all of his ene- 
 mies ? The ungodly are his enemies ; and they shall be 
 put under his feet. 
 
 I have called on Mr. Pingree to tell us how it is possi- 
 ble that men can be made holy by the exertion of physical 
 power on the body. He seeks to involve me in a similar 
 absurdity by again quoting my debate with Mr. Campbell. 
 In that discussion I contended that God sanctifies men, 
 not simply by word and argument, but by the special influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, I did not, how- 
 ever, say that men are sanctified by mere physical power, 
 but a moral power exerted upon man's moral nature. But 
 the absurdity I charged upon Mr. Pingree, is this : he 
 maintains, that men are made holy by an exertion of phys- 
 ical power upon the body. The Scriptures do not teach us 
 that the soul dies, but only the body. Consequently, the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 99 
 
 body, not the soul, is raised from the dead by the almighty 
 power of God — by physical power. My objection to 
 Mr. Pingree's doctrine is, that the soul cannot be made 
 holy by physical power exerted upon the body. This is 
 the insuperable difficulty. 
 
 He told us, that in the resurrection there is ^^something 
 more'' than the exertion of physical power. I desired to 
 know what that something more is. He says, it is the 
 subduing of Christ's enemies. This leaves us quite as 
 much in the dark, as before. What operation is there 
 in raising the dead, except a physical one ? He answers 
 the question by saying, men are subdued to Christ. I do 
 not see the pertinency of the answer. He slams the 
 book down with awful force, as if his argument was con- 
 clusive. I do not think, however, that this added any 
 force to it. 
 
 I am gratified to hear him say, that he is not a materi- 
 alist. He contends, that in the resurrection all will be 
 made holy and happy. I inquired once and again what 
 becomes of the soul between death and the resurrection ? 
 He answers in the language of Scripture — " The dust 
 returns to dust, and the spirit to God who gave it." 
 But I again ask him, do the spirits of those who die in 
 sin, go to God in their sin ? If not, are they sanctified 
 immediately after death ? If so, why does the gentleman 
 contend that tliey are made holy at the resurrection, not 
 before? His explanation, it appears to me, has only 
 involved him in a palpable contradiction. [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pingree's fifth speech.] 
 My friend seems to think that he obviates all difficulty 
 in reference to the novelty of present attempts to reform 
 the church, and remove error from it, by saying, that in 
 former days the people had not the Bible, as now. But 
 he thinks the strange thing is that a young man of 21 
 should find light where the best men have erred. I sup- 
 pose he will allow that some clergymen of the Church 
 of Rome read the Bible as carefully as he does ; yet he 
 differs from them in this day of Bibles. I think he will 
 
100 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 allow that Fenelon, Bossuet, and others of that church, 
 in past times and now, were as good, and wise, and prac- 
 tical Christians as himself. Yet they did not come to a 
 knowledge of the truth. True, they proposed to inter- 
 pret Scripture by the aid of tradition ; and if it were not 
 for that tradition, I know not where Mr. Rice would find 
 his own doctrines. I introduce these remarks only to 
 show that novelty is no evidence of error, or, at least, 
 ought not to be, in his mind. 
 
 In many respects we do, indeed, differ from Partialists 
 We believe Jesus Christ to be the Son and Sent of God, 
 divinely commissioned to do the work of God among 
 men; that he reconciles man to God by his sufferings 
 and death, commending thereby the love of God to a sin- 
 ful world. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, he believes the present life to be a state 
 of probation. This, he says, "that young man" of 21 
 did not believe. But does Mr. Rice, himself, believe it ? 
 No. He believes that man's doom is fixed by the sov- 
 ereign WILL or God, and 7iot depending on our acts ; 
 but is a destiny decreed unchangeably since the world 
 began, " without foresight of faith or good works," on 
 our part; and he ought not to go right against his own 
 system, if he wishes to make converts, in the present 
 controversy. 
 
 He says I ought to imderstand the Confession of Faith, 
 before I speak about it. Do you not think I understand 
 it? Did you not understand it, as I read it? It was ex- 
 pressed in plain language, that all could understand ; and 
 the sentiment I call monstrous, in view of the fact that 
 " God is LOVE," and the Father of our spirits, and that 
 " he is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all 
 his works." I ask again, does he believe this life to be a 
 state of probation? in the sense that all have an oppor- 
 tunity of being saved ? Let us read his Creed and see. 
 Chap. V. Sec. 4: "The almighty power, unsearchable 
 wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest 
 themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even 
 to the first fall^ and all other sins of angels and men^ 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 101 
 
 and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath 
 joined with it a most wise and powerful hounding, and 
 otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a mani- 
 fold dispensation, to his own holy ends ; yet so, as the 
 sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and 
 not from God ; who being most holy and righteous, nei- 
 ther is nor can be the author or approver of sin." Thus 
 God bounds, and orders, and governs sin ; yet we are 
 told that this life is a state of probation, and that we are 
 free agents ! ! ! 
 
 All his wit about two men being Universalists is 
 misplaced. Did I say there were but two? What was I 
 showing 1 Mr. Rice had asserted, as a fact, that no man 
 was found promulgating Universalism, till 1818. I showed 
 there was a man prior to that. This was enough to set 
 aside that assertion ; and all I was required to do in rela- 
 tion to that matter. 
 
 Mr. Rice refers to the fact that Paul's Epistle was 
 addressed ** to all that call on the name of Jesus." So I 
 admit ; but I say the promise included others, — all who 
 die in Adam. 
 
 New meanings of the word, '< salvation," says he ! I 
 have said, that it relates to the present condition of those 
 who are subject to suffering, and vanity, and death, and 
 their deliverance from it. He says this is only my simple 
 statement. But Jolin the Baptist exclaimed, when he saw 
 the Saviour, '' behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away 
 THE SIN OF THE world!!" This is salvatiou. Thus the 
 Scriptures agree with us ; or rather, I should express it, we 
 agree with the Scriptures. Mr. Rice says we do not be- 
 lieve in salvation from sin, because we hold that we suffer 
 i\x\\ pu7iishment for all our sins. When a sick man suffers 
 from disease, and is healed, does he escape any of the suf- 
 fering connected with his sickness ? It is true, he is healed 
 from the sickness ; but did he escape all the suffering of 
 the sickness, while the disease was upon him ? No ; yet 
 the man is healed. So it is with sin. While in sin, we 
 suffer; but when we are saved from sin, as from a dis- 
 ease, we cease to suffer. That is salvation. 
 9* 
 
102 AN ORAL DISCUi?SION 
 
 So also, we die. We have sinned and suffered in this 
 present life ; but God, by his divine (not merely physical) 
 power, through Jesus Christ, raises us up from the dead, 
 and introduces us into a state of purity and happiness, 
 where we are to abide with him forever. 
 
 My friend says, some strove for a "better resurrection," 
 and ridicules the idea that more would prefer to die and 
 await the resurrection — the final resurrection, than to live 
 on earth in a state of suflering. A better resurrection, 
 then, than what? Why, better than to "accept deliver- 
 ance " at the hands of persecutors, and thus escape from 
 death, to continue in the life on earth. There is nothing 
 in this explanation to call forth ridicule. 
 
 Paul says of himself, " Not as though I had already at- 
 tained, or were already perfect.'^'' Was not Paul, I ask, 
 then in that state, that if he had died, he would have been 
 raised from the dead, to a state of immortal happiness ? 
 Why say, " If I might, by any means attain to it ?" " Not 
 as though I were perfect." Did it require perfection 
 on earth, to reach immortal happiness hereafter ? Will 
 Mr. Rice enlighten us in relation to this inquiry ; for 
 if not, the passage affords him no aid. 
 
 Paul hoped for the resurrection, " both of the just, and 
 unjust." But, says Mr. Rice, Universalists don't be- 
 lieve in the resurrection of the unjust. They certainly 
 do ; but they say that the unjust in this life, after being 
 raised, are not to remain unjust. But, Mr. Rice hopes 
 for their resurrection, though some will not use God's 
 means of salvation, and therefore will be damned endless- 
 ly. What has Mr. Rice to do with means? He be- 
 lieves that it is God's will they should be so damned, and 
 that they have no available opportunity to make use of 
 the means of salvation. He believes that God created 
 them under such circumstances, as not to use those means, 
 and that they, therefore, cannot be saved ; and the whole 
 Pagan world, according to his Creed, is in this condition. 
 Now, what has Mr. Rice to do with ''meayis of salva- 
 tion F" Let him keep consistent with his Creed. He 
 " hopes for the resurrection," though some will not com* 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 103 
 
 ply with the means of salvation. That is, he hopes for 
 the resurrection of the unjust to a state of eternal re- 
 bellion against God — to a state into which they are 
 compelled to curse and blasphejne God, in torture unut- 
 terable and without remedy, forever ! ! ! This is what he 
 HOPES ; is it? The man that was first known in the Chris- 
 tian church, to have said that the misery of the wicked would 
 equal in duration the happiness of the saved, also said 
 he hoped to witness the misery of the damned. I refer 
 to Tertullian. "How I shall rejoice!" says he, "how 
 LAUGH ! ! how exult ! ! when I witness the misery of 
 the wicked writhing in hell-fire forever ! ! 1" lias my 
 friend a similar spirit? If so, "like father, like son." 
 
 With regard to the fifth of John ; I still suppose my 
 understanding of it to be correct. I do not like the sort 
 of representation that Mr. Rice gives of our arguments. 
 It is neither fidl nor fair. Why put language into the 
 " Pro and Con," which is not there, merely for present 
 effect, and to ridicule it ? He dwelt with great force on 
 the words " depravity and corruption,^'' The words 
 used by the writer were ignorance and superstition. He 
 did not say depravity. Now cannot men do well, though 
 ignorant and superstitious ? — as in the case of Corne- 
 lius. He required more light ; yet had " done good, " 
 though in partial ignorance. This is plain ; is it not ? 
 Then why introduce words not used by us, in relation to 
 the subject, and make points which are not at issue ? Mr. 
 Rice cannot thus lead me away from the point. 
 
 He says the Jews were in the practice of burying their 
 dead ; and that Jacob said, " You will brmg down my 
 gray hairs to the grave,''^ Now Jacob aoes not use the 
 word ti'anslated " gi'aves," in John v. 28 ; but the word 
 ordinarily translated hell — meaning the state of the dead 
 That declaration of Jacob, therefore, does not meet the 
 point, except to set ande my friend's argument. He 
 says, " You will bring down my gray hairs to Hades''* — 
 not to the tombs. Besides that, " thou sowest not that 
 body that shall 6e," says Paul ; " but God giveth such a 
 body as it pleaseth him" — a spiritual body. 
 
104 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Mr. Rice refers to the valley of dry hones. Does he 
 believe these bones are to be raised, too, in the immortal 
 resurrection ? If not, w^hat is the bearing of the passage 
 upon the question ? Ezekiel there referred to the moral 
 condition of the Jewish people, represented by a valley 
 of dry bones, as people in their graves. So does the 
 Saviour in the 5th of John. There vv^as to be a change in 
 their condition by their hearing " the voice of the Son of 
 God" — by hearing the Gospel. Now is this not plain to 
 the minds of you all ? 
 
 Again, in relation to 1 Cor. xv., and as to what is 
 raised. The matter is just here. Man, as a human be- 
 ing, is here mortal, sinful, and svffering. He is to be 
 raised to another life, immortal, pure, and happy. That 
 is called the resurrection of the dead ; and is not merely, 
 nor at all, the resurrection of the physical body, which 
 we lay in the dust. Paul asks, ** How are the dead 
 raised up ! and with what 'body do they come ?" Mr. 
 Rice says the body alone is raised. This would make 
 Paul's language absurd: "how is the body raised up? 
 and with what body does it come ?" I said that a corrupt 
 soul would not be put into it ; because Paul declares that 
 " corruption cannot inherit incorruption,^^ But enough 
 on that point. 
 
 Mr. Rice says the Bible divides all the human race in- 
 to two classes — the righteous and the wicked. The Bible 
 refers to all as sinners, but teaches that all shall finally 
 " be made righteous. ^^ First, all are sinners ; afterwards 
 all are to be made righteous. 
 
 If my friend wants to discuss with the Pro and Con, 
 he ought to write a book. But I am always glad to hear 
 him read from books which contain the sentiments I hold. 
 Yet I am 7iot bound to defend or discuss all the sentiments 
 of every Universalist writer, on every subject. This is 
 not a parallel case with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith 
 and Mr. Rice. He and I do not stand here on the same 
 ground. The "Pro and Con" is not my Confession of Faith, 
 though a very good book. I shall not be excommunicated 
 from the church, for not adhering to it, in every particular. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 105 
 
 I will now read from page 672, of Mr. Rice's debate 
 with Mr. Campbell, wherein he shows the sudden change 
 effected by the Holy Spirit. He says, in relation to elect 
 infants, " Such may be the moral disposition of a man's 
 heart, that an object of compassion will in a moment 
 call forth his compassion and his benevolence. So may 
 an infant possess a holy nature ; so that when Jirst it 
 shall look upon God in heaven, it shall love, adore and 
 worship him." On the 742d page, he says, "But the 
 work we are now contemplating, (conversion,) was effected 
 in a day, even in an hour ; for when the Lord works, a 
 MOMENT is as good as a year. Suddenly the three thou- 
 sand had new hearts, new views, new feelings, new sor- 
 rows, new joys. They were new creatures. Old 
 things had passed away, and behold, all things had become 
 new ! " What objection, then, can he have to sinners 
 being suddenly changed after death ? 
 
 Once again, in relation to the "something more" 
 than a mere physiccd resurrection, in 1st Cor. xv. It is 
 urged by the Apostle Paul, in Heb. xii. 9, " Shall we not 
 rather be in subjection to the Father, and live ? " Here 
 is life arising from " subjection "—illustrating Cor. xv. 
 28, where it is said, all things shall be subdued to Christ, 
 " that God may be all in all ! " It is a moral subjec- 
 tion, bringing life ; not a forced, unwilling subjection. 
 This, therefore, I repeat with emphasis, is " something 
 more^^ than a resurrection of the material body. 
 
 Mr. Rice has not noticed the 22d of Matthew and 20th 
 of Luke ; where it is said, that at the resurrection, those 
 who are raised shall be as the angels of God, and that 
 "ALL LIVE UNTO HiM " — as showing how many are "ac- 
 counted worthy" to be raised. 
 
 I will now proceed to my second argument in proof of 
 universal salvation. In relation to the resurrection, Mr. 
 Rice asserted that it related only to the body; but I will 
 now quote a passage speaking of holiness itself or of 
 righteousness, in express terms. See the 5th chapter of 
 the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, beginning at the 12th 
 verse. 
 
106 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The question, you recollect, is, " Do the Scriptures 
 teach the ultimate holiness and salva-tion of all men ? " I 
 rest here one of my main arguments in the affirmative of 
 that proposition ; and I invite Mr. Rice's especial atten- 
 tion to this passage. I read it again, " Wherefore as by 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and 
 so dsdth passed upon all men,/or that all have sinned," 
 [the Apostle speaks in this passage, therefore, not of the 
 RIGHTEOUS, but of all that sin, and all that die,] " For 
 until the law, sin was in the world ; but sin is not imputed 
 when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from 
 Adorn to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after 
 the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is tlie figure 
 of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also 
 is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many 
 be dead ; " [how many ? he has told us just before — all 
 that bin, and all that die ; and the word " many^'' here, 
 if rightly translated, means the many — the rauliitude,'] 
 " much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, 
 which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
 many:" [the same *'many" who were sinners, and 
 died,'] " and not as it was by one that sinned, so is the 
 gift — for the judgment was by one, to condemnation, but 
 the free gift is of many offences unto justification.'^'* 
 [First, sin entered, and condemnation ; for all are sinners : 
 after that, comes a state of holiness, righteousness, and 
 justification for them all.] "For if by one man's offence 
 death reigned by one, much more they which receive 
 abundance of grace, [I will show soon hoi/j many will 
 "receive " this grace,] and of the gift of righteousness, shall 
 reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, [and this 
 shows how many will receive grace, and be benefitted by 
 it,] as by the offence of one judgment came upon 
 ALL men to condemnation, [now mark the antithesis,] 
 even so [that is, there are as many on one side as the 
 other,] by the righteousness of one the free gift came 
 upon ALL men unto justification of life, " If this means 
 any thing, it means that all who have sinned, and been 
 condemned, shall be saved. I care not whether he takes 
 
OF IJNIVERSALISM. 107 
 
 the Calvinistic ground, or the ground of free agency- 
 Here is a perfect antithesis. All who have sinned, shall 
 receive the free gift. In their sins ? The Apostle an- 
 swers this in the next verse, [and here I rest my argument 
 for the present,] " For as by one man's disobedience many 
 l^how many ? I ask Mr. Rice, how many ? The Ortho- 
 dox writers themselves translate it, the many ; that is, all 
 MEN, as the Apostle said before,] many were made sin* 
 ners, so by the obedience of one shall many [the same 
 many,'] be made righteous." [77me expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's fifth reply.] 
 
 I do not believe that Mr. Pingree has succeeded in con* 
 vincing the audience, that that young; man had all the 
 light in the world ! The Roman clergy, he says, read the 
 Bible as well as " Mr. Rice," and yet on many important 
 points "Mr. Rice" differs from them. Do the Roman 
 clergy profess to take the Bible as their only infallible 
 guide 1 Do they not receive the traditions of their church 
 as of equal authority with the Scriptures? Do they not 
 also receive the Apocryphal books as inspired ? The 
 gentleman says, I rely on tradition to sustain the doc- 
 trine of future punishments. I have not appealed to it 
 yet, I believe. Are the Roman clergj^ at liberty to under- 
 stand the Scriptures for themselves ? Are they not sol- 
 emnly pledged, according to the Creed of Pope Pius VI., 
 to "admit the sacred Scriptures, according to the sense 
 which the holy mother church has held and does hold, to 
 whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpre- 
 tation of the holy Scriptures " ? Is it fair to place men 
 thus pledged and bound, on an equal footing, as to the un- 
 derstanding of the Scriptures, with men, eminent for learn- 
 ing and piety, who tgJce the inspired word as their only 
 guide ? 
 
 The gentleman says, Universalists believe in Christ as 
 the Son of God, and that he made an atonement — a re- 
 conciliation. Universalists believe that Jesus Christ is a 
 created, dependent being, as I am prepared to prove by 
 reference to their standard writers. Hosea Ballou, who 
 
108 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 was the first Universalist of the modern type, (except 
 that other man mentioned by Mr. Pingree,) says — " We 
 shall contend, that the Mediator is a created, dependent 
 being." — Bal. on Atonement, p. 113. Now if the gen- 
 tleman believes, that a created, dependent being can make 
 atonement for the sins of the world, he is welcome to the 
 credit of believing in such an atonement. 
 
 He is not bound, he says, to defend all the sentiments 
 advanced by Universalists. Truly it is fortunate for him 
 that he is not ; for they are, for variety and contrariety, 
 like unto the inhabitants of Noah's ark ! You may find 
 amongst them all sorts of notions. 
 
 The gentleman reads again from the Confession of 
 Faith, and exclaims — What has Mr. Rice to do with 
 means, when God has foreordained the eternal happiness 
 or misery of every man, so that, do what he will, his 
 doom is fixed ! We hold no such doctrine ; nor is it found 
 in our Creed. He read to you from Ch. V. See. IV. Let 
 me, once for all, explain this doctrine as taught in our 
 Creed, that the audience may judge how far he is acquaint- 
 ed with it. " The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, 
 and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves 
 in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first 
 fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by 
 a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most 
 wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and 
 governing of them in a manifold dispensation to his own 
 holy ends ; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth 
 only from the creature, and not from God ; who being 
 most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author 
 or approver of sin." The providence of God, we are here 
 taught, extends to the first fall, Sic. In the sixth chapter 
 we have this point fully explained. " Our first parents, 
 being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, 
 sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God 
 was pleased to permit, according to his wise and holy 
 counsel; having purposed to ordain it to his oivn glory ^ 
 God determined to permit this first sin. Does the gen- 
 tleman deny that God permitted it? But it is said, he 
 
OF UmVERSALlSM. 109 
 
 chose to overrule it to his owji glory — to bring good out 
 of evil. Is there anything wrong in this? Does not the 
 Psalmist say^" Surely the wrath of man shall praise 
 thee; and the remainder of wrath thou wilt restrain?" 
 Joseph's brethren hated him and determined to kill hira. 
 This they were not permitted to do ; but they were per- 
 mitted to sell him into Egypt> that the benevolent pur- 
 poses of God might be fulfilled. Our Confession of Faith 
 does not say, that God determined to incline or influence 
 men to sin ; but that while, in his infinite wisdom, he 
 s^hose to permit them to sin, he determined to overrule 
 rtieir evil designs for good. The cmcifixioH of Jesus 
 Christ -wzs foreordained — that is, God determmed to per- 
 mit wicked men to crucify him, and thus to lay the foun- 
 dation in his sufferings for tlie eternal salvation of men. 
 Bui did God determine to influence the Jews to crucify 
 him? By permitting sin, does he interfere with man's 
 free agency ? The tt'tUh is, the gentleman does not un- 
 derstand the doctrines of our Creed, 
 
 I pass to the argument on the question-before us. Mr. 
 Pingree's reply to my argument from Matt. i.21 — showing 
 that the salvation of the Gospel, is deliverance from pun- 
 ishment to which men are exposed — -is not at all satisfac^ 
 tory. He believes that Christ Jesus saves men from ain- 
 fulness ; but the Scriptures say, he saves the people 
 '^from their sinsJ*^ That is, he saves them from the con- 
 sequences of their sins, to which tliey are justly exposed. 
 The gendeman, however, denies that he saves any from 
 the punishment of their sins ; for this, he Holds, is fully 
 endured in this life. Nor doe§ he believe men are saved 
 from exposedness to sinning hereafter. From what, 
 then, I again ask, does this salvation deliver them ? -Mr. 
 Pingree will not be able to remove this insuperable diffi- 
 culty ; he would do well to give it up. 
 
 Nor is he likely to meet with better success in escaping 
 the difficulty about " //ie better resurrection.^^ He would 
 havens believe, that those primitive believers were striving 
 to obtain a better resurrection than to live here I Why, 
 there would be as much prapriety in saying, I desire a 
 10 
 
110 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 better apple than a peach ! Who does not know, that the 
 comparative degree of adjectives, (as better) implies a 
 comparison between two objects ? Those believers, as 
 the language necessarily means, sought the better of two 
 resurrections — a resurrection better than that of the 
 wicked. But Mr. Pingi-ee tramples with utter indiffer- 
 ence upon all rules of language and canons of criticism. 
 I know not whether his learning is equal to that of his 
 brother Rogers, author of the " Fro and Con of Univer- 
 salismi'* whose scholarship is such that he has discovered 
 a yiew Article in the Greek language, viz : the indefinite 
 Article " en ! ! ! " He writes learnedly about en hemera 
 — A day cf Judgment ! Well, this is an age of improve- 
 ment ! 
 
 Paul) too, thought it necessary to persevere through 
 great trials in order to attain to the blessed resurrection of 
 the just. But Mr. Pingree asks — Was not Paul at that 
 time in a condition which would have secured him a happy 
 resurrection, if he had died ? Doubtless God would have 
 prepared him for the chniige, before he would call him 
 from earth; but so long as life conthiued, Paul thought 
 it necessary to be fou«d in the faithful use of the appoint- 
 ed means for attaining eternal life. He believed that he 
 could not attain to the resurrection of the just, unless he 
 should hold out faithful unto death. 
 
 In relation to the passage in Acts xxiv. 15, Mr. Pingree 
 says, the imj list will be raised from the dead ; but they 
 will not retnain unjust — they will be raised up and then 
 changed. I understood him distinctly to say, the change 
 would be effected m ^he act of raising them, not after- 
 wards. Then there would be no unjust persons raised. 
 
 But I now understand tlie gentleman distinctly to say, 
 that he does not believe, that the bodies of the dead will 
 ever be raised, but that new bodies will be created for 
 them! So then he denies the fundamental doctrine of the 
 resurrection ; for if the dead body be not raised, there can 
 be no resurrection. Matter, we know exists in various 
 and widely different degrees of refinement. The sun 
 is matter, as also is the earth. By reference to this fact. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. Ill 
 
 Paul illustrates the doctrine of the resurrection, showing 
 it not to be inconsistent with sound philosophy. " There 
 is," says he, " one glory of the sun, and another glory of 
 the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star 
 difFereth from another star in glory. So also is the res- 
 urrection of the dead," I Cor. xv. 41, 42. Thus our 
 corruptible bodies shall be changed. But if, as the gen- 
 tleman contends, new bodies be created, will this be a res- 
 urrection ? Will it not be a new creation ? 
 
 Paul, Mr. Pingree says, speaks of the resurrection of 
 the dea:U and asks, with what body are they raised ? Does 
 the gentleman really believe that the souls of men die. If 
 their souls are not dead, then they cannot be raised from 
 the dead. If their bodies only die, then only their bodies 
 can be raised. 
 
 He still treats us occasionally to a quotation from ray 
 debate with Mr. Campbell. In that debate I contended 
 that the minds of infants may be sanctified by the Holy 
 Spirit ; so that so soon as they shall become acquainted 
 with the character of God, they will admire and adore 
 Him. I also said, that on the day of Pentecost three 
 thousand souls were converted to God very suddenly. 
 And the gentleman asks, in view of these sentiments, 
 what objection can Mr. Rice have to the doctrine that all 
 men may be changed suddenly ? I have not objected to 
 the suddenness of the change ; but I have objected to the 
 Universalist doctrine, that men are to be made holy by 
 physical potver exerted on the body. This is the point 
 of my objection. This is the difficulty I have urged him 
 to explain philosophically, theologically, or in some way ! 
 
 It is vain for the gentleman to attempt to reconcile the 
 doctrine of our Saviour, as recorded in Matt, xxxii. 23 — : 
 and Luke xx. 27 — , with Universalism. The expression 
 " they that are accounted worihy," necessarily implies, 
 that all would not be so accounted. He never can prove, 
 that "they who are accounted worthy," means that a// are 
 accounted worthy! Nor will his argument founded on 
 the words, " all live unto God," bear examination. The 
 word all is constantly used in the Bible in a limited sense, 
 
112 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the extent of meaning being determined by the Conner « 
 ion. It is said, that " all Judea, and all the region round 
 about Jordan," went to be baptized by John ; and yet we 
 know that alU (using the word in its unUmited mean- 
 ing,) were not baptized by him. So, in the passage under 
 consideration, the meaning of the word all, is limited by 
 the preceding phrase, " they who are accounted worthy." 
 
 Perhaps it would not be proper for me to reply to the 
 gentleman's argument from the 5th chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Romans, until he shall have completed it. I will, 
 therefore, resume the consideration of my fourth argu- 
 ment against Universalis m, viz : 
 
 That it teaches that the soul of man, is both material 
 and mortal. The gentleman denies being a materialist ; 
 and yet he contends, that men are to be made holy in the 
 resurrection, not before. I have asked him, what becomes 
 of the soul between death and the resurrection ? Do men 
 go to heaven in their sins? This cannot be. Are they 
 sanctified immediately after death? No; for they, he 
 says, are made holy at the resurrection. What, then, 
 becomes of them? Mr. Pingree evidently feels pressed by 
 the difficulty. 
 
 The author of the "Pro and Con of Universalism " 
 speaks with great uncertainly upon this subject. H(; does 
 not profess to know much about it, but thinks it would be 
 no detriment to Universalists to be more modest in taking 
 ground relative to the separate state ; says, there are a 
 number of passages of Scripture, that seem to favor the 
 doctrine, that those who die go immediately into happi- 
 ness, &LC. Some men manifest a great modesty on partic- 
 ular subjects ; whilst on others, they display as great lack 
 of that virtue. 
 
 Dr. Priestly, in his Letters on Revealed Religion, con- 
 tends, that man was made " wholly, and not in part only, 
 of the dust of the ground " — that the mind, as really as 
 the body, was made of the dust. Consequently he main- 
 tains, that natural death is the destruction of the whole 
 man — that body and soul cease to have a conscious 
 existence, till the resurrection. Hosea Ballou, the second 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 113 
 
 man who understood the Gospel, holds the same doc- 
 trine. It is also taught explicitly by Walter Balfour in 
 his Inquiry, &:c. He says, — " Admitting this to be true, 
 permit me to ask, can any proof be adduced, that their 
 spirits were separated from each other after death ? I 
 further ask, did their spirits exist in a state of either hap- 
 piness or misery after death ? I demand proof of this. As 
 I am unable to adduce any proof, I request those who say 
 so, to produce evidence of this from the Old Testament." 
 Again — " Does not David intimate his child was alive 
 somewhere after death, when he says, — *I shall go to 
 him, but he shall not return to me,' 2 Sam. xi. 23. To 
 this we answer. No. David no more says his child was 
 alive, than Joseph was after death, when his father said — 
 * I will go down into Shcol unto my son mourning,' "— - 
 pp. 54, 55. 
 
 Here I am reminded of Mr. Pingree's remark, that 
 Jacob here used not the word for grave, but for the place 
 of the dead. Is he aware, that the best writers say, Sheol 
 is repeatedly used in the Old Tesfftment to signify the 
 grave ? Sometimes it signifies the grave, sometimes hell^ 
 and sometimes the state of the dead. 
 
 Again, on pages 80, 81, Mr. Balfour advances the same 
 sentiment. " The Scriptures," says he, "Vhich the Jews 
 had in their hands, were opposed to such a popular opin- 
 ion, for they taught nothing about immor/al i>ouls, departed 
 sotds, separate spirits, or their being tormented in Sheol 
 or Hades. Nothing is said here about the sotd of the 
 rich man." Again, on page 140, he says, " But we ask~ 
 Mr. Stewart, where the Scriptures speak about an imfna- 
 terial immortal soul? Nowhere. Why, then, does he 
 do it ?" Observe, he asserts, that the Scriptures nowhere 
 speak of imm,aterial immortal souls. Consequently, the 
 soul must be material and mortal! 
 
 The same doctrine is taught by Hosea Ballon in his 
 Jjcctures, page 369. Abner Kneeland also, who after- 
 wards became an avow^ed Atheist, says — " It will be 
 perceived here, that the author [himself] does not believe 
 in an intermediate state of conscious existence between 
 10* 
 
114 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 death and the resurrection ; and of course, death to him is 
 an extinction ofbeing.^^ — Lect, on Univ. Benev. p. 42. 
 Against this doctrine of the materiality and mortality 
 of the soul, and the doctrine consequent upon it, that the 
 soul is made holy by the exertion of physical power up- 
 on the body at the resurrection, I enter my solemn pro- 
 test. And in opposition to these errors I maintain the 
 following important truths, vi^ : 
 
 1 . Matter and mind are substances which are in their 
 nature radically and essentially different. Matter is di- 
 visible ; mind is indivisible. Matter is inert, cannot 
 think, reason, love, hate ; mind is essentially active, nev- 
 er ceases to think, reason, love, or hate. In a word, the 
 properties of matter and of mind are precisely opposite. 
 They are, therefore, essentially different in their natures. 
 
 2. Sin and holiness are predicable only of mind, not of 
 matter. Holiness consists in knowing and loving God 
 supremely, and in loving our fellow beings. But matter 
 is alike incapable of holiness or sin. It cannot know 
 God, nor love him ; Neither can it hate him. Pride and 
 humility, anger, malice, benevolence, etc. — all belong ex- 
 clusively to the mind. The Saviour says — " A good man 
 out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good 
 things ; and an evil man out of the corrupt treasure of the 
 heart, bringeth forth evil things." Men may indeed em- 
 ploy the members of the body as instruments in commit- 
 ting sin, or in doing good ; but the sin or the holiness be- 
 longs exclusively to the mind. 
 
 3. All men are sinful and simwrs, Paul says — 
 " There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none 
 that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 
 They are all gone ovit of the way, they are together be- 
 come unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not 
 one. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
 God," Rom. iii. 10-12, 23. John says — " The whole 
 world lieth in wickedness," 1 John v. 19. 'But I need 
 not multiply proof on this point, unless the doctrine be 
 denied. 
 
 4. The separation of the soul from the body by death, 
 
OF VNIVERSALISM. 118 
 
 will not change its moral character. If sin and holiness 
 are predicable only of mind, and if mind and matter are 
 essentially different in their natures, it follows, that the 
 separation of the soul and body will not change the moral 
 character of the former. He who is proud in the body, 
 will be proud out of the body. He who lives in sin 
 here, and dies in sin, will go to eternity sinful. The mor- 
 al character of the man is the same out of the body, as it 
 was in it. 
 
 5. The Scriptures do clearly teach that the souls of 
 men do exist in a state of happiness or of misery between 
 death and the resurrection. In Matth. xxii. 31, 32, we 
 read as follows: "But as touching the resurrection of the 
 dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you 
 by God, saying, I am the God of Abraliam, and the God 
 of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of 
 the dead, but of the living,'*'' The Saviour here certain- 
 ly teaches, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though their 
 bodies were dead, were at that time living. 
 
 Moses also, as well as Elias, was living, though his 
 body was dead ; for in Matth. xvii. 3, we read, that when 
 Christ and his disciples were on the mount, where he 
 was transfigured, " there appeared unto them Moses and 
 Elias, talking with him." The doctrine is further con- 
 firmed by the languas^c of our Saviour to the penitent thief. 
 In answer to his dying prayer, Jesus said — " This day 
 thou shalt he with me in Paradise," Luke xxiii. 43. 
 Stephen, too, the first Christian martyr, when expiring, 
 prayed — " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," Acts vii. 51). 
 Evidently he expected his soul to pass immediately into 
 the presence of Jesus in heaven. Paul likewise uses the 
 following language: "For I am in a strait betwixt two, 
 having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ ; wliich 
 is far better," Philip, i. 22. Most certainly he expect- 
 ed to go immediately to heaven ; and hence he desired to 
 die. The same doctrine is most clearly taught by the 
 parable or history, (which you please) of the rich man 
 and Lazarus. " And it came to pass, that the beggar 
 died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. 
 
116 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The rich man also died; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, 
 being in torment," etc., Luke xvi. 19 — 23. 
 
 These portions of Scripture teach, in lan^age the most 
 unequivocal, that the righteous go, immediately after 
 death, into a state of happiness, and the wicked into a 
 state of misery. 
 
 From these plain and important truths, I arrive at two 
 conclusions: 1. Those who die in sin, go into eternity 
 sinful and sinning. To the hour of death they live in unho- 
 liness and impenitence ; and in this state they enter eter- 
 nity. Take, for example, the man who dies in a fit of 
 drunkenness. He goes to eternity in his deep depravity, 
 unpurified. And if men are sinful after death, it is ad- 
 mitted by all, that they must be miserable. Thus I have 
 proved the doctrine of punishment after death, 2. My 
 second conclusion from these premises, is — that the resur- 
 rection of the body, effected by the physical power of 
 God, cannot change the moral character of the soul. Sin 
 and holiness, as we have seen, belong exclusively to the 
 soul. The resurrection changes only the body, not the 
 soul. Therefore, those who die in sin, will still be un- 
 holy after the resurrection, and consequently miserable. 
 Therefore Universalism, which teaches that the resurrec- 
 tion will make all men holy and happy, is false. Thus 
 I have presented my/bz/r//i argument against Universalism. 
 
 Before closing this address, I desire to ask one or two 
 questions, which I hope Mr. Pingree will attempt to an- 
 swer. Do the Scriptures anywhere say, that those who 
 die in their sins, are made holy after death ? Where is 
 the passage which teaches, that any who thus die, will 
 ever be made holy and happy? [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pingree's sixth speech.] 
 Respected Auditors: I propose, as my first duty, 
 this evening, to note what progress we have made in this 
 discussion thus far. Our proposition is this: " i>o the 
 Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of 
 all men?'''' 
 
 Salvation I have already defined to be the delivermice 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 117 
 
 of men from a state of sin, suffering and death, and their 
 introduction into a state of holiness, happiness and immor- 
 tahty. Mr. Rice attempted to show that "salvation" 
 refers to deliverance from something we are exposed to in 
 the life to come. But the inquiry I would now make is, 
 whether he believes that the elect, who are to be saved, 
 are exposed to sin and suffering hereafter ? Because he 
 believes that "God foreordained them to everlasting 
 life, before the fovndaiion of the world, without any fore- 
 sight of faith or good works, " or any condition on their 
 part whatsoever; and also, that the number of the elect 
 "cannot be increased or diminished. " Are they expos- 
 ed to anything in the life to come, and saved from that 
 exposedness ? 
 
 I referred, in the beginning, to the nature of God, and 
 his relationship to us ; that he is the Father of our spirits ; 
 that in his very nature and essence he is Love; that he is 
 good to all his creatures, and that his tender mercies are 
 over all his works; and moreover, that he is all-wise, 
 almighty, and unchangeably the same, forever. "Zov6 
 worketh no ill;" therefore, God, who is Love, will 
 finally bring to a state of holiness and happiness all the 
 beings he has created. 
 
 My direct scriptural arguments were in the first place 
 founded on 1 Corinthians xv., where it is expressly taught 
 that man is here a mortal, dying creature ; but that all who 
 die in Adam will be made alive in Christ, — immortal, 
 Incorruptible and glorious. It was replied, by Mr. Rice, 
 that this referred to the resurrection of the just alone. 
 I set that aside, by showing that it referred to all who die 
 in Jidam; that is, to all mortal men. The contrast 
 throughout being between the mortal and immortal state 
 of man. He then said it must refer only to the just, 
 because the Epistle was addressed only to the Christians. 
 But I showed that some of these very Christians denied 
 the resurrection of the dead, and that they, allhough not 
 sound in faith, were thus addressed. I showed that the 
 word "t^e, " if limited to true saints, as Mr. Rice assum- 
 ed, must apply by the same rule of revelation only to 
 
118 AN ORAL JDISCUSSION 
 
 those living then. Moreover, this form of expression 
 proves nothing against our view ; for in the 5th chapter 
 of 2d Corinthians, it is said, " We must all appear at the 
 judgment seat of Christ, " etc., which the gentleman 
 will admit embraces the whole world, will he not ? The 
 word is thus applied to men in general. True, when 
 local affairs is the subject of discourse, the word " we," 
 has a local and limited application ; but when the subject 
 relates to a general doctrine, or to an event or question 
 affecting the destiny of man as a mortal being, the word 
 "we" evidently includes all mankind; and so Paul evi- 
 dently used it in 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 Mr. Rice argued, then, that the expression, " they that 
 are Christ's at his coming," limited the resurrection to 
 the just alone. But I showed that all were given to 
 Christ ; and that the time was when none were his char- 
 acteristically ; and the proof I am now presenting is that 
 ALL shall finally be like Him, " bearing His image. " 
 Hence this objection to my argument from 1 Corinth, xv., 
 is not valid. 
 
 I will now present my next scriptural argument, from 
 Eph. i, 9-12 ; which will also show how many will be 
 Christ's, in the resurrection, or at the consummation of 
 his reign. "Having made known unto us the mystery 
 of his will, according to his good pleasure which he had 
 purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the full- 
 ness of times, %Cj°' he might gather together in one all 
 THINGS IN CHRIST ; both which are in heaven and on 
 earth ; even in him. In whom also we have obtained an 
 inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose 
 of him, WHO woRKETH ALL THINGS after the counsel of 
 his own will ; that we should be to the praise of his 
 glory, who first trusted in Christ." Those "who first 
 trusted in Christ," had already an earnest of the inherit- 
 ance; but beyond that, he says "all things" are to be 
 "gathered together" in one, in Christ; thus directly 
 illustrating 1 Cor. xv., and demonstrating the correctness 
 of my view of it. I now invite the attention of Mr. Rice 
 to this declaration of Holy Writ, 
 
OF LNn'ERSALlSiM. 119 
 
 Again, in relation to the resurrection of this body, Paul 
 asks, " How are the dead — the dead raised up, and with 
 what hody do they come?" It is not, therefore, a mere 
 resurrection of the body. When raised, we are to be 
 immortal and incorruptible ; and the Apostle declares that 
 "corruption cannot inherit incorruption*" But all will 
 be raised immortal, incorruptible, and holy ; and all sub- 
 dued to Christ, that God " may be all in all." This 
 is the glorious consummation we advocate ; scmefhing 
 more than tlie resurrection of this physical body. ' 
 
 But we have had other replies on this subject. We 
 have been referred to a resurrection, which I affirm does 
 not embrace all the naiuraUy dead ; as in John v. 27, 28. 
 I have shown that all are not in their "graves," literally; 
 and agam, that it cannot refer to all human beings — lo the 
 final resurrection ; because all have not " done good or 
 evil ;" and those are the only ones spoken of in the pas- 
 sage. Infants, for example, have done neither good 7wr 
 evil. Therefore, it does not embrace all the human race. 
 Moreover, I have shown that the expression?, "dead," 
 and " in their graves," are used figuratively, to represent 
 the moral condiiioyi of man on earth ; and that conse- 
 . quently the passage does not relate to the final resurrec- 
 tion of all the dead to a state of immortality and glory, 
 as does 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 As to the passage in Acts, and Paul's "Ao/;/no"" for 
 the "resurrection of the just and unjust;" Mr. Rice 
 says this proves that those wlio are "unjust" Kere, 
 will be unjust after the resurrection. To show the force 
 of such an argument, let us illustrate : Suppose my friend 
 were preaching to a congregation composed of blacks and 
 whites, and should say, " I hope for the resurrection of 
 this congregation — ^both of the blacks and the whites," 
 would it follow that he hoped the black would still be 
 black, after the resurrection ? ! Or suppose he were 
 preaching to a congregation composed of Old School and 
 New School Presbyterians, and should express a hope 
 for the resurrection of all Presbyterians, both of the Old 
 School and the New ; — would it follow that he lioped the 
 
120 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 New School Presbyterians would remain New School 
 in the resurrection I ! or would he exclude them, as he 
 does here ? Or suppose he hoped for the resurrection, 
 both of Presbyterians and Methodists ; would he hope 
 to meet the Methodists as Methodists, in heaven? or 
 would he exclude them from the blessed resurrection, 
 as he would from his church here ? No ; Paul did not 
 HOPE that the "unjust" would be still unjust, in the res- 
 urrection. He hoped to meet the dead, " both the just 
 and the unjust," (dl raised incorruptible and glorious ; 
 for, as the Saviour says, " in the resurrection they are 
 as THE ANGELS OF GoD IN HEAVEN." They are not to 
 remain unjust in the future world; but to be purified 
 through the grace of God, in Jesus Christ — made holy 
 and righteous. So much for the arguments on that subject. 
 
 We come now to the last speech of Mr. Rice, on last 
 evening. "That young man," in the land of steady hab- 
 its, who, in 1818, aged about 20, was so wise that he 
 knew more than all the world — "that young man," you 
 will allow me now to say, is about 75 years old! You 
 may judge of Mr. Rice's knowledge of arithmetic, and his 
 assertion with regard to that young man's age in 1818! 
 
 I will state a fact or two in regard to Universalism, to 
 which I have already alluded. We believe that the Scrip- 
 tures teach the future life to be one of happiness, holiness 
 and bliss, for all men ; but that even in apostolic times, 
 errors began to creep into the church; and we see in this 
 very 15th chapter of 1 Cor., that some denied the resur- 
 rection of the dead. Paul said, in another epistle, that 
 the " mystery of iniquity had cdready begun to work," 
 even in his day. The early Pagan converts also brought 
 into the church many of their old Pagan notions. Still, 
 the grand idea of the ultimate holiness and salvation of 
 all mankind was not ivholly lost for several centuries. 
 ClemEx\t, of Alexandria, in the 2d century, and Origen, 
 whose writings remain, Gregory Nyssen, and others, had 
 not lost that great sentiment of the Gospel. It was held 
 in the Christian church until the 6th century ; when a 
 general council of the pious and wise ! that Mr. Rice him- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 121 
 
 self believes so wholly corrupt, condemned it, and it was 
 lost sight of till the Reformation. When the Bible was 
 again presented to men, the sentiment was restored ; but 
 at first, was not clearly and fully received. Dr. Thomas 
 Burnett, Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Cheyne, Chevalier Ram- 
 say, William Low, the author of the "Serious Call," and 
 many others in various Protestant sects, obtained the light, 
 but were still hampered and clouded by the power of hu- 
 man tradition, to a great extent. Now all this is very 
 natural ; and not at all inconsistent with the nature of 
 mind. What does appear unnatural and inconsistent is, 
 that a member of a church, itself hardly two hundred 
 years old, should talk about its novelty! ! The doctrine 
 is at least of as long standing as Presbyterianism! 
 
 The gentleman makes continued errors in his references 
 to authorities : as, Paine for Paige, Ballou for Balfour, 
 &c., quoting that which one says, as said by another; and 
 best of all, he calls Balfour, Hosea 2d; and yet this man 
 goes out of his way to refer to a slight verbal inaccuracy 
 in criticism made by one of our writers ! He should learn 
 to be more careful himself, before he refers to the errors 
 of others. 
 
 In relation to the Deity of Christ, the Atonement, Ma- 
 terialism, etc. ; these are not now in discussion. I said I 
 was not a Materialist; Father Ballou is not; few Univer- 
 salists are so. Why then refer to Priestly? It had 
 nothing to do with the question. Besides, there are men 
 in other sects, Partialists, who believe man to be entirely 
 mortal. Hence I pass over the learned disquisition with 
 which my friqnd favored us in his last speech, on the 
 differences between the soul and body, as out of place, 
 and not concerning this discussion. Universalists, as a 
 body, do not hold the principle he speaks of. They do 
 not generally defend it. But he has the right to occupy 
 his time in discussing such matters, if he chooses ; but I 
 do not choose to follow him in such a course. 
 
 He said that such men as Fenelon, Bossuet, and others, 
 dared not interpret the Bible contrary to tradition; and 
 uow 1 say that, Mr, Rice dare not interpret it contrarv' to 
 U 
 
122 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 his Confession of Faith! ! He is therefore virtually as 
 much governed by tradition as the Romish clergy. If he 
 did venture to interpret the Bible contrary to his Creed, he 
 would be turned out of the church, as he has cast out 
 others, w^ho dared to express their opinions in opposition 
 to the teachings of the Confession. I hope we shall hear 
 no more about obedience to traditions. He is bound 
 himself and dare not be a free man ! ! 
 
 But he says that God "bounds and orders sin and evil'* 
 for good; and a Calvinist says that! Universalists 
 alone, of all the world, can consistently say that God will 
 finally overrule evil for good. What was the case of Jo- 
 seph's brethren ? referred to by Mr. Rice ; was it for the 
 good of Joseph alone? no ; but for him and all his house ; 
 even his wicked brethren, and all. This illustrates our 
 view of Election, We believe that Jesus Christ was the 
 Elect of God to save all mankind — chosen for the benefit 
 of the whole world. But what is the Presbyterian faith ? 
 That God overrules the sin of some, for the benefit of 
 others — damning a portion of mankind for the sake of the 
 elect!!! But the case of Joseph's brethren is the true 
 Universalist doctrine — that God overrules evil for the 
 benefit of all. 
 
 My friend says, the term translated " grave," in the Old 
 Testament, is the same as the Greek word for " grave " 
 in the New Testament. Which word ? The word used 
 by Jacob is not the same, I said, as that translated "graves ," 
 in John v. 
 
 He quotes the parable of Lazarus and Dives, as proof 
 that the soul goes to heaven or hell, immediately after 
 death. The word Hades, translated hell there, is the cor- 
 responding word with that used by Jacob in the Old Tes- 
 tament. It is the same word, literally signifying the state 
 of the dead. But I reserve this for further discussion. 
 
 Mr. Rice says all men are sinners. So says the Bible ; 
 and this shows the partiality of God, according to Pres- 
 byierianism, in electing some to eternal happiness, and 
 foreordaining others to endless misery, and that " with- 
 out foresight of faith," etc. Is not this partiality ? Yet 
 
OF UNIVER6ALISM. 128 
 
 God is the Father of our spirits — good unto all, and whose 
 nature is love ! ! Is that the God whom Mr. Rice wor- 
 ships ? whom you worship ? 
 
 But let us listen to the Confession of Faith. As all men 
 are alike sinners, naturally, we say that God may as well 
 save all men, as a portion of them. But tlie Confession 
 says, p. 19: 
 
 "The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the 
 unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth 
 or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sov- 
 ereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them 
 to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glori- 
 ous justice." 
 
 This may serve as a reply to the remarks about free 
 agency, in Mr. Rice's speech. Thus it all depends on God, 
 whether some are saved, and others damned endlessly. 
 
 Again, Chap. V.Sect. VI., " As for those " — to "others," 
 it all depends on God, and not on man or his " free agency." 
 
 Once again; Chap. X. Sect. IL, " This especial calling 
 of grace " [not depending on man] to '* elected " [mark] 
 to " whatever," Slc- The mass of human beings are not 
 saved ; and all because God does not will it ; but does 
 will the contrary. 
 
 The doctrine of the Confession calls to mind a saying 
 of tho eccentric Lorenzo Dow ; 
 
 " You can, and you can't — 
 You shall, and you shan't ; 
 You will, and you won't ; 
 You'll be daraned if you do, — 
 You'll be damned if you don't!" 
 
 That's Calvinism; yet in the face of the declaration, 
 that God is the Father of all spirits, and his nature and 
 essense love ! 1 — ^and that is the doctrine that we are to 
 receive in opposition to the final purity, holiness, and sal- 
 vation of all mankind ! It is for you to judge which is 
 true ; and which is most in conformity with God's word 
 and character. 
 
 Mr. Rice repeatedly says, that the separation of the 
 soul and body cannot change the moral character. I have 
 
124 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 not affirmed that it does. I say that it is changed by the 
 power and grace of God. The Confession says, through 
 Jesus Christ, the change takes place " immediately after 
 death," in the elect ; and what objection can Mr. Rice 
 have to such a change in others ? He says, I teach that 
 man is made holy hy the resurrection. He need not re- 
 peat this remark ; I did not say so. I say, that God's 
 power does it ; and that the work is completed in the 
 resurrection. 
 
 As to infants : he denies that some of them are not 
 elect. He says that all infants are saved. His Creed 
 does not teach that ; and were he to teach it, he ought to 
 be thrown over the wall for heresy. See the 25th chap. 
 2d section. I have already spoken of what the Confes- 
 sion says of "ELECT infants," denoting some ^on-elect; 
 but let us read again : " The visible church, w hich is 
 also catholic or universal under the Gospel, (not confined 
 to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those 
 throughout the world, that profess the true religion, 
 %Cj°' together with THEIR children; [mark! who 
 M-e they? Presbyterian professors, of course; because 
 only one religion can be true ; and theirs is true, if their 
 Creed is true. So, then, we have Presbyterians^ and 
 their childreyi, if Presbyterianism is the true religion 
 — and they cannot recognize any other as true — un- 
 less there are more "true religions" than one!] and 
 is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and 
 family of God, out of which" [now mark!] ICP '''there 
 is no ordinary POSSIBILITY of salvation " ! ! ! 
 
 Thus we see that the children of the professors of " the 
 true religion" — Presbyterianism — can be saved; and no 
 others ! Now does not this exclude and damn the child- 
 ren of the non-elect — of non-professors ? [ Time expired, 
 
 [mr. rice's sixth reply.] 
 It is important to keep distinctly before us, not only the 
 proposition under discussion, but the doctrine advanced 
 by Mr. Pingree in his first speech, viz. That in the re- 
 surrection of the dead a change will be effected, by which 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 125 
 
 all men will be introduced into a state of holiness and 
 salvation* This is the gentleman's doctrine. In sustain- 
 ing it he proceeds very gradually. He has oftered but 
 one scriptural argument in support of it — the 15th chap- 
 ter of 1st Corinthians, with a passage from Matthew and 
 one from Luke. He commenced making an argument 
 from the 5th chapter of Romans, which, it seems, he has 
 either completed or abandoned. I will now reply briefly 
 to his last speech* 
 
 The gentleman has great difficulty to show, that there 
 is any such thing as salvation in Universalism. He says, 
 it is the deliverance of all men from a state of sin, sufler- 
 ing, and death, into a state of holiness, happiness and im- 
 mortality. Will he please to tell us, whether men are 
 exposed to sin, suffering and death hereafter^ in the fu- 
 ture world ? If not, how are they saved from evil, to 
 which they are not exposed? I know I annoy my friend 
 by quoting his standard writers, but I cannot help it. I 
 must now present a few quotations from Hosea Ballou, 
 that young man who so marvellously emerged from 
 darkness into light — the father of modern Universalism. 
 In his Lectures (p* 6,) he propounds, and attempts to 
 answer the following question: " What did Christ Jesus 
 come into the world to save sinners from ?^^ He evi- 
 dendy considers salvation a deliverance from evils which 
 men are suffering, or to which they are exposed. He 
 answers the question by saying — "First, and primarily, he 
 came to save sinners yVom their sins;^^ "Secondly, Jesus 
 Christ came into the world to save sinners yVom a state of 
 ignorance which they were actually in, which ignorance 
 was and ever is the cause of sin ;" " Thirdly, the same 
 salvation which has already been signified by a salvation 
 from sin and from darkness or ignorance, may be de- 
 nominated a deliverance from unre conciliation to God, 
 This is the state which the sinner is in, and from this 
 condition the Gospel is designed to deliver or save him." 
 (pp. 10, 12.) Mr. Ballou is particular in informing us, 
 that Christ does not save men from any deserved punish- 
 ment, "The hearer," aays h<^, "is now enlled on to 
 11* 
 
126 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 observe, tliat in all the representations quoted from Scrip- 
 ture, there is no intimation of saving sinners from any 
 punishment to which they were exposed, nor from any 
 condition that they were not already in,^^ (p. 13.) I 
 must read one more extract, to which I invite the very 
 particular attention of the audience. It is as follows : 
 "TV^e common doctrine, which teaches us that Christ 
 Jesus came into this world to save us in another 
 WORLD, is contrary to all the representations ivliich are 
 found in the Scriptures, If in a future world men are 
 sick, then in a future world men will need a physician ; 
 and if in a future world men are lost, then in a future 
 world they will need to be sought and found; but if the 
 'inhabitant shall say I am not sick,' no physician will 
 be needed. If sin shall exist in a future state of exist- 
 ence, no doubt pardoning mercy will flow as freely there 
 as it does here," (p. 14.) Now, according to Mr. Bal- 
 lou's doctrine, all the salvation Christ brings to men, is 
 effected in this world. What then, I emphatically ask, 
 becomes of salvation in a future ivorld, of which Uni- 
 versalists say so much ? Mr. Ballou says, it is not true 
 that Christ came into this world to save men in another 
 world. Consequently all those passages, in which we 
 read of salvation by Jesus Christ, must be supposed to 
 refer only to this world ! 
 
 Mr. Pingree asks, whether I believe that the elect were 
 exposed to sufi'ering hereafter? I answer, the whole 
 human race were exposed to eternal ruin ; and therefore 
 God, foreseeing this their unhappy condition, determined 
 in the councils of eternity to send liis only-begotten Son 
 to save multitudes from the sufferings to which they 
 were exposed. 
 
 The gentleman makes Paul say, that all who die in 
 Adam, will be made alive in Christ. He does not say 
 so. He teaches, that as the first Adam brought natural 
 death upon all connected with him ; so the second Adam, 
 Christ, will raise to happiness and glory all connected 
 with him. Christ makes alive all who are in him; but 
 those who die in sin are never said to be "in Christ.'* 
 
OF UNTVERSALISM. 1^7 
 
 None will attain to this glorious resurrection, but they who 
 are "Christ's at his coming;" but those who die in sin 
 are " none of his." Mr. Pingree attempted to prove that 
 all men will be Christ's at his coming, by the declaration 
 that the Father hath committed all things into his hands ; 
 but it has been shown that this passage affords no evi- 
 dence that the wicked are in Christ. 
 
 He attempts to prove the salvation of all men by Eph. 
 i. 9, 10, "That m the dispensation of the fullness of 
 times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, 
 both which are in heaven and which are on earth." But 
 he certainly will not contend, that all things mean all 
 men. I desire him to explain his meaning more fully — 
 at least, to give us some evidence that the word things 
 means men. Surely, we need a new lexicon ! 
 
 The resurrection, of which we read in 1 Cor. xv., the 
 gentleman says, does not relate to the body merely. 
 Does it not ? Then Paul must have labored under a 
 serious mistake ; for he says — " It is sown in corruption, 
 it is raised in incorruption : it is sown in dishonor, it is 
 raised in glory : it is sown in weakness, it is raised in 
 power : it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit- 
 ual BODY," verses 42-44. Does Paul speak of anything 
 but the resuirection of the body ? But suppose we admit 
 that something more than the body is raised. There is 
 nothing else that can be raised, but the souL Does the 
 soul die ? If it is to be raised from the dead, it must die. 
 Is not the gentleman a materialist? 
 
 He still labors to evade the force of John v. 28, 29, 
 " All that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the 
 Son of God," <fcc. I defy him to find one respectable 
 commentator on earth, who sustains his views of this 
 passage. Indeed, he not only differs from all commenta- 
 tors, but even from Mr. Ballon himself! Ballon makes 
 this resurrection refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 Universalists, whilst they differ from alL other men as to 
 the meaning of this passage, cannot agree amongst them- 
 selves. Surely, it behooves them to cgree amongst them- 
 selves before they assail others. 
 
128 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The gentleman's illustration of his interpretation of this 
 passage, by the resurrection of the white and the black, 
 ol* Old-school and New*school Presbyterians, &:c., is per* 
 fectly ridiculous. Who ever heard any man use such 
 expressions as, " I believe in the resurrection of white 
 and black — of Old and New-school Presbyterians 1 " 
 The very fact, that he is obliged to illustrate his interpre- 
 tation by modes of expression too absurd and ridiculous 
 to be employed by any one, proves his doctrine to be 
 equally absurd and ridiculous. 
 
 In the hurry of extemporaneous speaking, I may have 
 miscalled the names of one or two authors, as the gen- 
 tleman intimates. This, however, is a very small matter. 
 That young man, he says, is now seventy-jive years of 
 age ; and he seems to intimate that I committed a serious 
 blunder in my statements concerning him. I stated, that 
 about the age of twenty-one he professes to have emerged 
 from the midnight darkness in which all other men were 
 involved, and, soon after, he began to preach his new faith. 
 When I state facts, I prove them. In a brief history he 
 gives of himself, he says, " I spent most of my time with 
 him [his brother,] until the fall before I was twenty-one, 
 when I began to speak in public, believing and preaching 
 universal salvation, on Calvinistic principles of atonement 
 and imputed righteousness." He was yet quite in the 
 dark ; but he soon emerged from it. For he says, " I 
 had preached but a short time before my mind was 
 entirely freed from all the perplexities of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and the common notion of atonement. But 
 in making these advances, as I am disposed to call them, 
 I had the assistance of no author or writer," BalloiCs 
 Nine Sermons, pp. 9, 10. This evidence, I presume, 
 will be sufficient. But the most important fact is, that, 
 if we are to believe Universalists, there was not a man in 
 the world, during eighteen hundred years, who could 
 understand even the most prominent and important doc- 
 trines of that plain book, the Bible ! ! ! 
 
 The gentleman claims Sir Isaac Newton and other em- 
 inent men as Universalists. We desire some little ©vi- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 1^9 
 
 dence on this subject. The truth is, Sir Isnac Newton 
 had no affinity whatever for Universahsm, espscially in 
 its modern form. Why, I was not a little astonished 
 recently, to find Dr. Philip Doddridge claimed, by one of 
 the gentleman's authors, as a IJniversalist ! At this rate, 
 we shall all be claimed as Universalists in a short time. 
 
 1 am pleased to see Mr. Pingree incliTied to go into the 
 history of Universalism. In this work I will assist him, 
 by giving a brief account of the Gnostics — the first Uni- 
 versalists. I quote from Ancient History of Universalism, 
 by Hosea Ballon, 2d. — a standard Universalist writer. 
 He says, " From the long-venerated, but chimerical phi- 
 losophy of the Persians, they retained the notion, that 
 the material world was formed, not by the Self-Existent, 
 but by the inferior gods, called iEons, whose being was 
 derived through a long and intricate succession, as most 
 of them thought, originally from him. This led them to 
 regard the God of the Jews, the Jehovah of the Old 
 Testament, as but a secondary being, the principal 
 Maker of this world ; and they also concluded tJia' he 
 had apostatized, more or less, from, the divine allegiance, 
 inasmuch as he had arrogated to him^iclf the honors of 
 worship, and as Christ had been sent to annul his an- 
 cient covenant, end to overthrew his institutions,^^ 
 (p. 31.) Such were the ancient Universalists — a set of 
 the boldest blasphemers that ever lived ! ! ! On page 33, 
 the author speaks of those Gnostics called Basilidians, 
 Carpocratians and Valentinians, " who were supposed to 
 have held an eventual restoration, or rather, transmi- 
 gration, of all human souls to a heaven of purity 
 and bliss. But this tenet they appear to have involved 
 in other notions, wild and chimerical enough to warrant 
 the siisjncion of lunacy, were it not for the antiquity, 
 prevalence, and reputation of that whimsical philosophy 
 from which they were derived." On page 37, he gives 
 an account of a sect of Gnostics " still m,ore whimi>ical 
 than either of tlie preceding, called Valentinians." 
 
 Such were the primitive Universalists ! I have not 
 lime to go further into the history of them. I must not 
 
130 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 omit to notice the first book in the world, from any one 
 who can be called Christian, that teaches Universalisni, 
 even on the Restoration principles, viz : The Syhilline 
 Oracles, " It will be difficult," says Hosea Ballon, 2d. "to 
 give the reader a just notion of the first work, " The Sy* 
 billine Oracles, They were forged by some Christian 
 or Christians, generally supposed to be orthodox, for the 
 purpose of convincing the heathens of the truth of Christi- 
 anity." Concerning these forged Oracles, Mr. Ballon 
 says — " They contain the earliest explicit declaration 
 extant of restoration from the torments of hell ;'' (pp. 43, 
 44.) Universalism is welcome to the credit of this pro- 
 duction ! 
 
 But the learned Origen, in the third century, is claim- 
 ed as a Universalist. Let us hear from Mr. Ballon, con- 
 cerning his method of interpreting the Scripture — (pp. 89. 
 90.) " We have already seen that the allegorical method 
 [of interpreting Scripture] had long been in vogue. 
 Strange as it may seem, Origen pursued this further than 
 even his predecessors, and reduced it to a sort of system. 
 unequalled in absurdity, except by that of the famous Ba- 
 ron Swedenborg. To the sacred writings in general, he 
 attributed three distinct senses: 1. The literal, which in 
 no case is of great importance, and sometimes entirely 
 useless; 2. The moral, superior in value to the former, 
 etc. ; 3. The mystical or spirit iml sense, the most excel- 
 lent of all." This learned Universalist believed in the 
 pre-existence and transmigration of souls, and an indefinite 
 period o[ purgatorial sufferings in hell, and by the aid of 
 all his senses of Scripture, together with his absurd phi- 
 losophy, he brought ali finally to heaven ! The gentle- 
 man is welcome to all the credit he can gain to his faith 
 from such sources ! 
 
 The doctrines of the diviiJty of Christ, of the Holy 
 Spirit, etc., the gentleman says, have nothing to do with 
 the present discussion ; and he charges me with introdu- 
 cing irrelevant matter. He, of course, never wanders 
 from the subject ! yet he thinks proper to spend a consid- 
 erable part of his time in discoursing concerning the doc- 
 
or UNIVERSALISM. 131 
 
 wines of infant damnation, election, reprobation, etc., as he 
 says they are taught in the Presbyterian Confession of 
 Faith. His argument, we may suppose, is this : the 
 Confession of Faith teaches that some infants are lost; 
 therefore the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and 
 salvation of all men ! Suppose I had wandered from the 
 point, why should he condemn in me, what he allows in 
 himself? 
 
 But, says he, why go to Dr. Priestly ? Because the 
 gentleman claims him as an eminent Universalist. 
 
 Mr. Pingree asks, whether I dare to depart from the 
 Confession of Faiih, any more than the Roman clergy 
 from their church ? Yes, I would depart from it, should I 
 be convinced that it is contrary to the word of God ; and I 
 should not be burned for it either ! But he says, I have 
 excommunicated others for departing from it. We ex- 
 communicate no man, unless he be guilty of unchristian 
 conduct, or deny some fimdamenfal doctrine of the Gos- 
 pel. He tells us, that if all men are sinners, and if God 
 save some and not others. He is chargeable with being 
 'partial. Well, it is an indisputable fact, that in the 
 bestowment of his favors upon men, God has made, and 
 does make a difference. Did he not grant to the Jews 
 privileges which no other nation enjoyed ? Do we not 
 see around us innumerable evidences of this ? If the 
 gentleman chooses to charge God with partiality, he must 
 do so. Will he please inform us to what extent God 
 may make a difference in the distribution of his bless- 
 ings^ before he becomes chargeable with partiality? 
 Amongst his sweeping charges against the Confession of 
 Faith, he says, it teaches that God made some men to be 
 saved, and others to be damned. It teaches no such 
 thing. It does teach, that God determined to punish 
 some '\for their sin,^^ which he foresaw they would com- 
 mit. Was there any injustice in this ? As a further 
 evidence of his intimate knowledge of our doctrines, he 
 quotes the chapter which speaks of " the visible church," 
 us consisting " of all those throughout the world that pro- 
 fess the true religion, together with their children,*' and 
 
132 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 attempts to induce yon to believe, that in this church 
 none are inckided but Presbyterians and their children? 
 I must, of course, suppose him sincere in making this 
 most extraordinary charge ; but I venture to say, there is 
 not a Presbyterian old lady in the city, who does not 
 know, that the Confession teaches just the opposite doc- 
 trine, viz : that we acknowledge as professors " of the true 
 religion," all who hold the great fundamental principles 
 of the Gospel. The Methodists, the Baptists, the Epis- 
 copalians, the Congregationalists, etc. — profess the same 
 religion with Presbyterians. True, we differ on some 
 points of doctrine and church order; but we differ not 
 half so widely as the Universlists differ from each other. 
 Priestly differs more widely from Ballon, and Ballon from 
 Murray, than Presbyterians from any of these denomina- 
 tions. Indeed Abner Kneeland differs so widely from 
 Relly, that he says, if any one would preach what he be- 
 lieved to be the necessary result of his system, he would 
 be considered by all good men either a maniac or a pub- 
 lic disturber of the peace, and therefore, liable to prosecu- 
 tion; Lect, on Univer, Benev, p. 107. Still these gen- 
 tlemen are all Universalists. 
 
 Presuming that Mr. Pingree has fmished his argument 
 from Romans v., I will proceed to reply to it. Strange 
 as it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that Universal- 
 ists do not believe the plain declarations of Paul in this 
 chapter! In the 12th verse the Apostle says, "For as 
 by one man sin entered into the world, and deatb by sin ; 
 and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sin- 
 ned." Universalists do not believe, that death entered 
 into the world by sin. On the contrary, they assert, that 
 man was created mortal — subject to sickness and natural 
 death. Again: in the 18th and 19th verses, the Apostle 
 teaches, that '^by the offence of one, [Adam,] judgment 
 came upon all men to condemnation" — that "by the dis- 
 obedience of one, [Adam,] many were made sinners." 
 Universalists do not believe, that all or any of the human 
 race are made sinners, or are brought into condemnation 
 by Adam's sin. On the comrary, they hold that all sin 
 
or UNIVERSALISM. 133 
 
 just as Adam did, not at all in consequence of his sin. 
 In the third pkc9, the Apostle says, "hy the obedience 
 of one, [Christ,] many shall be made righteous." Tlni- 
 versalists do not believe, that all or any are made riorhte- 
 ous by the obedience of Chrhf, On the contrary, they 
 contend, as you have heard from Mr. Pingree, that all are 
 to be made rio^hteous, in the resurrection of the deal. 
 And what connection is there, according to Universalism, 
 between the obe iiance of Chritt and the resurrection? 
 The salvation of Christ, if Universalism be true, is deliv- 
 erance from sin in this iv:>rld. The gentleman is obliged 
 to admit, that comparatively few are saved from sin in 
 this worM. How, then, can he bring forward this pas- 
 sage, which relates to salvation by Christ, to prove Uni- 
 versal salvation in another 'v:orhl? He contends, that 
 the salvation of Christ is confined to this world, and that 
 this salvation is but partial here ; and yet he brings for- 
 ward a passage which speaks only of this salvation,* to 
 prove universal salvation hereafter! Truly we must ad- 
 mire the sk'll of the gentleman in thus involving himself 
 in contradictions ! 
 
 But what is the real meaning of this passage, (verses 
 18, 19,) on which the gentleman seems to rely? The 
 Apostle introduces a comparison, or rather a contrast be- 
 tween the fall of the human family in Adam, and the 
 recovery of many of them in Christ. His meaning is 
 this : As the first Adam, by his sin, involved all his poster- 
 ity in sin and condemnation ; so the second Adam, Christ, 
 by his " obedience unto death," delivers from sin and 
 condemnation all who become connected with him. 
 
 That this is the meaning of the passage, is evident 
 from the 17th verse : *' For if by one man's offence death 
 reigned by one ; much more they which receive abun- 
 dance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign 
 in life by one, Jesus Christ." We are here taUght, that 
 they only will be saved, who receive abundance of grace 
 and of the gift of righteousness. That my exposition 
 of this passage is correct, is further evident from the fact, 
 that in the immediate context, as well as throughout the 
 12 
 
134 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Bible, faith is declared necessary to salvation. " He that 
 believeth, and is baptized," said our Saviour, "shall he 
 saved : he that believeth not shall be damned." Yet, in 
 direct contradiction of our Lord, Mr, Pingree asserts, 
 that the resurrection will save all men, whether they be- 
 lieve or not ! The first verse in the chapter under con- 
 sideration, flatly contradicts Universalism, " Being justi- 
 fied by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by whom we have access ly faVh into this 
 grace wherein we stand and rejoice in the hope of the 
 glory of God." By faith, the Aposde says, men are just- 
 ified, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. But 
 Mr. Pingree says, all are justified, all made righteous, 
 and may hope for tlie glory of God, whether they have 
 faith or not! Everywhere the Scriptures make faith 
 essential to salvation ; and this fact alone proves Univer- 
 salism untrue. \Timc exjnred, 
 
 [mr. ptngree's seventh speech.] 
 Bespec^ed Mvditors : I must be permitted to say, once 
 for all, that, in the alili'y, and 1 am thankful to say, in 
 the disposition, to excite your Tnirlh and laughter, in a 
 discussion aflecting the quesdon of the final and immortal 
 destiny of the human soul, I yield the palm to Mr. Rice. 
 I now, in form, acknowledge his superiority, in this re- 
 spect. 
 
 I am obliged to Mr. Rice for reading, to some extent, 
 from some Universalist works. On one or two points. 
 Father Ballou may be mistaken ; (I call him Father Bal- 
 lon, for he is now a very aged man, and a father in our 
 Israel ;) and of course I do not feel bound to defend eve- 
 ryfhinp: he has said or written. I thank Mr. Rice for 
 presenting his writings to the audience ; and I presume 
 that the extracts he read did not strike you, after all, as 
 improper. But they were not applicable to the question 
 here. They were introduced to change t/ie issue between 
 us. Mr. Rice seems to be fond of that. Did Jesus 
 Christ come to save from exposedness to future woe ? or 
 from present suffering ? That's the point. I afi^irm the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 135 
 
 latter ;. and this is quite different from exposure to suffer- 
 ing hereafter. Mr. Rice says all were exposed to eter- 
 nal death; but God determined to savd some from it. 
 Aye ; but he made others to live without the knowledge 
 necessary to salvation. Were the elect exposed to eternal 
 misery in spite of the will of God ?! If he made the 
 wicked with a perfect knowledge that they would be lost, 
 then did he not make them to be lost? True, the gentle- 
 man says they are damnedybr their sins; but God bounds, 
 orders, and governs sins. Did he create men, absolutely 
 knowing they would be damned, and yet not make them 
 to be damned? Can they help being damned? Will Mr» 
 Rice tell us how that is ? 
 
 He says that the meaning of 1 Cor. xv. is, as those 
 who are in Adam die, so those that are in Christ are 
 made alive. But does not Paul say, " As we have borne 
 the image of the earthy, so shall we bear the image of the 
 heavenly?''^ referring evidently to the final change from 
 the present evil, to the future blessed condition. But, 
 says Mr. Rice, the wicked are not in Christ. He admits 
 that the time was, when all were sinners ; and hence that 
 none were "in Christ," in the sense he speaks of; but 
 Paul speaks of a time, as I have proved from Eph. i. 9, 
 10, where " all things " shall be in Christ, and God "all 
 in all." Mr. Rice inquires whether " all things," means 
 " all men^ I suppose it does here ; not always ; but 
 certainly in this passage. I will show another passage 
 where the phrase, " all things," is used for all men ; and 
 this will bring me to my next argument from Scripture. 
 I refer to Colossians i. 19, 20: "For it pleased the Father 
 that in him [Christ] should all fullness dwell: and having 
 made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to 
 reconcile all things unto himself." What are the 
 " things " to be reconciled ? Alen that were imrecorcilel, 
 of course ; as men are in that condition in this world. It 
 is the purpose of God to reconcile them to himsolf, by 
 Jesus Christ. I sliould like to know lohat " things" are 
 to be " gathered together into Christ," and reconciled to 
 God, unless they be human beings ! But I read on : « By 
 
13G AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things iri 
 heaven. And you that were sometime alieiiated and 
 enemies in your mind by wicked works, [this shows the 
 species of "things" that are to be reconciled, and that 
 some wei^e then cdready reconciled ;] yet now hath he 
 reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, to pre- 
 sent you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable, in his 
 sight ; if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, 
 and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel," 
 etc. Here is the purpose of God to reconcile all things 
 in Jesus Christ ; and this will settle the meaning of " all 
 things," in Eph. i. 9, 10, and 1 Cor. xv. So it is else- 
 where said, equivalent to diis, that, "God v/as in Christ, 
 recoticiling the world unto himself." Here the phrase, 
 " the world,^^ shows the meaning of " all things," in that 
 connection. There is not one that shall not be holy and 
 saved; and so God will "be all in «//." I affirm that 
 this purpose of God will be fully accomplished in connec- 
 tion with the resurrection of all men to a holy, happy and 
 immortal state. 
 
 Mr. Rice again speaks of the ^o^?/ alone being raised. 
 But Paul's inquiry was, " How are the dead raised up, 
 and iviih what body do 'they come V not speaking of 
 the body only. He then proceeds to show their general 
 condi'icn at the resurrection, and not merely to show that 
 this physical body will be raised. He does not teach 
 that, at all ; but that we shall be chajiged, from a mortal 
 to an immortal state, by the power of God. But what has 
 this to do with coming out of the tombs, spoken of in 
 John v. 27, 28 ? Paul does not say tombs, or "graves." 
 The expression does not correspond with the 5th of John. 
 John does not speak of Hades, the word used in 1 Cor. 
 XV. A passage in 2 Cor. v. 1, will show that this same 
 body that we put off, at death, will not be raised. We 
 are to have a spiritual body. This is an animal body. 
 Paul says, " For we know that if our earthly hcuse of 
 the tabernacle were dissolved, wo have a buil mg of 
 God, a house not made wiih hands, eternal in the 
 heavens,''^ It is not this body, made of dust, which is to 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 13^ 
 
 be given to the spirit in the future life. Paul said, " God 
 giveth a body." 
 
 If Mr. Rice says it is this body, is it the body we had 
 seven years ago, or the one we die with ? — for they are 
 not the same. Infant bodies differ materially from those 
 of adults ; — will they have large bodies, or small, in the 
 resurrection? Some are malformed, maimed, distorted, 
 and misshapen ; are they to rise so, in the immortal state ? ! 
 These bodies are of the dust, and " return to dust." 
 Corruption and worms devour them. The materials of 
 which they are composed, return to their original ele- 
 ments, which are again incorporated into other bodies of 
 other men, and even of vegetables and beasts. The same 
 matter of which one body is made, may pass into, and 
 constitute, in their turn, the bodies of men for a hundred 
 generations ! ! What portion of matter, then, at the resur- 
 rection, shall each man claim as his own, if this animal 
 body is to pass into the future world ? 
 
 My friend says, it is nonsensical to talk about the resur- 
 rection of the Presbyterians, of the Old and New School. 
 My friends, it is easy to call a thing absurd and nonsensi- 
 cal. Mr. Rice calls this absurd, because he cannot meet 
 it I ! My illustration was very good, to show how the 
 language in Acts was used ; Paul said he " hoped for the 
 resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust,"*^ 
 Oh ! but sa3's Mr. Rice, that shows that the unjust are to 
 remain unjust, after tlie resurrection. Well, then, if Mr. 
 Rice expresses a wish for the resurrection both of blacks 
 and whites, he means that they are to remain, by the 
 force of that expression, black and white, after the resur- 
 rection ! ! 
 
 As to the age of Father Ballou. He may have known 
 that in 1818, Mr. Ballou was more than 21. But be that 
 as it may, he caused the impression that he was not, — 
 hence liis display of tmt, — and that in 1818, Mr. Ballou, 
 a '' i/ormg man^^ not 21, first promulgated the doctrine, 
 etc. He put the two events together, and the logical 
 inference was that he was then not 21 ; whereas he is 
 now 75. 
 
 12* 
 
13B AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 He quotes Balfour 2d, (for Ballou 2d.) I am glad he 
 read that passage. I should have read it myself, to show 
 that the sentiment of final universal salvation w^as not 
 wholly lost in the early ages of the Church. And now 
 does not Mr. Rice know that the early Orthodox, so 
 called, were many of them as absurd in their exposition 
 of the Bible, and in other notions, as the Gnostics ? The 
 heresies and errors of early Oxthodox writers were as 
 numerous and glaring as those of the Univcrsalists. Mr. 
 Rice will not deny that. Then why bring up the Gnos- 
 tics alone as affording examples of error. 
 
 Mr. Rice says he does dare depart from his Confession 
 of Faith, without the fear of being burned for it either. 
 Aye, but the time was, and that not long since, when he 
 would 7iot have so ventured, for foar of suffering. My 
 friend has probably some knowledge of New England. 
 The time was when Calvinists had the power there ; and 
 then men were whipped and himg for preaching doctrines 
 contrary to the Confession of Faith. 
 
 A word now in relation to the partialify of God. What 
 does Paul say, in Romans xi., in relation to the Jews? 
 " For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of 
 THE WORLD, what shall the receiving of them be, but life 
 EROM THE DEAD ?" For « time, they were cast away ; but 
 for their own benefit, as well as for others. So Paul says, 
 in the conclusion of his whole argument, '' For o/* God, 
 and through Him, and to Him, are all things, to whom 
 be glory forever, Amen !" Again, all tliat come fro7n 
 God, return to him in the grand and final consummation. 
 I admit there are differences of condition here, but God is 
 equally the Father of all. This is the Bible doctrine ; — a 
 very different one from that which says that God deter- 
 mines to damn a portion of mankind for the benefit of 
 the rest ! President Edwards teaches that the saints will 
 rejoice over the misery of the damned! Boston, in his 
 Four-fold State, says that "the godly husband will say 
 Amen to the damnation of her who lay in his bosom ! and 
 the godly wife shall applaud tlie justic3 of the judge in 
 the condemnation of her ungodly husband ! ! The godly 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. ISd 
 
 parents shall say hallelujah ! at the passing of the sen- 
 tence against their ungodly child ! and the godly child shall, 
 from his heart, approve the damnation of his wicked pa- 
 rents, the father who begot him, and the mother who bore 
 him " ! ! I Thus it is distincdy taught that the sight of the 
 lost, and their sufferings in eternal woe, will increase the 
 PLKAsuRE and heighfen the joy of the saved ! This is 
 Calvinism ; and this is the doctrine we are to have in op- 
 position to the glorious and sublime sentiment of* univer- 
 sal holiness and happiness ! It is well for you to think of 
 this. 
 
 Mr. Rice says he admits that all branches of the church 
 profess " the true religion.*' Why, then, did they cast out 
 Dr. Beecher and Mr. Barnes, and a multitude of church- 
 es, if they all professed the trite rkligion^? It is strange 
 that they and their children should he turned out, if they 
 professed " the true religion "! ! Out of Presbyterianism — 
 out of the true church — "out of which there is no salva- 
 tion " ! We must have a little more light on that subject. 
 
 We come now to Romans v. I had read the passage, 
 but had not presented any entire argument upon it. I now 
 resume it. Mr. Rice thinks it teaches the opposife of our 
 doctrine. That appears to me very strange ; does it not 
 to you ? Why, says Mr. Rice, all men are condemned 
 for the sin of ^Sdam, Let us read and see: " And so 
 death passed upon all men ;" for Adam's sin ? No ; " ibr 
 that all have sinnecW'' says Paul. That's the reason 
 they suffer ; because they sin. But, says Mr. Rice, " as 
 in Adam all die," means that nil die who are involved in 
 Adam's sin; so in the second Adam all are made alive, 
 who become connected with him. But the time tvas, 
 when some were thus connected with him, therefore his 
 own explanation cuts off his objection to the passage. He 
 should now gi^ up the explanation, or withdraw his ob- 
 j eel ion* 
 
 But he says J faith is essential to salvation ; and quotes 
 " He that helieveth shall be save J; and he that beliovoth 
 not shall be damned." Can idiots believe ? No. Can 
 t>?/an/5 believe ? No. C^n Pagans? No! Yet, say^ 
 
140 AN oual discussion 
 
 he, believers, infants, and idiots will be saved ; and even 
 some Pagans ;■ — though his Confession of Faith says not* 
 How are they saved, li faith is necessary and essential 
 to salvation? The Pagans must be doomed, according to 
 the purpose of God from tlie beginning, who put them 
 where they could not believe, and therefore could not 
 be saved ! ! 
 
 We come again to the passage in the 4th of Romans, 
 with further remarks by Mr. Rice. Adam sinned, says 
 Mr. Rice. Well, he sinned and suffered on earth. All 
 sin, and all are condemned ; but not merely to natural 
 death ; though natural death possibly may be the direcl 
 result of sin. But here is the condition of all men ; — ah 
 have sinned ; all die. The purpose of God is to make 
 all holy, h^rppy and immortal, that Himself may " be all 
 in all." You see the force of the antithesis, in verses 
 18 and 19: it is to show that all who sin, are finally to 
 be " made righteous ;" all that are condemned, made 
 just, and purified ; all that were lost, are to be happy. 
 Mr. Rice cannot show the contrary; that there are not as 
 many to be blessed, as had been condemed or damned — 
 whether more or less. Suppose we admit that Paul 
 referred to only a part of the human race ; yet as many 
 as he does refer to, as condemned sinners, he declares are 
 to be righteous and saved. Thus is confirmed and establish- 
 ed, the doctrine of the final holiness and salvation of all 
 men, especially of all sinners, in connection with 1 Cor- 
 inthians, XV., and other passages. 
 
 I have now presented several distinct arguments from 
 Scripture. 1. The argument from the resurrection, in the 
 15th of Corinthians ; 2. The argument from the 5th of 
 Romans; 3. The ingathering of all things in Christ, 
 in Ephes. i. 9, 10 ; 4. The reconciling of all things into 
 God in Christ Jesus — Col. i. 19, 20 ; aiid now, as my 
 fifth argument, — though in this speech, I see that I sliall 
 not have ti:ne to fully explain and enforce it, I shall in- 
 troduce the testimony -of Paul in the 8th chapter of 
 Romans, beginning at the 18th verse: "For I reck- 
 ,.on that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 141 
 
 to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in 
 us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth 
 for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the crea- 
 ture was made subject to vanity^ not willinghj, but by- 
 reason of Him who hath supported the same in hope." 
 Tins was according to the will of God: all were made 
 subject to vanity. The inquiry arises, witli thrilling 
 interest: Are we thus forever to remain subject to van- 
 ity, and the suiierings it brings on us ? The Apostle 
 answers in tlie next verse : " Because the creature itself 
 shall also be delivered " [that is the word ; equivalent 
 to " salvation " in the proposition. Delivered frcm 
 what? EXPosEDNESs to sin and misery in the eternal 
 world ? No ; but] " from the bondage cf corrup'ijn " 
 [our present con:li1ion,~] " unto the glorious liberty of 
 the children of God." That is what 1 afhrm — the uni- 
 versal deliverance^ or sah^alion of men — their introduc- 
 tion into " the glorious liberty of the sons of God." 
 
 Now to this passage I invite the attention of Mr. Rice. 
 Let him apply his mind to testimony like this, r:ither 
 than read disqimiiions about mind and body, and the 
 soul being material, and those other matters not related to 
 this controversy. He thinks me deluded, and fatally in 
 error. Let him come up to the work, m earnest ; and 
 take these important texts out of my hands, if he can, 
 and strive to convince me of my error. 
 
 If he does not do this, he is not doing justice to the 
 subject, nor to me as a fellw-man ; for I rely greatly on 
 these testimonies of the Apostle — resting much of my 
 hope and blessedness on the teaching of these very pas- 
 sages ; and if I err, according to Mr. Rice's views, I ;im 
 likely to go to endless perdition. Let him, then, hearlily 
 to work! [Time expired, 
 
 [mr. rice's seventh reply.] 
 
 The exhortation with which my friend closed h;s 
 
 speech, was uncrUed for; esp:'c'ally as m^ny thonirht 
 
 th?t his aro^uments were left in a e:ad predicament last 
 
 evening. He is greatly annoyed because the audience 
 
142 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 occasionally laugh at his expense. The frogs in the 
 fable said to those who pelted them, "It may be fun to 
 you, but it is death to us." So the gentleman seems to 
 feel. 
 
 It is wholly unnecessary again to correct the gentle- 
 man's gross caricature of our doctrine concerning God's 
 hounding the sins of men. He evinces an astonishing 
 ignorance of the Confession on which he is so much 
 disposed to comment, and of the doctrines of the Presby- 
 terian church. If I were to preach the doctrines he 
 charges my church with holding, I would be deposed 
 from the ministry. No Presbyterian ever held or taught 
 such doctrines. He has told you that we believe some 
 of the human race are damned for the benefit of others. 
 No decent Presbyterian ever so taught. Let the gentle- 
 man produce his authors, and prove his charges, if he 
 can. He tells you, the time was when Presbyterians 
 persecuted in New England. This is not true. Pres- 
 byterians never had the power to persecute in New Eng- 
 land. The Congregationalists, who were far the most 
 numerous there, are as distinct from Presbyterians as any 
 other denomination. Again — he inquires why Doctor 
 Beecher and Mr. Barnes, with their families, are exclud- 
 ed from our church ? They were not excluded. They, 
 together with the New School Presbyterians, voluntarily 
 withdrew from our church, and no sentence of excom- 
 munication was ever passed upon ^;hem. It is to be 
 hoped the gentleman will take some pains to gain correct 
 information, before he again attempts to state facts ; other- 
 wise he must stand chargeable with the violation of that 
 law which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness 
 against thy neighbor." A proper regard for truth re- 
 quires this much at his hands. I hope I shall not again 
 be under the painful necessity of exposing conduct so un- 
 becoming, during this discussion. 
 
 In reply to his remarks on 1 Cor. xv. it is^ sufficient 
 to repeat, that the connection, as I have proved, confines 
 the discourse of Paul to the resurrection of the just; only 
 they shall partake of the resurrection there spoken of, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 143 
 
 who are " Christ's at his coming," or who, as in the 
 same chapter the Apostle says, " have fallen asleep in 
 Christ." Now I earnestly call upon the gentleman to 
 point to one passage in the Bible, in which it is said that 
 they who die in their sins will be Christ's at his coming ; 
 or in which the wicked are said to fall asleep in Christ. 
 If he will find me one such passage, I will immediately 
 give up the discussion. I ask for only one passage 
 which teaches, that at the resurrection any will be 
 Christ's, who were not in Christ when they died. 
 
 The phrase " all things," in Eph. i. 10, he tells us, 
 means all men. But, when used in its most extended 
 sense, it goes much further than men, Mr. Pingree 
 himself understands it in a sense much more limited 
 than its ordinary meaning. Possibly, then, it may be 
 even more limited than he is disposed to allow. In the 
 immediate connection, the Apostle sufficiently explains 
 his meaning — that the blessings of the Gospel were not 
 to be confined to the Jews, as many supposed, but "that 
 the Gentiles should he fellow-heirs, and of the same body, 
 and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." 
 (Chap. ii. 6.) And thus all the saints who died before the 
 Saviour's incarnation, together with all who shall be con- 
 verted under the New Dispensation, will constitute one 
 family in Christ. 
 
 In the Epistle to Colossians, i. 20, a similar expres- 
 sion occurs — "to reconcile all things to himself." But 
 here the context forbids us to understand the reconcilia- 
 tion of those who die in their sins. For the Apostle pro- 
 ceeds to say, "And you, that were sometime alienated, 
 and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now 
 hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh through death, 
 to present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable 
 in his sight; if ye confinue in the faith, grounded and 
 settled, and he not ^noved away from the hope of the 
 Gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached 
 to every creature under heaven," etc. Now observe, 
 those whom the Apostle addresses, were to be presented 
 holy, unblamable, and unreprovable in the sight of God, 
 
144 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 on one important condition, viz. if they continued m the 
 faith, if they icere not moved away from the hope of the 
 Gospel ; but Mr. Pin^ree says, all men are to be thus 
 presented, whether they, have faith, and persevere in 
 obeying the Gospel, or not. So he comes in direct col- 
 lision with Paul ! 
 
 It may be w^ell here to remark, that Paul says, the 
 Gospel was preached "to every creature under hea- 
 ven ;" and yet no one supposes, that every human bemg 
 had in fact heard the Gospel. But it was offered indis- 
 criminately to all classes of m^n. , ' 
 
 But let us read a litde farther, beginning with the 27th 
 verse : '• To wliom God Avould make known what is the 
 riches of tlie glory of this mystery aniong: the Gentiles; 
 wliicli is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we 
 preach, warning every man, and teaching every ^ipan in 
 all wisdom; thai we' may .present every man perfect in 
 Christ Je^us : whereunto I also labor, striving .according 
 to his working, which: worketh in nie mightily.'' Paul, 
 in his preacliing, warned all men, and taught tliem, that 
 there, was danger — that they must continue in the faith 
 and in holy livirig; and this he did, that he might present 
 them perfect in Christ Jcsus^ ■kndjei Mr. Pingree as- 
 serts, that all will be presented perfect in Christ, whether 
 they regard these warniufrs, and contmue hi the faith, or 
 
 not ill \ ^ ."^ ■'" •--■^^^-"-■-'^•^^^ -'■'■■-- -■'-;y' 
 
 The gentioman turned HauraltentiGn4o 2^. V^ v. 19: 
 "God is in Christy reconciling the world linto himself, 
 not imputing their trespass6-s unto them." True, he is 
 7WW in Christ reeoncihng men to. him; and 4herefore the 
 Apostles, to whom he intrusted the ministry of reconcilia- 
 tion, said, " Now then w^e are ambassadors for Christmas 
 tliough God did beseech you by us, ive pray you in 
 Christ'' s stead, be ye reconciled to God,''' But, I ask 
 did he say, or do the Scripture-s anywhere £ay, that God 
 wdll reconcile, after death, ixny who die in impenitence? 
 I know of no passage of Scripture Avhich teaches any sitcli 
 thing. ^ . , , . 
 
 Mr. Pingree has repeatedly asserted, that in 1 Cor, xv.. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 145 
 
 something more is meant, than the resurrection of the 
 body. I have asked in vain, what more ? But he has 
 now come out and positively denied, that the body is ever 
 to be raised ! And he informs us, that a new body is to 
 be made for each human being. Would this be a resur* 
 rection, or a new creation ? The word resurrection has 
 been generally understood to mean the rising up of that 
 which was dead ; but as the gentleman has in his Creed 
 salvation from nothing, so he has a resurrection in which 
 nothing is raised up ! 
 
 In addition to the evidence already furnished of the 
 falsity of this doctrine, I invite the attention of the audi- 
 ence to Philippians iii. 21 : " Who [Christ] shall change 
 our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glo- 
 rious body, according to the working whereby he is able 
 even to subdue all things unto himself." Does this lan- 
 guage favor the gentleman's idea, that new bodies are to 
 be created ? Or does it not plainly teach, that the old 
 body — " our vile body " — will be changed and wonder- 
 fully refined? Perhaps my friend did not tliink of this 
 passage. 
 
 But he raises a philosophical difficulty, and desires to 
 know how the body, having returned to dust, can be 
 raised again. The same question was proposed to the 
 Apostle Paul ; and he gave an answer that appears some- 
 what rough : " Thou fool ! " — intending to say, that it is 
 extreme folly thus to question the power of God to raise 
 the dead. God can do it. This answer may appear 
 rough, but it is the answer given by Paul ; and I can give 
 none better. But in the immediate connection the Apostle 
 says : " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown 
 in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption." Will the gen- 
 tleman inform us, what is the antecedent of "it" in this 
 passage ? What is sown in corruption ; and what is raised 
 in incorruption ? " It is sown a natural body ; it is raised 
 a spiritual body." What is sown a natural body?- I 
 need not press the argument farther. The gentleman 
 denies the doctrine of tlie resurrection, and substitutes for 
 it a new creation! Or if he belives in a resurrection at 
 13 
 
146 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 all, it must be a resurrection of the soul that dies ! Surely 
 he ought to say nothing more about the resurrection. He 
 does not believe the doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Pingree still labors to sustain Universalism by 
 Rom. V. In this chapter, as I have already shown, v^e 
 have a comparison, or rather a contrast, between the fall 
 of the human race in Adam, and the redemption of many 
 in Christ. The Apostle says, as the first Adam by one 
 sin brought his posterity into sin and condemnation, so 
 tlie second Adam introduces his children into a state of 
 holiness and justification. But, says Mr. Pingree, the 
 time was, when none were in Christ. True, and they 
 who die without becoming interested in Christ, can never 
 be made righteous by his obedience. Can he find a soH- 
 itary passage of Scripture, which intimates, that those 
 who die in impenitence and unbelief, will at the resurrec- 
 tion be made righteous by the obedience of Christ, and 
 admitted to heaven? He cannot. 
 
 But I have said, and the gentleman does not deny it, 
 that the Universalists do not believe the declarations of 
 Paul in this chapter. The Apostle says, death entered 
 into the world hy sin; (verse 12.) Universalists deny 
 that sin is the cause of death. They assert, that man was 
 created a mortal being. The Apostle says: "By the 
 offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
 tion." Universalists deny, that all or any are brought 
 into condemnation by Adam's sin. The Apostle says : 
 " By the disobedience of one [Adam] many were made 
 sinners." Universalists deny that any were made sinners 
 by Adam's disobedience. The Apostle says: "By the 
 obedience of one [Christ] shall many be made righteous." 
 Universalists deny, that any are made righteous by the 
 obedience of Christ. They contend, as you have heard 
 from Mr. Pingree, that men are to be made righteous, not 
 by the obedience of Christ, but by the resurrection I 
 
 Moreover, the Apostle, throughout this epistle, and in 
 the very chapter before us, makes /m/A essential to salva- 
 tion. But the gentleman asks, if faith be necessary to 
 ealvation, what is to become of infants and idiots P I 
 
OF UNIVERSALIS3I. 147 
 
 answer : the Gospel was not designed to be preached to 
 infants and idiots, but to those who can understand and 
 obey it ; and such are required to believe the Gospel, if 
 they desire to be saved. The Universalists may, if they 
 choose, quarrel with Christ, who said, " He that believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved ; he that believeth not, shall 
 be damned^ Such is the language he uttered in giving 
 the commission to his Apostles to preach the Gospel. 
 
 The* gentleman treats us to another argument, founder* 
 on Romans viii. 20, "For th^ creature was made subjed 
 to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath 
 subjected the same in hope," &;c. The word creature, 
 in this passage, he understands to mean all men; and 
 upon this assumption his argument is based. Let him 
 prove, if he can, that creature means all the human race. 
 Until he can do this, his argument is worthless. And he 
 certainly knows, that the Greek word (klisis) often 
 means, not men, but the creation of God — the world. It 
 is also important to his argument, that he explain what 
 he understands by the creature being made "subject to 
 vanity,''^ What does the word vanity here mean? 
 Universalists, I am aware, understand by it, that God 
 made man originally an imperfect being, subject to suffer- 
 ing and death, as well as inclined to sin. This exposition 
 is proved false by the fact, that the Scriptures expressly 
 declare, that "God made man upright — in his own im- 
 age" — and that suffering and death are tlie consequences 
 of sin. 
 
 My fourth argument against Universalism, already 
 presented, was, that it teaches the materiality and mortal- 
 ity of the soul. The gentleman does not deny, that his 
 standard authors do hold and teach this absurd doctrine. 
 Indeed, he himself believes it, or his doctrines are palpa- 
 bly contradictory. In his first speech, it will be remem- 
 bered, he stated, that in the resurrection a change is 
 effected, which introduces all into a state of holiness and 
 salvation. I inquired, what becomes of the souls of men 
 between death and the resurrection. You saw how re- 
 luctandy he adverted to this inquiry; and when, at length, 
 
148 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 he did so, he handled it as tenderly as an infant. He 
 could not be induced to give any satisfaction about it. 
 He quoted the Scripture, "the dust returns to dust, as it 
 was, and the spirit to God who gave it." I then asked 
 him, whether, according to his faith, the spirit, immedi- 
 ately after death, goes to God in its sins. He will not 
 say, it does. Then does it continue sinful and miserable 
 until the resurrection? He does not so believe; for he 
 denies all future punishment. Well, is it made holy and 
 happy immediately after df ath ? No ; for he says, it is 
 not made holy and happy until the resurrection. Then 
 the soul, as well as the body, must die I There are but 
 three possible suppositions, one of which must be true, 
 viz : 1 . The soul, immediately after death, is made holy 
 and happy ; or, 2. It continues unholy and miserable ; 
 or, 3. It dies with the body. Mr. Pingree denies, that it 
 becomes immediately holy and happy — this change being 
 effected, he says, in the resurrection, not before. He 
 denies, that it continues unholy and miserable ; for he 
 admits no future punishment. He is, therefore, compel- 
 led to admit that the soul dies with the body. There is 
 no way of escape. 
 
 I have stated and proved several important facts, de- 
 monstrating the absurdity and falsity of the Universalist 
 doctrine, that the soul is material and mortal, viz: 1. 
 That mind and matter are substances wholly distinct and 
 opposite in their natures. 2. That sin and holiness are 
 predicable only of the affections of the mind, not of mat- 
 ter. 3. That, consequently, the separation of the soul or 
 mind from the body, will not cliange its moral character. 
 4. That all men are sinful in heart, and sinners in prac- 
 tice. 5. That the souls of men do go, immediately after 
 death, into a state of happiness or of misery. From these 
 plain facts and principles I derived two important conclu- 
 sions, viz: 1. That they who die in sin, will go into eter- 
 nity sinful, and will, therefore, be miserable. 2. That 
 the resurrection, being a change of the body by the phy- 
 sical power of God, will not change the moral character 
 of the soul ; and therefore they who die in sin, will be 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM* 
 
 149 
 
 sinful, and consequently miserable after the resurrection. 
 To this argument, though it completely demolishes his 
 doctrine, that all are made holy in the resurrection, the 
 gentleman has not even attempted to reply ! In this he is 
 wise ; for it is impossible to evade the force of it. But 
 let me add strength to the argimient, by the following plain, 
 unequivocal declarations of our Saviour : " Then said Je- 
 sus again unto them, [i. e. the Jews] I go my way, and ye 
 shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whither I go 
 ye cannot come." Again : " I said therefore unto you, 
 that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I 
 am he, ye shall die in your sins," John viii. 21, 24. To 
 the dying thief, who became penitent on the cross, Jesus 
 said — " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." But 
 to the impenitent and unbelieving Jews he said, *' Ye shall 
 die in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come." 
 And again : " If ye believe not that 1 am he, ye shall die 
 in your sins^ Now, if the doctrine of Universalisls be 
 true — these Jews would go to Christ just as soon as 
 others ; but, if they ever go to dwell with him ; can this 
 his solemn declaration be true ? It cannot. Here, then, 
 we have the Saviour teaching, in language the most une- 
 quivocal, not only future punishment, but eternal pun- 
 ishment. 
 
 V. My fifth ai-gumcnt against Universal ism, is — that it 
 makes God the author or cause of all the sin in the 
 world, 
 
 1. Universalists maintain, that sin proceeds from phys- 
 ical causes inherent in the human constitution, as it came 
 from the hands of God ! This doctrine is taught by Ro- 
 sea Ballon in his Treatise on the Atonement, pages 31, 32, 
 34, 35. It is also affirmed by Abner Kneeland in his 
 liGctures on Universal Benevolence, pages 46, 47, 49. 
 The serpent that tempted Eve, they tell us, was her own 
 lust ! This revolting doctrine is defended by Hosea Bal- 
 lou in his Lectures, page 74 ; by Balfour in his 2d Inqui- 
 ry, page 27. Rogers, in his Pro and Con of Universal- 
 ism, page 255, affirms, that *' sin proceeds wholly, and 
 altogether, /rom owr animal nature P^ 
 18* 
 
150 A?f ORAL DiSCUSSI05« 
 
 2. Universalists, having embraced this grossly errone- 
 ous doctrine, are forced to deny the free agency of man^ 
 and to maintain that all his actions are necessary. This 
 doctrine is defended by Mr. Ballon, in his Treatise on the 
 Atonement, pages 38, 39, 64. " Man," he says, " is de- 
 pendent in all his volitions, and moves by necessity.''^ 
 
 3. If it be true, that sin proceeds from physical causes 
 inherent in the human constitution, as it came from the 
 hand of God ; and if, consequently, it be true, that man is 
 not a moral agent, but acts by necessity in all his volitions ; 
 it follows inevitably, that he is not an accountable being* 
 Most certainly man cannot be held responsible for feelings 
 and actions which necessarily proceed from his phys- 
 ical organization. Consequently God must be the cause 
 or author of all the sin in the world ! And Hosea Ballon 
 hesitates not openly to avow this blasphemous doctrine. 
 In his Treatise on the Atonement, pages 36, 41, he bodly 
 teaches it — affirming, that " if it should be granted, that sin 
 will finaly terminate for good, in the moral system, it ivill 
 then be necessary to admit that god is its first cause, 
 or we cannot say that God is the author of all good! ! P^ 
 
 Thus these leading Universalists boldly teach, that God 
 is the author of all sin — that it proceeds necessarily from 
 the human constitution as he created it. And as sin, ac- 
 cording to them, proceeds wholly from physical causes — 
 from man's physical organization ; so in the resurrection, 
 his constitution will be reorganized, and thus he will be- 
 come holy ! See Ballou's Lectures, page 369. 
 
 In direct contradiction of this doctrine, which makes 
 sin arise necessarily from the human constitution, which 
 denies man's free agency and accountability, and makes 
 God the author of all sin ; the Bible declares, that God 
 made man in his oivn image; Gen. i. 26, 27. In 2 
 Corinthians, iii. 18, we learn what that image is ; "But 
 we all with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of 
 the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory 
 to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." So in the 
 epistle to the Colossians, this image is declared to refer to 
 our moral nature, chap. iii. 10. The inspired Solomon 
 
Ot UNIVERSALISM. 151 
 
 declares, that " God made man upright; but he hath sought 
 out many inventions;" Eccl. vii. 29. The Scriptures 
 further teach, that man was a free moral agent, capable of 
 standing in his obedience, or of falling into sin ; and in- 
 deed, that all men are free agents, and of this truth the 
 consciousness of each individual affords abundant evi- 
 dence. They also teach, that sin is the cause of natifral 
 evil; and although Paul the Apostle teaches in the clear- 
 est manner, that death entered into the world by sin, 
 Hosea Ballon denies it, and asserts that '* men die a na- 
 tural death, because they are naturally mortal; but they 
 are not mortal because of sin, for man was mortal before 
 he sinned." Treatise on Atonement, page 59. 
 
 In Universalism, as thus far developed, we find the fol- 
 lowing absurdities and impieties : that the soul of man, 
 like his body, is material and mortal ; that sin and holiness 
 are produced by physical causes ; tliat between death and 
 the resurrection men are dead, soul and body, just as their 
 horses ; that the body will never be raised from the dead, 
 but the soul that dies will be raised ; that God is the cause 
 of all sin, which is blasphemy. 
 
 Before closing this address, it may be well to place dis- 
 tinctly before the audience the arguments I have offered 
 against Universalism. They are the following: 
 
 1. Its noveUij. It was believed, in its present form, by 
 no man but Hosea Ballon and one other mentioned by 
 Mr. Pingree, during the first eighteen centuries of the 
 Christian era ! 
 
 2. If Universalism be true, there is no such thing as 
 salvation. The only salvation effected by Jesus Christ, 
 if we believe Hosea Ballon, is in this ivorld. In the 
 next world men, he says, will not need a Saviour, because 
 they are not exposed to future punishment. 
 
 3. The Scriptures do most clearly teach, that there will 
 be a resurrection, both of the just and of the unjust; of 
 the just, to eternal life, and of the unjust, to condemna- 
 tion. Believers, in ancient times, endured the severest 
 persecutions, that they might obtain " a better resurrec- 
 tion." Paul pressed forward with great zeal and labor, 
 
152 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 if by any means he might attain unto the resurrection of 
 the dead ; which, if Universalism be true, he could not 
 avoid attaining, even if he had done nothing to secure it . 
 
 4. According to Universalism, the soul is both material 
 and mortal. 
 
 5. Universalism teaches, that God is the cause of all 
 the sin in the vrorld ! — that sin is produced by physical 
 causes : tliat man is not a free, but a necessary agent. 
 These absurd and grossly unscriptural doctrines, as I have 
 proved, are advanced and defended by the leading Uni- 
 versalist authors ! [^Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pingree's eighth speech.] 
 
 My friend remarked, that a good many people though < 
 I left my arguments in a bad state, last night. Well, tha< 
 is very probable ; for, it is natural to suppose that he 
 should hear this among those u'ho believe with him, and 
 whose sentiments he expressed ; and especially as he had 
 the last speech. Is this, however, to be-a part of this 
 controversy hereafter ? — is reference to be made here, to 
 opinions out of doors ? I do not know whether I shall 
 engage in such a work, or not. I might remark, as an 
 example of what might be done in this way, that I, like- 
 wise^ heard, yesterday, that some Orthodox persons re- 
 marked that Mr. Rice was only looking around the 
 subject ; but would come out strong by and by — a virtual 
 admission that they thought he had not done much yet ! 
 
 Mr. Rice. Will you mention their names ? 
 
 Mr. Pingree. No, sir. 
 
 But I am desired, by the Moderator, not to pursue this 
 mode of reply ; and I very willingly take leave of it. 
 
 We have had the fable of the frcgs applied to me ; 
 and the gentleman makes merry at the idea, that, though 
 it is fun to him, it is death to me. What a spectacle is 
 here ! — a man, preaching the doctrine of endless damna- 
 lion^ and discussing the final doom of the human soul, 
 making' fun ! ! ! 
 
 My friend says, there is no decent Presbyterian writer 
 who has ever said, that some are damned for the benefit 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 153 
 
 of Others. I referred to men, high in. the Calvinistic 
 church ; and thus, I defined their theology, at the time ; 
 as Edwards, Boston, and Williams, who published a 
 volume of sermons, in Conn., A. D. 1810. All these 
 affirm that the happiness of the saved is increased by 
 contemplating the eternal sufl?erings of the damned ! 
 
 Mr. Rice says that in New England, all the persecu- 
 tions were by Congregational is ts, who are no more like 
 the Presbyterians than other denominations. They are 
 so near alike, however, that Congregationalists who have 
 come to the West, become members of Presbyterian 
 churches, and those ministers are invited to preach in 
 Presbyterian pulpits, as readily as Presbyterians them- 
 selves ; their doctrines are substantially the same, except- 
 ing the division into Old School, and New School. It is no 
 matter whether called Congregationalists or Presbyteri- 
 ans, if they hold the principles, which led to the per- 
 secution of Baptists and Quakers. They all subscribed 
 to the doctrines of the Westminster Catechism. 
 
 He says, they did not turn out Drs. Beecher and 
 Barnes. What, then, meant the trial of Dr. Beecher for 
 heresy ? What meant the trial of Dr. Barnes for heresy ? 
 If they did not turn them out, they tried to. At all 
 events, they are out. These trials show the disposi- 
 tion to excommunicate the New School men, for deny- 
 ing the doctrines of the Confession of Faith. Mr. Rice, 
 I will now repeat, dare not interpret tlie Bible differently 
 from that Confession. 
 
 I turn now again to 1 Cor. xv. Mr. Rice confines this 
 resurrection to believers. If none are raised but believ- 
 ers, because the epistle was addressed to believers, we 
 ought to go on in the limitation, and confine it to those 
 living at that time. But if so, what have those now 
 living, to do with that resurrection? Besides, if it 
 relates to believers only, what is to become of the one- 
 third part of the human race ? — the millions who die be- 
 fore they are old enough to believe ? It will not do to 
 limit a passage, speaking of all the dead, in this manner. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, that reconciliation, instead of including 
 
154 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 " all things," must refer to the saints in heaven. But 1 
 .answer, it can only refer to those who need reconciliation. 
 Some had then been reconciled. " To present you holy, 
 undefiled," etc., is the language of Paul. Does the pas- 
 sage relate to none but those who were then " already re- 
 conciled?''^ If so, neither Mr. Rice, nor you, nor any 
 others, now living, have anything to do with it, or to ex- 
 pect from it. Is not this evident to you all ? 
 
 He says, I affirm that Christ will present all to God, 
 whether they have faith or not. That is not what I said. 
 I proved that Christ would reconcile all tilings to him- 
 self, and consequently would present them to tlie Father, 
 holy, unblamable, etc. That passage, speaking of those 
 who were already reconciled, does not exclude those who 
 were io he reconciled thereafter. My friend asks if those 
 are reconciled after death. I have already spoken of the 
 things connected with the resurrf:ction, and of the pur- 
 pose of God to "reconcde the world to himself." I 
 have shown that all are to be subdued to the Saviour, and 
 that to "be in subjection to him," is to live. All these 
 passages brought together, establish the point, that those 
 who sin, and even die sinners, are reconciled to God here- 
 after. Mr. Rice admits that saints require and will expe- 
 rience a change after death. AVe only carry out this idea, 
 and say, that all may be changed. 
 
 He asks if God creates another body in the resurrec- 
 tion. He has not noticed 2 Cor. v. 1, which speaks of 
 putting off the earthly tabernacle, and receiving another 
 — " the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." 
 He quotes Phil. iii. 21, alluding to the change of " our 
 vile body." That does not say bodies. The phrase 
 might be rendered, "body of our humiliation ;" and a'so 
 the phrase, glorious body, " the body of his glory ;" — 
 representing a change from a state or conlificn of suffer- 
 ing, to one of glory, by the power or energy of God, 
 " whereby he is able to sid)due all things to himself." 
 Tills passage, therefore, does not sustain the gentleman's 
 doctrine ; — the word not being bodies. He says the in- 
 quiry to Paul w^as, how God raises the bodies of men? 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 155 
 
 Not 80. The inquiry was, " How are the dead raised 
 up ? and WITH what body tlo they come ?" The Apos- 
 tle's answer describes a change from mortality to immor- 
 tality ; and rs to the body, that God will give such a body 
 as pleases him. Mr. Rice says I deny the resurrection ; 
 and believe in no salvation. Does it appear so to you ? 
 From all I have said, and after a full expression of my 
 views, I presume you understand such assertions to be a 
 mere play upon terms. You know that I hold to the 
 resurrection of all the dead, by the power of God in 
 Christ, introducing them into a state of immortality, in- 
 corruption, purity, and glory ; or, as the Saviour says, to 
 
 be, " AS THE ANGELS OF GoD IN HEAVEN." 
 
 On the 8th of Romans, Mr. Rice requires me to prove 
 that " the creature" includes the whole human race. I 
 answer, the creature here spoken of is represented by 
 Paul as " inade subject to vanity, ^^ and wailing for the 
 manifestation of the sons of God. This must refer to 
 the human race — it can mean nothing else. He says it 
 means the creation. So I say. '*The creation," 
 then, that "was made subject to vanity" — the whole hu- 
 man creation — " shall be delivered from the bondage of 
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
 God ! ! " 
 
 [Mr. Rice here explained, that he did not say the word 
 signified creation, as there used ; only sometimes,'] 
 
 Mr. PiNGREE. That is all I desire ; "the creation 
 shall be delivered ! " If that is not very much like 
 Universalism, I do not know what is ; — the deliverance of 
 all who are now subject to vanity, whether more or less, 
 and who are waiting for the manifestation of the sons of 
 God, " from the bondage of corruption into the glorious 
 liberty of the children of God ! " 
 
 We have had still more passages produced as proof 
 that some will suffer to all eternity, as John viii. 14. Let 
 us look at it. Jesus said, " ye shall die in your sins ; 
 whither I go, ye cannot come." Mr. Rice says, to this 
 there is no limitation ; that " cannot come " extends to 
 all eternity. The language does not necessarily mean 
 
156 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 that. The Saviour sometimes said, " ye will not come 
 unto me, that ye might have hfe ;" yet afterwards they 
 did come. So it may be that those who " cannot come" 
 at a certain time, and under certain circumstances, may 
 come at another time, I have quoted the words of Paul, 
 " If the casting away of them [the Jews] be the recon- 
 ciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, 
 but life from the dead?" Again; it is said, " Blindness 
 in part has happened unto Israel, until the fullness of the 
 Gentiles be come in ; and so all Israel shall he saved,^^ 
 They were not cast out to all eternity. 
 
 In John xiii. 33, the Saviour said to his otvn disciples^ 
 " Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye 
 shall seek me, and as / said unto the Jews, whither I go 
 ye cannot come, so noiv I say to you." Mr. Rice would 
 infer from this, that they 7iever could come. But this 
 would not be correct ; for his reply to Peter, who asked 
 for an explanation, was, " Thou shalt follow me after- 
 wards,''^ I quoted the 11th of Romans, to prove that 
 THE Jews, also, whom Christ thus addressed, would finally 
 be received again. 
 
 But Christ said to them, " Ye shall die in your sins ;" 
 or rather, as some Orthodox writers say, — not believing it 
 to relate to endless misery, — " die /or your sm," in the 
 singular number ; that they should suffer punishment for 
 their sin of unbelief. It does not mean that they should 
 die in their sins, in the general sense ; — that is, as sin- 
 ners ; — and not come to Christ after they died ; but they 
 were to die, suffering for sin, Mr. Rice's interpretation 
 of the passage proves too much. Even Moses sinned, and 
 the Lord told him to go up on the mount, and die there, 
 for his transgression. He died in that sin ; that is, for 
 it. Was not Moses to be saved in the future world? 
 Mr. Rice believes that even the most pious saints die sin- 
 ners, and require a change immediately after death. So 
 this passage, if it proves anything for Mr. Rice, excludes 
 from scdvation even Presbyterian saints ! all of whom 
 die sinners, according to his Creed, as well as his own 
 admissions. So much for that point. Perhaps I ought 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 157 
 
 not to have dwelt so much upon it ; but I wish to exam- 
 ine difew of Mr. Rice's pa,ssages fully ; for I imagine a 
 gi^eat mass of texts will be quoted afterwards — too late to 
 receive a full and fair exposition. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, Universalism makes God the author of 
 sin. Certainly not, in a worse sense than his own Creed. 
 See Confession of Faith, Chap. V. Sect. IV. " The al- 
 mighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite good- 
 ness of God, so far manifest themselves in his provi- 
 dence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall; [\h\s 
 meets the charge that Universalists, more than Presby- 
 terians, believe sin necessary ;] and all other sins of 
 angels and men, and that not by a bare permission ; but 
 such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful 
 BOUNDING and otherwise ordering of them, in a manifold 
 dispensation to his own holy ends ; yet so as the sinful- 
 ness thereof [this expresses our sentiment]] proceedeth 
 only from the creature, and not from God." 
 
 The illustration from the case of Joseph and his breth- 
 ren, was the best for us that could be given ; that sin was 
 bounded and ordered so as to benefit all ; and not only 
 in relation to Joseph's brethren, who sinned ; but we be- 
 lieve that ALL evil will be over-ruledybr the good of ah.', 
 until finally all suffering will be ended, and the universe 
 of men cleansed from all sin and pollution. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, Universalists teach that all sin is in the 
 body. We do believe that the prominent influences to 
 sin are physical, and connected with the flesh ; and we 
 believe that the Bible teaches this. Paul says " There is 
 a war in my members ; \hefiesh lusting against the spirit, 
 and the spirit against the flesh ;" and so he prays for a 
 deliverance, which he was to receive through the grace 
 of God, in Jesus Christ. This is just what we believe; 
 but this is not saying that the body sins. We sin from 
 our "being subject to vanity;" and we believe that the 
 same creature, or human creation, thus in subjection, 
 SHALL be delivered from this ^' bondage of corruption 
 into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 
 
 Mr. Rice says, Mr. Ballon teaches that sin was meant 
 14 
 
158 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 for'' good. Does not Mr. Rice say so ? Why then find 
 fauh with father Ballon? He says the sins of Joseph's 
 brethren were over-rnled for good; so we afTirm. As to 
 God having created man in his own image, there is no 
 dispute between us. We also believe that man " was 
 made upright ; but he has sought out many inventions." 
 He says, Mr. Ballou said that what tempted Eve was not 
 the serpent, but her own lust. What does Mr. Rice be- 
 lieve on this subject? Does he really believe it was liter- 
 ally a serpent, a real snake, that tempted Eve? If he 
 does not adopt this literal interpretation, he must himself 
 believe that Eve was tempted by something represented 
 by that word ; or wall he say that it was the devil? Mo- 
 ses does not say so. [Time expired* 
 
 [mr. rice's eighth reply.] 
 
 I trust, my friends, we all realize, that we are engaged 
 in the investigation of a most grave and important sub- 
 ject — the eternal destiny of men. It is most certainly 
 the interest of every individual to ascertain and embrace 
 the truth; for we are to be sanctified through truths not 
 through error. 
 
 Still I am not opposed to exciting an occasional smile 
 in a protracted debate like the present. Divers things 
 may occur in connection with the great subject, at which 
 it is not unlawful to smile. If the audience has been fre- 
 quently amused at the ludicrous positions assumed by Mr. 
 Pingree, they have not thereby laid themselves liable to 
 the charge of treating with levity the important subject 
 under discussion. In the commencement of the discus- 
 sion he himself manifested a disposition to some pleas- 
 antry. I hope he will again call up his wit, and relieve 
 us occasionally by a smile. I have several times had 
 occasion to speak of that young man, who, in his ama- 
 zing self-con<3eit, imagined that he alone of all the readers 
 of the Bible, had got into the light; and many of the 
 audience were amused at his ridiculous pretensions ; and 
 really, I consider them most ridiculous, though they relate 
 to a very grave subject. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 159 
 
 Of one thing I have been particularly careful : in sta- 
 ting important facts, or in presenting the views entertained 
 by Universalists, in order to do them entire justice, I have 
 cited the very words of their standard wTiters. Mr. Pin- 
 gree, however, has felt at liberty to pursue a very differ- 
 ent course. He has made some ten or a dozen state- 
 ments concerning the views of Presbyterians^ which ar* 
 grossly incorrect ; which every Presbyterian who heard 
 him, knows to be false ; which every individual who haa 
 carefully read our Creed, knows to be wholly: incorrect. 
 He has, indeed, read scraps from our Confession of Faith, 
 and by putting the language to the torture, has brought 
 forth hideous sights. He reminds me of a worthy 
 preacher of olden time, who was greatly scandalized by 
 one of the fashions of the good ladies, who contrived to 
 place upon their heads a lofty top-knot. The old gen 
 tleman resolved to make a bold attack upon this wicked- 
 invention. He was not a little puzzled to fmd a text. 
 He felt certain that there was, or at least ought to be, a 
 text against it. Failing to find one precisely in point, he 
 selected the passage, "Let him that is upon the house- 
 top, not come down;" and by taking only the words that 
 suited his purpose, he read the text, " Top-knot, come- 
 downP^ Just so Mr. Pingree reads the Presbyterian 
 Confession of Faith. AViih this anecdote, I pass without 
 further notice, his caricatures of Calvinism. ' 
 
 I have been somewhat curious to know the gentleman's 
 object in saying so much about infant damnation, Slc. 
 Suppose he could prove our Confession of Faith to be as 
 erroneous and as detestable as he represents it; would he 
 thereby prove his propcsition — that the Scriptures teach 
 the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men ? Suppose 
 the Confession wrong, does this prove Univeisalism 
 right? Since it is certain, that these things contribute 
 nothing whatever to the proof of his proposition, does he 
 not bring them forward so constantly for the purpose of 
 div<;rting attention from arguments he feels himself unable 
 to answer, and to ercite in the minds of the audience, 
 prejudices which will prevent them from impartially 
 
160 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 weighing the evidence I may present against Universal 
 ism? 
 
 I am here in consequence of a challenge from Mr 
 Pingree, not to discuss his particular notions^ but to ex 
 amine the claims of Universalistn to our confidence. 
 He challenged me to a discussion of "the merits of Uni- 
 versalis m and Partialism." I have nothing to do, there 
 fore, with the particular views of Mr. Pingree* Mj 
 business is with Universalism as I find it set forth by hi? 
 standard authors. To avoid all misrepresentation I have 
 stated the principles of Universalism in the words of 
 those writers, and have contrasted them -with the plain 
 teaching of the Word of God. Is it not fair to take their 
 creed from standard writers, and test their soundness by 
 the Bible? All must say. Yes. If Calvinism were un- 
 der discussion, I should be bound to defend its leading 
 principles, as taught by our standard writers. Universal- 
 ism is not a single point disconnected from all other doc- 
 trines, but a conclusion reached by laying down import- 
 ant premises, which lead to it. I have undertaken to 
 prove the conclusion false, by showing the premises on 
 which it is based, to be unsound. Is this not a fair mode 
 of reasoning? If the premises are false, the conclusion 
 cannot be true. I have, therefore, presented the leading 
 principles of Universalism, as stated by Hosea Ballou 
 and others, and disproved them by God's Word. 
 
 Yet Mr. Pingree insists, that the investigation of these 
 leading doctrines of Universalism, has nothing to do with 
 the present discussion ! Whatever view he may be dis- 
 posed to take of the subject, I cannot depart from the 
 course of argument I have adopted, the perfect fairness of 
 which must be obvious to all. And if it be so, what must 
 be thought of his refusing to defend the great princples ad- 
 vanced by Ballou, Balfour, and other leading Universalist 
 writers? whose works I had the pleasure of purchasing at 
 his own office I authors recommended by himself ! ! Those 
 authors, as I have proved, teach the doctrine that the soul is 
 material and mortal. This doctrine Mr. Pingree refuses 
 to defend ; and he tells us, he is no materialist* I repeat, 
 
OF UNIVETISALISM. 161 
 
 1 am not here for the purpose of discussing his individual 
 opinions, but to investigate the great principles of Univer- 
 Salism* These principles he refuses to discuss, and de- 
 sires to occupy our attention with his particular views ! 
 
 Against Universalism, as set forth and advocated by 
 these writers, I have advanced four arguments, viz : 
 
 1. From its novelty — its very modem origin. This ar- 
 gument is based on the admitted truth, that the Bible is a 
 plain book, designed by its great Author, not for the in- 
 struction of the learned only or chiefly, but for the edifi- 
 cation of the people — a book easily understood in its most 
 important doctrines^. Is it probable, is it possible, that 
 during eighteen hundred years there were but two men 
 who understood it ? — that the whole Christian world un- 
 derstood it to teach doctrines, precisely the opposite of 
 those it was chiefly and especially desigced to leach ? 
 
 2. My second arginnent is — that according to Univer- 
 salism, there is no salrafion. For the salvation of Uni- 
 versalism, we are told, does not relieve men from sin and 
 sufl'ering in this world, nor from sin and suflering to which 
 they are exposed hereafter. Salvation is an important 
 word in the Bible — meaning deliverance from evil, to 
 which men are justly exposed here and hereafter. But 
 since the salvation of Universalism delivers men from no 
 evils to which they are justly exposed, in this world, or 
 in eternity ; the conclusion is clear and inevitable, that the 
 salvation of Universalism, is not the salvation of the Bi- 
 ble — is in truth, no salvation ; and consequendy Univer- 
 ism is false. 
 
 3. My third argument against Universalism, is — that 
 the Scriptures teach most clearly the resurrection of the 
 just to life eternal, and the resurrection of the unjust to 
 condemnation ; — that the *' better resurrection " can be ob- 
 tained only by perseverance in obedience to the commands 
 of God ; that Paul thought it necessary to make great and 
 continued eflxDrts to secure it; that only they who "full 
 asleep in Christ,'' and who are *' Christ's at his coming," 
 can secure it ; and that the wicked who die out of Christ, 
 will rise " to shame and everlasting contempt." Conse- 
 
 14* 
 
162 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 quently Universalism, which teaches, that in the resurrec- 
 tion all men will be made holy and happy, is false. 
 
 4. My fourth argument against Universalism, is — that 
 it teaches the degrading doctrine, that the soul is mate- 
 rial and mortal. The Bible, on the contrary, teaches 
 most clearly, that the soul is immaterial and immortal. 
 Therefore Universalism is not true. 
 
 This is indeed a difficult point for the gentleman, one 
 which he has manifested very great reluctance to touch. 
 In his first speech he announced his faith — that in the res- 
 urrection, a change will be effected, which Avill introduce 
 all men into a state of holiness and salvation. How of- 
 ten have I pressed him to tell us what he believes the 
 Scriptures teach concerning the state of the soul between 
 death and the resurrection ? To this important inquiry, 
 so repeatedly made, we can obtain from him no satisfacto- 
 ry answer. He will only answer — " The dust returns 
 to dust as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it;" 
 but we cannot induce him to tell us how he understands 
 this Scripture. Now, as I have already proved, one of 
 three things must be true, viz : 
 
 1. The soul, immediately after death, is made holy and 
 happy; 
 
 2. Or it continues sinful and miserable; 
 
 3. Or it dies with the body. 
 
 I should like any one to show a fourth supposition, 
 which is possible. Now Mr. Pingree does not believe 
 that the soul, immediatey after death, is made holy and 
 happy; for his doctrine, as stated repeatedly by himself, 
 is, that ifi the resurrection, 7iot before, all are to be made 
 holy and saved. He does not believe that the soul, after 
 death, continues unholy and miserable; for he openly 
 denies all future punishment. He is, therefore, compell- 
 ed to adopt the third supposition, that the soul dies with 
 the body. Yet he would have us think, he does not be- 
 lieve the soul material and mortal. I hope the gentleman 
 will either attempt to escape from the predicament in 
 which he is placed, or candidly avow himself a Mate- 
 rialist 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 163 
 
 These grossly absurd doctrines of Universalism, I have 
 disproved by the Word of God, which teaches, in the 
 clearest manner, that sin and holiness belong exclusively 
 to the mind, not to the body ; and consequently, that the 
 separation of soul and body cannot change the moral 
 character of the former. And for the same reason, the 
 resurrection, by the power of God exerted upon the bodyy 
 cannot change the moral character of the soul. There- 
 fore they who die in their sins, must be miserable after 
 death, and also after the resurrection. 
 
 This is my fourth argument^ which was farther 
 strengthened by the unequivocal language of Christ, 
 found in John viii. 21, 24, "Then said Jesus again to 
 them, [the Jews] I go my way, and ye -shall seek me, 
 and shall die in your sins; wliither I go, ye cannot 
 come." Again: *'I said, therefore, unto you, that ye 
 shall die in your sins; for if ye beheve not that I am 
 He, ye shall die in your sins," This is strong language ; 
 and it is employed without qualification. Our Lord sim- 
 ply and plainly says, if ye believe not that I am He, ye 
 shall die in your sins ; and whitlier I go ye cannot come. 
 
 How does Mr. Pingree reply to this argimient? WJiy, 
 he says, Christ said the same thing to Peter and the 
 other disciples; and therefore the argimient would prove 
 that they could not be saved. Jjct us see, Jesus Christ 
 said to his disciples — ^' Little children, yet a little while I 
 am with you. Ye shall seek me : and as I said to the 
 Jews, whither I go, ye caimot come : so now I say unto 
 you." This, however, is not all. " Peter said unto him, 
 Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither 
 I go, thou canst not follow mc now ; but thou shalt 
 follow me afttrwards,'' John xiii. 33, 36. Mr. Pingree 
 says, the Saviour said to the disciples the same thing he 
 had said to the Jews. Very far from it; for, in the first 
 place, he did not say to the disciples, as he did to the 
 Jews, "^e shall die in your sins.'' In the second place, 
 he said to Peter and the disciples, what he did not say 
 to the Jews, " thou shalt follow me afterwards^ Peter 
 and the disciples, when they died, were to go to Jesus ; 
 
 'N^iriKtstfV^ 
 
164 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 but the unbelieving Jews were to die in their sins, and 
 whither he went, they could not come. These were 
 most important differences between the disciples and the 
 Jews. And here we have an unanswerable argument, 
 proving not only future punishment, but eternal punish- 
 ment. For Christ gave not the slightest intimation that 
 those who die in their sins, could ever enjoy his pre- 
 sence, but, on the contrary, said without qualification, ye 
 cannot come at all. 
 
 But Mr. Pingree says, our Confession of Faith teaches, 
 that even saints die in their sins, and require a change 
 after, death. The Confession of Faith does not teach 
 that saints die in their sins. To die in sins, is a phrase- 
 ology used in Scripture^ Avith reference only to those 
 who die in impenitence and unbelief, and who are con- 
 sequently unprepared to go to heaven. Is there then no 
 difference between the condition of those who die, hav- 
 ing repented of their sins, having secured their pardon by 
 faith in Jesus Christ, and being under the sanctifying in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit, and the condition of thos^e 
 who die in impenitence, unbelie\ing, and therefore unfor- 
 given; having resisted the Holy Spirit, and having no 
 preparation for heaven? The cases are indeed widely 
 different. Paul the Apostle says, ''There is, therefore, 
 now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, 
 who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit," Rom. 
 viii. 1. Can my friend. Air. Pingree, fnd a passage in 
 the Bible that says, there is no condemnation to those 
 who are not in Christ Jesus ?' 
 
 Again: not only is the condition of the dying Christian 
 essentially different from that of the dying unbeliever, 
 but the Christian has the positive promise of God, that 
 his soul shall be perfectly sanctified and prepared for 
 heavenly joys. "Being confident," says Paul, "of this 
 very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in 
 you, will perform [or finish] it, until the day of Jesus 
 Christ,'' Philip, i. 6. Can the gen'hmanfind a passage 
 in the Bible, which promises that a good work shall be 
 he gun and finished in those who die in impentence 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 165 
 
 AND UNBELIEF 1 The cases, then, are wholly dissimilar. 
 The one class of men is in the hands of Jesus by faith ; 
 the other is not. 
 
 But he tells us, that Moses committed a sin, and that 
 he died in sin. Does the Bible say, that he had not re- 
 pented of his sin and obtained forgiveness ? It gives not 
 an intimation of the kind. 
 
 I have maintained, that the Scriptures clearly teach, that 
 there is to be a resurrection of the just and of the unjust. 
 Mr. Pingree, after saying so much about the resurrection, 
 now openly denies the resurrection of the body ; and, to 
 prove, that the body is not to be raised, he places great 
 emphasis upon "Me dead,^^ How are the dead raised 
 up ? Now look at the predicament in which he has pla- 
 ced himself. Man is composed of body and «ow/, or spi- 
 rit, if you prefer it. Does he believe, that the dead body 
 is to be raised up ? No ; he expressly denies this. Yet 
 he says, the dead are to be raised. Then if the dead bod- 
 ies are not to be raised up ; of course, the dead souls or 
 spirits must be raised. You see, he is, after all, a mate- 
 rialist, and believes the doctrine that the soul is mortal. 
 
 But this is not the worst of the matter. He has affirm- 
 ed that the resurrection of the body is impossible, because 
 its dust is scattered to the four winds, has entered into oth- 
 er bodies, &c. But Mr. Ballon holds, that the soul, as 
 well as the body, is material ; and Mr. Pingree is involv- 
 ed in the same doctrine. Now is it not quite as impossi- 
 ble that a material soul should be raised from the dead, as 
 that a material body should be raised ? Both return to 
 dust. Therefore, according to the gentleman's reasoning, 
 neither soul nor body can be raised ! We arrive, then, 
 at the conclusion, that the human race, instead of being 
 all saved, will all be annihilated ; and that God will here- 
 after create an entirely new race of beings ! ! Pray, what 
 consolation can it afford to us, to know that after we shall 
 have been annihilated, God will create a new race of be- 
 ings and place them in heaven ? 
 
 Observe again, how flatly this doctrine contradicts the 
 Word of God. At the second coming of Christ, there will 
 
166 AN ORAL DlSCUifiglON 
 
 be a vast nuiltitucle of inhabitants on earth, who will not 
 die. Concerning the righteous then on earth, Paul says, 
 " Behold, I shew you a mystery : Ave shall not all sleep, 
 [i. e. die,] but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in 
 the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump," 1 Cor. xv. 
 51, 52. Now I ask the gendeman, will this multitude as- 
 cend with their bodies changed, and made spiritual and 
 immortal ; or will they drop their dead bodies on the 
 earth, and ascend without them ? Or will there be a dif- 
 ference — those who died a natural death, having new bod- 
 ies created, and the others having the old bodies changed ? 
 Did not Elijah ascend with his body changed? 
 
 I here call upon the gentleman to give us a grammatical 
 explanation of the following passages : verses 53, 54, 
 "This incorruptible must put on corruption," This cor- 
 ruptible what ? Body or soul ? " This mortal must put 
 on immortality." This mortal v:hat? Body or soul ? 
 Which is corruptible and mortal, the body or the soul ? 
 Which puts on incorruption and immortality ? He must 
 say one or the other. He is driven into the dark regions 
 of materialism again ! 
 
 To prove that our bodies that die are to be raised again, 
 I quoted Philip, iii. 21, "Who shall change our vile 
 body [what body T\ that it may be fashioned like unto 
 his glorious body, according to the workhig whereby he 
 is able even to subdue all things to himself." ,What is 
 the gentleman's reply ? Why, he says, the word body is 
 here used in the singular number, and therefore does not 
 refer to the resurrection. Yet in 1 Cor. xv. 35, where 
 he admits and contends that the resurrection is spoken of, 
 we find the word body used in the singular number just 
 as here — " How are the' dead raised up ? and with what 
 body do they come ?" James the Apostle uses the word 
 in the same manner! " Behold, we put bits in the horses' 
 mouths, that they may obey us ; and we turn about their 
 whole body.^^ If the gentleman would read Prof. Bush, 
 whose work on the resurrection he admires, he would 
 learn, that the word body is very commonly used in the 
 singular, where the plural is meant. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 167 
 
 But as a clear and unanswerable argument in- favor of 
 the resurrection of the bodies of the righteous to a blessed 
 immortality, I refer the gentleman to Romans viii. 11. 
 Speaking of the resurrection of the just, Paul says — " But 
 if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead 
 dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall 
 also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwell- 
 eth in you." Will Mr. Pingree tell us whether this is"a 
 literal resurrection of the body ? 
 
 I am constantly reminded, by my friend, of the sign of a 
 certain mechanic, whicli read thus: "All sorts of twist- 
 ing AND TURXIXG DONE HERE ! " Hc hcsitatCS UOt tO 
 
 adopt any criticism or take any turn by which he can 
 hope to escape exposure. Not venturing to rely entirely 
 on his criticism on. the word body, in Phil. iii. 21, he told 
 us, that some understood "vile body" to mean "///e body 
 of our hi(miliationy Well, will he be kind enough to 
 inform us, what he understands by this latter phrase ? I 
 am really anxious to know. 
 
 As I have not time, at present, to reply to Iiis argument 
 from Rom. viii., I will pass, on and notice his remarks 
 on Eph. i. 9, 10, and Col. i. 20. I proved from the im- 
 mediate context, (Col. i. 23,) that none are to enjoy the 
 blessings connected with reconciliation to Cod, unless on 
 one condition, viz: "if ye continue in the faith, grounded 
 and settled, and be not moved away from tiie hope of 
 the Gospel." Tlie context, therefore, confines the ex- 
 pression — "all things" — to all those who become recon- 
 ciled to God in this life, and persevere unto death. The 
 all things, then, so far as the expression relates to man, 
 includes the whole family of God in heaven and in earth. 
 The Apostle also limits the expression in Eph. i. 9, hi 
 the same way. For in the next chapter, verse 8, he says : 
 "For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not 
 of yourselves," &c. Thus the Apostle, in the same epis- 
 tle, and in the immediate connection, makes faiili neces- 
 sary to salvation. 
 
 O yes, says Mr. Pingree, it is true that faith is neces- 
 sary to " Gospel salvation'' Truly I am astonished I't 
 
168 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 this admission. And now I beg leave to ask, who author- 
 ized the gentleman to preach any other than Gospel sal- 
 vation? Christ said to his Apostles: "Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." And 
 what were they to say, when they preached the Gospel ? 
 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he 
 that believeth not shall be damned;" Mark xvi. 15, 16. 
 This is the Gospel they were directed to preach. This 
 cannot be denied. This is the Gospel and the only Gos- 
 pel Mr. Pingree is authorized to preach. [7\*me expired, 
 
 \ 
 [mr. pingree's ninth speech. ]}- 
 
 I propose now, first of all, to notice some few things 
 which I neglected to notice, last night ; secondly, to state 
 another distinct argument for universal salvation ; and af- 
 terwards to review the last speech of Mr. Rice. 
 
 You may recollect that I remarked, that Universalism, 
 (or a belief in final universal salvation,) existed in the 
 earliest ages of the church ; and, also, ever since the Refor- 
 mation. You know the fact, that those are Universalists, 
 who believe in the Jinal salvation of all men — the promi- 
 nent, central, and most glorious doctrine of the Bible. Yet 
 there are some who arrive at this belief, through one set 
 of promises, or by one mode of reasoning; and others by 
 another. They all believe the main doctrine. But in 
 minor matters they differ in opinion. Among those re- 
 cognized as Orthodox, I named Sir Isaac Newton. Mr. 
 Rice wants evidence of his being a Universalist. Well, the 
 celebrated Wm. Whiston, the translator of the works of 
 Josephus, and who himself wrote books against the eter- 
 nity of punishment, says, in his work "on the Eternity 
 of Hell Torments," that Sir Isaac Newton agreed with 
 him in sentiment; and says the same also of Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke. Will the gentleman take this testimony of a man 
 whose veracity is not disputed ? 
 
 I might name other celebrated theologians, who were 
 believers in the final salvation of all men. Among these 
 are Rev. John Brown, of the Church of England, in the 
 18th century; Rev. David Hartley, Archbishop Tillot- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 169 
 
 SON, of the Church of England; the celebrated Lavater, 
 of France, Stilling, of Germany, Dr. Henry Moore, 
 Bishop Newton, Petit Pierre, Dr. JohnPrierEstlin, 
 Rev. Henry Poole, Dr, Benjamin Rush, Dr. T. South- 
 wood Smith, Dr. William Pitt Smith, Sir George 
 Stonehouse, Dr. Joseph Young, Rev. Jeremy White, 
 chaplain to Cromwell. Other names might be found in 
 all denominations, of believers in the final salvation of all 
 men. We do not present these names as proof of our 
 doctrine, but merely to show that great and good men, in 
 various denominations, have enjoyed the same faith. Per- 
 haps they did not all hold it in the same fonn; but they 
 arrived at the same ultimate conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Rice said the Presbyterians did not persecute. I 
 confined what I said to those who held the doctrines of 
 the Confession of Faith, wheUier called Presbyterians, or 
 not. On the second of May, 1648, the Parliament of 
 England, under the influence of Presbyterians, enacted a 
 law for the punishment of blasphemy and heresy; one 
 part of which declares, that " those that say that the 
 BODIES of men shall not rise again after they are dead, 
 or that there is no day of judgment after death, shall be 
 adjudged guilty of felony, and on complaint before any 
 two justices of the peace, be committed to prison, with- 
 out bail, till the next jail-delivery for that county ; and at 
 the said jail-delivery shall be indicted for feloniously pub- 
 lishing, and maintaining, such error ; and in case the in- 
 dictment be found, and he shall not, upon his trial, abjure 
 his said error, |C7* he shall suffer the pains of death, as 
 in case of felony, without benefit of clergy T It would 
 not have done for me to deny the resurrection of this ma- 
 terial body, in that day ; else I should have been executed 
 as a felon, by order of a Partialist Parliament, who would 
 exclude every body from heaven, except themselves and 
 their friends ! But more of this act : " Be it further 
 enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every per- 
 son or persons that shall publish or maintain as aforesaid, 
 any of the several errors hereafter ensuing ; to wit: — that 
 all men shall be saved ; or that man, by nature, hath 
 15 
 
170 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 free will to turn to God, etc., shall be committed to prison, 
 until he shall find two different securities that he shall not 
 publish or maintain the said error or errors any m,ore,^'^ 
 etc. It would not have done for me to live under that 
 Presbyterian ParKament ; for if I had denied the resur- 
 rection of this body, I should have died without benefit 
 of clergy ! and if I had taught universal salvation, been 
 imprisoned I ! 
 
 Mr. Rice refers again, in his last speech, to one of the 
 doctrines of Calvinism, and denies that any Presbyterian 
 ever said that the joy of the righteous would be increased 
 by witnessing the miseries of the damned. I have al- 
 ready referred to Tertullian, as the first man known in 
 the Christian Church, who said that the misery of the 
 wicked would be equal in duration to the happiness of 
 the righteous. In his work on Spectacles, (De Specta- 
 culis,) we find the following language in allusion to the 
 Pagans: "You are fond of your spectacles," said he; 
 *' there are other spectacles : that day disbelieved, derided 
 by the nations — that last and eternal day of judgment, 
 when all ages shall be swallowed up in conflagration — 
 what a variety of spectacles shall then appear ! ! How 
 shall I admire ! how laugh! ! hotv rejoice J J how exult ! ! ! 
 when I behold so many beings, Worshiped as gods in 
 heaven, together with Jove himself, groaning in the low- 
 est abyss of darkness*" He goes on farther in this strain, 
 gloating over the groans and misery of the souls of his 
 fellow-creatures, writhing in eternal torment ! The whole 
 passage is quoted in the Ancient History of Universalism, 
 by Rev. H. Ballon 2d. 
 
 In relation to the resurrection " of the just and the un- 
 just," Mr. Rice himself, my worthy friend, engaged with 
 me in this controversy, says, he hopes for the resurrec- 
 tion of the unjust ; although that resurrection introduces 
 them into a state of endless, remediless woe ! ! I referred 
 also to Pres. Edwards, to Boston* Williams, and Em- 
 mons ; — all of them distinguised Calvinistic writers ;— who 
 say that the joy of the righteous will be increased by 
 witnessing the endless misery of the wicked ; one particu- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 171 
 
 larly — Boston — saying that the godly husband will receive 
 pleasure in the eternal suffering of his wife ! — the wife 
 rejoice in the damnation of the husband! parents say hal- 
 lelujah to the damnation of their children ! and so on. I 
 know of scarcely any thing more horrible. In reading 
 the expression of these sentiments, I have been reminded 
 of an anecdote I have read somewhere, of a Moor and a 
 Christian. The Moor, who had been offended by the 
 CJiristian, meeting the Christian once alone, and unarmed, 
 offered to spare his life, on condition that he would ab- 
 jure his Master; otherwise he would take his heart's 
 blood. The Christian, thinking to save his life, did so; 
 and the Moor thereupon instantly plunged his dagger into 
 his heart; exclaiming, Now am I doubly revenged! I 
 have taken his life here, and damned his soul hereaf- 
 ter ! ! It seems as if that were the spirit of some who 
 hold this doctrine, that the joy of the saved is increased 
 by witnessing the misery of the damned. Others who 
 hold that doctrine, are more benevolent. Their hearts 
 seem as if wrung by sympathy for the wicked, in view 
 of their anticipated damnation. The celebrated Saurin, 
 of France, In preaching a sermon on the eternal torments 
 of hell, a'lter describing the greatness and duration of the 
 tormen:^ of those who are to suffer there, thus exclaims: 
 **I sink under the weight of this subject; and I declare, 
 when I look around on my friends, upon my congrega- 
 tion ; when I think that you, that I, that we are all ex- 
 posed to these torments ; and when I see in the luke- 
 warm ness of my devotions, in the languor of my love, 
 and in the feebleness of my resolutions and designs, the 
 least evidence^ though it be only probable or presumptive, 
 of my future misery, I find in the thought a mortal poison, 
 diffusing itself through every period of my existence, ren- 
 dering society tiresome, nourishment insipid, pleasure dis- 
 gustful, and life itself a cruel bitter; I cease to wonder 
 that the fear of hell has made some melancholy, and others 
 MAD ! !" And it is no wonder that some are thus made mad. 
 Saurin was different from those already referred to. His 
 benevolent soul was filled with horror, and his life ren- 
 
172 AN ORAL DISCUSSION. 
 
 dered a cniel bitter, at tlie thought of that which others 
 would seem to rejoice to witness. Many, too, have felt, 
 with Saurin, insupportable auguish at the thought of so 
 much misery. Hundreds have gone raving mad, while 
 thinking of it ; and many have committed suicide, being 
 unable to endure life, under the impression that they have 
 committed the unpardonable sin. Such is the influence 
 of this doctrine, that is set up in opposition to Universalism. 
 
 I now will show you, by way of contrast, how Uni- 
 versalists speak of the future life. Henry Brooke, a 
 celebrated writer, and a Universalist, thus expresses him- 
 self on the final consummation to which he looked for- 
 ward. I wish his language to be contrasted with that of 
 Tertullian, as manifesting one influence of Partialism; 
 and that of Saurin, as manifesting another of its eflfects. 
 I read the passage as quoted in the Modern History of 
 Universalism. 
 
 "And thus, in the grand and final consummation, when 
 every will shall be subdued to the will of good to all,, our Jesus 
 will take in hand the resigned chordage of our hearts : he will 
 tune them as so many instruments, and will touch them with 
 the finger of his own divine feelings. Then shall the wis- 
 dom, the might, and goodness of our God, become the wis- 
 dom, might, and goodness of all his intelligent creatures : the 
 happiness of each shall multiply and overflow in the wishes 
 and participation of the happiness of all ;" [not like those 
 who gloat over the misery of the damned I] "the universe 
 shall begin to sound with the song of congratulation : and all 
 voices shall break forth in an eternal hallelujah of praise, 
 transcending praise, and glory, transcending glory, to God 
 and the Lamb ! There shall be no lapse thenceforward, no 
 falling away forever; but God in his Christ, and Christ in 
 his redeemed, shall be a will and a wisdom, and an action 
 and a mightiness, and a goodness, and a graciousncss, and a 
 glory rising on glory, and a blessing rising on blessedness, 
 through an ever-beginning to a never-ending eternity ! !" 
 
 Now I ask you, my friends, to compare this view of the 
 future, with the views before presented. Which, think 
 you, is most in accordance with the character of the all- 
 wise, all-merciful God, and the teachings of the Bible ? 
 This view beautifully corresponds with that in Revelation 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 178 
 
 V. 13: "And every creature which is in heaven, and 
 on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the 
 sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying. Blessing, 
 and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth 
 upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever !" 
 This accords with the description of the immortal state as 
 given by Brooke. But how different from the screams 
 and groans of agony in Hell ! where spirits blaspheme and 
 curse God forever ! ! I place the two systems before 
 you; and ask, with all earnestness, Which will you 
 receive? and where, in your opinion, does God's truth lie? 
 
 I will proceed to present another argument, embracing 
 several passages which direcdy bear on the proposition, 
 that all men shall ultimately be holy and saved. I refer, 
 first, to the 1st Epistle of Paul to Timothy iv. 10, "For 
 therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we 
 trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men." 
 I now present, you perceive, passages containing the 
 words. Saviour, salvalion, and save. Here is the great 
 FACT proclaimed, that God "is the Saviour of all men;" 
 not in this life ; for all are not saved here ; nor from any 
 evil to which they are exposed, in the immortal state. It 
 is the final universal salvation. But there is another 
 clause to this passage: "We both labor and suffer re- 
 proach, because we trust in the living God who is the Sa- 
 viour of all men; especially of those that believe." 
 Now only a part believe ; and consequently, only a part 
 have this especial, present salvation enjoyed in this life. 
 They enjoy a distinct and partial salvation here. But 
 beyond that, is the salvation of all men, in the life to 
 come, — a deliverance from present sin, evil, and death. 
 
 I also present 1 Timothy ii. 4. The Apostle is ex- 
 horting that prayers be made for all men ; and adds, 
 " For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
 Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to 
 come unto the knowledge of the truth." All are not now 
 saved, in this life. Therefore God is not, in any sense, 
 the Saviour of all men in this life ; but " he will have all 
 men to BE SAVED and come to the knowledge of the truth." 
 15* 
 
174 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Titus ii. 11, 12, "For the grace of God that bring- 
 eth salvation hath appeared to all men ;" [now in the 
 marginal readings of some large Bibles, it is thus : " For 
 the grace of God that bringetk salvation to all men 
 hath appeared," etc. Dr. Adam Clarke, the celebrated 
 Methodist commentator, gives substantially the same trans- 
 lation. It is the correct version of the passage f\ " for the 
 GRACE of God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath 
 appeared ; teaching us to live soberly, righteously, and 
 godly, in this present world." Now all do not enjoy sal- 
 vation here ^ — therefore, if salvation is brought to all, it 
 must be hereafter. 
 
 1 John iv. 14, "And we have seen, and do testify, 
 that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the 
 WORLD." God therefore wills to save all men, by grace, 
 in Jesus Christ, his Son. The Father sent the Son to ac- 
 complish this great work. In three of the above passages, 
 " all men " is the phrase used ; and in the fourth, " the 
 world,'''' All of them teach final universal salvation, 
 most distinctly — admit that all men are not saved here, 
 all will be saved finally, if these passages are to be relied 
 on. I now leave this argument in Mr. Rice's hands, and 
 commend it to his careful and earnest attention. 
 
 I have now but a short time for the review of his last 
 speech. I pass over the minor m^atters, and notice only 
 what seem the more important. He says I read the Con- 
 fession in scraps, as the preacher preached from his text — 
 " top not come down." The audience will determine 
 whether I have garbled the Confession, or not. There 
 can be no possibility of mistake about the passages I read. 
 Their meaning is plain and explicit. The writers seem 
 to have labored especially to make their language perfect- 
 ly explicit. Hence I say, instead of turning out the 
 New School men, he ought to go out of the church himself. 
 He is not a Presbyterian, if he denies the plain teaching 
 of those passages in the Confession of Faith. 
 
 He tells us now, that he has not come here to discuss 
 with me, but with the premises of others J But the 
 premises of different persons may not be alike. All 
 
or tJNIVERSALISM. 175 
 
 Universalists, however, believe alike, in relation to the 
 main point ; viz : universal salvation ; though they dif- 
 fer on minor matters, as do Partialists also. Partialists 
 will agree on some one point ; but on all other points, 
 they will differ. Why may we not differ, as well as 
 they ? I thought the question before us, was, " Do the 
 Scriptures teach the final holiness and salvation of all 
 men .^" not the materiality of the soul, or the resurrec- 
 tion of this physical body. The question relates to the 
 boundaries of human salvation ; and this is why I talk 
 about infant election and damnation. Pagan damnation, 
 etc., as taught in the gentleman's Confession of Faith. 
 He talks about certain things as the premises of Univer- 
 salism. I say they are not the premises of Universalism ; 
 the conclusion is not built on them. It is true, some Uni- 
 versalists deny, and some believe in Vicarious Atonement. 
 Mr. Murray was a Trinitarian. He believed that the Father 
 created all men, that the Son saves all men, and that the Ho- 
 ly Spirit sanctifies all men; and some of the old Universal- 
 ists founded their argument on that doctrine ; to wit, that 
 Christ suffered the punishment of all the sins of all man- 
 kind ; — and I should like to see how Mr. Rice would set 
 aside an argument thus founded. He talks about tlie 
 great principles of Universalism. I repeat, these are not 
 our gi'eat principles. They are not taught in Univer- 
 salist books, as the great principles on which our 
 Faith rests. Some writers, it is true, have maintained 
 some of them, while others have denied them ; just as 
 one Presbyterian says one thing, and one another. Sup- 
 pose that I were to bring here all that Orthodox writers 
 have said on various subjects, as the great principles of 
 the gentleman's Faith ; would he be bound to defend 
 them ? By no means. But I bring my friend's Creed, 
 which he is bound to defend ; for if he should deny it, he 
 would be turned out of the church. 
 
 We have a great outcry from Mr. Rice, because I will 
 not undertake to tell precisely what becomes of the soul 
 between death and the resurrection. I know of no better 
 answer than that given by Scripture ; " the body to the 
 
176 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 dust, and the Spirit to God who gave it." He wants to 
 know whether the soul goes out of the body, holy and 
 happy at death, or sinful and miserable, or whether it 
 dies. All that I know about it is, that God takes care 
 of it, I know of no declaration in Scripture, more spe- 
 cial than that. Men die, and I have proved that they are 
 introduced at the resurrection, into an immortal state, pu- 
 rified and saved ; and then is completed the work of 
 Christ, in reconciling and subduing all things unto him- 
 self; when he shall deliver up his kingdom to God, the 
 Father, that *' God may be all in all !" Is not that 
 plainly enough drawn from Scripture, as I have thus pre- 
 sented it ? 
 
 As to the 8th of John, speaking of some that could not 
 go to Christ, Dr. Macknight interprets it as referring to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. Dr. George Campbell 
 says, " it may also denote that they should die, suffering 
 the punishment of their sins." The Saviour told Peter, 
 who asked for an explanation of his language, that al- 
 though he could not come then^ he should " follow him 
 afterwards.''^ He did not say so to the other disciples ; 
 neither to John, nor James, nor Matthew. But mark ! 
 Jesus Christ says, " If I be lifted up from the earth, / 
 will draw all men vnto me." Thus we see that all 
 will finally come to Christ. There was a time, when 
 they coidd not ; but finally all will be gathered together 
 in Christ, in one fold, to go out no more forever ! 
 
 [Time expired, 
 
 [mr. rice's ninth reply.] 
 All are Universalists, the gentleman says, who believe 
 in the eternal salvation of all men; and he would avail 
 himself of their endless contradictions amongst themselves, 
 to avoid the necessity of defending any of the great prin- 
 ciples of Universalism ! Whether the soul of man is ma- 
 terial and mortal, or immaterial and immortal; whether 
 God exists in Trinity or not ; whether Christ is divine 
 and human, or simply human? whether his sufferings 
 were vicarious, or only the sufferings of a martyr; these 
 
OP UNIVERSALISM. 177 
 
 and similar questions concerning the very fundamental 
 truths of Christianity, he tells us, have nothing to do with 
 the present discussion ! And why not ? Because those 
 called Universalists contradict each other on all these 
 great doctrines ! ! ! 
 
 But the gentleman cannot so easily escape. I hold in 
 my hand a Theological Discussion between Dr. Ely and 
 Mr. Abel C. Thomas, of this city — the gentleman who, 
 though quite a controversialist, seems to have ascertained 
 recently, that such discussions are not expedient ! On 
 page 25, Mr. Thomas says, **In noticing the third sys- 
 tem, I shall give you my own views — premising, that 
 they are the views of a very large majority of American 
 Universalists : 1st, I believe that God will render to every 
 man according to his deeds ; that is, according to his oum 
 deeds — consequently I reject the doctrine of vicarious 
 atonement. 2nd, I believe that the righteous shall be re- 
 compensed IN THE EARTH, much morc the wicked and 
 the sinner; consequently, I believe the Bible furnishes 
 no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life," 
 etc. Observe, Mr. Thomas says, these are the views of 
 a large majority of Jimmcan Universalists, I am 
 not going to occupy my time in discussing the views of 
 the Restorationists — a small fragment, now separated 
 from the body to which the gentleman belongs; for 
 there are New School Universalists and Old School Uni- 
 versalists. Whether the Old School excluded the New, 
 or the New School turned out the Old, I am not inform- 
 ed; but certain it is, they are divided. This is, indeed, 
 quite an advantage to my friend, Mr. Pingree; for he 
 rides modern Universalism, until he gets quite uneasy ; 
 and then he rides awhile on Restorationism ! He seems 
 resolved that I shall not find him. 
 
 His method of escape will fail him. I take standard 
 Universalist authors, purchased in his own office, and re- 
 commended by his brother Gurley ; and in the language 
 of these men I state, and then refute the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of Universalism ; and the gentleman shrinks from 
 defending them ! I have here a book entitled '^Exposition 
 
178 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 of Universalism, etc. by Rev. J. D. Williamson." In 
 the introduction, he gives the creed of Universalists, 
 which, in the body of the work, he defends. Amongst 
 the articles of the creed I find it stated, that there is one 
 God who does not exist iji Trinity, and that Jesus Christ 
 is a created and dependent being; and he proceeds to 
 state and advocate, as an exposition of IlniversaUsm, the 
 very doctrines and principles which Mr. Pingree finds 
 himself unable to defend. The truth seems to be, that 
 Universalism is becoming ashamed of itself! 
 
 A word about Sir Isaac Newton and other celebrated 
 names mentioned by the gentleman as Universalists. 
 What evidence does he produce, that Sir Isaac Newton 
 entertained such views ? Why, he says, Mr. Whiston 
 wrote against the eternity of hell torments ; and, he says, 
 Newton agreed with him ! This is, indeed, poor evidence. 
 Mr. Pingree has said, that the Confession of Faith agrees 
 with him on some points; but we know better. The 
 Universalists deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the divi- 
 nity of Christ, the atonement, the work of the Spirit, etc. ; 
 but all these doctrines were held by Newton, Clarke, Til- 
 lotson, etc. The truth is, they were not fourth cousins 
 to Universalists ! The gentleman gives us their names ; 
 but he reads not a word from their Writings. He de- 
 pends wholly upon Mr. Paige, who, if I rightly recollect, 
 mentions Dr. Doddridge as a Universalist ; and yet all 
 who have read his Family Expositor, know the charge 
 to be untrue. 
 
 This Mr. Paige is the man who, to obtain from ortho- 
 dox men concessions in favor of Universalism, took the 
 comment of Doddridge on .John v. 25, and placed it un- 
 der verses 28, 29 ; and who also took the comment of 
 Dr. Whitby on 1 Pet. iv. 6, and put it under John v. 28, 
 29 ! Excellent authority indeed ! More barefaced dis- 
 honesty I never knew, than is exhibited by this same 
 Lucius R. Paige. It is certainly necessary that Mr. 
 Pingree produce the original authorities, not citations or 
 assertions by Mr. Paige. 
 
 I presume it is scarcely necessary for me to defend the 
 
OF UNiVERSALISM. It9 
 
 Presbyterian church against the gentleman's charge of 
 persecution. He quotes certain laws enacted by the Eng- 
 lish Parliament. I ask him, whether that was a Presby- 
 terian Parliament? Did the Presbyterians control it? 
 But that all may see what reliance is to be placed in his 
 charges, I will read on page 343 of our Confession of 
 Faith. Here the Presbyterian church in these United 
 States, say : " They are unanimously of opinion, that ' God 
 alone is Lord of the conscience ; and hath left it free from 
 the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any 
 thing contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith 
 or worship;' therefore they consider the rights of private 
 judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as uni- 
 versal and unalienable. They do not even wish to see any 
 religious constitution aided by the civil power, further 
 than may be necessary for protection and security, and, 
 at the same time, be equal and common to all others^ 
 Such are the principles of religious liberty adopted by the 
 Presbyterian church. The gentleman professes to be 
 intimately acquainted with this book* Had he ever read 
 this important portion of it? If so, why had he not the 
 candor, whilst telling what Presbyterians in Europe did, 
 to inform the audience concerning our principles? No 
 man, as you plainly see, can be a Presbyterian without 
 renouncing all intolerant principles, and advocating civil 
 and religious liberty for all men. 
 
 And who, let me ask, were the men that in the Ameri- 
 can Revolution, stood in the front of the battle? The 
 blood of Presbyterians, and even of Presbyterian minis- 
 ters flowed freely in achieving the very liberty in which 
 the gentleman now rejoices, and which permits him freely 
 to defend the principles of Universalism! And now he 
 rests securely luider the glorious shadow of the tree of 
 liberty, and denounces as persecutors a considerable por- 
 tion of the very men who sacrificed their lives in its de- 
 fence ! ! Where then were the Universalis ts ? They, at 
 least, should blush to prefer against Presbyterians such a 
 charge. 
 
 The gentleman, by way of showing how cruel " Par- 
 
180 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 tialists" are, gave us a quotation from Tertullian, m which 
 he is made to express feelings the most unchristian and 
 even inhuman. This quotation he gives from the faithful 
 Mr. Paige. I confess, I have no confidence in that author. 
 I desire to see the original work. I wish to see whether 
 Tertullian's language is correctly translated. It is true, 
 he was an eccentric and unstable man, and wandered far 
 from the truth ; and he may have uttered such sentiments ; 
 but I desire further evidence. 
 
 As for Edwards and Boston, there is nothing in their 
 writings, indicating that they would "^Zoa/," (as Mr. 
 Pingree expresses it,) over the damnation of any human 
 being — not a word. I have some acquaintance with these 
 authors. They do say, that the righteous will acquiesce 
 in the judgment of God upon the wicked, as just. And 
 who will say otherwise ? They also say, that the righte- 
 ous, when they shall see the terrible doom of the ungodly, 
 will the more magnify the mercy, the gi-ace of God, in 
 saving them from a similar fate. When John Bunyan (I 
 believe it was he) saw a poor drunkard staggering along 
 the street, he exclaimed, "There goes John Bunyan, but 
 for the grace of God!" He did not rejoice in the degra- 
 dation of the poor wretch ; but he did praise God that he 
 had been preserved from similar degradation. But let the 
 gentleman, if he can, prove, that Edwards or Boston ever 
 said, the righteous would take pleasure in witnessing the 
 condemnation of the wicked. It is all a mistake, a puerile 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 But he would have you think, that those who believe 
 in the eternity of future punishment, are exceedingly 
 cruel in their feelings. Look at facts — stubborn facts. 
 Who, I ask, have contributed most liberally to extend the 
 circulation of the Bible, without note or comment? They 
 are the ''Partialistsy Who are the men that make most 
 sacrifices to send the Gospel to the heathen ; who take 
 their lives in their hands, and tear themselves from home 
 and country, that they may proclaim to them " the un- 
 searchable riches of Christ?" Who are the men whose 
 bodies lie buried on the shores of India and in the burning 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 181 
 
 sands of Africa? They are the men whom the gentleman 
 compares to the diabolical Moor, who compelled a man 
 to renounce his faith, and then murdered him ! ! ! This 
 audience is not to be misled by such trash. 
 
 To hear the gentleman declaim about universal benevo- 
 lence, one might be tempted to think Universalists more 
 benevolent than even the Saviour of men. He said : " He 
 that believeth not shall be damned;" but they are entirely 
 too compassionate to believe him ! Why do they not go 
 further, and deny that God, who is love, and whose ten- 
 der mercies are over all his works, permits any suffering 
 in this world? Why not deny, that we live in a world 
 of trouble, or a vale of tears ? Will not the very same 
 arguments which prove it inconsistent with the Divine 
 Perfections to permit sin and suffering in the next world, 
 prove as conclusively -that it is inconsistent to permit 
 sin and suffering in this? Let them be consistent, and 
 deny, at once, that there is either sin or suffering in tlie 
 universe ! 
 
 But the gentleman is ready with a reply. He says, all 
 this suffering is over-ruled for good — all is disciplinary. 
 Will he please inform us, what advantage it was to 
 Corah, Dathan and Abiram, and their company, to be swal- 
 lowed up in the earth? Did this punishment reform 
 them? 
 
 Universalism indeed promises great things ; but its 
 works are sadly defective. It reminds one of the "great 
 swelling words of vanity " which, the Apostle Peter said, 
 would be employed by false teachers in the latter days — 
 promising men liberty, whilst " they themselves are the 
 servants of corruption," 2. Pet. iii. 18, 19. It promises 
 salvation to all, the godly and the ungodly, whilst it claims 
 fraternity with the most impious heresies of ancient times 
 — the heresies of the Gnostics — and tears away the only 
 foundation on which a sinner can rationally build a hope 
 of salvation. 
 
 To prove the doctrine of Universalism, Mr. Pingree 
 quotes 1 Tim. iv. 10, " For therefore we both labor 
 and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, 
 16 
 
182 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that be^ 
 lieve." To this argument I reply — 1. Whatever this 
 passage may mean, it does not suit Univexsalism ; for 
 Hosea Ballou, in his Lectures (page 14) says*—" The 
 common doctrine, vrhich teaches us, that Christ Jesus 
 came into this world to save us in another workU is con- 
 trary to all the representations which are found in the 
 Scriptures." Here we are told, Christ did not come into 
 this world to save men in another world. Of course, 
 then, we are to understand this salvation as belonging to 
 the present life ; and it is admitted, that all are not saved 
 here. Universalists tell us, that the salvation effected by 
 Christ, is confined to this world ; and yet they constantly 
 interpret the Scriptures that speak of this salvation, as re- 
 ferring to another life — to the resurrection to holiness and 
 happiness! 2. But mark the language of the Apostle: 
 God is " the Saviour of all men, specially of them that 
 believed The gentleman's exposition of this passage is 
 truly singular. The obvious meaning is, that God is die 
 Saviour of all men in one sense, but specially, that is, in a 
 higher sense he is the Saviour of believers. All men en- 
 joy the divine protection and are supplied with many 
 blessings here ; but believers are blessed here and here- 
 after. Godliness has the promise of the life that now is, 
 and of that which is to come. But Mr. Pingree makes 
 the word "specially" refer to the iyiferior salvation; that 
 is, believers, he says, are saved here to some extent ; but 
 all men are to enjoy the greater salvation. This looks 
 like reasoning backward ! 
 
 The next passage quoted by Mr. Pingree, is 1 Tim. ii. 
 4, " Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to 
 the knowledge of the truth." He makes some preten- 
 sions, I presume, to an acquaintance with the Greek lan- 
 guage. If so, he ought to know, that the Greek word, 
 (thelei) translated will have, does not express a pvrpose 
 to save all men, but the benevolent desire that all might* 
 come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved. But • 
 Universalists ask, cau any of God's benevolent desires 
 fail to be accomplished ? We will let the Bible be its 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 183 
 
 own interpreter. As the benevolent Jesus was descend- 
 ing from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, " he beheld 
 the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, 
 even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which be- 
 long unto thy peace ! But now they are hid from thine 
 eyes," Luke xix. 41, 42. On another occasion he took 
 up a lamentation over Jerusalem, and said — " O Jerusa- 
 lem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stoneth 
 them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have 
 gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 
 her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, 
 your house is left unto you desolate," Matt, xxiii. 37, 
 38. But did these benevolent feelings of Jesus save 
 Jerusalem ? 
 
 Similar language is found in the Old Testament. 
 There God, at the very moment when he expressed his 
 purpose to heap mischief upon the rebellious Jews, to 
 send his heavy judgments upon them, uses the following 
 language : " O that they were wise, that they under- 
 stood this, that they would consider their latter end." 
 Deut. xxxii. 29. Again : " O that my people had heark- 
 ened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways," (fee. 
 Ps. Ixxxi. 13. But did God save them from impending 
 judgments ? He did not. So by the prophet Ezekiel 
 God employs this language : ** Say unto them, as I live, 
 saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of 
 the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from his way and 
 live ; turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways ; for why 
 will ye die, O house of Israel ?" Thiis God expressed 
 his benevolence toward men ; but did he, therefore, save 
 them ? No — he lets them understand most distinctly, 
 that unless they would turn from their iniquity and serve 
 Him, they must be punished. When we allow the Bi- 
 ble to explain its own language, we see at once, that the 
 gentleman's argument has no force. 
 
 Mr. Pingree attempts to sustain Universalism by Ti- 
 tus, ii. 11, "For the grace of God that bringeth salva- 
 tion, hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that, deny- 
 ing ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, 
 
184 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Hghteously and godly in this present world ; looking for 
 that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great 
 God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," &c. He proposes to 
 change the translation and read it thus : " The grace of 
 God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared," 
 &c. I shall not object to his translation. It is true, the grace 
 of God, the Gospel of Clirist, brings salvation to all men; 
 it offers to all everlasting life ; but on what conditions ? 
 They must live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this 
 present world. They must accept the offered grace ; 
 for Christ himself says — " he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." This salvation was offered by the Apostles to 
 the Jews of Antioch. " Men and brethren," said they, 
 *' children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among 
 you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent." 
 The Jews rejected the offered salvation. " Then Paul and 
 Barnabas waxed bold, and said. It was necessary that the 
 word of God should first have been spoken to you : but 
 seeing ye put it from you, dind judge yourselves unwor^ 
 thy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles," 
 Acts xiii. 26, 46. The grace of God ofiers salvation to 
 all; but they must receive it, must believe, or be con- 
 demned. 
 
 Such are the flimsy arguments by which Universal- 
 ism attempts to sustain itself. It is scarcely necessary, 
 after what I have said, to reply to the argument from the 
 first Epistle of John, where Christ is said to be the Sa- 
 viour of the world. Does not Mr. Ballon say, that Christ 
 saves men in this world, not in the next? All the salva- 
 tion we are to expect from Jesus Christ, he says, is here, 
 not hereafter. Let my friend settle the difficulty with 
 " Father Ballon," and I will attend to him. 
 
 He repeats the charge, that the Old School Presbyte- 
 rians turned the New School out of the church. Thej^ 
 did no such thing. We yet regard them as Christian 
 brethren. They, for reasons which satisfied them, with- 
 drew from the church. It was, indeed, believed that 
 some amongst them, so far departed from the form of 
 sound words, as set forth in our Confession of Faith, that 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 186 
 
 {hey ought not to be permitted to exercise the ofRce of 
 the ministry am.ongst us. Still, however, they might 
 have retained their standing as members of the church. 
 We excommunicate none for heresy, but those who reject 
 some one or more of the fundamental doctrines of the 
 Gospel. I hope the gentleman will take the trouble to in- 
 form himself on these subjects, before he again undertakes 
 to state facts, and prefer charges. 
 
 The gentleman would fain make the impression, that 
 " Partialists," as he calls those who differ from him, differ 
 as widely amongst themselves, as do Universalists. 
 Some, he says, believe in future punishment on the Ar- 
 minian principle of free agency; and others, on the ground 
 of unconditional foreordination. I am not acquainted with 
 any Calvinists who believe in a foreordination inconsist- 
 ent with free agency. Moreover, all Calvinists, so far as 
 I know, hold, that none will ever be punished except 
 "/or their sinJ'^ 
 
 Mr. Pingree tells you, he brought forward the doctrine 
 of infant damnation as an answer to my remark, that in- 
 fants may be sanctified before the soul leaves this world. 
 What kind of a reply was this? The Confession of 
 Faith teaches, that "elect infants dying in infancy are 
 sanctified and saved;" therefore infants cannot be sancti- 
 fied before the resurrection ! Strange logic this ! 
 
 The gentleman still seeks to excuse himself in not 
 attempting to reply to my arguments against Universal- 
 ism, by asserting, that the principles I have exposed are 
 not the great principles of Universalism ; because some 
 few who are called Universalists, do not hold them. It 
 is true, that Universalists differ most materially amongst 
 themselves in relation to the most important doctrines of 
 revelation. Murray, for example, one of the first Uni- 
 versalists in the country, of the Restorationist school, held 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, and founded his belief of ihe 
 salvation of all men on the vicarious sufferings of Christ. 
 Ballou and modern Universalists pronounce the doctrine 
 of the Trinity a gross absurdity, and the doctrine of atone- 
 ment, carnality and death. They differ no less on other 
 16* 
 
186 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 points ; and this is one of the most convincing evidences 
 of the falsity of Universalism. For if the conclusion, that 
 all will be saved, were true ; surely they would not so flatly 
 contradict each other in all the premises by which the 
 conclusion is reached* 
 
 Mr. Pingree has admitted, that faith is necessary in or- 
 der to " Gospel salvation,^^ 1 have inquired of him, 
 where he gets his authority to preach any other salvation 
 but Gospel salvation. The Saviour commissioned the 
 Apostles to "preach the Gospel," and, of course. Gospel 
 salvation. Has the gentleman received any other com- 
 mission? If not, by what authority is he preaching a 
 salvation which is not Gospel salvation? He gives no 
 answer. And it is no less strange and absurd, that he is 
 here attempting to prove by the Gospel a salvation, which 
 he acknowledges, is not Gospel salvation! When shall 
 we get to the end of these endless contradictions ? 
 
 [^Time expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's tenth speech.] 
 I shall commence this speech, by introducing another 
 distinct argument for final universal salvation ; as I pre- 
 sume I shall have to sit down before I have time to review 
 the speech last made. I produce Genesis xxii. 15 — 18, 
 containing the promise made to Abraham; "And the an- 
 gel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the 
 second time and said. By myself have I sworn, saith the 
 Lord ; for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not 
 withheld thy son, thine only son ; that in blessing I will 
 bless thee ; and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as 
 the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon 
 the sea-shore." These temporal blessings were confined 
 to the descendants of Abraham ; and we do not rely upon 
 that part of the promise, for proof of universal salvation. 
 Here is the part we present as proof: " and in thy seed 
 shall AiA. the nations of the earth be blessed." This 
 promise was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, and referred to 
 in the New Testament ; where the phrases, " all the kin- 
 dreds of the earth," and " all the families of the earth," 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 187 
 
 are used. In Genesis, it says, "all nations." I shall 
 understand this passage in the universal sense, until the 
 contrary is shown. What is that blessing thus promised 
 to all nations ? The Apostle Peter, in Acts iii. 25, refers to 
 it in this language : " Ye are the children of the Prophets, 
 and of the covenant, which God made with our fathers ; 
 saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kin- 
 dreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God hav- 
 ing raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, [how ? 
 the answer is] in turning away every one oj you from 
 HIS INIQUITIES." This I claim, as thus explained by 
 Peter, to be a promise of holiness and salvation to all 
 mankind. When the Saviour was addressing the Jews, 
 he said — *' You will not come unto me ;" but he afterwards 
 said, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men 
 unto me." In the 1 1th of Romans also, it is said, that the 
 Jews would be received again. Hence, although they 
 could not come to him, /or a time, they would finally come. 
 It may be said that their being received at last would de- 
 pend on faith; if so, they would enjoy the promise by 
 faith. I wish here to make a general remark in relation 
 to this matter. The Gospel is good tidings. But ever- 
 lasting damnation is no part of good tidings. It is a Gos- 
 pel of great joy to all people. It is not the tidings of 
 endless damnation to man. It is the annunciation of the 
 purpose of God to save all men. Those who believe it 
 '■'are savecV by faith. Those who do not, "arc con- 
 demned.^'' But the purpose of God for universal salva- 
 tion, remains immutable, and cannot fail. The salvation 
 that is conditional, and received by faith, is a present, 
 an especial salvation, enjoyed on earth only by believers. 
 In Romans iii. 3, 4, Paul asks, " For what if some did 
 not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God 
 without effect? God forbid ! Yea, let God be true, but 
 every man a liar: as it is written. That thou mightest be 
 justified in thy sayings," etc. What is " the faith of 
 God'' spoken of in this place ? " Faith " is here put for 
 the PROMISE of God ; and is once, in the New Testament, 
 rendered '' assurance J" This will not be denied. Dr. 
 
188 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Philip Doddridge, andDr. Adam Clarke, both say this is the 
 meaning of the word here. Then we read, " Shall their 
 unbelief make the promise of God wdlhout effect?" They 
 are not saved now, for want of faith ; but shall their want 
 of faith make void the promise of God, for xhe'ir final sal- 
 vation? " God forbid ! yea, let God be true, but every 
 man a liar." Every man will and does suffer for his un- 
 belief; yet the promise of God will still be good for the 
 final holiness and blessedness of all the families, kindreds, 
 and nations of the earth. 
 
 I now proceed to review Mr. Rice's first speech, begin- 
 ning where I left off. He asks if those who commit sins 
 will be changed after death ? According to the Confession 
 of Faith, sortie w^ill, and others will not. I have already 
 shown that it teaches a change after death for the saints^ 
 who die sinners ; but how is it with common sinners ? 
 See Confession of Faith, p. 73 : " Works done by unre- 
 generate men, although for the matter of them, they may 
 be things which God commands, and of good use, both to 
 themselves and others; yet because they proceed not 
 from a heart purified by faith ; nor are done in a right 
 manner, according to the word ; nor to a right end, the 
 glory of God ; they are therefore sinful ; and csmiot 
 please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from 
 God : and yet their neglect is more sinful and disphas- 
 ing unto God." Good works sinful, and the neglect of 
 them still more sinful ! a dreadful state for human beings 
 to be in ! Is this the God you worship ? The God of 
 love ? The Father of our spirits, and the Saviour of the 
 world? But Mr. Rice says I am ignorant of the Con- 
 fession of Faith. I understand it pretty well, I think ; 
 at least, well enough for my friend's pleasure. 
 
 Again ; upon the resurrection of the body — this mate- 
 rial body. I say that man, as a human being on the earth, 
 is mortal and dies, I believe the Sacred Writers, in speak- 
 ing of man, of death, and of the resurrection, did not in- 
 dulge in metaphysical niceties, distinctions, or specula- 
 tions. They say men die, and that they will live again 
 hereafter. That is the plain teaching of the Word of 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 189 
 
 God ; and that is our Faith. Mr. Rice thinks it very ri- 
 diculous to deny the resurrection of this animal body. I 
 see nothing ridiculous in it. Besides, some Orthodox 
 writers believe with us, on the subject — I need only men- 
 tion Locke, and Professor Bush, a man of high standing 
 as a scholar and a theologian, Professor of Hebrew in the 
 New York City University. They believe that this body 
 is not to be raised. Right in the ranks of my friend, 
 then, are distinguished names avowing the same senti- 
 ment that we do. 
 
 Mr. Rice says Paul applies to us the word, ** fool," in 
 answer to the inquiry whether this same body is to be 
 raised. Why did he not read the whole verse ? The ver- 
 sion would be different, and perhaps the application. He 
 might hear Paul say, |0°* " Thou fool ! thou sowest not 
 that body that shall be " ! I I trust this will be enough 
 on that point. 
 
 My friend asks, mortal what ? I answer, mortal marij 
 as he exists here, " subject to vanity ;" — morta!, in refer- 
 ence to this mode of existence ; but to be changed here- 
 after to an IMMORTAL, " clothed upon with a house from 
 heaven ;" as we are taught in 2 Cor. v. 1—4. 
 
 As to " twisting and turnhig," charged on me, by Mr. 
 Rice, I need make no remarks. You all, my respected 
 auditors, can judge where most of the "twisting and 
 turning" in this discussion are to be found. 
 
 He says we are to be reconciled, (as in Colossians,) 
 upon the condition o{ faith. Not so. God's purpose is 
 to reconcile all — " the world." But some are already 
 reconciled, in part. The whole work is to be completed 
 at the resurrection, when all are to " be subdued to the 
 Son of God," — a passage my friend does not seem dis- 
 posed to look at. 
 
 I now pass over several minor matters, and come to 
 my friend's last speech. He tells you that I am resolved 
 to defend nothing. He wishes me to discuss the Trinity, 
 the Atonement, the Deity of Christ, the Personality of 
 the Holy Spirit, the materiality of the soul, and a great 
 variety of other questions in theology, each of which, if 
 
190 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 discussed fully, would consume the whole of the eight 
 nights allotted to this discussion. I certainly will not 
 CONSENT TO THIS. I am here to discuss the proposition 
 before us : " Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holi- 
 ness AND salvation OF ALL MEN ?" To that I present my 
 proofs ; and I should like to see the gentleman take them 
 and set them aside, if he can ; and not go off into other 
 questions of general theology and metaphysics, which he 
 calls the preinises of TTniversalism ; but which I have 
 already shown not to be the premises of our doctrine. 
 Universalists differ widely upon some questions, although 
 united by a common sublime Hope. We are not like the 
 Presbyterians ; — we are more liberal — more truly pro- 
 testant than they. We are not bound down, and ham- 
 pered, and cramped, as they are, by a Creed hardly two 
 hundred years old. We are allowed to interpret the Bible 
 for ourselves ; and hence we are allowed more difference 
 of opinion in minor matters than they are. 
 
 My friend says I sometimes ride one horse, and some- 
 times another, in this controversy. I leave you to judge 
 of that. The audience can tell if I have been obliged to 
 take one system of doctrine, or plan of argument, and 
 then an opposite. I have spoken to the great question of 
 HUMAN SALVATION ; and have drawn my proofs from the 
 Word of God. I have wandered from this, only to fol- 
 low my friend, Mr. Rice. Have you seen me jump from 
 one thing to another, or " twist and turn," to get out of 
 difficulty 1 I think you will all bear testimony that I 
 have pursued a straight forward course of affirmative ar- 
 gument, throughout this whole discussion. I suspect 
 these remarks were intended for those whom Mr. Rice 
 may imagine to be present, who cannot appreciate argu- 
 ments for themselves ; and who, he thinks, will know no 
 better. But I pass on. 
 
 "Ashamed of Universalism;" am I? Does my man- 
 ner of stating and advocating the doctrine denote it?! 
 But how is it with old Orthodoxy? Dr. Beecher says — 
 contrary to Orthodoxy of the old style — that far the great- 
 er portion of mankind will be saved ; that no more will 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 191 
 
 be finally lost, compared with the number saved, than are 
 hung, compared with the community at large. Rev. Dr. 
 Parker, of New York chy, has expressed the opinion 
 that no more will be damned, compared with the world at 
 large, than are sent to the penitentiary! Thjs looks as 
 if they were becoming ashamed of old fashioned Ortho- 
 doxy. Thank God! .we have no occasion to be ashamed 
 of Universalism. 
 
 With regard to "Paige's Selections," Mr. Rice would 
 like to throw suspicion on the genuineness of the quota- 
 tions there given ; but he will hardly be able to succeed 
 in this. I think Mr. Paige does not claim Dr. Doddridge 
 as a Universalist He quotes the verses preceding the 
 verse in question, and gives the comment of Doddridge 
 on those verses, 24 and 25, to show the meaning of the 
 words, "^e«f/," and '* resurrection,^^ Doddridge says, that 
 in verse 24, "death" plainly signifies a state of sin and 
 condemnation. And Paige quotes Doddridge, not as com- 
 menting on verse 28, but on verses 24 and 25; which is 
 exactly fair and honest. There is no concealment or dis- 
 honesty about it. I suppose, if anybody has said Dod- 
 dridge was a Universalist, he was probably mistaken; 
 although some writers affirm that he became a Universal- 
 ist before he died. 
 
 Those persons that I have spoken of as persecuting for 
 opinion's sake, and as expressing certain monstrous senti- 
 ments, my friend says, were not Presbyterians. But they 
 were Calvinists ; and held substantially all the doctrines 
 of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith ; and this fact 
 shows the propriety of my using their names in this con- 
 nection. My friend has probably heard something of the 
 persecutions at Geneva; and Calvin was a Calvinist, from 
 whom present Calvinism descended; although Calvin 
 himself received it from Augustine. Their name is of 
 no consequence, so far as the present controversy is con- 
 cerned. 
 
 He attempts to get rid of my quotations from Edwards, 
 and Boston, and others, in a very curious manner. He 
 tells us they did not rejoice that any were damned; but 
 
193 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 that themselves were saved. Let us see if that is the 
 correct view of the matter. Boston says, " The godly hus- 
 band shall say Amen ! to the damnation of her who lay 
 in his bosom! and the godly wife shall say Hallelujah! to 
 the damnation of her ungodly husband!" etc. This 
 looks very much like what I affirmed. 
 
 In reply to my remarks about the cruelty of Partial- 
 ism, and the unholy spirit manifested by some Partialists, 
 my friend says, these very people are very benevolent, 
 sending the Bible to the heathen, and all that. But these 
 are not of the class to which Tertullian belonged — who 
 exulted and laughed over the damnation of his enemies ; 
 but more like the good and eloquent Saurin, to whose 
 soul the doctrine of endless woe was "a mortal poison l''\ 
 But why should the Orthodox hate and oppose our Faith ? 
 We only preach the accomplishment of what they labor 
 and pray for, according to Mr. Rice's own representa- 
 tions. It is strange that they should denounce us, merely 
 for teaching that their holiest prayers will all be answer- 
 ed ! Mr. Rice says, we profess to be more compassion- 
 ate than the Saviour, because the Saviour eternally damns 
 those who do not believe. AYe deny this assertion, or 
 that his words will bear any such construction. He 
 says, those who believe not '•'-are condemned already.'''* 
 This is also taught in the 5th of Romans. Paul there 
 teaches, that " condemnation has come upon all men, for 
 that all have sinned." While in imhelief, all men are 
 condemned; but it is taught, nevertheless, that God's 
 purpose will be accomplished, finally; and that purpose 
 is, that all are to become righteous, to be saved, and come 
 to the knowledge of the truth. We do not deny dam- 
 nation or Hell ; but deny that it is in the iiiimortal world, 
 or continues to all eternity. I have before intimated to 
 you, that the words "Hell," and "damnation," would 
 not be brought forward till late in the discussion. Should 
 this prove to be the fact, the inference will be, that Mr. 
 Rice is conscious that they will not bear investigation, 
 and this audience will so judge. 
 
 He says, that according to Universalism. if God is so 
 
OF UxXlVERSALISM. 193 
 
 benevolent as to save all men finally^ he ought not to 
 permit sin and suffering here. But v^e believe that God 
 overrules evil for good. The sin of Joseph's brethren 
 was overruled, for the good, not of Joseph alone, but of 
 • his wicked brethren, and of all Egypt besides. God is 
 notf too compassionate to permit present' suffering, be- 
 cause he will bring good out of evil. Hence, Universal- 
 ists are the only people under heaven, holding a religious 
 system that enables them to "justify the ways of God to 
 man." Whatever may be present darkness, or blind- 
 ness, or evil, all will terminate gloriously — in the glory 
 of God, and the happiness of man. 
 
 Mr. Rice interprets the declaration, that God "will 
 HAVE all to be saved, and come to a knowledge of the 
 truth," to mean only that God desires that result. What ! 
 a Calvinist give this interpretation of 1 Tim, ii. 4 ! ? 
 an Old School Presbyterian say that! ? that God desires 
 the salvation of all! If he had been an Arminian, I might 
 have expected such a reply, but not from a Calvinist. 
 The Calvinists admit God's absolute will for salvation, 
 but ojily of a part; with them it is a matter of foreordi- 
 nation and decree. As to Mr. Rice's criticism on the 
 Greek word, here rendered " tvill,^^ It is neither correct 
 nor important. It sometimes means will, and some- 
 times desire. When the Saviour said to the leper, "I 
 WILL — be thou clean," he did not express a mere de- 
 sire, but a determinate will. And this is the nature 
 of the will of Almighty God, for universal salvation. 
 If not — if it be merely a desire, and yet all not saved, 
 I would like to know if God will not possess an un- 
 gratified desire to all eternity ! That result would fol- 
 low, if my friend's exposition of the passage be correct. 
 I should like to have an answer to this inquiry. 
 Besides, does Mr. Rice, an Old School Presbyterian, 
 mean to say that God really even desires the salvation 
 of ALL men? All those expressions of Jesus Christ, 
 which he quoted, are to be understood in a qualified and 
 restricted sense ; as when he said, " I would have gath- 
 ered you together, but ye would not ;" elsewhere—-" I 
 17 
 
194 
 
 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 WILL draw all men unto me'' That will will certainly 
 be accomplished. " God has no pleasure in the death 
 of the wicked," in itself considered, merely for the sake 
 of death; still he did make men "subject to vanity;" at 
 the same time ordaining their ultimate deliverance into 
 the glorious liberty of the sons of God. But what says 
 the Creed, on man's present sinfulness, and God's " de- 
 sire" (!) for the sinner's salvation? See the Confession of 
 Faith, Chap. V. Sect. IV. "As for those wicked and un- 
 godly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former 
 sins, doth blind and pardon ; from them he not only 
 withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been 
 enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon in 
 their hearts ; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts 
 which they had; and exposeth them to such objects as 
 their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, 
 gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of 
 the world, and the power of Satan ; whereby it comes to 
 pass that they harden themselves, even under those 
 means which God useth for the softening of others '' 
 
 Does Mr. Rice believe that men can turn to God, 
 whom God does not desire to have turned to him ? and 
 does God desire the salvation of those thus described in 
 the Creed? But, he says, the terms of salvation are 
 offered to all. They are not offered to all. Millions 
 of men live and die, to whom the Gospel is not offered. 
 But the Bible language is, that the grace of God bringeth 
 salvation to all men; and \he proclamation of this salvation 
 that shall come to all, is the Gospel. Those who hear 
 and receive that Gospel, have the present, special salva- 
 tion in this life. [_Time expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's tenth reply.] 
 My friend, Mr. Pingree, will discover, before the close of 
 this discussion, that when I state facts, and they are denied, 
 they will be proved. He denies that Mr. Paige acted 
 improperly in relation to Doddridge's comment of John 
 V. 25, 28, 29. Let us see. On page 174 of his Selec- 
 tions, Mr. Paige quotes the passage in John v. 28, 29 — 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 195 
 
 " Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which 
 all that are in the graves shall hear his voice," &c. This 
 is the only passage quoted in this section. He then re- 
 marks as follows : 
 
 " Orthodox writers and preachers, in the present day, at- 
 tach about as much importance to this passage, as to the par- 
 able of the rich man and Lazarus. They seem to be positive, 
 that the doctrine of endless misery is taught here. Although 
 my proof to the contrary, drawn from writers who believed 
 the doctrine of torments in the future life, for sins committed 
 in this, is not so full as on some other texts, yet a few selec- 
 tions will be exhibited." 
 
 And \yh?t pelections does he give ? The first is Light- 
 foQt, \tho says : 
 
 "These words miglitalso be applied to a spiritual resurrec- 
 tion, as were the former, (and so, comtJig out of graven mean- 
 eth, Ezek. xxxvii. 12,) the words of the verse following be- 
 ing only translated and glossed thus : U7id they sfuill come 
 forth^ they that do good, after they hear his voice in the Gospel, 
 '<io the resurrection of life ; and they thrit do evil, after they hear 
 the Gospel, unto the resurrection of damnation. But they are 
 more generally understood of the general resurrection," &e. 
 Harm. Evang. Part iii. John v. 28. 
 
 But Lightfoot, as Mr. Paige admits, adopted this com- 
 mon and obvious interpretation as the true one ; for he 
 
 remarks : 
 
 " Hence it appears, that Lightfoot considered this applica- 
 tion allowable, though he rather chose to adopt the opinion, 
 which he says was more generally received." 
 
 The second " orthodox" autliority he quotes, is Cappe, 
 a Universalist of the Restorationist school, brought for- 
 ward as making concessions favorable to Univcrsalism ! 
 He says, 
 
 "Rev. Newcome Cappe believed, most firmly, in a future 
 retribution, or, in other words, misery in the future life. — 
 Whether he believed that misery will be endless, or not, is of no 
 consequence, so far as the present question is concerned." 
 
 Next, Doddridge is introduced without remark, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Some dead bodies raised to life, and many souls made 
 spiritually alive. I expf^ss it thus ambiguously, because I 
 am something doubtful whether it may not refer to the conver- 
 
196 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 sion of sinners by Chrisfs ministry, rather than the resurrec-- 
 Hon of a few by his miraculous power. It is well known, sin- 
 ners are often represented in Scripture as dead ; (Mat. viii. 
 22, Eph. ii. 1, V. 14, 1 Tim. v. 6, and Jude ver. 12,) and if 
 the expression, oi akousantes, is to be taken as we render it, 
 with the most literal exactness, for tkey that hear, or they, and 
 they alone, that so attend unto the voice of Christ as to be- 
 lieve in him — it will then limit it to this sense ; which seems 
 also favored by ver. 24, where death plainly signifies a state 
 of sin and cofidemnation.^^ Note in ver, 25. 
 
 Now mark the fact — Doddridge is here introduced as 
 an orthodox writer conceding the correctness of the Uni- 
 versalist interpretation of John v. 28, 29. Let us now 
 look at the true comment of Doddridge on this passage. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 " And therefore, wonder not at this which I have now de- 
 clared concerning the resurrection of a few, shortly to be ex- 
 pected ; for the time is coming in which all that are dead and 
 BURIED NOW, and all that shall then be lying in the graves, 
 though mouldered awaj^ and consumed there, shall hear his 
 voice, and shall come forth out of the dust, they thai have done 
 good, to the resurrection of eternal life, and they that have done 
 evil, to the resurrection of final damnation.'^'' 
 
 Such is the real paraphrase of this important passage 
 by Dr. Doddridge. This, however, is entirely omitted 
 by Mr. Paige, and a note on the 25th verse, which is 
 admitted to speak of spiritual death, introduced in its 
 stead ! 
 
 The next "orthodox" concession is from Dr. Whitby. 
 Does he quote the real comment of Whitby on the pas- 
 sage under consideration ? He does not. He, howeyer, 
 takes Whitby's note on 1 Pet. iv. 6, and places it under 
 John v. 28, 29, as an admission by Whitby, that the Uni- 
 versalist exposition of the passage is correct ! At the end 
 of this note, as in the case of Doddridge, he places the 
 following : ''Annot, in 1 Pet. iv. 6 ;" which might read- 
 ily be understood to be simply a reference to what Whit- 
 by had said in relation to that passage. Why were these 
 extracts placed under this passage, as " orthodox" conces- 
 sions ? This is the honest Mr. Paige ! 1 confess, I have 
 no confidence in him. Mr. Pingree would do well to 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 197 
 
 bring forward the real writings of authors, and not rely on 
 such extracts. 
 
 The first argument offered in his last speech, is the 
 promise to Abraham — "And in thy seed all the families of 
 the earth shall be blessed." This promise is explained 
 by Paul: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would 
 justify the heathen through faith, preached before the 
 Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed," Cial. iii. 8. The Church of Christ was to 
 embrace, at a future day, not only the natural descendants 
 of Abraham, but all nations, who were to be justified 
 1 hr OK gh faith, not without faith. Moreover, Hosea Bal- 
 lon, the youno^ man who, at the age of 21, was so wise, 
 assorts, that Christ did not come to save men in another 
 world, but in this. Mr. Ballon is against Mr. Pingree ; 
 and they must settle the difficulty as best they can. 
 
 The gentleman's second argument was founded on Acts 
 iii. 26, " Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son 
 Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one 
 of you from his iniquities." Does the Apostle say, they 
 were to be turned from their iniquities in another world? 
 Certainly not. Besides, Ballon says, Christ did not come 
 to save men in another world. Therefore they must, even 
 according to Universalism, be turned from their iniquities 
 and blessed in this world, or never ! 
 
 But the gentleman also quoted the declaration of Christ, 
 " And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." 
 So it is said "All Judea, and all the region round about 
 Jordan" were baptized by John in Jordan, "confessing 
 their sins," Matt. iii. 5, 6. And yet we are informed by 
 the inspired writers themselves, that many refused to re- 
 ceive John's baptism, (Luke vii. 30.) Such language is 
 constantly used to signify a great number ; and since the 
 Scriptures every where make faith a condition of salva- 
 tion, it must be so understood here. ^ 
 
 The next passage quoted by Mr. Pingree, is Rom. xi. 
 26, " And so all Israel shall be saved." To this I an- 
 swer — 1. The Apostle, in the 9th chapter of this same 
 Epistle, confines the promise of salvation to those Jews 
 17* 
 
198 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 who repent and believe in Christ. "For," says he, "all 
 are not Israel that are of Israel : neither because they are 
 the seed of Abraham, are they all children ; but, in Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the 
 children of the flesh, these are not the children of 
 God; but the children of the promise are counted for 
 the seed,^^ verses 6 — 8. 2. The obvious meaning of the 
 passage is, as the connection proves, that the Jews, as a 
 people, though dispersed among all nations for many cen- 
 turies, will, when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, 
 be converted to Christianity and saved. 
 
 I must now pay my respects to the gentleman's argu- 
 ment from Rom. viii. 19 — " For the earnest expectation of 
 the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of 
 God," &:c. Does the Apostle say, the creature itself waits 
 to he made the sons of God? By no means. Yet this 
 must be his meaning, if Universalism is to be supported 
 by this passage. But look at the connection. In verses 
 16, 17 of the same chapter, we read as follows: "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 also be glorified together." 
 That is, if we here become children of God, and are 
 willing to suffer for the sake of Christ, not ofherurise, we 
 shall be glorified — we shall secure the inheritance. And 
 what is the inheritance ? Peter shall answer : " 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, and unde- 
 filed, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for 
 you, who are kept by the power of God through faith 
 unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time," 1 
 Pet. i. 3 — 5. Observe, this inheritance is in heaven ; and 
 those who are to obtain it, are kept by the power of God 
 through faith unto salvation. It thus appears conclusively, 
 that faith is essential to salvation ; and consequently the gen- 
 tleman's exposition of Rom. viii. 19, is wholly incorrect. 
 
OF tINIVERSALISM. 199 
 
 His next argument is founded on Rom. iii. 3 : " For 
 what if some did not believe ? Shall their unbelief make 
 the faith of God without effect?" By the faith of God 
 he understands the pro7nises of God. But I ask, has God 
 any where promised to save the impenitent and unbeliev- 
 ing ? He has not ; for in this same chapter, the Apostle 
 makes faith necessary to salvation — " Being justified freely 
 by his grace through the. redemption that is in Christ Je- 
 sus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood, <fec.— that he [God] might be just and 
 the justifier of him that helieveth m Jesiis,'^ There is 
 not a word here, intimating that God eVer promised to 
 save those who do not believe. 
 
 The gentleman would fain excite prejudice against our 
 Confession of Faith, because it teaches that the works of 
 the un regenerate are not good, and yet the neglect of 
 them would be more sinful. Will he be kind enough to 
 explain the following passage of Scripture ? — " Because 
 the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not sub- 
 ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then 
 they that are in the flesh cannot please God," Rom. viii. 
 7, 8. In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul, show- 
 ing the necessity of charity or love in order to rendering 
 acceptable service to God, says — " Though I bestow all 
 my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to 
 be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing," 
 ch. xiii. 1 — 3. 
 
 Locke and Bush, of whom the gentleman speaks as 
 Orthodox, are not so considered. Whatever may have 
 been the standing of Dr. Bush for soundness before the 
 appearance of his late work on the Resurrection, he is 
 not, and cannot be, hereafter, regarded as an Orthodox 
 man. He has, indeed, been strangely led astray, as 
 were many before his day, by "philosophy falsely so 
 called." 
 
 The gentleman still labors to disprove the resurrection 
 of the body ; and, strangely enough, he finds an argument 
 against it in the following illustration of the doctrine, given 
 by Paul : " Thou fool ! that which thou sowest is not 
 
200 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 qiiickened, except it die: and that which thou sowest, 
 thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain : 
 it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain : but God 
 giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him," &c., 1 Cor. xv. 
 36 — 38. Now it appears to me, that this illustration 
 fully establishes the doctrine he is attempting to disprove. 
 Does not the new stalk rise out of the seed? Is not the 
 oak, in miniature, enclosed in the acorn? And does it 
 not spring up out of the acorn ? Is not the yoimg plant, 
 at first, nourished by the substance of the seed ? Will 
 the gentleman say, that the plant is a new creation, without 
 connection with, or dependence upon, the seed ? So the 
 spiritual bodies of the saints will be composed of the sub- 
 stance of their present bodies, wonderfully refined by the 
 power of God. For he will " quicken their mor/a/ bodies.'^ 
 Or will the gentleman say, the soul is mortal? Paul 
 speaks of our mortal bodies ; but Universalism, of our 
 mortal souls! These, however, Mr. Pingree says, are 
 ^^ minor matters!^'' 
 
 I need not spend time in further remarks concerning 
 the reconciling of " all things," spoken of in Col. i. 20, 
 and Eph. i. 9, 10. The immediate connection, as I have 
 proved, teaches, with perfect clearness, that men will be 
 saved — presented "holy, and unblamable, and unreprova- 
 ble in his sight ; if they coi^tinue in the faith grounded 
 and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the 
 GospeW^ They must be converted to Christianity, and 
 persevere therein unto death ; or they cannot be saved. 
 So teaches Paul in the very chapter from which Mr. Pin- 
 gree attempts to prove, that all will be saved, whether 
 they continue in the faith, or not ! 
 
 Strangely enough, he tells us, that some were then re- 
 conciled, and they were -to be presented before God, holy 
 and unblamable, if they continued in the faith. Does he 
 mean to intimate, that those who were then Christians 
 could not be saved, unless they continued in the faith — 
 that God required of them what he required of no others," 
 in order to their being saved? He says, Calvinists hold, 
 that God judicially blinds and hardens men for their 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 201 
 
 sins. Does he remember, that Paul said, " Whom he will 
 he hardeneth 1 " 
 
 But the gentleman passes by " minor matters." And 
 what are these minor matters ? Whether Jesus Christ is 
 a mere man or God, equal with the Father ; whether he is 
 to be adored and honored even as the Father, or respected 
 as a man ; whether he died in our stead, bore our sins, 
 that through his sufferings and intercession our sins may- 
 be forgiven ; whether men are to be sanctified by the Holy 
 Spirit, <fec.; these are minor matters with Universalists ! ! ! 
 Yet these are the themes on which the inspired Apostles, 
 in their ministry, delighted to dwell. " God forbid," ex- 
 claims Paul, "that I should glory, save in the cross of our. 
 Lord Jesus Christ." But with Mr. Pingree these are 
 minor matters! 
 
 The Saviour commanded his Apostles " to preach the 
 Gospel," and to say to all, "He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be 
 damned." This last, if we are to believe the gentleman, 
 is no part of the Gospel; the Gospel, he says, brings 
 salvation to all. Then the Apostles, it seems, were to 
 preach the Gospel and something besides I But Mr. 
 Ballon says, Christ came to save men in this world, not 
 in another. Mr. Pingree would seem to contradict " Fa- 
 ther Ballon," and to maintain, that the salvation of Christ 
 belongs to another world ! Why do father and son thus 
 contradict each other? 
 
 The gentleman is quite uneasy, lest I should keep back 
 the strongest arguments to the last. I promise to give him 
 full employment to the end. If I do not, then let him 
 complain. 
 
 I have presented Jive distinct arguments against Uni- 
 versalism. The Jifth is — that it makes God the author 
 of all the sin in the world. This revolting and blasphem* 
 ous doctrine, is boldly avowed by leading writers in the 
 gentleman's church. This he will not venture to deny. 
 Mr. Ballou asserts, that man is not a free agent, but moves 
 by necessity ; that Eve was tempted by her own lust, 
 having in her very constitution the principles of corrup- 
 
202 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 tion; in a word, that God is the cause of all sin! Nor 
 can we wonder, that Eve is represented as depraved in 
 her constitution, as it came from the hands of God ; for 
 the same author asserts, that Jesus Christ was tempted in 
 the same way ! He was not tempted by the devil, Mr. 
 Ballon asserts ; (though Matthew and Luke assert the 
 contrary ;) for the Universalists have expunged the exist- 
 ence of the devil from their creed ! They assert, that 
 there is no such being. How then, according to these 
 Universalist gentlemen, was Jesus tempted ? Mr. Ballou 
 says, when the devil is said to have showed him all the 
 kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them ; he was 
 tempted by the same kind o{ ambition which led AlexcUi- 
 der the Great to conquer the world ! ! ! The only differ- 
 ence, according to him, between Christ and Alexander, 
 was — that the former did not yield to the promptings of 
 his ambition! Oh, if the Saviour of the world were such 
 a being, what should we think of the foundation upon 
 which rest the hopes of our ruined world? -' 
 
 In opposition to this doctrine, I have maintained, that 
 God created man with an immaterial, immortal soul, " in 
 knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness," a free moral 
 agent — " with the law of God written on his heart, and pow- 
 er to fulfill it ; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, 
 being left to the liberty of their own will, which was sub- 
 ject to change;" — that the sin of our first parents God 
 was pleased to permit, having purposed to order it for 
 his own glory. See Confession of Faith, Chap, IV. and 
 VL 
 
 VI. My sixth argument against Universalism, is — that 
 it wholly denies the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings 
 of Christ. There are three, and only three leading prin- 
 ciples in modern Universalism — 1. That sin proceeds from 
 physical causes, from the physical constitution of man ; 
 and, consequently, the resurrection, by removing these 
 causes, will make all men holy. 2. That all men are, in 
 this life, rewarded and punished precisely according to 
 their merit or demerit; consequently, the present life can 
 have no influence whatever in determining the condition 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 203 
 
 of man hereafter. 3. That all punishment here is disci- 
 plinary, and intended for the ultimate good of the suf- 
 ferer. 
 
 The adoption of the second principle, viz. that all are 
 fully rewarded and punished in this lifjg, leads necessarily 
 to the denial of the vicarious sufferings of Christ. For 
 if every man pays fully his own debts, satisfies the 
 claims of divine justice, what need has he of a surety, a 
 substitute, a mediator ? He owes nothing ; he is, there- 
 fore, under no condemnation ; he is in no danger. This 
 false principle being adopted, the Universalists are led — 
 
 1st. To the rejection of the doctrine of the Divinity of 
 Christ. They are not even Arians in their views of 
 his character ; they adopt the low Socinian doctrine, that 
 Christ is a created, dependent being, a mere man ! 
 
 2nd. They deny the doctrine of the atonement — the 
 vicarious sufferings of Christ, maintaining that lie did not 
 suffer for the sins of all, or any of the human race. Mr. 
 Ballon "says, "Christians have, for a long time, believed, 
 that the temporal death of Christ made an atonement for 
 sin, and that the literal blood of the man who was cru- 
 cified, has efficacy to cleanse from guilt; but surely this 
 is carnality, and carnal mindedness, if we have any 
 knowledge of the Apostle's meaning, when he says — 
 * To be carnally minded is death.' " Treatise on Atone. 
 p. 122. The great majority of American Universalists, 
 as Mr. A. C. Thomas testifies, hold this doctrine. In 
 what kind of atonement do they believe ? The act of be- 
 coming reconciled to God, they regard as the only atone- 
 ment; so that every man makes atonement for himself! 
 *' To believe in any other atonement," says Ballou, "than 
 the putting off the old man, with his deeds, and the put- 
 ting on the new man, is carnal mindedness, and is death." 
 Ibid. p. 123. 
 
 Now let us inquire, what say the Scriptures concern- 
 ing the character and the work of Christ? 
 
 1. Concerning his character the Scriptures abundantly 
 teach, that he is both divine and hum,an — God and man. 
 Isaiah, "the evangelical prophet," guided by the Holy 
 
ZQ4 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Spirit, and looking to the coming of Christ, thus writes : 
 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and 
 the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his 
 name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty- 
 God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace," 
 chap. ix. 6. Here we have distinctly presented the two 
 natures of Christ, divine and human. He is a child born, 
 a son given; this language has reference to his human 
 nature. He is The mighty God, The everlasting Father; 
 and here we have presented his divine nature. There 
 is not a passage in the Bible in which any creature, how- 
 ever exalted, is called the mighty God, or the everlasting 
 Father. 
 
 The same doctrine is taught by Micah, chap, v., whose 
 prediction guided the priests and scribes to the place of 
 the Messiah's birth, Matth. ii. 4, 5. Micah says, "Out 
 of thee [Bethlehem] shall he come forth unto me that is 
 to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from 
 of old, from everlasting;" or, literally translated, from 
 the days of eternity. Here we are taught, that the Son 
 of God exists from eternity, and, consequently, is posses- 
 sed of supreme Divinity. And yet he is man; for the 
 prophet immediately speaks of his birth in this manner: 
 "Therefore will he give thee up, until the time that she 
 which travaileth hath brought forth," <fec. 
 
 In Matth. xxii. 45, we have the same doctrine taught 
 by our Lord himself. He asked the Jews, " What think 
 ye of Christ? whose son is he?" They, supposing the 
 Messiah to be merely human, replied, " The son of Da- 
 vid." The Saviour exposed their error in the following 
 language : " How then doth David in spirit [by inspira- 
 tion] call him Lord? saying. The Lord said unto my 
 Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till 1 make thine ene- 
 mies thy footstool." This question the Jews could not 
 answer; but if we admit him to be both divine and hu- 
 man, there is no difficulty. As he was God, he was 
 David's Lord; as he was man, he was David's son. 
 
 This doctrine is farther confirmed by Bev. xxii. 16, 
 where Jesus Christ says, "I am the root and the off- 
 
OF UNIVERSAXISM. 205 
 
 spring of David, and the bright and morning star." How 
 is Christ both the root and the offspring or branch of 
 David? As he is God, he is the root of David; for Da- 
 vid was created and sustained by him. As he is man, he 
 is the branch or offspring of David, because he descended 
 from him. Thus we again find liis two natures myste- 
 riously connected. 
 
 This doctrine is taught by Paul in his Epistle to the 
 Philippians, cliap. ii. 6, 7, "Who being in the form of 
 God, thought it not robbery to be equal ivith God; but 
 made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the 
 form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man^'' 
 (fee. 
 
 Such' is tlie plain and unequivocal teaching of the Bible 
 concerning the glorious character of Jesus Christ, "the 
 mighty God," "the man of sorrows!" But these, in the 
 view of Mr. Pingree, are minor matters! ! ! Yes, minor 
 matters ; though they are of such moment, that they were 
 the constant theme of prophecy, from the time when the 
 first promise of life was given to our fallen parents — " The 
 seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head" — till 
 the last of God's inspired prophets had delivered his mes- 
 sage to men; and though all the sacrifices of the Old 
 Testament pointed to his coming and his work! Minor 
 
 MATTERS ! 
 
 2. But what do the Scriptures teach concerning the 
 tvork of Christ ? They teach, that he came to " save his 
 people /row their .sms," Matth. i. 21. Not from sin- 
 ning merely, but from the evil to which they were ex- 
 posed for their sins — t/ie sins they actually commit. All 
 men were under obhgations perfectly to obey God's pure 
 moral law ; but all had sinned and come short of the glory 
 of God. By the deeds of the law not one could be* just- 
 ified. How, then, were they to be- saved? Paul shall 
 answer : " But when the fullness of time was come, God 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the 
 law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we 
 might receive the adoption of sons." But how did he 
 redeem them ? The same Apostle answers : " Christ hath 
 18 
 
206 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, bein^ made a 
 curse for us," <fec.. Gal. iv. 4, 5, and iii. 13. The same 
 doctrine is most clearly taught by Isaiah : "All we like 
 sheep have gone astray : we have turned every one to his 
 own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
 us all," chap. liii. 6. Peter, the Apostle, says, " Who 
 [Christ] his own self bare our sins in his own body on 
 the tree, that we being dead to sins, should live unto 
 righteousness : by whose stripes ye were healed," 1 Pet. 
 ii. 24. 
 
 What is the meaning of this language ? God laid upon 
 Christ our sins — that is, (for it can mean nothing else,) 
 he laid upon him the punishment due to our sins. The 
 expression, he "bore our sins," has the same meaning, as 
 is evident by reference to Ezekiel, xxxiii. where it is said, 
 the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father ; and the 
 father shall not bear the iniquity of the son, that is, each 
 shall bear the punishment of his own sins. 
 
 How forcibly the glorious doctrine of Christ's vicarious 
 sufferings, and the consequent justification of those who 
 believe in him, is set forth in the following language of 
 Paul: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall 
 no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God 
 without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law 
 and the prophets ; even the righteousness of God, which 
 is by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them 
 that believe : for there is no difference. For all have sinned, 
 and come short of the glory of God ; being justified freely 
 by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; 
 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
 in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission 
 of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God : to 
 declare, 1 say, at this time, his righteousness : that he 
 might be just, and the justifier of him which believelh in 
 Jesus," Rom. iii. 20 — 26. 
 
 This is the glorious "corner stone," the sure founda- 
 tion which God has laid in Zion ; and " other foundation 
 can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
 
OF UNIVERSALI8M. 207 
 
 No wonder Paul exclaims, " God forbid that I should 
 glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here 
 the penitent sinner plants his feet upon the Rock of ages, 
 secure of the pardon of all his sins, of justification unto 
 eternal life. The dying believer fixes his eyes upon the 
 cross of Christ, assured that he will speedily stand in the 
 midst of that company whom John the Apostle saw, who 
 had " washed their robes and made them white in the 
 blood of the Lamb." 
 
 Universalism, whilst it promises salvation to all the 
 human race, sweeps away the only refuge of sinners, and 
 leaves them exposed to endless ruin. Paul determined 
 to know nothing among the people, " save Jesus Christ, 
 and him crucified ;" but with Universalism the cross of 
 Christ is a matter of no interest ! 
 
 The gentleman does not deny that "Partialists," as he 
 calls them, have done, and are doing, incomparably more 
 to have the Gospel preached to all men, than Universal- 
 ists ; but he says, those who are thus active, feel like 
 Saurin. Is he aware, that many of them are men who 
 have solemnly adopted the Confession of Faith he so 
 abuses, and of whose cruel feelings he has so eloquently 
 spoken ? 
 
 But he says, those who send the Gospel to the heathen, 
 desire and pray for their salvation ; and Universal is ts 
 preach just what they pray for. Why, then, he asks, 
 do they find fault? Truly Universalism is kind in words. 
 It reminds us of some of olden times, who said to the 
 poor, " Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled," but 
 gave them nothing, James ii. 16. The world is in a per- 
 ishing condition ; and Universalism, in its tender mercies, 
 takes away the foundation on which they might build 
 their hopes of salvation, and says, " Depart in peace ;" 
 be saved! 
 
 Verily, if Christ is a mere man, as Universalism 
 teaches, there is no possibility of salvation to any sinner. 
 I despair of salvation if this doctrine be true. I never 
 expect to see God in peace ! \^Time expired. 
 
208 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 [MR. PINGREe's eleventh SPEECH.] 
 
 Respected Auditors — The proposition before us is this : 
 "The Scriptures do teacli the ultimate holiness and sal- 
 vation of all men." To sustain the affirmative of this, 
 I have presented several full and distinct arguments, 
 drawn from the resurrection of all men to immortality, 
 incorruption, and glory, in Christ, bearing the image of 
 the heavenly Adam; made as the angels of God in heav- 
 en, to die no more ; from the testimony that all who sin, 
 and are in condemnation, as taught in Rom. v. ,12 — 21, 
 are to be made righteous, to be justified and saved — 
 as many as were sinners, whether more or less ; from 
 the teaching of Paul, in the 8th of Romans, that " the 
 creature," or creation, now "made subject to vanity, 
 not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subject- 
 ed us in hope, shall be delivered from the bondage 
 of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children 
 of God ;" from the assurance that all the world is to be 
 reconciled to God, through Jesus Christ, who is to ga- 
 ther ALL together IN ONE — and if reconciled, saved ; 
 from the promise of God to Abraham, that all the nations, 
 families, and kindreds of the earth, shall be blessed in 
 the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ ; which promise is 
 confirmed by the solemn oath of Almighty God himself. 
 
 T now proceed to state another distinct argument in 
 favor of the proposition, founded on the instructions of 
 our Master, in Matt. v. 43 — 48 : " Ye have heard that it 
 hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate 
 thine enemy: But I say unto you, love your enemies; 
 bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate 
 you, and pr^y for them that despitefully use you and 
 persecute you ; that ye may he the children of your Fa» 
 ther, ivhich is in heaven.''^ 
 
 Now, we are to become the children of God, by lov- 
 ing our enemies, and doing them good, and not evil. 
 What does our Father in heaven, the Sovereign Crea- 
 tor ? so that, by doing the same, we may be like him. ? 
 The Saviour answered thus : " For he makelh his sun 
 to rise on the evil and on the good ; and sendeth rain on 
 
OF UMVERSALISM* 209 
 
 the just and on the unjust » For if ye love them that love 
 you, vi'hat reward have ye ? Do not even the publicans the 
 same ? and if ye salute your brethren only, what do you 
 more than others ? Do not even the publicans so ? Be 
 ye therefore perfect; even as your Father which is in 
 heaven is perfect." The argument that I derive from the 
 passage, is this : God loves his enemies ; he therefore 
 requires human beings to love their enemies, in order 
 that tliey may be like him. If God hated his enemies, 
 we would be required to do the same. If he casts them 
 off into endless and remediless perdition, it is evident 
 that he does hate them. Hence all the persecutions in 
 the Christian world have arisen from the error of suppos- 
 ing tliat God will endlessly damn the wicked hereafter. 
 Professed Christians have therefore deemed it proper, and 
 even necessary, to damn them here ! I have already 
 read Mr. Rice's doctrine from the third section of the third 
 chapter of his Confession of Faith : ** By the decree 
 of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and 
 angels are i)redestinated unto everlasting life ; and others 
 
 are FOREORDAINED TO EVERLASTING DEATH." Yet WC are 
 
 required to love our enemies, before we can be like God, 
 and become characteristically his children*! The Confes- 
 sion says more : *' These angels and men, thus predestina- 
 ted and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably 
 DESIGNED ; and their number is so certain and definite, 
 that it CANNOT be either increased or diminishcd,^^ 
 Again, to this effect, — Chap. V. Sect. VI. "As for those 
 wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous 
 judge, for former sin, doth blind and harden ; from them 
 he not only withholdeth his grace whereby they might 
 have been enlightened in their understandings, and 
 wrought upon in their hearts ; but sometimes, also, with- 
 draweth the gifts which they had ; andEXPosETH them to 
 such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin ; 
 and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temp- 
 tation of the world, and the power of Satan ; whereby it 
 comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under 
 those means which God useth for the softening of oth- 
 18* 
 
210 AN ORAL DlSCUi^SION 
 
 ers! " I place his Creed against the Bible, as to God's 
 disposition towards sinners ; and leave that argument. 
 
 I now state another argument — it is one which I have 
 hinted at already ; but which Mr. Rice has not noticed ; 
 to wit, That God will subdue all things to himself, in 
 Christ. Paul, in the third chapter of his Letter to the 
 Philippians, last verse, says, that "the Lord Jesus Christ 
 shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
 unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby 
 he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." 
 Li Hebrews, it is distinctly taught we are to " be in sub- 
 jection to the Father of spirits, and live." The argu- 
 ment is, that as all are to be subdued to Christ, thereby re- 
 ceiving spiritual life, all will be holy and saved. 
 
 I know^ that in Philippians, Paul says only, that he is 
 able to subdue all to himself; but in 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, 
 he says he will doit. Listen: "And when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also, him- 
 self, be subject unto him that put all things under him ; 
 THAT God may be all in all." This is plain language : 
 All shall be subject to the Son ; the Son shall then be sub- 
 ject to the Father; and God, who is love, shall be ALL 
 in ALL ! ! Will Mr. Rice 720W give some attention to 
 this argument? 
 
 I will now notice the prominent points of the last 
 speech, of last night. But first, a word on the disparag- 
 ing remarks which the gentleman made in order to throw 
 doubt upon the authorities quoted by Paige. He stated 
 that he had no confidence in Paige's selection of 'passa- 
 ges upon disputed texts, from authors believing in future 
 punishment. His object was to throw suspicion upon 
 the whole booh, as a fabrication, and thus divert your at- 
 tention from the authorities I presented from his work. 
 My friend seems very fond of going out of the way^ in 
 this discussion, to dw^ell on individual characters ; or if 
 he finds a mistake in Grammar, as to some Greek word, 
 he hauls it in, though it has no bearing whatever upon the 
 question before us — though not within a thousand miles 
 of the point in hand. He now attempts to throw suspi- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 
 
 211 
 
 cion on this compiler of the " Selections," because he 
 quotes Lightfoot and Cappe, on the 28th verse of John 
 v., and Doddridge on the preceding verses, Mr. Paige 
 distinctly says, at the end of the quotation, ''Note on 
 verse 25." The object of the quotation from Doddridge, 
 was to illustrate the meaning of the word "^/c«:/;" and 
 it is not introduced as a comment on tlie 28th verse. 
 There is no deception or dishonesty in showing, under the 
 28th verse, Doddridge's understanding of the word dead, 
 used in the verse preceding, where he explicitly achiow- 
 ledges it to be in reference to that verse. This must suf- 
 fice for the present. 
 
 Mr. Rice disposes of all my proof texts in a very sum- 
 mary way; as that ''God is the Saviour of all men; that 
 his GRACE brings salvation to all ; that he will havTe all 
 men to be saved; that he made promise, by oath, to Abra- 
 ham, that all the nations of the earth shouhl be blessed 
 in Chiist; the words of the Saviour — "If I be lifted up 
 from the earth, I will draw all men unto me," <fec. My 
 friend says, Mr. Ballon teaches that there is no sahafion 
 in a future life. It is now lime for me to notice this oft 
 repeated assertion ; and it is only necessary to notice it, 
 because my friend nov/ seeks to hide continually behind 
 "•that young manP^ Mr. Ballon said that there was no 
 evil in the future life, from which Jesus Christ came to 
 save man ; and so I believe, Mr. Ballon does not teach 
 that man is not to enjoy salvation here(fter ; for he does 
 believe and teach, that men are to be raised from the dead, 
 saved from the present evil state. This shows you how 
 Mr. Rice has attributed sentiments to us which we do not 
 hold. He finds it easier to hide himself behind some 
 " young man," than to come up fairly to the work before 
 him. This audience will not be so well satisfied with 
 that course, as by his taking hold of the passages I pre- 
 sent, and fairly endeavoring to set them aside. 
 
 He made an allusion, apparently to depreciate my wor- 
 thy friend. Rev. Abel C. Thomas, the present Pastor of t]ie 
 Walnut street Universalist Church; throwing out the in- 
 sinuation that Mr. Thomas had found it best, of late, not 
 
212 AN oiiAL Biscussiox 
 
 to discuss Uniyersalism any more; It is the opinion of 
 those who know him, that self-styled Orthodoxy will yet 
 receive some hard knocks from that quarter. He has 
 now a negociation pending for a written discussion with 
 Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, of Baltimore, (a man not second 
 to Mr. Rice, either in the controversial or theological 
 world, or in the Presbyterian Church,) for discussing the 
 same proposition as the one in the discussion with Rev. 
 Dr. Ely, from which Mr. Rice read. This insinuation, 
 tlierefore, was not only uncalled for, but unfounded and 
 out of place. 
 
 While I am about it, I will correct another matter. 
 My friend is in the habit of calling certain doctrines the 
 PREMISES of Universalism ; as for instance, the materiality 
 of the soul; (although in all the cases he referred to, 
 those men Avere believers in the future immortality of all 
 men;) Vicarious Atonement ; the Trinity; the Deity of 
 Jesus Christ; and the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 Neitlier thcse^ nor their opposifes, are tlie premises of 
 Universalism ; and if he hereafter repeats this assertion, 
 he will do it knowingly and w^ittingly, in face of my ex- 
 plicit denial. A man may be in favor of the Deity of 
 Christ, or not; he may believe in three Gods, as Trini- 
 tarians, or in One ; he may believe in Vicarious Atone- 
 ment, or not ; and yet be Univer«alist. Both Unitarians 
 and Trinitarians have believed in final universal salvation. 
 
 What, then, are the premises of Universalism? Upon 
 wliat foundations does it rest ? Thei/ are these : All Uni- 
 versalists place their hopes of universal salvation on God, 
 as a Being of infinite love, boundless benevolence, and 
 ALMIGHTY POWER ; Oil his PURPOSE, WILL, and promises 
 for the final holiness and salvation of all men; and on 
 the express teachings of the Bible, by Prophets, by the 
 Saviour, and his holy Apostles. These are our premises, 
 and not those other various doctrines, or the denial of 
 them. He will find them so presented in all Universalist 
 works. From these we arrive at the conclusion to which 
 we come. Still, Universalist writers discuss the Trinity, 
 the Atonement, the origin of evil, and the Free Agency 
 
OF TJNIVERSALISM. 213 
 
 of man ; but these are not the premises of Universalism, 
 You see, and I hope Mr. Rice will now see, that they 
 are not. Partialists themselves differ in many things, 
 even in relation to the destiny of man. Some believe in 
 literal Heft-fire^ to burn the souls and bodies of men; 
 while others believe that Hell is only a spiritual matter, 
 arising from the conscience ; and some even make it 
 quite a comfortable place ! Some have men damned by 
 their free agency ; and others by an irresistible Divine 
 DECREE ; some believe it necessary to be immersed in 
 water, in order to be saved ; and others not. So they 
 differ quite as much among themselves, as Universalists. 
 Mr. Rice ought not to dwell on those minor points; mi- 
 nor, I mean — and let me say it once for all — only in refer- 
 ence to their not being the point before us in this discus- 
 sion. It may be much easier for Mr. Rice to read an 
 essay on the Trinity, or on Vicarious Atonement, than 
 to answer my arguments. He seems disposed to make 
 the most of the common prejttdices in favor of the Trin- 
 ity, and those other dogmas, no matter how little they 
 have to do with the final holiness and salvation of all 
 men. Besides that, he is not correct in his statements. 
 He states that Universalists believe Jesus Christ to be a 
 MERE MAN, and emphasized the word **??ic?t." Now I 
 do not believe that any Universalist writer has ever said 
 that Christ was "a mere man." They may have done 
 so ; if they have, I cannot help it. I do not, myself, be- 
 lieve this doctrine. This is what I believe on that sub- 
 ject: We believe, with Paul, that " there is one God, 
 and one mediator between God and men, the man 
 Christ Jesus." I do not call him " a mere man ;" but 
 affinTi that he was divinely commissioned, authorized, 
 and inspired, and endowed with the Spirit of God with- 
 out measure ; that he is the Son of God, and clothed 
 with full power to execute the Divine will. This is 
 enough. 
 
 Once more we have something to say about the resur- 
 rection. Mr. Rice replied to my first inquiry about i^A«^ 
 body was to be raised — whether tiis same physical body — 
 
214 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 by using tlie words of Paul — " TIioii fool !" I then 
 urged Jiim to read the passage through ; thus : " Thou fool ! 
 thou sowest NOT that body that shall be." My friend 
 replied, by quoting the illustration of Paul — " but bare 
 grain ; it may chance of wheat, or of some otlier grain ; 
 but God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and to 
 every seed his own body." He illustrates this by the 
 acorn and the oak. I now ask, Is the acorn raised itp? ! 
 Is it a raising up of the acorn that is planted ? Was the 
 oak planted ? and does that rise ? He said the oak came 
 our OF the acorn. So, then, the acorn is not the oak, 
 nor the oak tlie acorn. Thus I have tauglU, all along, 
 that the immortal beings hereafter, come from us. In 
 using this illustration, Mr. Rice yields the whole ar- 
 gument ! ! He does not believe that die body of tlie 
 acorn comes up, or that the oak was the acorn. How- 
 ever this may be, the language of Paul is, " Tlioa fool, 
 that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die ; 
 %\ZJ^ and thattahich thou sotvest, thov sowest not that 
 BODY WHICH SHALL BE." I trust tliis qucstiou is now 
 finally settled. 
 
 I liave already said that I would not enter into a con- 
 troversy upon the Trinity and the Vicarious Atonement. 
 They are not connected with the present proposition. If 
 Mr. Rice chooses to discuss tliem hereafter, by separate 
 propositions, I am willing to do so ; but s\ich a discussion 
 is out of place here. Nevertheless, I will notice any re- 
 marks which may seem to have a bearing on the general 
 subject before us. 
 
 Mr. Rice's last speech of last night, might serve well 
 to please his friends. It was a good Ordiodox sermon. 
 The illustrations, exhortations, and declamation, were very 
 appropriate, and seemed to give great pleasure to Presby- 
 terian Partialists. But what had that speech to do with 
 the question, " Do the Scriptures teach the final holiness 
 and salvation of all men?'" I will, however, notice a 
 few points in it. He says that when Jesus Christ sent 
 his disciples to preach the Gospel, he directed them what 
 to say, as the Gosoel. These were the words they were 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 215 
 
 to use : " He tnat believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 saved ; and he that believeth not shall be damned." He 
 did not tell them to say this. He directed them \o preach 
 the Gospel ; and what was that Gospel ? Mr. Rice says 
 it was, " those that beheve shall be saved, and those that 
 believe not shall be damned." Suppose he says cor- 
 rectly — which he does not — what is it they were to be- 
 lieve? They were to believe the Gospel. We still 
 comeback to the question, then — What was the Gospel? 
 It was that Gospel which teacheth that "the grace of God 
 bringeth salvation to all men." Those who heard it and 
 believed it, were to be saved, in this life^ by a present, 
 special salvation. But all were finally to be saved, ac- 
 cording to God's will and purpose. Those who rejected 
 it, were damnecU while they remained in a state of un- 
 belief; but as to the ultimate salvation, and what the Gos- 
 pel is, what does the Bible say ? Paul says, "The Gos- 
 pel was preached before unto Abraham, saying. In thy 
 Seed shall all families and kindreds of the earth be 
 BLESSED." The Gospel there reveals the final universal 
 salvation. Those who receive this Gospel, are saved 
 now; but all shall finally enjoy the blessing that God has 
 promised vi the Gospel, and confirmed by solemn oath. 
 As to the opposite of this doctrine, what is it ? In the 
 language of Saurin, "it renders life a crifel bitter ;'^^ the 
 reflection is a " mortal poison " to him who receives it, 
 embittering the whole existence. It is no wonder, as 
 Saurin said, that the fear of Hell should make many mel- 
 ancholy, and others mad ! This is not the Gospel. All 
 believers in endless damnation are in a state of darkness. 
 The Gospel, indeed, teaches final universal salvation; and 
 those that receive it, enjoy moral light and life here ; 
 while those that reject it, are condemned or damned. 
 
 Mr. Rice had much to say about Father Ballou's de- 
 claring that human passions tempted Eve and the Saviour. 
 He says that Jesus Christ, according to Universalists, 
 was a inere man, " and not so mighty good, at that." He 
 is horrified at the blasphemy of comparing his tempta- 
 tions to those of Alexander the Great, or otJiers. A Sa- 
 
216 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 cred Writer says, however, that " Christ was tempted 
 in all things as we are; yet without sin. '''' Which, I 
 ask, would more deeply wound the dignity of the char- 
 acter of Jesus Christ 1 — to be subjected to the trials and 
 temptations that men usually meet with ? or to think that 
 a diabolical spirit from the pit of Hell, was permitted Xo 
 associate with him, to converse with him, to tempt him 
 with wicked thoughts, and lead him about from one 
 place to another ? ! Which, think you, takes most from 
 the dignity of character you have attributed to Jesus 
 Christ, either as God, or man? the former view, or the 
 latter? I should like to know. 
 
 My friend talks about Universalist doctrines depriving a 
 dying world of its hopes of mercy. Which think you, is 
 most in comformity with the character of God ? the doc- 
 trine, that he purposes the final holiness and salvation of 
 all intelligent creatures ? or tliat he made man to be a 
 sinner, and then foreordained the largest portion of man- 
 kind to endless misery ? What mercy is there in Vicari- 
 ous Atonement ? Where is the mercy of Calvinism, fore- 
 ordaining men before the foundation of the world, to 
 endless blessedness, or to immortal woe?! and mak- 
 ing the number of them so certain that it cannot be in- 
 creased or diminished! The Creed teaches, as I have 
 shown, that God blinds and hardens men in sin — calls 
 them outwardly by his Word — gives them some '' com- 
 mon operations of the Spirit," that they cannot give heed 
 to, and that God did not desire or design to be "effect- 
 ual ;" and then fixes their final doom in the regions of an 
 immortal Hell ! ! And the man who holds this Creed, talks 
 about there being " no mercy in universalism ! ! " 
 
 \jrime expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's eleventh reply.] 
 Mr. Pingree has indeed labored to prove, that in the 
 resurrection a change is to be effected, which will intro- 
 duce all men into a state of holiness and salvation. But 
 how often have I urged him to point to one passage of 
 Scripture which says, that th^y who die in their siii^^ 
 
OP UNIVERSALISM. 217 
 
 win be made holy in the resurrection. Has he produced 
 one ? Can any one of the audience mention a passage 
 produced here, which so teaches? But I have pointed 
 you to the saints of ancient times, who endured the 
 severest persecutions, "not accepting deUverance, that 
 they might obtain a better resurrection,^^ The Scrip- 
 tures speak of two resurrections, of the just, and also of 
 the unjust ; and the former is called the " better resur- 
 rection." But according to the faith of Universalists, 
 there is but one resurrection — that is the better resurrec- 
 tion. Then what folly it must have been, in those an- 
 cient believers, to endure so much for the sake of gain- 
 ing a resurrection, which they could not, if they would, 
 avoid obtaining! The inspired Paul, too, was equally 
 deluded ; for he suffered the loss of all things, and labor- 
 ed much, " if, by any means, he might attain unto the re- 
 surrection of the dead;" which, according to Universal- 
 ism, he could not but attain ! But Mr. Pingree says, he 
 only wished to rise some higher in moral character in 
 this world; and this, he would have us believe, is to be 
 called " the resurrection of the dead ! !" 
 
 He has also appealed to the 5th chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Romans: "As by the offence of one, judgment 
 came upon all men to condemnation," <fcc. I have said, 
 that Universalists do not believe what Paul here says. 
 I again ask Mr. Pingree, does he believe that all men, or 
 any, were brought into condemnation in consequence of 
 Adam's sin? If he is a Universalist, he does not. Does 
 he believe that all, or any, are made righteous by the 
 obedience of Christ ? He does not ; for he is now labor- 
 ing to prove, that all will be made righteous by the 
 power of God, at the resurrection. Why, then, does he 
 bring forward passages of Scripture, the plain meaning 
 of which he does not pretend to believe ? But the first 
 verse of the chapter, as I have proved, directly contra- 
 dicts his exposition of the verses in question : " Being 
 iustified by faith,, we have peace with God, through our 
 "^esus Christ," &c. Paul says, men are justified 
 Mr» Pingree says, they are justified whether 
 
218 AN ORAL DIfyCUSSION 
 
 they have faith or not. This is just the difference be- 
 tween him and the Apostle ! 
 
 He returns to his favorite argument from Rom. viii. 
 19 — " For the earnest expectation of the creature vt^aiteth 
 for the manifestation of the sons af God," Sic, Does the 
 Apostle say the creature shall be made the sons of God ? 
 UniversaHsts say so ; but he is guilty of no such absur- 
 dity. The truth is, the word creature, or creation^ 
 (ktisis) here has its ordinary signification. The Apostle 
 is speaking of the great privileges and glorious prospects 
 of God's children ; and he represents the whole creation 
 — the world — as waiting in anxious expectation of the 
 happy period when righteousness shall cover the earth. 
 Long had the creation of God been abused and perverted 
 by the wickedness of men; and it is here represented as 
 earnestly desirous to be restored to its proper use. No- 
 thing is more common with the inspired writers, than to 
 represent the earth as mourning, because of the wicked- 
 ness of men, and as greatly rejoicing in the prevalence of 
 righteousness. Thus Jeremiah says, " How long shall 
 the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for 
 the wickedness of them that dwell therein ?" chap. xii. 4. 
 Isaiah says, " Therefore hath the curse drowned the 
 earth," Slc. chap. xxiv. 6. And whilst uttering predic- 
 tions of the prevalence of righteousness, through the 
 preaching of the Gospel, he exclaims, in language beau- 
 tifully figurative — " The wilderness and the solitary place 
 shall be glad for them ; and the desert shall rejoice and 
 blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and 
 rejoice even with joy and singing," &;c. chap. xxxv. 1,2. 
 The trees of the field are represented as clapping 
 their hands with joy. Thus the creation is represented 
 as earnestly looking for the happy period, when it shall 
 no longer be perverted from its proper use by the wick- 
 edness of men ; when they will " beat their swords into 
 plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks ; 
 when nation shall not lift up the sword against nation, 
 neither shall they learn war any more." 
 
 But whether this exposition of th6 passage is correct 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM, 219 
 
 or not, certain it is, that it affords not the slightest evi- 
 dence in favor of Universalism. For, as I have proved, 
 the immediate context plainly teaches, that men cannot 
 obtain the inheritance, unless they become children of 
 God ; and unto that inheritance they must be " kept by 
 the power of God through faith unto salvation." So 
 say Paul and Peter; but Universalists say, all will get the 
 inheritance, whether they become God's children here, or 
 not ; and whether they have faith or not. Thus flatly do 
 they contradict the Apostles of Christ ! 
 
 The gentleman formed an argument for Universalism 
 upon Matt. v. 44 — " Love your enemies," <fec. From 
 this language he strangely infers, that God so loves his en- 
 emies, fliat he will save them, though they through life 
 refuse to be reconciled to him ! It is indeed tnie, that 
 God loves his enemies ; but his inference from this fact, 
 is wide of the mark. Our Saviour has left on record the 
 best answer to this argument. He says : " For God so 
 loved the woHd that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
 everlasting life,'''' Thus we are taught by Christ him- 
 self, not that God so loved the world, that he determined 
 to save all men, regardless of their moral character, but 
 that those who believe in Christ should not perish^ but 
 have everlasting life. Therefore, those who do not be- 
 lieve will perish, will not have everlasting life. 
 
 Mr. Pingree has read that same chapter from the Con- 
 fession of Faith again ! How often does he purpose to 
 read the chapter and section ! Have any of you, my 
 friends, counted the number of times he has quoted this ? 
 And, what is not a little remarkable, he never wanders 
 from the point — not he ! He is always at the point, pro- 
 ving, by reading the Presbyterian Confession, that the 
 Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all 
 men ! ! 
 
 He quotes Philip* iii. 21, to prove, that Christ will sub- 
 due, that is, reconcile all things to himself. This is an 
 unfortunate step ; for, as I have proved, this passage 
 teaches the very doctrine of the resurrection, which he 
 
220 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 discards. Christ, the Apostle says, " shall change our 
 vile body, that it it may be fashioned like unto his glori- 
 ous body," &c. Our vile body, he says, might be trans- 
 lated " the body of our humiliation." I have inquired 
 of him what this phrase means ; but he maintains a pro- 
 found silence. To change our vile body, requires an 
 exertion of physical power simply. How, then, can 
 this power, employed in subduing all things, make men 
 holy? 
 
 But all will be subdued to Christ. Yes ; but Paul 
 says, "He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under 
 his feet, ^^ 1 Cor. xv. 25. Does this mean, that all are to 
 be reconciled ? His disciples, our Lord says, shall sit 
 with him on his throne, shall reign with him (Rev. iii. 
 21) ; but all enemies he will subdue, put under his feet; 
 that " God may be all in all" — that all may be brought to 
 acknowledge his authority. Who would have thought, 
 that such language would be brought forward to prove, 
 that all men will become children of God? Who does 
 not know, that enemies are often subdued, who never be- 
 came reconciled '? 
 
 I regret, that my friend has thought proper again to in- 
 troduce Mr. Paige. His conduct admits of no justifica- 
 tion. He admits, that he has introduced Doddridge's 
 comment on John v. 25, under verses 28, 29 ; but he 
 says, he did so to show the use of the expression, the 
 dead. This expression is not in the verses under which 
 the note of Doddridge is introduced. In these verses we 
 read, not that the dead, but that " they that are in their 
 graves, shall hear," &c. Why, then, let me ask, did Mr. 
 Paige print a note from Doddridge under them, to explain 
 an expression which is not in them? The gentleman's 
 explanation does not mend the matter ; he would better 
 give it up. 
 
 He admits that "Father Ballon' s" doctrine is, that there 
 is no evil hereafter from which Christ came to save men. 
 Why, then, does he continue to quote those passages in 
 which Christ is spoken of as the Saviour of the world, 
 and apply them to a salvation hereafter, an eternal salva- 
 
or UNIVERSALIS]*. 221 
 
 lion 9 Here I am constrained to expose a most singular 
 course of conduct pursued by Uuiversalists and by Mr. 
 Pingree. When they find a passage of Scripture which 
 represents Christ as the Saviour of the world, they at 
 once apply it to a future state of existence ; but when 
 they are pressed with those numerous passages which 
 teach, that faith is essential to salvation by Christ ; they 
 confine its meaning to the present life. Faith, the gen- 
 tleman admits, is made necessary to salvation, but only in 
 this world. How does he know ? By what rule of in- 
 terpretation does he confine the salvation of Christ to the 
 present world, whenever faitli is connected with it, and 
 extend it to another world, when faith is not mentioned ? 
 I really desire information on this point. But Christ, 
 he admits, does not save all men here ; and Mr. Ballou 
 asserts, that he does not save any hereafter ! What a 
 suicidal thing Universalism is ! 
 
 I may here turn aside to say, that of Mr. Thomas I 
 said nothing oflfensive. I said, he seems to have conclu- 
 <3ed that it is not wise to continue those discussions in 
 which he was once so zealous. As for the "heavy jolts " 
 with which orthodoxy is threatened from his powerful 
 arm, I can only say, we are prepared to feel them. We 
 are not alarmed. His negociutions with Dr. Breckenridge 
 proceed quite slowly. Nothing has passed between them, 
 I am told, since last fall ! 
 
 Mr. Pingree still seeks to avoid the necessity of reply- 
 ing to my exposure of the fundamental principles of Uni- 
 versalists, by denying that they are the premises on which 
 they rely. Why, then, I ask, are these principles set forth 
 and defended by all their standard writers, as those from 
 which they infer the salvation of all men ? If men can 
 be good Uuiversalists without these principles, why are 
 they so zealously propagated ? I find them in all their 
 leading authors with whom I am acquainted ; and I also 
 discover, that they commence with setting them forth and 
 defending them, and conclude with the doctrine of Uni- 
 versalism, as deduced mainly from them. 
 
 For instance, Mr, Ballou, in his Treatise on Atonement, 
 19* 
 
222 
 
 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 begins with attempting to prove, that sin is a much less 
 evil than most persons imagine ; and, consequently, de- 
 serves much less punishment. To accomplish this, he 
 contends that man received from the hands of God such 
 a constitution, being carnal, and not at all a free agent, 
 that he could not avoid sinning; that God is the real cause 
 of sin, and, of course, will not inflict eternal punishment 
 on the wicked ; that sin deserves no more punishment 
 than is endured in this life, and therefore it would be un- 
 just to punish men hereafter, and wholly unnecessary and 
 impossible that Christ should suffer for the sins of men. 
 Thus he proceeds, step by step, to his conclusion — uni- 
 versal salvation ; and all the other leading writers pursue 
 the same course. Step by step, therefore, I follow them, 
 exposing the premises laid down by the father of modern 
 Universal ism, and thus proving the falsity of his conclu- 
 sions, and his son refuses to defend him ! 
 
 But Mr. Pingree says, a man may be a Universalist, 
 and believe in three Gods or one God, in an atonement 
 or no atonement, &c. How accommodating ! Unfortu- 
 nately, however, this statement flatly contradicts one of 
 the gentleman's leading authors. Here is a book, the ti- 
 tle of which is — "Exposition of Universalism, (fee, by 
 Rev. I. D. Williamson." This author, giving professed- 
 ly the Universalist creed, says: "We can acknowledge 
 no other being as God, but him alone. Hence with the 
 sentiments of the Polytheist, who believes in many gods, 
 the Pantheist, who believes that all is God, and the Trini- 
 tarian, who believes in three Gods in one, and one in 
 three — we have no fellowship or communion,^ ^ p. 11. 
 Did you hear that ? With Trhiitarians, Mr. Williamson 
 says, Universalists have no fellowship or communion ; 
 and yet Mr. Pingree, to escape the dire necessity of re- 
 plying to my arguments, tells us, a man may be a Trini- 
 tarian, and yet a good Universalist ! These, I presume, 
 are " minor matters !" Whether Christ is God or man, 
 to be adored or respected ; whether he died to atone for 
 our sins and save us from eternal ruin ; these, with the 
 gentleman, are minor matters ! Whether we are to be 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 223 
 
 sanctified here by the Holy Spirit, or hereafter by the re- 
 surrection, is also a small matter. 
 
 Do the Scriptures represent these as minor matters? 
 No, truly : they teach us, " That all men should honor the 
 Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth 
 not the Son, honoieth not the Father which hath sent 
 him," John v. 23. If Christ be truly God, as well as 
 man, they who reject his Divinity, so far from honoring 
 him, do what they can to rob him of his glory ! This, 
 however, with Universalism, is a "minor matter!" 
 
 Did Paul regard tlie doctrine of atonement by Christ 
 crucified, as a small affair? Writing to the Corintliians, 
 he says: — "For I determined not to know anything 
 among you save Jesus Christ, and him, crucified." Does 
 he say, he determined to know nothing among tliem, save 
 Universalism? Far from it. With Paul, Christ and 
 his cross was everything ; with Universalists, it is next to 
 nothing ! In reading their most popular works, I find 
 nothing concerning Christ crucified, except as they op- 
 pose the views entertained by Christians generally. 
 
 I was truly surprised to hear the gentleman say, he 
 was not aware that any Universalist writer had represen- 
 ted Christ as a 7nere man. That the champion of Uni- 
 versalism, who has gone up and down through the coun- 
 try provoking and fighting the battles of his church, who 
 has never let his sword rust in its scabbard; — that he 
 should not be better acquainted with his leading authors, is 
 really astonishing. In Abner Kneeland's Lectures, page 
 127, I read as follows: "My reasons, tlierefo re, for be- 
 lieving in the simple hitmanily of Christ, (which is only 
 another word I use for the man Christ Jesus,) are the 
 following." He proceeds to give his reasons. Abner, 
 it is true, has since become a blaspheming ./:?/Aei5// but 
 when these Lectures were delivered, he had a high stand- 
 ing among Universalists ; and in tliese he speaks in terms 
 of the highest admiration of Hosea Ballou. 
 
 This is not all. The " Expositor of Universalism," 
 already quoted, thus speaks of Christ: "He claimed no 
 liigher tide than the humble one, * the son of man, and 
 
!J24 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 if he claimed no more for himself, it is a misguided disci* 
 pie that claims it for him. Instead, therefore, of 'giving 
 the glory of God to another,' we [Universalists] main- 
 tain, that Jesus of Nazareth was a created, and a depen- 
 dent being, deriving all his wonderful powers from God. 
 * * * * If yQ^ ask me, if he was no more than a 
 'Wan ? my answer is, in the language of Scripture, ' He 
 was made in all things, like unto the brethren,' but was 
 anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows ; and 
 indeed, with greater power than any other man,'^ page 13. 
 If this author tells the truth, Universalists believe, that 
 Christ is a mere man, differing from other men only in 
 his having received from God greater gifts than they ! 
 Have I not now proved what I said — that Universalists 
 believe Christ to be only a man ? Now compare with 
 their language the language of inspired men, that the in- 
 finite difference in the sentiment may be seen. Inspired 
 writers speak of Christ, not only as a man, but as the 
 "Mighty God," "the Everlasting Father," " God over all, 
 blessed forever," " the brightness of the Father's glory 
 and the express image of his person, and upholding all 
 things by the word of his power ;" " whose goings forth 
 have been from of old, even from everlasting ;" " the root 
 and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star ;" 
 David's Lord and David's son. How striking the con- 
 trast between the language of Universalism and the lan- 
 guage of inspiration! 
 
 Mr. Pingree says, our Lord did not command his Apos- 
 tles, in preaching the Gospel, to say, " He that believeth 
 not shall be damned." Very well ; if the Saviour him- 
 self said it, as he admits, it is true ; and I desire only to 
 prove it true. But, says he, those who believe not, are 
 C07idemned already ; and he that believeth, is saved. 
 This is true ; but observe the language of Christ. " He 
 that believeth and is baptized, shall he saved ; but he that 
 believeth not, shall be damned." He speaks of a fu- 
 ture salvation and damnation ; and Mr. Pingree is obliged 
 to change his language from the future to the present 
 tense to protect Universalism ! But he asserts again, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 226 
 
 that the salvation to which faith is attached, is a present 
 special salvation, not the future salvation. This is mere 
 assertion. Let him, if he can, prove it by the Scriptures. 
 I do not read there of two salvations by Jesus Christ. 
 I know, the gentleman maintains, that God saves all men 
 in the highest sense, and believers specially, that is, in a 
 lower sense ; and yet the obvious meaning of the Apostle 
 is, that God is the Saviour of all men, in a lower sense, but 
 specially, that is, in a higher sense, of those who believe. 
 
 I must now notice Mr. Pingree's argument from Gal. 
 iii. 6, "In thee shall all nations be blessed." I was 
 pleased to hear him quote this passage ; for it directly 
 contradicts the doctrine he is seeking to establish. "For 
 the Scripture, foreseeing [foreseeing what ? that God will 
 save all men? No,] that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, 
 saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed." The pas- 
 sage itself makes faith essential to salvation. And why 
 did he not read the following verse ? " So then they 
 which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
 How glaringly Universalism perverts the word of God ! 
 Why did the gentleman omit the 9th verse, which refutes 
 most clearly his doctrine ? 
 
 Mr. Pingree endeavors to cover over the impiety of 
 Ballou's declarations concerning the temptation of our 
 Saviour, by quoting the Scripture, which says, "He was 
 tempted in all things even as we, yet without sin." He 
 cannot succeed. Ballon says, not that he was exposed to 
 temptations such as we have, but that he was tempted by 
 such ambition as prompted Alexander to his wars and 
 conquests ! If he had in him such ambition, even though 
 he resisted it successfully, it is vain to say, he was per- 
 fectly holy. 
 
 The gentleman makes light of the idea, that the devil 
 tempted Christ. Matthew and Luke both say, he was 
 tempted by the devil. If Mr. Pingree chooses to say it 
 is not true, I shall leave him to quarrel with the inspired 
 writers ! 
 
 1 have offered six distinct arguments against Univer- 
 
226 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 salism — assailing and exposing its fundamental principles, 
 and showing thus the falsity of the conclusion built upon 
 them, that all men will be saved. Mr. Pingree makes no 
 attempt to reply to these arguments, or to defend the 
 great doctrines of his system. To convince you that he is 
 not bound to defend these great principles, he said, a man 
 might be a Trinitarian, and yet be a good Universalist. 
 Mr. WiUiamson, however, contradicts him, and asserts 
 that Universalists have no fellowship with Trinitarians. 
 I will now read some extracts from leading Universalist 
 writers, that the audience may be satisfied, that I have 
 not misrepresented them. 
 
 1. I have said, that Universalists hold the doctrine that 
 sin proceeds from physical causes. I will read, in proof, 
 Ballou's Treatise on Atonement, page 31 : 
 
 " It may assist us in arriving at a satisfactory solution of 
 our subject, to consider, in the first place, the origin of natu- 
 ral evil. This is unquestionably the result of the physical 
 organization and constitution of animal nature." 
 
 Again : 
 
 " It has long been the opinion of Christian divines, that 
 natural evil owes its origin to what is denominated moral evil 
 or sin ; but however respectable this sentiment may be con- 
 sidered on account of the respectability of its advocates, we 
 feel fully convinced that the very reverse of the opinion is true. 
 The doctrine which we feel authorized to reverse, contends 
 that naturalevil is a judicial infliction on man for his sin, and 
 therefore is the eflfect of moral evil ; hut the ground we shall 
 take^ is that natural evil owes its origin to the original constitu- 
 tion of our animal nature, and that moral evil or sin owes its 
 oris:in to natural evil,'''' 
 
 Here we are distinctly informed by Ballou, that natural 
 evil, sickness, suffering, Sic, arises from the organization 
 of our animal nature; and that moral evilor sin proceeds 
 from natural evil. Thus we have sin proceeding from 
 the human constitution, as God made it! 
 
 Again, I read from page 34: 
 
 "These conflicting laws of flesh and spirit, have always 
 existed in man from his first formation ; and so lon<T as they 
 both continue to exert their powers in opposition to each other, 
 so long will sin remain and continue to produce condemnation." 
 
or UNIVERSALISM. 227 
 
 2. I have said that Universalists represent God as the 
 cause or author of sin. Is this true? I read on page 36: 
 
 " Bat perhaps the objector will say, this denies the liberty 
 of the willy and makes God the author of sin. To which I 
 reply, desiring the reader to recollect what I have said of sin 
 in showing its nature ; by which it is discovered, that God 
 may be the innocent and holy cause of that, which, in a lim- 
 ited sense, is sin," &c. 
 
 Again : 
 
 *' If it be granted, that sin will finally terminate for good, 
 in the moral system, it will then be necessary to admit that 
 God is its first cause, or we cannot say that God is the author 
 of all good." [TV we expired 
 
 [mr. ptnoree's twelfth speech.]. 
 
 After making a few remarks on the subject of Vicarious 
 Atonement, I propose to state and illustrate another argu- 
 ment for the proposition, that " the Scriptures teach the 
 final holiness and salvation of all mankind." Mr. Rice 
 has said a great deal in relation to the doctrine of Vica- 
 rious Atonement, and about Universalism sweeping away 
 the hopes of a sinful world. We have had much decla- 
 mation on the subject, appeals to the prejudices of those 
 who believe in that doctrine ; all of which has no bearing 
 upon the proposition. This is all wrong. To illustrate : 
 suppose Mr. Rice should go into a Roman Catholic com- 
 munity, to debate his doctrine of predestination — that 
 being the precise point in discussion. Well, he presents 
 his proofs bearing directly on the proposition; while the 
 Roman Catholic, on his part, talks about transubstan- 
 tiation, and insists upon it that this doctrine is the hope 
 of dying sinners, and appeals, with a vast amoimt of de- 
 clamation, to the prejudices of Roman Catholics, with 
 whom it is a cardinal doctrine. In such a case, would 
 not Mr. Rice object to this course as unfair? Yet he is 
 doing precisely the same thing in principle ; for the 
 Priest's appeals would be just as much to the purpose, as 
 the gentleman's speech about Vicarious Atonement, so far 
 as the present proposition is concerned. I shall not dis- 
 cuss the doctrine at any length, however much Mr. Rice 
 
228 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 may dwell upon it. Still, you will permit a remark or 
 two. He talks about Jesus Christ's suffering in our stead. 
 Well ; what were we exposed to suffer, from which we 
 are saved, by the substitution of the sufferings of Jesus 
 Christ, in our stead? Why, endless misery, say Par- 
 tialists. Did Jesus Christ suffer, in our stead, the endless 
 damnation of Hell, due to each of us ? If he did not suf- 
 fer that, and we were exposed to it, how has Jesus Christ 
 "suffered in our stead''? Again; instead of ivhom, in- 
 stead of hoiv many, did Christ suffer ? The Arminian 
 says, ALL MEN. True, the Bible says, " He is a propitia- 
 tion for the sins of the whole ivorld,'*^ But Mr. Rice 
 says, he suffered in our stead ; which, however, the Bi- 
 ble does not say. But hov) in our stead ? Did he become 
 a sinner for us ? My friend will hardly say that. Did 
 he suffer the punishment due to ouV sins ? I would like 
 a distinct answer. He quotes — " Christ bare our sins 
 in his own body on the tree." So also a Sacred Writer 
 says, he " took our infirmities and bare, our sicknesses^ 
 This illustrates the meaning of that phrase. He takes away 
 our sins, as he cured those diseases. When a sick man 
 is cured, the physician does not take the suffering of the 
 disease upon himself: so Christ did not take upon him- 
 self the proper punishment of our sins ; much less, endless 
 damnation. But I now ask again,/or whom did he die ? 
 For all men — for some of the very men that Mr. Rice 
 says are to be damned to all eternity ; although the " dam- 
 nation" spoken of in the New Testament is as far as hea- 
 ven from Hell, from the damnation advocated by Mr. Rice. 
 But if he died for all, instead of all, will not all be 
 saved? — even on the grounds of Vicarious Atonement. 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith teaches, that all for 
 whom Christ died, are to be saved. If he died for all, 
 then all will be saved ; and we have Universalism, accord- 
 ing to this very doctrine ! And the Arminian does be- 
 lieve that Jesus Christ died for us all ; and yet that we 
 are, some of us, to suffer endless damnation, in our own 
 persons ! God thus inflicts a double damnation ! first, 
 upon Christ in our stead, and then upon us. The Cal- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 229 
 
 vinist says he died for only a part of the human race ; 
 and that God did not desire that all should be saved. He 
 desired that a part should be damned : for that portion of 
 the human race, accordingly, Christ did not die. Do 
 what they may, they cannot be saved ! ! This Calvin- 
 istic view of Vicarious Atonement, is the doctrine which 
 the gentleman places in opposition to the doctrine of uni- 
 versal salvation. 
 
 He says Universalists believe that Christ was a " mere 
 man." I have already shown what we believe on that 
 subject ; — we do not call him a " mere man." The Bible 
 says that Christ was a man ^ that he was endowed with 
 " all power in heaven and on earth," and, consequently, 
 that he was something more than a *'7?iere" man. But 
 let that pass. Mr. Rice belieyes that Christ is both God 
 and man ; and that the hope of the world would be taken 
 away, if Christ was " a mere man ; " because in that 
 case, he would be unable, according to his view, to en- 
 dure all the suflering of the human race. Now, was it 
 tfie God part of Christ, or the man part, which SAiffered ? 
 Will my friend venture to say that Almighty God s^'f- 
 fered? ! I think not. He will say it was his human 
 nature — the man that suffered. It was the "mere man " 
 that suffered^ after all his blustering and declamation about 
 taking away the hope of the world ! ! He makes it, then, 
 the suffering of the human nature alone. Let him deny 
 it, if he will. 
 
 I will DOW proceed to offer another affirmative argu- 
 ment. I have already said that if Jesus Christ suffered 
 for all, even on Calvinistic principles, all will be saved, 
 unless a double vengeance is taken on the sinner — double 
 damnation inflicted ! Armiyiians, and the Bible, and 
 Universalists say that Christ died for all ; — not defining 
 now in what sense. Of course, there are different opin- 
 ions as to the meaning of the phrase, " died for all." 
 Calvinism, and the Bible, and Universalism say, that all 
 for whom Christ died will be saved finally. Put Armi- 
 nianism and Calvinism and the Bible together, (where they 
 agree,) and we have the gi'eat system for which I contend. 
 20 
 
230 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 But what is our view of the Atonement? Mr. Rice's 
 doctrine is that Jesus Christ came to reconcile God to 
 man. The Bible does not say so; but says that he 
 came to " reconcile all things" — all men — " the world" 
 to God ; not to gain the love of God for man. The love 
 of God to men, sent Jesus ; — love, boundless and immu- 
 table LOVE sent him. I will quote a part of the 5th chap- 
 ter of Romans : " For scarcely for a righteous man will 
 one die, yet, peradventure for a good man, some would 
 even dare to die, but God [mark 1] commendeth his 
 LOVE towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, 
 Christ died for us." Here the sufferings of Christ are 
 spoken of as cotmnending the love of God to the world ; 
 and then by his resurrection from death, he " brought 
 life and immortality to light." He ccmmended and de- 
 7710718 fr a' el God's love to the sinful world ; that love 
 which will bring about final universal salvation. My 
 friend cannot set aside this argument. Remember ! it 
 was the love of the Father towards the world, sinful as it 
 was, which Jesus Christ died to commend and manifest. 
 This Divine love is the foundation of all redemption. 
 Thus the salvation of the human race is seen to rest on 
 that grand, central truth of the Bible, that " God is love," 
 and therefore the '* Saviour of all men," through Jesus 
 Christ. Jesus did not die to s^ain the love of God ; but 
 to commend it to a sinful world. 
 
 I will now review m}^ friend's last speech, although 
 there is not much requiring attention, because it does not 
 generally bear on tlie point in hand. He asks if those 
 W'ho die in sin, are raised Iwly, I showed, fi-om his own 
 Confession of Faith, and from his Discussion with ?vlr. 
 Campbell, that even those he calls righteous — the saints, 
 die linners, and require a chans^e after death. He thus 
 agrees with the Bible in this thing — that all die sinners, 
 and so need a change after death. Thus I let Mr. Rice 
 answer his own question. Consequently, Paul " hoped 
 for the resurrection of the just and the unjust." He 
 hoped it, because he believed, as he teaches elsewhere, 
 that all would be raised to immortality, power, and glory ; 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 231 
 
 that all would be subdued to Christ, " that God might be 
 
 ALL IN ALL." 
 
 We still h-ave the passage referred to again, that speaks 
 of some not accepting deliverance, "that they jvAghi ob- 
 tain a be'ter resurrection,^^ Let us read the whole pas- 
 sage, and see what light can be thrown on this subject. 
 Heb. xi. 35, " Women received their dead raised to 
 LIFE AGAIN, and others were tortured, not accepting de- 
 liverance, that they might obtain a l)etter resurrec'ion.^^ 
 Now let us look at this : " Women received their dead 
 raised to life again,^^ Do you suppose these were rais- 
 ed to immortality? No; it was a resurrection to natu- 
 ral life; as in the case of the child of the Shunamite 
 woman. " Others were tortured, not accepting deliver- 
 ance, that they might receive a better resurrection;" to 
 wit, an inimirlal resurrection^ in preference to the one 
 before mentioned, right in this very verse — a resurrec- 
 tion to natural life; thus demonstrating that it was not a 
 resurrection to blesie inc^s^ as cont asted with a resurrec- 
 tion to en iless damnation. The passage, therefore, 
 affords not the least aid to Mr. Rice. 
 
 He asks, if " the creature" was said to be male the 
 sons of God, in Rom. viii. 19 ; where the creature is 
 spoken of as " waiting for the manifestation of the sons 
 of God ?" My argument was this : that " the creation 
 shall be delivered — saved — from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God ;" 
 and now he wants to know if the crealure that was wait- 
 ing for the manifcs'a'ion of the sons of God, was to be 
 made the sons of God? The Saviour said to the Saddu- 
 cees, that in the resurrection, men "shall be as the an- 
 gels OF God in heaven." This is what Paul means, 
 when he says the creature shall be delivered into the 
 glorious liberty of the children of God. My friend asks, 
 what does the Apostle mean by "creature?" He told us 
 himself that the word meant the creation. He now says 
 the word only relates here to the inferior creation — (he 
 hifh, and the trees, and other works of God, now per- 
 verted from their proper use by tlie sinfulness of man. 
 
232 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 I say it means the whole human creation, — "the 
 creature that was made subject to vanity" and suffering. 
 How would the passage read, taking the word " crea- 
 ture" in the sense of the inanimate creation? Listen: 
 " For the earnest expectation of the works of God, the 
 hills, trees, etc. ! waiteth for the manifestation of the 
 sons of God ! for the works of God were made subject 
 to vanity ; not ivillingly^ but by reason of him w^ho hath 
 subjected the same works of God in hope ! because the 
 works of God themselves — the trees, hills, and so on, 
 shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption, 
 into the glorious liberty of the children of God ! ! ! For 
 we know that the whole works of God groa?i and travail 
 in pain together until now ; and not only they but our- 
 selves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even 
 we ourselves groan within ourselves, waitmg for the adop- 
 tion, to V, it, the redemption of our body." You see that 
 this exposition will not answer. The phrase, the " works 
 of God," for " creature," will not meet the exigencies 
 of the passage. It can only mean the human creation. 
 
 In order to limit this testimony, in Rom. viii., my 
 friend quotes verses 16, 17, 18 ; "The Spirit itself beareth 
 witness with our spirits that we are the children of God ; 
 and if children, then heirs of God and joint-heirs with 
 Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be 
 also glorified together; for I reckon that the sufferings 
 of this present time are not worthy to be compared with 
 the glory which shall be revealed in us." Those who 
 believe the truth are saved and justified, in the present 
 life ; they have that salvation here, the Apostle teaches. 
 Those he referred to were already saved, in that sense ; 
 but not raised from death, and consequently not fully nor 
 finally saved. 
 
 God loves his friends and hates his enemies, is the 
 teaching of (!^alvinism. My friend quotes the words of 
 an Apostle, " God so loved the world that he gave his 
 only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might 
 not perish, but have everlasting life." I always thought 
 before, that the Orthodox taught that Christ came to gain 
 
OF UXIVtiRSALlSMi 233 
 
 the love of God ; and I might prove from Mr. Rice's 
 Discussion with Mr. Campbell, that Christians " are now 
 in actual possession of everlasting /j/e." Hence, this 
 passage gives no countenance to the doctrine of a final 
 par!ia/ or exclusive salvation; 
 
 Mr. Rice says that faith is essential to sahafion. So 
 I admit, in relation to present salvaH?n ; and Mr. Rice 
 himself does not believe faith essential to salvation in the 
 life to come; because all infants and idiots are to be 
 saved, as he believes, although his Creed, teaches not so. 
 I will read the passage again. 1 want people to see what 
 the system is, which is placed in opposition to Univer- 
 salisin ; and to show, that by it, some infants are not 
 to be saved, because their parents have not the true faith ! 
 See Confession of Faith, Chap. XV. Sec. ii. " The visible 
 church, which is also catholic or universal under the 
 Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the law,) 
 consists fif all those throughout the world that profess the 
 TRUE RELIGION, [that is, Prcshyteriani^^m, of course,] to- 
 gether with THEIR CHILDREN ; [the children of no others !] 
 and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house 
 and family of God, out of which, [that is, the body of 
 true professors, Presbyterians !]|(3^/A6're is no ordinary 
 POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION ! !" Thus s im iufai.ts only are 
 to be saved ; and that not by their faVh, but because their 
 parents are professors of "the true religion." All those 
 passages he speaks of, as showing faith essential to salva- 
 tion, only shows that the salvation to which faith is es- 
 sential is here — the present salvation. 
 
 Mr. Jlice says the doctrine of endless misery is not the 
 cause 0/ PERSECUTION. Why, then, have Roman Catholics 
 persecuted heretics, if they do not believe that God ex- 
 cludes them from heaven ? Sometimes they seem to do 
 this Lenevolendy, This is exereplified in the case of a 
 Roman Priest, I once read of, who, in defendinir a city in a 
 siege, first offered a prayer for the soul of his enemy, 
 and t'iCn discharg?.d his gun; exclaiming, A prayer fur his 
 soul, and a bullet for his body. It is benevolence that 
 sometimes leads to persecution. The intention is to bring 
 20* 
 
234 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 people to the right faith, because that is supposed to be 
 essential to salvation. Often, however, persecution orig- 
 inated in the malignity of Roman Catholic rulers. If 
 my friend, Mr. Rice,, will turn over the files of his old 
 anti-papal newspaper, he will find there how Rome has 
 persecuted heretics — a striking illustration of the practical 
 influence of Partialism — the doctrine of an exclusive 
 heaven. 
 
 He says he has asked me to produce Scripture to show 
 that any body dying in sin, can go to heaven. Every 
 body who has heard this discussion, knows that I have 
 quoted passages to show that at the resini^edion, all shall 
 have been subdued to Christ, who will then deliver up 
 the kingdom to God, — having accomplished his mission, 
 which was to save all men, ''that God may be all in all." 
 Mr. Rice objects to this, because he declares it to be mere- 
 ly an exercise of physical power, I have already given 
 you the words of Mr. Rice himself, in his Debate with 
 Mr. Campbell, (page 635,) saying, 
 
 "Now, if God could originally create man holy, without 
 words and arguments, who shall presume to assert that he 
 caimot create him anew, and restore his lost image, without 
 them ; or that he has now no power over the human mind, Be- 
 yond that of argument and motive?" 
 
 So also on page 680 : 
 
 " I call on him now to show us where, in the Bible, God 
 has said that he cannot, or that he will not, exert on the hu- 
 man mind any power except through words and arguments. 
 Or where has he said, that he cannot or will not sanctify 
 the hearts of any of the human family without the Word ! 
 There is not such passage from Genesis to Revelation. And 
 since God has not limited himself, who dares undertake to 
 limit him 1 
 
 " Mr. C, let it be remembered, not only denies that God 
 does exert on the human mind any other power than that 
 of words or arguments; -but he even goes so far as to as- 
 sert, that he cannot operate except by the T^uth ! ! ! Where 
 has God said that he cannot ?■ Nowhere. How, then, can 
 any man venture to say so ]" 
 
 Now what power is this ? Is it " physical power ?" 
 Whatever Mr. Rice calls this, I will call the power that 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 235 
 
 effects the final holiness and salvation of all men ; for it 
 may effect as much in all as in 2,fetv, 
 
 Mr. Rice quotes the passage affirming that Christ's 
 " enemies will be put under his feet ;" which he thinks 
 means that the wicked, being his enemies, shalL.be put 
 under his feet. So the Bible says, that the saints shall 
 have their enemies under their feet ; and thus Mr. Rice, 
 I presume, consoles himself with tbe glorious prospect of 
 trampling his enemies under his feet ! ! I understand by 
 this passage of Scripture, that Jesus Christ shall destroy 
 his enemies, and the enemies of man — Death, Sin, Hell, 
 the Devil, and all. Does the subjection of all things to 
 Christ, here taught by the Apostle, relate to a forced, un- 
 willing subjection, that results in misery ? No ! for it is 
 added, immediately, " the Son himself shall be subject 
 unto Him [that is, God,] that put all thiiigs under him, 
 that God may be all in all" ! ! Does this look like 
 trampling them under the feet ? — ! 
 
 It is not necessary to say any thing more about Dr. 
 Doddridge's remarks in relation to John v., quoted in 
 Paige's " Selections." Mr. Paige himself says, m t/ie 
 very place where the quotation is found, that it is a note 
 on the 25th verse. My friend can make no capital out of 
 this circumstance, nor make Mr. Paige's honesty or can- 
 dor suspected. 
 
 Mr. Rice asks, if there is to be no evil hereafter, why 
 use the word " salvation ?" I think I have shown about 
 twenty times what Scripture salvation is. We sin here — 
 we svffer here — we die. But we shall rise from the 
 dead, and be introduced hereafter, by the power of God 
 in Christ " the Saviour of the world," into a state of ho- 
 liness, purity and happiness. This is salvatiox, as af- 
 firmed in our proposition, and taught in the Word of God» 
 
 [Time eocpired. 
 
 [mr. rice's twelfth reply.] 
 It Avould doubtless save the gentleman much trouble, if 
 he could convince the audience, that my arguments have 
 no bearing upon the question before us. In this, howev- 
 
236 
 
 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 er, I think, he will not succeed. What are the ar^menls 
 I have presented ? They are the following : 1. That the 
 Bible is a plain book, designed by ils glorious Author to 
 instruct not only the learned but also the unlearned. This 
 is adinilteJ. 'i'hen is it probable, is it credible, that dur- 
 ing eighteen centuries not more than two men understood 
 even its prominent doctrines? Nay, is it not still more 
 incredible, that almost the whole Christian world shculd 
 have understood it to teach precisely the opposite of what 
 it was specially designed to teach? Has this argun-ent 
 any bearing on the question? 2. My second argument 
 is — that according to Universalism there is no such thing 
 as salvation. For Universalis's assure us, that men are 
 justly exposed to no evils hereafter, and that Christ saves 
 us from none to which we a^re exposed here. From what, 
 then, does salvation deliver us ? Why, it is as if a man 
 should boast, that he to-day saved a man from drowning, 
 who last week fell into the river ! If Universalism is 
 true, men are saved after they are out of danger ! Has 
 this argument any bearing on the subject before us ? 
 
 3. My ihird argument is, that, according to the Scrip- 
 tures there will be a resurrection, both of the just and the 
 unjust; that only they who "fall asleep in Christ" and 
 who are " Christ's at his ccmiing," who "have the Spirit 
 of Christ," will participate in the glorious resurrection of 
 the just ; that, therefore, Paul and the believers of ancient 
 times, thought it necessary to persevere through great la- 
 bors and trials, " if by any means they might attain to the 
 resurrection of the dead" — "that they might obtain a 
 better resurrection ;" which they could not obtain other- 
 wise. Therefore Universalism, which holds, that even the 
 vilest apostates will obtain the better resurrection, is not 
 true. 
 
 4. My fourth argument is, that according to Universal- 
 ism, as held by the gentleman, the soul is maJerial and 
 mortal. In opposition to this doctrine, I have proved — 
 that the soul is immaterial and immortal ; that sin and ho- 
 liness belong exclusively to the mind, not at all to the 
 body ; that, consequently, the separation of the soul from 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 237 
 
 the body will not change man's moral character ; that the 
 resurrection of the body by the power of God, will not 
 change the moral character of the soul ; and, therefore, 
 those who die in their sins will be sinful, and, consequent- 
 ly, unhappy after death, and after resurrection. Thus I 
 have proved, directly in the face of his doctrine, future 
 punishment after death and after the resurrection ! 
 
 But the gentleman says, he is not a materialist. Very 
 well. If he admits that the soul is immaterial and im- 
 mortal, and, of course, that sin and holiness belong to the 
 mind, not to the body ; my argument bears with irresisti- 
 ble force against his doctrine. For then he must admit, 
 that the moral character of man cannot be changed by 
 death or by the resurrection ; and, consequendy, that all 
 who die in sin, will be miserable after death, and after the 
 resurrection. In advancing my fourth argument, you per- 
 ceive that I struck at one of the most important pillars in 
 the Universalist temple. 
 
 6. My Jiff h argument against Universalism, is — that it 
 makes God the cause or author of all sin. This doctrine, 
 as I have proved, is boldly advocated by Hosea Ballon, 
 who contends, " that God may be the innocent and holy 
 cause of that which, in a limited sense, is sin ;" that "if 
 it should be granted, that sin will finally terminate for 
 good, in the moral system, it will then be necessary to 
 admit that God is its first cause, or we cannot say that 
 God is the author of all good !" Treat, on Atone, p, 36. 
 Why does Ballon advance and defend these principles ? 
 His object is to prove that sin proceeds from physical 
 causes, and, therefore, it will cease after death; and that, 
 proceeding from the organization of the human constitu- 
 tion, it deserves only limited punishment ; and, conse- 
 quently, that the resurrection will make all holy and hap- 
 py. And truly, if we admit that sin proceeds necessarily 
 from man's physical organization, and if God is the cause 
 of it ; men deserve very little punishment — especially if, 
 as the same author asserts, the sins of men are commit- 
 ted, not against the moral law of God, but against the im- 
 perfect law of their own minds. Indeed, if these things 
 
238 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 be true, sin deserves no punishment at all. Is it, then, no 
 valid argiuTient against Uni verbalism, that it cannot be 
 sustained without making God the author of all the sin 
 in the world ? The gendeman must maintain, that the 
 soul is material and mortal, or admit, that it is immaterial 
 and immortal. If he asserts the former, he makes God 
 the author of sin ; if the latter, he must admit both sin 
 and punishment after death and after the resurrection. 
 
 6. My bixUi argument is, that Universalism denies the 
 doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ — a doctrine 
 abundantly taught in the Word of God. And here I am 
 constrained to say, that, fond as the gentleman is of ma- 
 king his comments on Calvinism, he seems to know abso- 
 lutely nothing about it. I can scarcely believe, that a 
 child can be found, who has been twelve months in one 
 of our Sabbath Schools, or an old lady in our Church, 
 who does not know, that Presbyterians hold no such doc- 
 trines as he ascribes to them. The means of correct in- 
 formation are wilhin his reach : he is, therefore, inexcus- 
 able for not knowing better, for making statements of our 
 doctrine contradicted by every respectable writer in our 
 Church. According to the Calvinistic creed, he says, 
 some men cannot be saved, let them do what they will. 
 This is not true. He asserts, that our Confession teach- 
 es that some inflints are damned. It teaches no such 
 thing ; and since he is unable to refer to one respectable 
 Presbyterian writer who so teaches, or so understands the 
 Confession ; he ought, if not for shame, at least for truth's 
 sake, to correct his perversion of our views. This charge 
 has been a thousand times made, and as often refute:! by 
 those who have written on the sui^ject. The gentleman, 
 however, does not choose to be convinced; and none are 
 so blind, as they who will not see. 
 
 Again ; he represents us as holding, that Christ came 
 into the world and suffered, not because God loved men, 
 but to induce him to love them. 'J'his charge I have seen 
 in ahyiost every Universalist author I have read ; aufl yet 
 it is without the shadow of a foundation. No Calvinist 
 ever taught or held such a doctrine ; and our Confession 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 239 
 
 of Faith,, with which the gentleman professes to be very 
 familiar, teaches precisely the opposite doctrine — that 
 " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
 Son, that whosoever belie veth in him should not perish, 
 but have everlasting life." But some may inquire — could 
 not God have saved men without sending his Son into the 
 world to suffer in their stead ? I answer, men are ac- 
 countable beings, under the perfect law of God, which all 
 have broken. " Therefore," says Paul, " by the deeds of 
 the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for 
 by the law is the knowledge of sin." Since, then, none 
 can be saved by obeying the law, which all have broken, 
 what was to be done V Could the law be repealed or 
 changed ? No — for it is perfect — "holy, just and good." 
 The law, therefore, must be sustained ; and the intensely 
 interesting question arises — how, then, can sinners be 
 saved? Paul answers; "But now the righteousness of 
 God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by 
 the law and the prophets ; even tlie righteousness of God, 
 which is BY FAITH of Jesus Christ, unto all and upox 
 ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE *. for thcrc is no difl^erencc. For 
 all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; be- 
 ing justified freely by his grace through the redemption 
 that is in Christ Jesus." Observe, men are not juistified 
 on the ground of their obedience to the law, but by the 
 grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ — 
 "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the re- 
 mission of sins that are past [sins under the old Dispen- 
 sation] through the forbearance of God: to declare, I 
 say, at this time, his righteousness : that he might be just 
 and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." 
 
 Here we are taught, that God could not, consistently 
 with the claims of the law, save sinners without the atone- 
 ment which Christ made ; and therefore he is set forth as 
 a propitiation, that God may be just and thejic-tificr of 
 those who believe. There were two great difficulties in 
 the way of the salvation of men, viz: 1. All had broken 
 the law, and therefore were condemned ; 2, All were sin- 
 
240 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ful, and therefore unqualified for the service and enjoy- 
 ment of God in heaven. The first of these difficulties 
 was removed by the death of Christ, who "was made a 
 curse for us" — who " bare our sins in his own body on 
 the tree." The legal difficulty was thus removed; and 
 God can be just, and justify the sinner who believes in 
 Christ. The second difficulty is removed by the work 
 of the Holy Spirit, who renews and sanctifies the souls 
 of men. Thus they are presented before God "without 
 spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." 
 
 But the gentleman asks, did God die ? The human 
 nature of Christ suffered ; but it sustained a mysterious 
 and intimate connection with the Divine Nature, by which 
 it was sustained ; and the infinite dignity of the Messiah, 
 God and Man, gave value and efficacy to his sufferings 
 for men. Thus the law of God was " magnified and made 
 honorable." 
 
 But, says the gentleman, if Christ died for all, then 
 all must be saved. The Scriptures say, God gave his 
 Son, not that all might be saved, but " that whosoever 
 helieveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life." Salvation is, indeed, offered to all, but is bestowed 
 only on those who receive Christ by faith. 
 
 The Bible, Mr. Pingree says, speaks of Christ as a 
 man; and thus he attempts to justify Universalists in 
 speaking of him as a mere man. But does not the Bible 
 also speak of him as "God," "the mighty God," "God 
 over all ?" What right, then, had Abner Kneeland, or I. 
 D. Williamson, or any other man, to take only those 
 passages which speak of his human nature, and, regard- 
 less of those which speak with equal clearness of his Di- 
 vine nature, to pronounce him a mere man? I receive 
 both classes of texts — those which speak of liim as God, 
 and those which speak of him as man ; and thus I arrive 
 at the conclusion that he is God and man. If Mr. Pin- 
 gree and his brethren choose to quarrel with the Scrip- 
 tures, they must do so. 
 
 Since it is certain, that " by the deeds of the law there 
 shall be no flesh justified;" and since Mr. Pingree de- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 241 
 
 nies the vicarious sufferings of Christ; how, I ask, can 
 any one of the human race be justified ? But the lan- 
 guage of Scripture, on this subject, is too plain to be mis- 
 understood. Peter says, he "bare our sins in his OAvn 
 body on the tree." Mr. Pingree tells us, this means that 
 he bears or takes away our sins. But the absurdity of 
 such an interpretation of the Apostle's language, is too 
 glaring. Our sins are oih* wrong acts, our transgressions 
 of God's law. What does Mr. Pingree mean by say- 
 ing, that Christ heai'S away pur wrong acts, our trans- 
 gressions ? Is tliere any meaning in such language ? We 
 find in Ezekiel precisely similar expressions, which will 
 put the meaning of Peter's language beyond cavil. " The 
 soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear 
 the iniquiiy of the father, neither shall the father bear 
 the iniquity of the son ; the righteousness of the right- 
 eous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wick- 
 ed shall be upon him," xviii. 20. Does the prophet 
 mean to say, the son shall not bear away the iniquity of 
 the father, and the father shall not bear away the iniquity 
 of the son ? Does not every one understand him to say, 
 the son shall not be punished, or bear the penalty, for the 
 iniquity of the father — that each shall bear the punish- 
 ment of his own sins ? So when Peter says, Christ bare 
 our sins, the obvious and only possible meaning is, that 
 he bare the punishment, the suffering due our sins. How 
 will the gentleman reconcile with his Creed such lan- 
 guage as the following: "The blood of Jesus Christ, his 
 Son, cleanseth from all sin;" He came "to give his life 
 a ransom for many;" ^''Redeemed with the precious 
 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and with- 
 out spot;" " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
 the law, being made a curse for us." How, I repeat the 
 question, can such language be explained by Universal- 
 ists, who deny that Christ suffered in our stead — that 
 there is any efficacy in his . sufferings, to secure the par- 
 don of our sins ? This is the firm foundation on which 
 God bids the penitent sinner rest his hope of justifi- 
 cation and eternal life, but which Universalists sweep 
 21 
 
242 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 from under him, leaving him exposed to the curse of 
 God's broken law ! 
 
 But the gentleman seeks to escape the difficulty, by- 
 assuring the audience, that the doctrine of atonement has 
 nothing more to do with the question under discussion, 
 than the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation. Does 
 he not contend for the principle, that every man doesy in 
 this life, endure all the punishment his sins deserve? 
 Jlnd is it not upon this very principle, he asserts that 
 there will be no future puyiishmeni? He contends, that 
 there will be no future punishment, because every man 
 is fully punished for his sins in this world. I say it is 
 not true, that all are punished for their sins, because 
 Christ bore the punishment due to the sins of his people, 
 and they are forgiven and not punished. Thus I prove 
 the principle false, on which rests the conclusion, that 
 there is no future punishment. And if the principle be 
 false, the conclusion based upon it is certainly false. It 
 is vain, therefore, for Mr. Pingree to attempt to escape 
 from the difficulty, by asserting, that the doctrine of the 
 atonement has no more connection with the question be- 
 fore us, than transubstantiation. 
 
 VII. My seventh argument against Universalism is in- 
 timately connected wdth the preceding one, viz. it denies 
 the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ I 
 AVhat is the Bible doctrine of justification? Justification 
 is the opposite of condemnation. Condemnation is a 
 sentence of law against a man tried and found guilty ; 
 and justification is a sentence of law in favor of a man 
 tried and found not to be legally guilty. He is, there- 
 fore, by the judge pronounced legally a righteous man — 
 the law having no claims against him. The question 
 then arises, on what ground can any of the human race 
 be justified before God? Can any be justified on the plea, 
 that they have perfectly obeyed the law of God? No — 
 " for ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of 
 God," Rom. iii. 23. How, then, can those who have 
 broken the law, be justified? Paul shall answ^er; " Being 
 justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
 
OF UMVERSALISM. 24S 
 
 i& in Christ Jesus," verse 24. Men are justified by 
 grace, because the grace, the mercy of God, devised and 
 revealed the plan of salvation, and sent his Son into 
 the world to execute it. They are justified through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus, because by his suffer- 
 ings in their behalf, he redeemed them from the curse of 
 the violated law. They become savingly interested in 
 Christ by faith; and therefore the Aposde says, "We 
 conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the 
 deeds of the law," verse 28, 
 
 To illustrate the doctrine somewhat more fully : Paul 
 stands before tlie judgment seat of Christ; and he is just- 
 ified — declared legally a just man. On what ground? 
 Not on the ground that he never broke the law ; for he 
 acknowledges himself to have been "the chief of sin- 
 ners." He is justified on the ground that Jesus Christ 
 assumed his legal obligations, met the demands of the law 
 against him. For illustration, I owe you a thousand dol- 
 lars, and have nothing with which to make payment. 
 My friend becomes my security, and pays tlie debt for 
 me. You institute suit against me, and you prove tliat / 
 paid no part of the debt; yet the law justifies me — it de- 
 clares the debt legally paid, and treats me as if I myself 
 had paid every farthing. Civil law admits of substitu- 
 tion, in cases where no serious evil arises to society. In 
 criminal cases it cannot be admitted; because he who 
 would die for his friend, convicted of murder, could give 
 no assurance that he will not again commit the same 
 crime ; and besides, no man has the right to dispose of his 
 own hfe. Jesus Christ had the right' to lay down his 
 life ; and he gives the best assurance, that all who shall 
 be justified through his sufferings, will become holy, and 
 will live to the glory of God and for the good of men. 
 Thus, those who believe are "freely justified by his grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
 
 What is included in justification? 1. The forgiveness 
 of all the sins committed; and, 2. The receiving and 
 treating the believer as righteous for the sake of Christ. 
 
 But Universalism denies this fundamental docti'ine of 
 
244 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the Gospel. If Universalism is true, there is no such 
 thing in the Gospel as justification by faith ; there is no 
 pardon — no forgiveness of sins I For it is a fundamen- 
 tal principle in that system, that every individual suffers 
 all that is justly due to his sins — fully pays his own debts ; 
 and if this be true, how can there be any such thing* as 
 pardon or forgiveness? What remains to be forgiven? 
 For example, I owe you one hundred dollars ; I pay the 
 very last farthing of the debt, so soon as it falls due ; and 
 after you have received the money, you very compassion'- 
 ately say to me, "Sir, I now freely forgive you the 
 debt!" Why, does not every one see, that you would 
 offer me a gross insult? If, then, it be true, as Univer- 
 salism asserts, tliat every man suffers all that he deserves 
 to suffer for his sins ; pardon, forgiveness is out of the 
 question. 
 
 And yet the Scriptures every where teach, that God 
 does forgive sins, does pardon transgressions, does justify 
 the ungodly. God passed by Moses, "And proclaimed, 
 The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long- 
 suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping 
 mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and 
 sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting 
 the iniquity ^f the fathers upon the children's children," 
 &c., Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. Here we are taught, that God 
 does forgive iniquity, transgression and sin. The 
 meaning of the phrase, " that will by no means clear the 
 guilty, ^^ is made clear by Exod. xx. 5, "For I the Lord 
 am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
 the children unto the third and fourth generation of them 
 that hate me." The word guilty is printed in italics, to 
 show, that it is not in the original Hebrew, but is sup- 
 plied by the translators. The meaning of the passage, as 
 explained by the 20th chapter and 5th verse, evidently is, 
 that God will not clear the impenitent — those who hate 
 him. However this may be, it is certain, that God does 
 forgive sin. By the prophet Jeremiah, God promises to 
 make with his people a new covenant, and says, "For 
 they shall all know me, from the least of them even unto 
 
Ot UNIVERSALISM* 245 
 
 the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive 
 their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no morc,'^ 
 chap. xxxi. 34. In that remarkable prayer which our 
 Saviour taught his disciples to offer up, we find the fol- 
 lowing petition : " Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our 
 debtors," Matth. vi. 12. Universalists assert, that God, 
 in all cases, punishes men for all the sin they commit. 
 When they offer this petition, do they understand that 
 they are thus to treat their debtors ? Observe, the petition 
 is, "Forgive us as we forgive." Do Universalis is pro- 
 fess to forgive their debtors, after having exacted from 
 tliem the last farthing they owe? Of what advantage is 
 such forgiveness to a debtor? Forgiveness, according to 
 all Lexicons, so far as I know, is release from deserved 
 pmiishment. Will Mr. Pingree say, it is release from 
 punishment not deserved? 
 
 The parable of the prodigal (Luke xv.) affords a strik- 
 ing illustration of tliis doctrine. He had wandered from 
 his father's house, spent his substance in riotous living, 
 and wus reduced to want. After ineffectual efforts lo re- 
 pair his condition, he resolves — ♦' I will arise, and go 
 to my father, and say unto him, Father, I have sinned 
 against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy 
 to be called thy son : make me as one of thy hirc.l ser- 
 vants." He acknowledges, tliat he deserves, on account 
 of his sins, to be forbidden a place in his father's house ; 
 and he asks the place of a hired servant, as a favor. The 
 father freely forgave him his wickedness, and restored 
 him to the standing of a son. Thus does God freely 
 forgive the penitent sinner, and receives him as a el did. 
 
 Indeed the preaching of the Gospel, is the proclama- 
 tion of the remission of sins to all who repent. Accord- 
 ingly, Christ, after his resurrection, said to his disciples 
 ** Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day : and that repentance 
 and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
 among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem," Luke xxiv. 46, 
 47. And to those who, on the day of Pentecost, anxiously 
 inquired — " Men and brethren, what shall w« do?" P«- 
 21* 
 
246 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ter said, " Repent and be baptized every one of you, in 
 the name of Jesns Christ, for the remission of sins,^^ 
 Acts. ii. 37, 38. When the trembling jailor asked Paul, 
 '' What must I do to be saved ? '' he answered, " Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," eh. 
 xvi. 30, 31. Saved from what ? From his sins, by the 
 remission of them. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 chapter i. 7, we read : " In whom [Christ] we have re- 
 demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, ac- 
 cording to the riches of his grace." 
 
 These passages may be given as a specimen of the 
 uniform teaching of the Scriptures. But in the face of 
 them, and a multitude of similar passages, Mr. Pingree 
 contends, that every man pays his own debts, even to the 
 uttermost farthing ! If Universalism be true, there is no 
 pardon, no forgiveness, no remission, no justification by 
 faith. It leaves the sinner to bear the full burden of his 
 sins. If Universalism be true, not only salvation, but 
 pardon, forgiveness, remission of sins, justification by 
 faith, ought to be obliterated from the Word of God ! ! ! 
 
 Universalists, I know, tell us, that God *' will render 
 to every man according to his deeds." But amongst the 
 deeds of those who are converted to God, must be reck- 
 oned faith in Christ, repentance and reformation, to which 
 remission of sins is promised. *' Let the wicked for- 
 sake 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 par 
 DON," Isa. iv. 7. [_Time expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's thirteenth speech.] 
 I consider this last speech about the best sermon my 
 friend has preached since the beginning of the contro- 
 versy, on any of those subjects not essential to the propo- 
 sition ; which is as follows : " Do the Scriptures teach the 
 ultimate holiness and salvation of all mankind ?" 
 
 Before resuming my review of the former speech, I will 
 present another argument in the affirmative of that propo- 
 sition. Although I follow my friend, in some of his 
 
OF UNTVERSALISM. 247 
 
 wanderings ; yet I propose continuing my own arguments 
 to the end, whether he notices them or not; for I want 
 you all to know, that Universahsm rests on a foundation 
 not to be removed. I have already referred to one pas- 
 sage that distinctly teaches that all who sin, and who die, 
 shall become righteous, and consequently saved. I 
 mean Rom. v. 12 — 19. I now refer to the passage in 
 Isaiah xlv. 22 — 25 : " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all 
 the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none 
 else. I have sworn by myself; [another oath, as in the 
 promise to Abraham ;] the word is gone out of my mouth 
 in righteousness, and shall not return. That unto me 
 EVERY KNEE shall bow, EVERY TONGUE shall swear ; [mark 
 the universality of tlie language.] Surely, shall one say, 
 in the Lord have I righteousness and strength : even to 
 him shall men come ; and all that are incensed against 
 him shall be ashamed:" [as in Ezek.xvi. GO — 63; ashamed 
 of past sins, when brought into a happy condition — saved.] 
 I have read this, "Surely shall one say." Who ? what 
 one 1 Is there only one to confess " righteousness and 
 strength in the Lord?" Mr. Rice will not deny that the 
 word " 07ie" was added by the translators, and is not 
 found in the original. It should be omitted; for it de- 
 stroys the sense. I now read the passage without the 
 -word one ; and Ave will see how it bears on Universalism. 
 " Every knee shall Idow, and every tongue shall swear ; 
 surely, shall say," — that is, every.tongue shall say — " In 
 the Lord have I righteousness and strength." Thus 
 all men are finally to say, " In the Lord have we righteous- 
 ness and strength." Will not this be universal holiness 
 and salvation ? and where now are those who are to be 
 endlessly damned ? Will God consign those to remediless 
 perdition, who " have righteousness " in Him ? ! 
 
 See now Phil. ii. 9 — 11, illustrative of the passage just 
 quoted from tlie Prophecy of Isaiah, and establishing the 
 truth of our proposition : " AVherefore God hath highly 
 exalted him, [Jesus 'Christ,] and given him a name above 
 every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee 
 should bow, of things in lieaven, and things on eartli, and 
 
248 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 things under the earth." Mr. Rice believes Christ to be 
 the " very God." But this passage speaks of God's ex- 
 alting him, and giving him his lofty and glorious name* 
 So the Scriptures always represent ; that the Fathes^iues, 
 and the Son receives. Whatever he is, or does, is by the 
 will and power of the Supreme Father, even where the 
 word God is applied to him ; as in Heb. i. 8, 9 — " thy 
 throne, O God ! is forever and ever ;" but it is immediate- 
 ly said, "God, even thy God hath anointed thee,^^ etc. — 
 the God Supreme of God, — the word in the latter case 
 being used in a restricted sense. 
 
 I will now resume the reading of Phil. ii. 9 — 11: 
 " Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that 
 Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." In 
 Psalms 1. 23, we read, " Whoso offereth praise glori- 
 fieth God;" and all, as taught in Phil. ii. 9 — 11, are to 
 bow the knee to Jesus, to confess him Lord, " to the glory 
 of God the Father." Will not these be happy, saved? 
 or will Mr. Rice say tliat the groans, and screams, and 
 yells of the damned in Hell, foreordained from the be- 
 ginning of the world to wail in endless woe, will be to 
 the GLORY which God is to have in Jesus Christ, as pre- 
 sented in these passages ? ! 
 
 Having presented these proofs in favor of the doctrine 
 I advocate, I now proceed to notice a few things in my 
 friend's speech. He insinuated that Mr. Thomas had 
 given up discussing the proposition before us. This is 
 not true. The long delay to which Mr. Rice refers, has 
 been on the part of Dr. Brecken ridge, who promised to 
 meet Mr. Thomas in a written discussion ; and if he fid- 
 Jills that promise, the discussion will take place. Bui 
 why introduce Mr. Thomas' name into the present dis- 
 cussion, at all ? It has nothing to do with the question 
 before us. I am inclined to think that Mr. Rice feels a. 
 little sore — a little displeased with Mr. Thomas, because 
 he would not condescend to step in between Mr. Rice 
 and myself, in this discussion, to my disparagement; al- 
 though Mr. Rice seemed to use all means to effect such a 
 substitution, and even carefully spoke of him as the Rev. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 249 
 
 Abel C. Thomas, in small capitals, in the same -corres- 
 pondence in which he as carefully and studiously address- 
 ed your humble servant as Mr. E. M. Pingree. 
 
 My friend again speaks of "minor points." I called 
 them minor points, because not essential to the proposi- 
 tion now under discussion. He asks if it is a "minor 
 point," whether Jesus Christ suffered our punishment, or 
 not ? It is minor only in not being essential to the settle- 
 ment of the question before us. 
 
 Who has talked about sanctification ly the resurrec' 
 Hon ? I have not. I spoke of being made holy by the 
 POWER OF God ; and quoted Mr. Rice, to show that God, 
 by his power alone, can and does regenerate sinful men. 
 
 He says, Jesus Christ teaches that "he that believ- 
 eth not shall be damned." This is* correct; but the 
 Saviour's language here relates to the present condition of 
 man. " He that believe th not is condemned [or damned] 
 ALREADY," says the Saviour in another place. In John 
 V. 24, Jesus Christ says, " He that believeth in him that 
 sent me, hath everlasting life," — that is, now, while be- 
 lieving, — "and shall not come into condemnation; but is 
 PASSED from death unto life." The death — the condem- 
 nation is endured here, in this life ; and so is the salva- 
 tion enjoyed here, that comes by faith; but \he final sal- 
 vation that the Gospel reveals, is to be enjoyed hereafter, 
 and does not depend on faith. One is a limited, partial 
 salvation ; the other universal. Still Mr. Rice repeats the 
 assertion, that ^^ faith is essential to salvation''^ hereafter. 
 Hence, I repeat the question, and urge it with all earnest- 
 ness, What becomes of those who are incapable of hav- 
 ing faith ? and those who have no opportunity of believ- 
 ing? Are they to be saved? or not? Are they to go 
 to perdition, merely because God has made them unable 
 to believe ? ! It is true that Abraham believed the prom- 
 ises, and so was justified by faith. But those promises 
 related to something else besides his own justification; 
 they related to the final blessedness of all nations. So it 
 is now. The promises we are to believe, reveal some- 
 thing more than our own present justification ; but faith 
 
250 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 in them brings down to us who believe, the " special sal- 
 vation" — an earnest only of the final salvation promised 
 to all. All those passages are properly interpreted in this 
 way. Hence I need not notice them in detail. 
 
 I did not say that the Devil did not tempt Christ. I 
 only denied that the Devil there spoken of was an infer- 
 nal spirit, once in heaven, an angel of glory, and then 
 cast down to Hell, represented as there bound in chains 
 of everlasting darkness, who was permitted to lead the 
 Messiah about from place to place, tempting him. T did 
 not say it was not the Devil, as the Bible uses that word ; 
 only that it was not the Orthodox Devil ! ! 
 
 As to our physical constitution causing sin, I quoted 
 Mr. Rice himself, and his Confession of Faith ; both say- 
 ing that the righteous sin as long as they live; because 
 they are here connected with the flesh. What does 
 Paul say ? See Rom. vii. 18-25 : " For I know that in 
 me, (that is, in my Jlesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for 
 to will is present with me ; but how to perform that 
 which is good, I find not. [Why ? Because he was un- 
 der the influence of his present physical organization.] 
 For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil that I 
 would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is 
 no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find 
 then a law, that when / tvould do good, evil is present 
 with me. For I delight in the law of God, after the in- 
 ward man : But I see another law in my members, war- 
 ring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into 
 captivity to the law of sin ivhich is in my members. 
 Oh ! wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me 
 
 from THE BODY OF THIS DEATH? I thauk God ! THROUGH 
 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I my- 
 self serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law 
 of sin." If it was necessary for the Apostle Paul to be 
 translated from this world, and the influences of the flesh, 
 in order to be pure and holy, it is so for all men. Still, 
 do not understand me to say that the boJy itnelf sins 
 Mr. Rice referred to a passage in Faliier Bailou, in 
 which he says he makes God the Author of sin. Mr. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 251 
 
 Ballou says that God has so consituted us that we sin 
 while in the Jlesh; and that he has done this for wise 
 purposes^ and overrules our sin for ultimate good. Mr. 
 Rice himself, has said substantially the same thing in this 
 discussion ; and quoted the case of Joseph's brethren, to 
 prove and illustrate the doctrine. However, none but a 
 Universalist can consistently say that ; — a fact before 
 urged upon your attention ; but which Mr. Rice neglects 
 to notice. But the Presbyterian Confession of Faith 
 makes God just as much the First Cause of sin, as do 
 the Universalists. Ch. V. Sec. 4; " Th3 almighty power, 
 unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far 
 manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth 
 itself even to the first faiTl, and all other sixs of an- 
 gels and men, and that ^CT' not by a bare permission, but 
 such as hath joined to it a most wise and powerful bound- 
 ing and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a 
 manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends ; 3'et so, as 
 the sinfalness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, 
 and not from God ; who being most holy and righteous, 
 neither is nor can be the author and approver of sin." I 
 suppose Father Ballou meant no more than is above ex- 
 pressed in Mr. Rice's Creed. 
 
 Mr. Rice names all his arguments over again. I shall 
 not further notice them, at the present time. I must 
 however, refer to the 5th of John : " They that have done 
 GOOD, to the resurrection of life, and they that have done 
 evil, to the resurrection of damnation." He refers this 
 text to the general resurrection of all the dead. I ask 
 again, once more, What becomes of all those who have 
 done neither good nor evil ? Tor this passage relates only 
 to such. The great mass of human beings, — are they 
 left out, to have no part nor lot in the resurrection ? Or 
 if raised, what becomes of them ? Are we never to have 
 this question answered 1 
 
 But my friend repeats the assertion, that the separation 
 of soul and body, does not change the soul, or improve 
 the moral character. He and his Confession of Faith 
 both say that the righteous require a change after deaths 
 
252 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 before they are fit for heaven ; and so also infants, and 
 idiots, and pagans. Why not all men experience that 
 change? Mr. Rice says that I don't know anything 
 about Calvinism ; and that every child or old lady knows 
 better than I what the Presbyterian Creed is. Now I 
 say that Presbyterians do not, generally, know what their 
 own Creed teaches. They do not understand their own 
 Confession of Faith. I suspect Mr. Rice himself does 
 not know as much about it as I do. I judge this audience 
 will soon suspect the same. 
 
 He says that the Vicarious Atonement was not design- 
 ed to gain the love of God to men ; and attempts to show 
 that his Creed does not teach this doctrine. I have stu- 
 died the Confession of Faith as much as he, perhaps: 
 but not all parts of it, and not particularly in relation to 
 this subject. But I have heard a great deal of Orthodox 
 preaching, and always supposed the Calvinistic doctrine 
 to be, that Christ died to gain the favor of God to man ; 
 to turn back his wrath from man, by his vicarious suf- 
 ferings, thus enabling the sinner to be justified before God. 
 I am therefore glad that Mr. Rice explained this doctrine, 
 and admitted that the love of God to sinners sent Jesus 
 Chxist to die for us ; and that his death was not to secure 
 the FAVOR of God, and endure the Divine wrath in our 
 stead — as is commonly believed and taught. 
 
 He has quoted more passages to prove that they only 
 who believe, ^xe jtistified. Do they prove that no others 
 are to be finally saved ? The salvation that depends on 
 faith, cannot be extended to infants, as well as many 
 others. I therefore conclude that the final salvation does 
 not depend on faith in this world ; if it does, all infants 
 are certainly excluded ! 
 
 My friend quoted a portion of Peter's sermon on the 
 day of Pentecost, especially where he calls on his believ- 
 ing hearers to " repent and be baptized, in order to be 
 saved." Does Mr. Rice believe baptism also essential to 
 salvation? Is this the reason why he believes in the 
 baptism of infants? as being essential to salvation? and 
 is that the reason why the child of a non-professor is out 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 253 
 
 of the kingdom of God ; and so cannot, by any " ordi- 
 nary possibility," be saved? as says the Creed. If Mr. 
 Rice does not believe that baptism is essential to salvation, 
 why does he quote this passage ? If he does believe it 
 essential, w^ill he answer the questions I have just now 
 propounded ? 
 
 He says there are two difficulties in the way of man's 
 salvation : 1 . That, by the law, no man can be saved ; 
 2. That all men are sinners. Therefore Jesus Christ be- 
 came a curse for us, suffering in our stead. Before this 
 can meet the case in hand, a question or two need to be 
 answered. Does the law require endless damnation ? I 
 want the proof of this : for I deny it. Or did Jesus 
 Christ suffer that curse ? If so, did he suffer in his hu- 
 man, or in his Divine nature ? Mr. Rice says he suffered 
 in his human nature; but, that his sufferings were enno- 
 hied by his Divine nature. Does that meet the difficulty ? 
 The question is, ffTiich nature suffered? 
 
 But he tells us that salvation is offered to all. This is 
 Calvinism; is it? with its doctrine of the effectual 
 calling of saints, and that sinners cannot come to God ; 
 that although salvation is offered to them, they cannot 
 accept it, because God has foreordained them to be end- 
 lessly damned. And this is the way in which our heav- 
 enly Father, the God of Love, offers salvation; is it?! 
 *• O my soul ! come not thou into such a secret." Offering 
 salvation, yet foreordaining endless death ! ! and the 
 number of the saved and lost unalterably fixed ! ! And 
 this is the doctrine brought up in opposition to the glo- 
 rious and sublime Faith of the ultimate purification of all 
 souls ! 
 
 He still says that Christ suffered in our stead, because 
 "Ae bare our sijis,^^ Not so; for the language of the 
 Bible is, "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our 
 sicknesses," Matt. viii. 17. Did he suffer the pain of 
 these '* sicknesses" ? Certainly not. Did he suffer the 
 punishment of our sins ? No ; he took them aivay. So 
 John the Baptist said of Christ, " Behold the Lamb of 
 
 God ! who TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD." Mr. 
 
 22 
 
254 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Rice quoted the passage from the Old Testament, which 
 says, the sons shall not suffer for the sins of their fathers. 
 Then where is the propriety of Christ's vicarious svf- 
 ferings? 
 
 He says, Universalism does not save men. No ; but 
 men are finally saved by God's love, as taught by Uni- 
 versalism. Neither do we say men are saved, because 
 they suffer all punishment here. I have referred to He- 
 brews ii. 2, 3, where it is said, " For if the word spoken 
 by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and 
 DISOBEDIENCE RECEIVED [in the past tense] a just recom- 
 pense of reward," etc. Here it is distinctly affirmed that 
 men did receive their punishment for every transgression; 
 and of course, necessarily ia tins life. I ask now, if it 
 be true that they had '^received a just recompense of re- 
 ward^'' could they bo justly sentenced to endless damna- 
 tion ? I hope he will give us some light on that subject. 
 We say that men are not exposed to endless woe, from 
 the fact of suffering just punishment here ; but that they 
 are ^a\;ei by the favor of God. 
 
 The seventh argument of Mr. Rice w^as, that Univer- 
 salism denies justification by faith. Universalism does 
 not deny it. What we teach is, that men are justified by 
 faith here; but, that faith is not essential to the salvation 
 to be enjo3^ed hereafter. He does not believe it himself: 
 he believes that at least one-third of the human race are 
 saved without faith. All the passages relating to that 
 doctrine, are to be thus interpreted ; as Romans v. I : 
 " Therefore being justified by faith, [that is, now, alrea- 
 dy,] we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; by whom also w^e have access by faith into this 
 grace, wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory 
 of God." By this passage it appears that they w^ere al- 
 ready saved, in this life, because ihey already rejoiced in 
 hope of the glory of God. Consequently, it must be 
 present justification, the "special salvation," that depends 
 on faith. 
 
 Mr. Rice ridicules the idea of men being punished and 
 then forgiven. I have already produced one passage, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 255 
 
 showing an instance of the punishment and forgiveness of 
 the same sin. The Scriptures do teach at once punish- 
 ment and forgiveness. Forgiveness is not an escape from 
 the just punishment of past sins ; but a putting away of 
 sinfuhiess, a cleansing of moral impurity, a heaHng of 
 moral disease, a putting away of sins. In 1 Cor. v., the 
 Apostle Paul required that a certain man should be "de- 
 livered over to Satan, for the destruction of the fleshy that 
 the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 
 In 2 Cor. ii. 6, speaking of the same individual, the Apos- 
 tle says : " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment 
 which was inflicted of many; so that contrary wise ye 
 ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest per- 
 haps such a one should be swallowed up with over much 
 sorrow." In this case, ^^ sufficieiit punishment ^^ having 
 been inflicted, the individual was to be forgiven, lest he 
 should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 
 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's thirteenth reply.] 
 Before proceeding with the dicussion, it may be proper 
 that I should notice the gentleman's remarks in relation 
 to my depreciating him, and proposing to meet in debate 
 Mr. A. C. Thomas. Those who have read the corres- 
 pondence, understand the matter perfectly. When I re- 
 ceived from Mr. Pingree the challenge to this discussion, 
 I had no acquaintance whatever with him — had never 
 seen him. Moreover, I had no acquaintance with Uni- 
 versalisls, having never resided where there was a church 
 of that order. Challenged to a public discussion by an 
 entire stranger, of whose standing amongst his brethren 
 I knew nothing; and having been unable, by private in- 
 quiry, to gain satisfactory information, it was my right 
 and my duty to call for evidence of his enjoying their 
 confidence, before accepting his challi3nge. So far as I 
 could obtain information, it was not very favorable ; aiid, 
 tlierefoie, after being, onoe and again, taunted by the 
 Universalisl papers in Cincinnati and Virginia, Vvith being 
 unwilling to risk a discussion of the merits of Universal- 
 
256 AN ORAL DiSCtJBSION 
 
 ism, I proposed that if Mr. Thomas would take Mr. Pin- 
 gree's place, I would meet him. This I did, for the ad- 
 ditional reason, that some Universalists of this city ex- 
 pressed a desire that Mr. Thomas should engage in the 
 discussion. 
 
 I now call on Mr. Pingree to point to a single expres- 
 sion in the correspondence in which he is depreciated. 
 If he can do so, I pledge myself publicly to apologize. 
 As to his complaint, that I did not put the Rev. before 
 his name, it is, indeed, a very small affair. I find fault 
 with no one for omitting it, in addressing me, Mr. is 
 sufficiently respectful for me. 
 
 I was surprised and amused at the gentleman's decla- 
 ration, that he understands the Presbyterian Confession 
 of Faith better than Presbyterians themselves. You re- 
 collect, that on the first evening of this debate, I insisted 
 that he was a great man ! This I had learned from Mr. 
 Gurley, wlio informed the public, that the Universalist 
 clergy of the West, as well as the laity, consider him 
 able to discuss any subject with "Mr. Rice, or Mi\ 
 Rice's superiors,'''' In view of this public declaration I 
 agreed to meet him ; but if I had known that I was about 
 to come in collision Avith a man who understands Pres- 
 byterianism better than Presbyterians', I might have been 
 greatly alarmed ! I had read, to some extent, our stand- 
 ard Presbyterian and Calvanistic writers, such as Dick, 
 Hall, Chalmers, the venerable Dr. Green — almost an 
 hundred years of age — D wight, &c. ; and I had enjoyed 
 the instructions of the venerable Drs. Alexander and Mil- 
 ler, and of Dr. Hodge — men whose names are familiarly 
 known on both sides of the Atlantic. But I am now inform- 
 ed, that none of these eminent men understood the Con- 
 fession of Faith ; for not one of them saw in it the doc- 
 trine of infant damnation; that Christ came into the 
 world to induce God to love men; that God made some 
 to be damned for the benefit of others, &c. — doctrines 
 which the Rev. Mr. Pingree sees taught there with per- 
 fect clearness ! Many of our most eminent ministers have 
 been accustomed to look into that book for half a cen- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 257 
 
 inry ; but Mr. Pingree, in two years, understands it far 
 better than any of them! Truly, if I had been aware that 
 I was about to encounter such a giant, I should have 
 shrunk from the contest! Well — I can only say, as said 
 the Queen of Sheba, when she came from the uttermost 
 parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon — 
 "The half was not told me."!!! 
 
 After all, I am constrained to be a little incredulous 
 concerning the ext(int and accuracy of the gentleman's 
 knowledge of our Confession. You remember, he told 
 you, last evening, that according to Calvinism, Jesus 
 Christ came into the world and suffered, to induce God 
 to love men; and when I replied, that according to Cal- 
 vinism, "God 50 loved the world, thai he gave his only- 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not 
 perish, but have everlasting life;" he exclaimed, in 
 amazement — ^^JJid you hear that? P^ a new doctrine, 
 indeed, for Presbyterians! and he told us how very fre- 
 quently he had heard a different doctrine preached by 
 them. Now let us read in the Seventh Chapter of the 
 Confession, Sect. I. "The distance between God and 
 the creature is so great, that although reasonable crea- 
 tures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet 
 they could never have any fruition of him as their bless- 
 edness and reward, but bij some voluntary condesceri" 
 sion on God's part, which he hath been pleased to ex- 
 press by way of covenant." Sect. III. "Man, by his 
 fall, having made himself incapable of life by that cove- 
 nant, the Lord was phased to make a second, commonly 
 calleti the Covenant of Grace, wherein he freely offer- 
 eih unto sinners life and salvation, by Jesus Christ, re- 
 quiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved," etc. 
 Larger Catechism, Question 30, (I see my friend has 
 marked it in his ccpy of the Confession) — "Doth God 
 leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and mise- 
 ry? Ans. God doth not leave all men to perish in he 
 estate of sin and misery, into which tliey frll by the 
 breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Cove- 
 nant of Works; hut of his mere love and mercy deliver- 
 22* 
 
258 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 eth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate 
 of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called 
 the Covenant of Grace." Quest. 32. *'How is the grace 
 of God manifested in the second covenant? Jins. The 
 grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in 
 that he [God] freely provideth and ofFereth to sinners a 
 Mediator, and life and salvation by him," etc. 
 
 Now observe, Mr. Pingree said, Presbyterians repre- 
 sent Christ as coming into the world to suffer, not because 
 God loved the world, but to induce him to be willing to 
 save men. And yet the Confession of Faith, which he 
 professes to have studied two years, and which he pre- 
 tends to understand better than Presbyterians, teaches, 
 that God, of his mere love and mercy, sent his Son into 
 the world, and y*ree/;?/ offered sinners eternal life through 
 him ! ! ! The question, you perceive, is not about the 
 doctrine of election, but whether Christ, according to our 
 Confession, came and suffered to induce God to be will- 
 ing to love and save men. 
 
 But the non-elect, the gentleman says, cannot be saved, 
 let them do as they may. What says our Confession? 
 It teaches, that every man is a free moral agent, and that 
 in consequence of their deep depravity — their great aver- 
 sion to God's character, his law, and his Gospel, men 
 v/ill not accept of offered salvation. The doctrine of 
 election is this : God, in his infinite mercy, determined to 
 incline and help a vast multitude of sinners to come to 
 Christ and be saved. Such is the opposition of the hu-' 
 man heart to God and his service, that, but for this pur- 
 pose of God to incline them to come to Christ, the whole 
 human race would reject the Gospel and perish. Is 
 there any thing wrong in a purpose to save a multitude 
 of sinners ? As to those sometimes called non-elect, the 
 worst that can be said about God's dealings with them, 
 is, that he lets them alone — leaves them to choose their 
 own course, and punishes them for those sins in whi<ih 
 they choose to persevere. 
 
 In this discussion I desire to avoid unnecessarily 
 wounding the feelings of those from whom I differ. If, 
 
OF UJJIVERSALISM. 259 
 
 therefore, Mr. Pingree will deny the correctness of any 
 statement of the Universalist faith, I will either prove it 
 correct by reference to his standard writers, or retract it. 
 He has very repeatedly, during this discussion, made 
 statements of the faith of Presbyterians, calculated deeply 
 to wound the feelings of every Presbyterian who has 
 heard him; for they know his representations to be 
 grossly incorrect. For example, he has charged us with 
 holding that some infants are damned ; that the righteous 
 will take a fiendish ple-c'sure in witnessing the eternal 
 sufferings of the wicked ; and that Christ came and suf- 
 fered in order to induce God to be willing to save men. 
 I select these three charges from a number equally false ; 
 and, as the discussion will not close before Tuesday 
 evening, he can have till then to prove them true. To 
 aid him in this work, I will furnish him with the standard 
 Presbyterian writers of the United States and of Scotland ; 
 he can have as many of his friends as he desires to aid 
 him ; and if he can find in any one of them these three 
 doctrines, I will publicly apologize for what I have said. 
 If he cannot, he owes it to himself, to the tnith, and to the 
 public, to retract his false charges, and to apologize for 
 having so grossly misrepresented our views. You, my 
 hearers, shall judge whether, in this matter, he will act as 
 an honorable gentleman. I now take leave of these mat- 
 ters, pressed upon me by the gentleman, although, as he 
 knows, they have no connection whatever with the subject 
 we are discussing. 
 
 But, after all, he gravely tells you, that if "Mr. Rice" 
 will not come up and answer his arguments, he will, nev- 
 ertheless, go forward. I now challenge him to mention 
 two texts of Scripture quoted and relied on by him, which 
 I have not noticed in my replies. If he will do so, I will 
 immediately reply to his argument based upon them. 
 And I, on my part, will point out not less than thirty 
 texts I have quoted and relied upon to disprove his doc- 
 trine, not one of which he has replied to. Look at fads, 
 and decide which of us shrinks from meeting the argu- 
 ments of his opponent. 
 
 i 
 
 UNIVfiaST'pV 
 
260 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 I will not now take time, at any length, to review the 
 arguments I have offered. My first argument against 
 Universalism was based upon its novelty — its very mod- 
 ern origin. My seco7id was, that if Universalism be true, 
 there is no salvation. Here I cannot help pausing to no- 
 tice one of the gentleman's peculiarities as a debator. To 
 the word salvation, which is a most important word in the 
 Scriptures, he gives such a definition as suits his doctrine; 
 hut lie has not appealed to one Lexicon, Commeritator, or 
 critic to prove, that the word has the meaning he hab assign- 
 ed to it. He has affirmed and re-affirmed, on his own au- 
 thority alone, that it means just what he says ! I never 
 before entered into a discussion with a man who would 
 not, at least, look down upon books of standard authority, 
 if he would not look up to them ! Never before have I 
 met a man who expected the people to rely upon his sim- 
 ple assertion concerning the meaning of the most impor- 
 tant v/ords, and who steadily refused to sustain his criti- 
 cisms by a single authority ! 
 
 My thii^d argument is — that the Scriptures distinctly 
 teach, that there is to be a resurrection, both of the just 
 and of the unjust — the former to life, and the latter to con- 
 demnation ; that, accordingly, ancient believers endured 
 the. most terrible trials, " not accepting deliverance, that 
 they might obtain a better resvrrec'.ion ;^'' that Paul sacri- 
 ficed everything for the cause of Christ, " if by any means 
 he migrit attain to the resurrection of the dead.^^ How 
 has the gentleman replied? Why, he says, Paul only 
 meant to say, that he desired to become a better man in 
 this life ! What evidence has he produced, that his extra- 
 ordinary exposition of Paul's language is true ? Has he 
 referred to any Lexicon, Commentator, or critic? No. 
 Has he attempted to prove it correct by other passages 
 of Scripture ? He has not. What evidence, then, has he 
 produced? None whatever, except the assertion of Mr., 
 the Rkv. ! Mr. Pingree ! 
 
 My fourth argument ir — that Universalism teaches the 
 maferialify and moriality of the soul — that man dies, just 
 as his horse dies. This arg-ument is very troublesome to 
 
OF UMVERSALISM. 261 
 
 my friend ; and he would fain escape the necessity of re- 
 plying to it, though his own doctrine — that in the resur- 
 rection, not before, all will be made holy and saved — ne- 
 cessarily involves the mortality of the soul. I have press- 
 ed him repeatedly, with the question — What becomes of 
 the soul during that long period between death and the 
 resurrection ? I have proved, that there are but three 
 possible suppositions in regard to it, one of which must 
 be true, viz: i. The soul, immediately after death, is ho- 
 ly and happy ; or, 2. It is unholy and miserable ; or 3. It 
 dies with the body. The Jirsf, Mr. Pihgree does not be- 
 lieve ; for his doctrine is, that in the resurrection, not be- 
 fore, men become holy and happy. He does not believe 
 the second; for he denies all future punishment. He 
 must, therefore, adopt the third — that the soul dies with 
 the body ? From this most unenviable predicament the 
 gentleman makes no attempt to escape. 
 
 Now mark the facts : I have proved by the Word of 
 God, that the soul is immaterial and immortal ; that sin 
 and holiness belong exclusively to the mind, not to the 
 body ; that all are sinners ; that neither the separation of 
 soul and body, nor the resurrection of the body, can 
 change the moral character of the soul ; that those who 
 die in sin must be miserable after death, and after the res- 
 urrection. And I have produced a number of passages 
 of Scripture, proving, that immediately after death, the 
 soul goes into a state of happiness or misery, according 
 to its moral character; and, consequently, his doctrine, 
 that in the resurrection all will be made holy and happy, 
 is false. These passages of Scripture, which completely 
 demolish the gentleman's doctrine, he has not yet ventur- 
 ed to notice ; and yet he calls on me to come forward and 
 take his arguments out of his hands ! 
 
 My \fifth argument is — that Universalism makes God 
 the author of all the sin in the world. The gentleman 
 would fain escape this difficulty, by asserting that our Con- 
 fession of Faith teaches the same doctrine, held by " Fa- 
 ther Ballou." Let us see. 
 
 1. The Confession says — God made man "with rea- 
 
262 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 sonable and immortal souls, endowed with knowledge, 
 righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image, hav- 
 ing the law written in their hearts, and power to fulfill 
 it," Chap. 4. Ballon says, the Scriptures say nothing 
 about "immaterial immortal souls." And again: "The 
 ground we shall take, is, that natural evil owes its origin to 
 the original constitution of our animal nature, and that 
 moral evil or sin owes its origin to the natural evil. * * 
 These conflicting laws of flesh and spirit have always ex- 
 isted in man from his first formation ; and so long as 
 they both contimfe to exert their power in opposition to 
 each other, so long will sin remain and continue to pro- 
 duce condemnation. ^ * * God saw fit, in his plan 
 of Divine Wisdom, to make the creature subject to van- 
 ity; to give him a mortal constitution; to fix in his na- 
 ture those faculties which would, in their operation, op- 
 pose the spirit of the heavenly nature. It is, therefore, 
 said, that God put enmity between the seed of the wo- 
 man, and that of the serpent." Tliis enmity, he says, is 
 the carnal mind, which is enmity against God. Treatise 
 on Atonement,, pages 32, 34, 36, 48. 
 
 And here it occurs to me to remark, that by that ex- 
 pression — "the creature was made subject to vanity, not 
 wilhngly," <fcc., — (Rom. viii.) Mr. Ballon and Mr. Pingree 
 understand, that God created man an imperfect being, lia- 
 ble to suflering, and inclined to sin. The Scriptures, on 
 the contrary, teach, that " God made man upright, ^^ and 
 that4ie sinned and was made subject to suflfering willingly 
 or volun*arily. We have thus an additional and conclu- 
 sive evidence, that the Universalist exposition of that pas- 
 sage, is false. But to return: 
 
 2. The Confession says, our first parents, in the fall, 
 were " left to the liberty of their own will, which was 
 subject to change ;" — " nor is violence ofl^ered to the will 
 of the creature, [by the purposes and providence of God,] 
 nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather established," ch. 3. 
 
 Ballon says — " Man is dependent in all his volitions, 
 and moves by necessity,'^ (ibid. p. 64.) And Mr. Geo. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 263 
 
 Rogers declares, tliat " the notion of free will is a chi- 
 mera," Pro and Con of Univer, p. 290. 
 
 3. The Confession teaches, that God determined to 
 PERMIT men to sin, and to bound, control and govern the. 
 sinner, so that the wrath of man shall praise him; andthej" 
 remainder of wrath he will restrain ; — but that God "be- 
 ing most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the 
 author or approve of sin." Compare chap. 5 and 6. 
 
 Ballou says — " If it should be granted, that sin will 
 finally terminate for good in the moral system, it will 
 then be necessary to admit that God is its first cause, or 
 we cannot say that God is the author of all good" — that 
 " the immediate causes of sin, are found in our natural 
 constitutions, and the most distant of those immediate 
 causes are the same as the most distant of the immedi'' 
 a/c causes of our virtues," Treat, on Jit one. pages 36, 41 
 
 Such are the doctrines of the Confession > in contrast 
 with those of Mr. Ballou. Are they identical, as Mr. 
 Pingree would have us believe? Are they even akin to 
 each other? The gentleman cannot set aside my argu- 
 ment again.^t Universalism as making God the author of 
 sin, by asserting that Calvinists hold the same doctrine. 
 The doctrine affirmed by Mr. Pingree, that in the resur- 
 rection all will be made holy and happy, cannot be sus- 
 tained, but by resorting, as Ballou has done, to mitterial- ' 
 ism, and to the blasphemous error, that God is the author 
 of sin. The refutation of these doctrines, therefore, 
 proves the falsity of the doctrine of Universalism. 
 
 My sixth argument against Universalism is — that it 
 denies that fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, the Vica- 
 riovs sufferings of Christ for men. This point also the 
 gentleman refuses to discuss, alleging that it has nothing 
 to do with the question before us. And yet he hunself ad- 
 mits it to be a great principle of Universalism, that every 
 man suffers, in this life, all that his sins deserve ; and from 
 it he infers, that there will be no future punishment. The 
 author of the Exposition of Universalis'in tells us to 
 " set it dawn, as one of the peculiar doctrine^f Univer- 
 salism, that no man can, by any possibility, escape a just 
 
264 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 punishment for his sins," p. 15. And Mr. A. C. Thomas, 
 in his controversy with Ely, which I have quoted, says : 
 "I believe that God will render to every man according 
 to his deeds, that is, according^ to his own deeds ; — con- 
 sequently I reject the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement," 
 p. 25. He denies the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement, 
 because he believes that every man is punished fully for 
 his sins. He, therefore, admits what cannot be denied, 
 that if the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement be true, the 
 great principle of IJniversalism, that all suffer fully for 
 their sins, is false. Hence my argument to prove the 
 trutli of the doctrine of Atonement ; for if this doctrine 
 be true, Universj'dism is false. Hence also the pertinency 
 of my argument in favor of the Divinity of Christ ; for if 
 he be a creature, all must admit that he did not make a 
 Vicarious Atonemont for the sins of men, that is,, did not 
 bear the punishment due to their sins. To this argument 
 the gentleman has made no reply. I will here pause to 
 say, that I challenge him to mention an attribute or per- 
 fection ascribed in the Scriptures to God the Father, which 
 is not also ascribed to Jesus Christ. He is called the 
 Father^ but this name simply expresses the relation be- 
 tween the Father and the Son. If, then, tlie Father pos- 
 sesses supreme Diviiiity, so does the Son. 
 
 How God exists in Trinity I pretend hot to compre- 
 hend ; but tiiere is nothing contradictory or •absurd in 
 saying, that he is one in one sense, and three in another. 
 Nor is there any thing contradictory in the docti'ine, that 
 Clirist possesses two natures, Divine and human. It is 
 generally admitted, that man possesses two natures, mat- 
 ter and mind ; and the properties of these natures are not 
 only different, but opposite. Why, then, may not Christ 
 possess two natures, human and Divine ? The Script- 
 ures, as I have proved, are perfectly clear on this point. ^ 
 
 Universalism, I have said, makes Christ a mere man. 
 This I proved from the Lectures of Abner Kneeland, 
 who declared his belief in " the simple humanity of 
 Christ;" and by the Exposition of Universalism, which 
 declares that Christ claimed no higher title than the hum- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 265 
 
 ble one, " the Son of Man^ But Mr. Pingree says, he 
 was not a mere man, because he was inspired, and en- 
 dowed with certain miraculous powers. Paul was also 
 inspired, and was enabled to work miracles as wonderful 
 as those wrought by Christ. So that, according to the 
 logic of the gentleman, Paul was not a mere man! And 
 perhaps, too, he would find no difficulty in subscribing to 
 the doctrine of Abner Kneeland, concerning the sufferings 
 of the Apostles, tliat "/or aught we knovj to the contrary, 
 there was the same merit in them^ as in those of Christ! 
 Lectures, p. 64. Kneeland, when lie delivered this sen- 
 timent, was in high repute with Universalists. 
 
 But Universalism degrades the Son of God even below 
 "simple humanity." Both Ballon and Balfour assert, 
 that he had a devil ! ! ! The audience will be almost 
 prepared at once, to charge me with slandering them ; but 
 it is even so. The Evangelists Matthew and Luke (see 
 chap, iv.) say, that Christ was tempted by the Devil, 
 And Hosea Ballon says — " When he had a view of all 
 the kingdoms of the earth, and their worldly glory, he 
 was tempted to avail himself of them. Here was natu- 
 ral ambition, such as gave rise to the actions of an JiU 
 exander. When on the pinnacle of the temple, he was 
 tempted to cast himself down, <fec. Here was that pas- 
 sion which gives rise to presumption, and wishes to avoid 
 duty." Treat, on Atone, p. 49. So says Balfour : 
 " What then was the tempter ? It was flesh and blood 
 suggesting the propriety of accommodating himself to the 
 prevailing opinions and expectations of the Jews to se- 
 cure his success." See Inq. p. 133. The inspired wri- 
 ters say, that Christ was tempted by the Devil, These 
 Universalists say, the devil that tempted him, was his 
 own ambition in one case, and that passion which leads 
 to presifmption, in a second, and flesh and blood in a 
 third ! In a word, they assert, that Christ had what the 
 Scriptures call the Devil ! ! ! I confess, I am shocked, 
 whilst I repeat sentiments so blasphemous. But why 
 should we wonder at this, when the modern Universalists 
 claim fraternity with the ancient Gnostics ? Whittemorcs 
 23 
 
266 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 in his Plain Guide to Universalism, says, " We find dis- 
 tinct, traces of Universalism, in the Christian Church, im- 
 mediately after the age of the Apostles, especially among 
 the different sects of the Gnostics," <fcc. p. 8. And what 
 was the faith of these people concerning Jehovah ? Bal- 
 four 2d, a leading Universalist, says — *' This [philoso- 
 phy] led them to regard the God of the Jews, the Jeho- 
 vah of the Old Testament, as but a secondary being, the 
 principal maker of the world, and they also concluded 
 that he had apostatized, more or less, from the divine al- 
 legiance, inasmuch as he had arrogated to himself the 
 honors of worship, and as Christ had been sent to an- 
 nul his ancient covenant, and to overthrow his institu- 
 tions." Anc. Hist, Universalism, p. 31. Is it not mar- 
 vellous that men calling themselves Christians, could bring 
 themselves to affirm, that Christ had a Devil, and to claim 
 as brethren, men who held that Jehovah was an apos- 
 tate! ! ! [TYmc expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's fourteenth speech.] 
 Respected Auditors: The question before us is this : 
 *' Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and sal- 
 vation of all men?" I have undertaken to establish the 
 affirmative of this proposition ; and have presented vari- 
 ous proofs to the point, from Divine Testimony. It is 
 not necessary here to recapitulate them. But I shall pro- 
 ceed at once, to propose and illustrate another argument, 
 or rather to present additional testimony in favor of the 
 doctrine I am advocating. 
 
 The Scriptures distinctly teach that God has "given 
 all things" — "all flesh" — "the heathen and the utter- 
 most parts of the earth," to Christ. I know it is said in 
 reply, that the Saviour said, " Ye will not come to me, 
 that ye might have life ;" and " Whither I go ye cannot 
 come," and various similar expressions, quoted from the 
 Scriptures. Hence my friend argues that some will nev- 
 er come to Christ. But it is not so. Many to whom 
 those exfiressions were applied, did afterwards come to 
 him. I have shown also that the Saviour declared to his 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 267 
 
 disciples themselves, in the same language, and directly al- 
 luding to what he had said to the Jews, " Whither I go 
 VE cannot come ; " which expiession, here or elsewhere 
 was not meant to convey the idea that they could never 
 come ; because, when asked by Peter, soon after, for an 
 explanation, he says, " Thou shalt follow me afterwards,'^'' 
 My argument was : all ahall finally come, because 
 Christ so teaches, in so many words ; but the time was, 
 when 7ione could come. Nevertheless, all were to come 
 afterwards. 
 
 Paul says that " murderers, liars, and drunkards shall 
 not inherit the kingdom of God ;" — a passage frequently 
 quoted to show thai such can neve)* be saved. The 
 Apostle says, they shall not inherit the kingdom of God ; 
 but adds, in the next verse, " Such were some of you." 
 Consequently, while they were such, they could not in- 
 herit the kingdom of God, He continues : "But ye are 
 washed, ye are sanctified," etc. They were now in the 
 kingdom. So in relation to all those expressions of a 
 similar nature ; — as that " ye cannot come," etc., they mean 
 that the persons spoken to could not come, for a time ; 
 that is, with certain dispositions, and under certain cir- 
 cumstances, they could not come ; but afterwards, when 
 those dispositions were changed, they could come. I have 
 proved already, that at *Hheend," the consummation, when 
 the object of Christ's reign shall have been effected, all 
 will have been purified and brought under subjection to 
 him ; and that then, having accomplished all things, ac- 
 cording to the Father's will, the Saviour shall deliver up 
 the kingdom to God, and be ** himself subject unto him 
 [God] that did put all things under him, that God may 
 
 BE ALL IN ALL." 
 
 I will now quote several other passages w^hich bear di- 
 rectly on this point. I have already quoted the 2d Psalm, 
 where God promised to give to his Son "the heathen 
 for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
 for a possession." See also John iii. 35 : " The Father 
 lovcth tiie Son, and hath given all things into his hands." 
 And John xvii. 2 : " Thou hast given him power over all 
 
268 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 FLESH, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou 
 hast given him/' In these passages we are taught that 
 all men are given to Christ, Now with the declarations 
 of this important fact, compare John vi. 37 : " All that the 
 Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that com- 
 eth to me, I will in no wise cast outJ'^ All shall come, 
 — ^not noiv, it may be ; but all ^h^XX finally come, if these 
 words are true ; and those that come shall in no wise be 
 cast out. Accordingly we have the fact distinctly taught, 
 that all men will be united in Christ ; and consequently, 
 all saved. So also John xii. 32 : " And 1, if I be lifted 
 up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." All 
 will be drawn to Christ ; gathered into one fold, forever 
 saved. This, then, is my next argument : If all come to 
 Christ, all will be holy and saved. About this there is 
 no dispute. And I have now proved that all will come 
 to Christ, finally ; and have therefore proved that all will 
 be holy and saved. 
 
 I will now proceed to review my friend's last speech. 
 He offers some remarks about depreciating me, and 
 wishing to substitute Mr. Thomas in this controversy ; 
 but I shall not dwell on the subject. As to his now at- 
 taching the " i?ez;." to my name, it is of small import- 
 ance, I do not claim it ; and I care nothing about it. It 
 was invidious, as it appeared to me, to show this usual 
 courtesy to one individual, and withhold it from another 
 so studiously and continually. If it was *' a small mat- 
 ter" in me, to mention it here, it was a smaller matter to 
 be so careful to* withhold it, when it was proper, and now 
 to apply it, when it is improper. But it is of no import- 
 ance ; and my friend can make no capital out of it, by at- 
 tempting to ridicule me by that means. The last time he 
 did it, the congregation did not laugh. The first and 
 second times, they laughed ; but the third time, they did 
 not. 
 
 My friend says that he finds me a greater man than he 
 expected. Upon what grounds did he at first make me 
 so "^rea^F" Because, Mr. Gurley had said that I was 
 " able to meet him, [Mr. Rice,] or his superiors, in de- 
 
OF UNIVERSALIS^* 269 
 
 bate !" therefore, says Mr. Rice, " I insist upon it that 
 Mr. Pingree is a great man ! !" You remember his lan- 
 guage. So.ne persons draw curious conclusions from 
 certain JO rf 7/11565. This I judge to be one of them. 
 
 My friend introduces the Confession of Faith again ; 
 and says, that I have wounded the feelings of Presbyteri- 
 ans. I should be very sorry to wound the feelings of any 
 body. I certainly do not wish to do it ; although I con- 
 fess that I feel a settled and utter abhorrence of some of 
 the dogmas which I find in the Confession, and as still 
 held and brought up against Universalism. I felt called 
 upon — and this was allowable — to rebut his ars^vmenls 
 by his Creed ; but I did not intend to wound his feelings. 
 'I'rue, I believed it to teach that Christ came and suffered, 
 to gain the love of God to man, I had received that im- 
 pression of it. If I am mistaken, I am glad to acknow- 
 ledge it, and to find that it teaches that the love of God 
 to sinners sent his Son to be their Saviour. 
 
 As to infant damnation, I presented the Confession of 
 Faith itself; which teaches that the kingdom of God is 
 made up of " professors of the true religion, and their 
 children;^'* out of which there is no salvation. This 
 appears to me to assert the damnation of all infants, ex- 
 cept the children of true professors. As to Presbyterian 
 writers representing the righteous as "gloating" over the 
 misery of the damned, I have presented what I had to 
 present on that subject. The audience can judge of the 
 language they use. I quoted TertuUian, who says, "How 
 I shall laugh — how rejoice! how exult!! when 1 see 
 so much misery," etc. True, he may not be called a 
 Presbyterian ; still he was a Partialist. I presented also 
 Edwards, Boston, Williams, and Emmons. My friend 
 will not dispute that they use the language I quote.] from 
 them. As to the word "gloat," I did not apply it to all, 
 but only to those who express their feelings of exulta- 
 tion; particularly TertuUian, who is the supposed father 
 of the monstrous dogma of strictly endless damnation, 
 in the Christian church. 
 
 Mr. Ric© says, that when ialvation is offered to m«n, 
 23* 
 
270 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 and they do not come, they are properly and justly 
 damned. I should like to show you, by the Confession 
 of Faith, how he and the Presbyterians believe salvation 
 to be "oiFered." "Others not elected,^'' says the Con- 
 fession of Faith, (Chap. X. Sect. IV.) "although they may 
 be called by the ministry of the word, [have salvation 
 "q^ererZ" to them;] and may have some common oper- 
 ations of the Spirit, [not effectual ; nor designed to be 
 effectual ; nor intended to lead them to salvation—solemn 
 mockery !] yet they never truly come to Christ, and 
 therefore cannot be saved." Their condemnation is 
 only aggravated by these offers (!) that God would not 
 •permit them to accept, only sinking them deeper and 
 deeper in the pit of perdition ! Such are Calvinistic Pres- 
 byterian "offers" of salvation"!! 
 
 As to the term '•'salvation,^'' 1 defined it, in the begin- 
 ning of the discussion, as I proposed to defend it ; to wit, 
 as ex^re^sing deliverance from the present state of suffer- 
 ing and sin, and from death. I know that the word has 
 other meanings ; that it sometimes means deliverance from 
 merely temporal evils ; sometimes the spiritual salvation 
 enjoyed by the saints here; and sometimes the final de- 
 liverance from death to a blessed immortality. Mr. Rice 
 again speaks of the " resurrection of the just, and of the 
 unjust." Why will he not notice my illustration, as to 
 the resurrection of the Old and New School Presbyteri- 
 ans — blacks and whites ! etc. Once more he tells us of 
 Paul's desiring to " attain to the resurrection." Hence I 
 must once more ask, if Paul had died then, without be- 
 coming more perfect on earth, would he not have been 
 raised to a state of happiness ? even according to Mr. 
 Rice's own views. If so, the passage cannot relate to 
 that resurrection. Paul says, " not as though / had at' 
 tained, or were already perfect." This was a resur- 
 rection to which he had not yet "attained." 
 
 As to materialism ; if one or two Universalist writers 
 believe the soul to be mortal or material, and that it dies, 
 the great mass of Universalist Ministers and people be- 
 lieve man not to be entirely mortal. Materialism, I re- 
 
OF UNtVERSALISM. 271 
 
 peat, IS NOT one of the premises of Universalism. Sup- 
 pose I find some Orthodox writers, who say the soul is 
 material and mortal; would that be showing it to be 
 one of the premises of Orthodoxy ! ? A few words in re- 
 lation to sin arising from man's present physical consti- 
 tution. Let us hear my friend's Creed speak: (Chap. 
 XIII. Sect. II.) " Sanctification is throughout in the 
 whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth 
 still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence 
 ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flksh 
 lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against thejlesh.^^ 
 Hence the Creed elsewhere teaches that tliere shall be a 
 change " after death." Paul also shows the influence of 
 "the flesh" upon his mind. The Confession teaches sub- 
 stantially the same doctrine ; Mr. Rice himself said so, 
 in his controversy with Mr. Campbell. We are not 
 freed from sin, as long as we live^ because sinfulness 
 arises from our present physical constitution — "in the 
 flesh." Universalists believe that Adam possessed a 
 mortal physical constitution; Mr. Rice seems to believe 
 that he possessed an immortal constitution. If one im- 
 mortal being can die, why not another ? and why may 
 not THE SAINTS siu in heaven, and die again?! If Adam 
 was really immortal in his entire nature, how could he 
 die? 
 
 A word in relation to the mind's being moved by neces- 
 sity, and the remarks of my friend on that subject. It is 
 strange that a Calvinist, after reading Edwards, Toplady, 
 Zancheus, Day, etc., should talk about the mind being 
 free from necessity ! If Mr. Rice chooses to do so, it is 
 all well. That, however, is not true Calvinism. 
 
 Mr. Rice treats us with more quotations from the " Pro 
 and Con," and from the Discussion between Ely and 
 Thomas. I am glad to hear him quote from these books. 
 Of the Pro and Con, some seven thousand copies have 
 been sold ; and the greater notoriety here given to the 
 work by Mr. Rice, I trust will treble the sale. It is an 
 invaluable work. As to the Discussion between Dr. Ely 
 and Mr. Thomas, I have been informed that some copies 
 
272 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 have already been cold since the present debate com- 
 menced. So otliers will be. 1 hope you all, my re- 
 spected auditors, will procure the works and read them. 
 You will find them at the Office of the " Star in the 
 West," in this city ; (not my office, however, as Mr. Rice 
 has said ; but Mr. Gurley's — the Pubhsher and Editor of 
 the " Star.") 
 
 My triend still continues to call a denial of the Trinity, 
 Vicarious Atonement, etc., the premises of Universalism. 
 How many more times must 1 set him right on this sub- 
 ject ? II ow many times shall I be compelled to tell you 
 and him that these are not the premises of Universalism ? 
 The LOVE OF God and the testimony of the Bible ; — 
 these are the premises of Universalism. We write and 
 preach on any such subject; about the Deity of Jesus 
 Christ, as we have a right to do ; but the doctrine of Uni- 
 versalism does not rest on one view of that question, or 
 another. 
 
 With regard to Christ's " having a devil," I will say 
 only a few words. Universahsts are not alone in their 
 views of the Saviour's temptation. Others believe that he 
 was not led about from place to place, by a fallen spirit, 
 just from the pit of Hell. The Bible says that Jesus 
 Christ " was tempted in all points as we areP I cannot 
 help my friend's being shocked at it. If Jesus possessed 
 human nature, the suggestions of evil were made to him, 
 as they are to us ; but he did not yield to them. He was 
 " without sin." Universalists do not say that Christ " had 
 a devil." 
 
 The views of the Gnostics are not to the point in hand. 
 It is true, they believed in final universal salvation, and 
 held other notions which are unscriptural and strange. So 
 had those called " Oxthodox," in those days, equally ab- 
 surd and foolish notions, during the second, third and 
 fourth centuries. Still the doctrine of the salvation of all 
 men, was believed in the Church, until it was condemned, 
 in the 6th century, by a church become " wholly cor- 
 rupt;" as Mr. Rice admitted it to be, in his Discussion 
 with Mr. Campbell. So, then, all this does not bear 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 278 
 
 upon the subject before us. The question is, " Whether 
 the Scriptures teach the final holiness and salvation of 
 all men." 
 
 I will now advance another argument, although not so 
 directly bearing upon the subject as others which I have 
 presented. Tlie others declare, expressly and explicitly, 
 that all who die in Adam, are made alive in Christ; cloth- 
 ed with immortality, incorruption and glory; made as the 
 angels of God in heaven ; subdued to the Saviour, and 
 God filling all in all ; that all who sin, shall be righteous 
 and justified ; that, although we were subject to vanity ; 
 (my friend says that man was made immortal ; but the 
 Apostle says that he was made subject to vanity ;) we — 
 the CREATION — shall be delivered from the bondage of 
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God; 
 that God is the Saviour of all men ; that he will have all 
 to be saved ; that the grace of God bringeth salvation to 
 all men, by sending his Son to be the Saviour of the world ; 
 that God's promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, confirm- 
 ed by an oath, was, that all the nations of the earth shall 
 be blessed in Jesus Christ. All these proofs I have pre- 
 sented, as a few of the many passages that explicitly and 
 directly teach the leading idea in the Universalist's sublime 
 Faith. 
 
 I now proceed to oflfer another argument. It is said in 
 the Bible, that men shall be judged and rewarded accord' 
 ing to their works, ^ut this cannot be true, according 
 to Orthodoxy, with its General Judgment, and endless 
 misery. Now mark! — Men are to be judged, rewarded, 
 or punished, according to their works. Yet, if Partial- 
 ism be true, the time will never come when it can be said, 
 that men have been punished " according to their works." 
 Xf .that time should ever come, when it can be said that 
 men have been justly punished for their evil deeds, the 
 punishment would cease; would it not? Or will God 
 continue to punish men, after they are justly judged and 
 punished ? ! No ; that period will never come, if the 
 doctrine of endless woe be true, — when men shall have 
 been rewarded or punished according to iheir works ; and 
 
274 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 therefore, according to Orthodoxy, those declarations of 
 God's Word can never be fid filled, Universalists only^ 
 of all people, really believe those passages ; and, conse- 
 quently, Universalism only corresponds with the teach- 
 ings of the Bible. — \Time expirecL 
 
 [mr. rice's fourteenth reply.] 
 My friend, Mr. Pingree, attempted in his last speech to 
 prove, that all men will ultimately come to Christ, and, 
 therefore, will be saved. I ask him, whether there is in 
 the Bible a single passage which teaches that any will ev- 
 er come to Christ after dea'h ? Can he find even one ? 
 He will not pretend, that he can. And yet, if we are to 
 believe him, it is the great design of the Scriptures to 
 teach Universalism. Moreover, it is admitted that ma- 
 ny do die in their sins. Is it not most marvellous, then, 
 that neither Christ nor any one of the inspired writers 
 ever said, that any one will come to Christ af er death? 
 How shall we account for this most unaccountable fact, 
 if Universalism be true ? 
 
 This is not all. The Scriptures constantly seem^ at 
 least, to teach precisely the opposite doctrine. Isaiah says : 
 " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon 
 him while he is near." Chap. Iv., 6. Does not this lan- 
 guage clearly imply, that there will be a period when the 
 Lord will not be near, and cannot be found ? Again God 
 says : *' Because I have called, and ye refused ; I have 
 stretched out my hand, and no man regarded ; but ye have 
 set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my re- 
 proof; I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock 
 when your fear comet.h. When your fear cometh as des- 
 olation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind ; 
 when distress and anguish cometh upon you ; then shall 
 they call upon me, but I will not answer ; they shall seek 
 me early, but they shall not find me," Prov i. 24—28. 
 Would you infer from such laniuage as this, that tliose 
 who live and die in their sins, will, (fter dea'h, come to 
 Christ and be saved? 
 
 The gentleman again introduces the declaration of 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 275 
 
 Christ—" I will draw all men unto me.'* But I ask him, 
 does Christ sa5% that he will draw any to him afier dea'h? 
 " Fatiier Biillou" says, Christ did not come into the world 
 to save men in another world ; and yet all those passages 
 which speak of salvation, without mentioning faith as ne- 
 cessary to it, Mr. Pingree insists on applying to salvation 
 by Christ in another world ! When father and son thus 
 flatly contradict each other, what are we to think of them 
 and of their faith ? Shall we not conclude, that neither 
 of them can claim our confidence ? I do not believe that 
 the gentleman will say, that Christ came to save men in 
 another world. And now I ask him, (and the question is 
 a fair one,) does he believe that Christ came to save men 
 in this world only, or in another world ? Let him say 
 one or the other. It is necessary he should explain his 
 position on this subject. I hope, he will now answer the 
 question. 
 
 Christ is the great Shepherd ; and Mr. Pingree would 
 induce us to believe, that all men are to follow him, and 
 to be gathered into one fold. Does the Saviour say, that 
 he will in eternity, gather into his fold any who do not 
 become his sheep in this world ? 
 
 Again : we are told, that God gave to Christ the hea- 
 then for his inheritance ; and, therefore, all will be saved. 
 Do the Scriptures say, that God gave him those who had 
 died in their sins? The plain meaning of the promise 
 to Christ is, that all nations were given to him, that 
 amongst them his Gospel might be preached, and that out 
 of them he might gather a people to the glory of his 
 name. What is the meaning of language like the follow- 
 ing : " ^Sll that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; 
 and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. — 
 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of 
 all ivhich he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but 
 should raise it up again at the last day." — "As thou hast giv- 
 en him [Christ] power over all flesh, that he should give 
 eternal life to as many as thou hast given him,^' John 
 vi. 37, 39 — xvii. 2. Observe, he will give eternal life un- 
 to as many as the Father gave him : and all those will 
 
276 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 come to him. Now will the gentleman say, that the 
 phrase "as many as thou hast given him," means that all 
 were given him ? Suppose I should say, as many of my 
 neighbors as were invited, came to the wedding ; would 
 any one understand by this language, that all were invi- 
 ted ? Would not every one understand just the contrary — 
 that some were not invited ? Most certainly the language 
 of Christ teaches, that some of the human family were 
 not given to Christ, in the sens^ of being saved by him. 
 
 My friend gives indications of returning pleasantry, of 
 the revival of his wit. I am pleased to see this. I hope, 
 he will continue to rally his spirits, and relieve us occa- 
 sionally with something pleasant. 
 
 I am also gratified, that/or once, he stands corrected in 
 regard to the doctrines of our Confession. He now ac- 
 knowledges his error in representing it as teaching, that 
 Christ came into the world and suffered to induce God to 
 love and save men ! And yet it is quite surprising that 
 he should stand corrected ; for he told us boastingly, last 
 evening, that he understood the Confession better than the 
 Presbyterians ! Here, however, was found a very prom- 
 inent doctrine in that book which he now says, he has 
 not studied ! — a prominent part of which we are to pre- 
 sume, he never saw ! I wonder how many more doc- 
 trines it contains, which he has not examined ! Was I 
 not right in saying, that he has read our Confession, as 
 the old preacher read his text — " Top-knot, come down ?" 
 
 He stands corrected also on another point. He admits, 
 that he was wrong in applying the word " gloat" to Ed- 
 wards and Boston, in spealdng of their language concern- 
 ing the punishment of the wicked. He says, it should 
 be applied only to Tertullian. But TertuUian, as he cer- 
 tainly knows, never was a Calvinist ; and it was against 
 the Calvinists that he made his charges. He says, he 
 quoted Edwards and Boston. I did not see him read 
 from either of them. I hope he will do so yet — I desire 
 to hear their own language. Neither of those excellent 
 men ever represented the righte,ous as rejoicing in the 
 damnation of the wicked. If he has not their works, 1 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 277 
 
 will cheerfully furnish them, that, if he can, he may make 
 good his charges against them. 
 
 Mr. Pingree still occupies his time in assailing our Con- 
 fession. He declaims quite energetically about the "com- 
 mon operations of the Spirit," &c. Herein he exhibits 
 very little courage. He well knows I cannot turn aside 
 from the question before us, to defend Calvinism. Were 
 I to do so, it would be the duty of the moderators to stop 
 me. I never will assail a man who has not the opportu- 
 nity to defend himself. It is not manly. 
 
 The gentleman has found one source of consolation in 
 view of the exceedingly modern origin of Universalism. 
 Mr. Campbell's Church, he says, is young too ! Well, I 
 will not attempt to rob him of this poor comfort. It may 
 be questioned, however, whether the fact that Mr. Camp- 
 bell is wrong, would prove Universalists right. 
 
 I have proved, that standard Universalist writers repre- 
 sent Christ as having a Devil. The gentleman does not 
 deny, that they represent liim as having what the Script- 
 ures call a Devil. And does this not prove, that they con- 
 sidered him an imperfect man ? No man, I presume, ev- 
 er understood the word devil to express any thing good. 
 Literally it means a slanderer ; it is one of the ugliest 
 words in the Greek or English language. To say, that 
 Christ possessed any dispt)sition or passion that could be 
 called a devil, is nothing short of blasphemy. But this 
 is not the worst of the matter. The first Universalists, 
 the Gnostics, claimed by modern Universalists as breth- 
 ren, believed that Jehovah was an apostate, who ought 
 to receive no worship of any kind! ! ! Verily I was not 
 prepared to believe that any body of professing Chris- 
 tians, at tliis day, would claim fraternity with those blas- 
 phemers ! And yet Whittemore, a standard Universalist 
 writer, in his " Plain Guide," mentions them amongst the 
 primitive Universalists ! I can scarcely bring myself to 
 believe, that the Universalists in these United States, as a 
 body, are aware of the character of those Gnostics, who 
 are spoken of by their preachers as Christians ! Surely 
 if they were, they would protest most decidedly against 
 24 
 
278 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 acknowledging as brethren such blasphemers of God. 
 Truly, if this be Universalism, Deism is Gospel, compar- 
 ed with it. 
 
 The gentleman says, some one or two Universalist 
 writers believe and maintain, that the soul is mortal, but 
 that the majority do not regard man as altogether mortal. 
 I really do not understand the phrase — " not altogether 
 mortal." What does Mr. Pingree mean by it? Are we 
 to understand, that those Universalists who do not believe 
 man altogether mortal, suppose that the soul almost ex- 
 pires, and remains until the resurrection in a kind of liv- 
 ing dying state ? This state of betweeni*y — neither liv- 
 ing nor dying — I profess not to understand. It must, one 
 would think, be a most wretched state. I verily believe, 
 that the people of tliis country generally have views of 
 man — the noblest work of God in this world — too exalt- 
 ed, to receive a doctrine so degrading. 
 
 Mr. Pingree attempts to prov^^-tk^t sin has its origin 
 in the body, in matter. For this purpose he quotes Paul's 
 language: " For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh,) 
 dwelleth no good thing;" and "with my flesh I serve the 
 law of sin," Rom. vii. But we will allow the Apostle to 
 explain his own language. What does he mean by the 
 wordyZe^AF In the immediate connection he says — "But 
 ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
 Spirit of God dwell in you." If a man have the Spirit of 
 God, he is not in the fienh. By this language we cannot 
 understand Paul to say, such a man is not in the body ; 
 for all admit, this would not be true. The word Jlesh, 
 then, is not here used with reference to the body. In- 
 deed in every place in the New Testament where this 
 word is used with reference to moral character, it is used 
 to signify mjral corruption — sinfaln^ess. Hence, amongst 
 "the works of the flesh" we find "idolatry, v/itchcraft, 
 hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, heresy," &c. — 
 which all belong to the mind, not to matter. It is perfect- 
 ly clear that the mind alone is capable of either sin or ho- 
 liness ; though the mind may employ the members of the 
 body in sinning. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 279 
 
 I have already proved, that Universalists boldly deny 
 the doctrine taught by Paul, in Rom. v. 12, that *'by one 
 man sin entered into the world, and deaih by sinf^ and 
 hold, that Adam was mortal by creation. The gen- 
 tleman, strangely enough, asks, if Adam had an immortal 
 constitution, why did he die? and what assurance have 
 we that sain' 8 will not die? For an answer to the first 
 question, I refer to the passage just cited — ^'' death by 
 sm." In reply to the second, it is sufficient to say, 
 Doubtless if there should ever be sin in heaven, there 
 will be suffering there. 
 
 I was gratified to hear the gentleman so highly recom- 
 mend Mr. Rogers' Pro and Con of Univeraalism, He 
 seems to think, that my notice of the work will greatly 
 promote its circulation. I am quite disposed to extend 
 the circulation of all s^ood books; and as Mr. Pmgree 
 regards my notice of this book of some advantage, 1 will 
 give the audience a very remarkable specimen of the au- 
 thor's profound learning. It is found on'p^ge 203. His 
 opponent had pressed him with the fact, that the Scrip- 
 tures speak of "//le day of judgment." He replies as 
 follows : 
 
 " Before passing on to my opponent's direzt proofs^ I will 
 briefly notice the argument founded on the definite prefix, the, 
 (instead of the indefinite, a,) as connected with this subject. 
 Unfortunately for this argument, it has no foundation in the 
 original Greek : there the article is en, indefinite; not ho, defi- 
 nite: ^en heniera kriseos,^ a day of judgment. This is almost 
 uniformly the form of the phrase, and this materially alters the 
 force of the argument." 
 
 Now I hope Mr. Pingree will inform us in what Greek 
 Grammar or Lexicon, the learned Mr. " Pro and Con," 
 found tfie indefinite Greek article en! I find myself one 
 ariicle behind the age in Greek. I have had some little 
 experience in teaching the Greek language; but I never 
 met with the indefinite Greek article en! But certainly 
 the learned Mr. ''Pro and Con" must have found it some- 
 where! But Mr. Pingree says, pardon, forgiveness mean 
 cleansing; and why may not Mr. '*Pro and Con," speak 
 of the indefinite article enP Certainly he has as good a 
 
280 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 right to make an article of a preposition, as Mr. Pingree, 
 to make cleansing of pardon. If this notice of the 
 learned work will extend its circulation, the gentlemen 
 shall be most welcome to the advantage their cause wiU 
 gain ! 
 
 My sixth argument against Universalism is, that it 
 denies the doctrine of the vicarious atonement of Christ — 
 a doctrine every where taught in the Scriptures. This 
 argument, like all the rest, remains unanswered. The 
 gentleman did, however, briefly notice one of the texts 
 produced to sustain, this doctrine, viz: 1 Pet. ii. 24, 
 " Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the 
 tree," &;c. This, he tells us, means, that he bore away 
 our sins ; and he quotes the language, " He hath borne our 
 griefs, and carried our sorrows," that is, he cured them. 
 But does the inspired writer say, he bore our sorrows, 
 our infirmities "i>2 his own body on the treef'' No; 
 for such language would be nonsensical. But Peter does 
 say, he bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Is 
 there no difference between these passages ? Do they 
 mean the same thing? 
 
 But what, I again ask, does Ezekiel mean when he 
 uses precisely similar language? Mr. Pingree says, to 
 bear sins, means to bear them away. Let us read this 
 passage so: "The son shall not bear away the' iniquity 
 of the father, neither shall the father bear away the ini- 
 quity of the son." Do you not see, that by adopting the 
 gentleman's exposition, we make the Word of God speak 
 nonsense ? The only meaning possible, as every one 
 must see, is, the son shall not be punished for the sins of 
 the father, neither shall the father be punished for the sins 
 of the son. So when it is said, Christ bore our sins, 
 the only meaning is, he bore the penalty due our sins. 
 
 But the language of Isaiah, is, if possible, even more 
 conclusive : " But he was wounded for our transgression, 
 he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our 
 peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed. 
 All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned 
 every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 281 
 
 him the iniquity of us all." Can any one mistake the 
 meaning of this language ? In what sense did God the 
 Father lay on Christ our iniquities ? In what sense was 
 he bruised for our sins ? The only possible meaning is, 
 that God laid on him the penalty due our sins. I could, 
 were it necessary, multiply passages of Scripture equally 
 clear on this point; such as, "The blood of Christ clean- 
 seth from all sin," &c. — all in the face of the assertion 
 of Abner Kneeland, that the sufferings of the Apostles 
 were equally as efhcacious in securing pardon, as those 
 of Christ. 
 
 Now, if it be true that Christ bore the sins of his peo- 
 ple on the cross, the fundamental principle of Universal- 
 ism, that every man suffers as much as he deserves to 
 suffer, is false ; and the conclusion based upon it, that 
 there is no future punishment, is equally false. But the 
 gentleman finds it prudent to leave the argument unan- 
 swered. 
 
 My seventh argument is, that if Universalism be true, 
 there is no forgiveness, pardon, remission of sins, or justifi- 
 cation by faith in Christ. In presenting this argument, I 
 showed the nature and ground of a sinner's justification be- 
 fore God, and quoted a number of scriptures which teach, 
 that God does pardon, forgive, or remit the sins of all peni- 
 tent sinners. To this argument, the gentleman has maue no 
 answer. He did, indeed, assert, that pardon or forgive- 
 ness is not the remission of the punishment of sin, but 
 cleansing ox purification {torn sin. But did he sustain 
 his assertion by any evidence or authority of any kind ? 
 Did he quote a solitary lexicon, Greek or English, thai so 
 defines these words ? He did not; and I defy him to find 
 one lexicon, Greek or English, orthodox or heterodox, 
 ancient or modern, that so defines it. I presume, there 
 never will be one, unless the Universalists make it for 
 the special benefit of their faiih. And verily, Universal- 
 ism is in perishing need of a new lexicon* 
 
 But how do the lexicons define tlie Greek word trans- 
 lated forgiveness, pardon, remission ? The word is aph' 
 esis, Donnegan defines it, " Remission of a debt, penal- 
 24* 
 
282 ^ AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ty or punishment." Schrivelliiis deiines it, " Remission 
 of something due, as of a fault or punishment." Bret- 
 schneider — "Remission of that which another owes me, 
 as of debt or tribute — aphesis amartion, (remission of 
 sins) — pardon of the punishment of sins — pardon by 
 which the punishment due is not exacted." Groves, Green- 
 field, Robinson, and others, define it in the same way. 
 Webster and Johnson define the word foi^give — "to par 
 don, not to punish." 
 
 These lexicons, which are universally admitted to he 
 amongst the best in existence, all agree in defining this 
 important word to mean, not cleansing, but thd reinission 
 of a penalty due to sin. But Mr. Pingree puts his sim 
 pie assertion triumphantly against them all, and expectt 
 the audience, of course, to receive it ! All agree that par 
 don, or remission, is releasing those who are the objectti 
 of it, from deserved punishment, through Christ; but Mr. 
 Pingi^e insists, that these words mean cleansing! WeD, 
 let us read a few passages of Scripture, substituting the 
 word cleanse instead o^ forgive, according to Mr. Pin- 
 gree's definition. Matt. vi. 12 : " Cleanse us from our 
 debts, as we cleanse our debtors," or as we '•'purify our 
 debtors"! Luke vii. 41 : " There was a certain creditor 
 which had two debtors : The one owed five hundred 
 pence, and the other fifty : And when they had nothing 
 to pay, he frankly cleansed them both !" 2 Cor. 2 : 
 " Sufticient unto such a man is the punishment which was 
 inflicted of many ; So that contrariwise ye ought rather 
 to cleanse him, lest perhaps such a one should be swal- 
 lowed up with overmuch sorrow." Col. iii. 13, " For- 
 bearing one another and cleansing one another, even as 
 God for Christ's sake cleansed you." What nonsense 
 Universalism makes of the Bible ! 
 
 The Bihle says, God does forgive the sins of the peni- 
 tent. Universalism says, he does not. The Bible and 
 Universalism flatly contradict each other. Which is 
 true ? Universalism says, men are punished to the full 
 desert of their sins, and then forgiven afterwards. We 
 pay our debts to the last farthing, and then are forgiven 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 383 
 
 the debts ! Salvation must mean deliverance from noth- 
 ing ; justification, forgiveness, pardon, remission of sins, 
 must, in the face of all lexicons, commentators and critics, 
 mean cleansing ; and the Word of God must be made to 
 speak nonsense — all for the special benefit of Universal- 
 ism ! Or, in plain language, Universalism flaUy contra- 
 dicts the Word of God. The Bible declares, again and 
 again, that the sins of all true penitents are forgiven. Uni- 
 versalism says they are not; but, on the contrary, every 
 man is punished as much as his sins deserve ! 
 
 The gentleman quoted Ileb. x. 28 ; and this passage, 
 with the context, affords another unanswerable argument 
 against Universalism, for which I am obliged to him. 1 
 will read from the 26th verse : " For if we sin wilfully 
 after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there 
 ' remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful 
 looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall 
 devour the adversaries. [Surely this does not favor Uni 
 versalism.] He tliat despised Moses' law died without 
 mercy under two or three witnesses : Of how much sorei 
 punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who 
 hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and haih count- 
 ed the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sancti- 
 fied, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
 Spirit of grace." 
 
 Under the law of Moses, a man was punished capi- 
 tally upon the testimony of two or three witnesses ; but 
 he who despises the Son of God, is to meet a punish- 
 ment sorer than death ; yes, sorer than death ! Death 
 is the severest punishment ever endured this side of eter- 
 nity, and Universalists assert, that in this life men sufier 
 as much as they deserve to suffer ; but here is a punish- 
 ment sorer than death, and, of course, l)eyon(l death. 
 " For" says the Apostle, " we know him that hath said. 
 Vengeance belongelh unto me, I will recompense, saith 
 the Lord." And again: "the Lord shall judge his peo- 
 ple." I find here an argument in favor of the doctrine 
 of future punishment, whether endless or not, which the 
 gentleman will not be able to answer. 
 
284 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 VIII. My eighth argument against Universalism is, 
 that it denies the doctrine of future retribution — of future 
 rewards and punishments — which is every where taught in 
 the Scriptures. I now invite the attention of the audi- 
 ence to some few of the numberless passages of Scrip- 
 ture, in which this doctrine is taught. John iii. 16, 
 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not 
 perish, but have everlasting life." Here we are distinct- 
 ly taught, that those who do not believe in Christ, will 
 perish, and that all would have perished, if God had 
 not so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for 
 them. What does the word perish mean, as here used ? 
 Sometimes it means natural death ; but this cannot be its 
 meaning here ; for then believers would not suffer natu- 
 ral death. Those who believe, are not to perish ; but they 
 do suffer natural death. Then this word must mean 
 punishment after death ; for it has only these two mean* 
 ings, viz : — death in opposition to natural life, and death 
 in opposition to eternal life. And as it here stands as 
 the antithesis of everlasting life, it must mean everlast- 
 ing deaOi or pimishrnent. 
 
 But, says Mr. Pingree, this everlasting life is enjoyed 
 in this world ! The present temporal life of the believer 
 is everlasting! Truly this is something strange. What! 
 a life enjoyed for a few days, or a few years on earth, 
 everlasting life I Do men \'i\e forever here? I should 
 like to ask the gentleman, what the word everlasting 
 means. Does it express duration, or not? If it does, 
 would a life enjoyed for 07ie hour, be everlasting life ? If 
 not, would a life of one day, one week, one month, one 
 year, be everlasting? Would the gentleman speak of an 
 everlasting hour, an everlasting day, an everlasting month, 
 an everlasting year ? Will Mr. Pingree enlighten us, on 
 this important point ? 
 
 I may with propriety connect with this, a passage in 
 1 Pet. i. 3 — " Blessed be the God and Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mer- 
 cy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the res- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 285 
 
 urrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance 
 incorruptible, umliefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserv* 
 ed in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God 
 through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the 
 last time." Here we read of an inheritance in heaven, 
 an eternal salvation, unto which men are kept through 
 faith. How can the gentleman, in direct contradiction of 
 the Aposde, say, that faith is not necessary to the future, 
 eternal salvation. 
 
 But the gentleman has repeatedly said, the believer is 
 saved, and the unbeliever is damned, in this life. Yes, 
 bul Jesus Christ says, " he that believeth shall be saved ; 
 and he tliat believeth not, shall be damned." He claims 
 the privilege not only of changing the meaning of the 
 words of the Bible, but the tenses also, when they do 
 not suit him ! The Saviour says, he that believeth shall 
 be saved [in the future tense;] and he that believeth not, 
 shall be damned. Why did he use the future tense ? 
 Why did he not say, as Universalists say, he that believ- 
 eth, is saved, and he that believeth not, is damned ? 
 
 [TYme expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's fifteenth speech.] 
 My friend, Mr. Rice, would like to know if the Bible 
 says that men come to Christ after death? Not in so 
 many words; but it does say that all will certainly be 
 drawn to Christ. Christ says, in so many words, "If 1 
 be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto 
 ME." Mr. Rice inquires, if Scripture says men will be 
 reconciled to God, or subdued to Christ, or saved, after 
 death ? Not precisely in that form of expression. Yet 
 we expect to die, and we know God's promise will posi- 
 tively be accomplished; and we expect, if they are not 
 fulfilled in this life, as they certainly are not, tliat they 
 will be, after death; for God's word cannot fail, nor his 
 will be frustrated. 
 
 Mr. Rice has dwelt a good deal upon "that young 
 man," Mr. Ballon ; and now he attempts to show some 
 disagreement between him and me, as his son. I ex- 
 
2QQ AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 plained that matter last night; showing that Mr. Ballou 
 said there was no evil in the future Ife, from which we 
 are to be saved ; but that we were to be introduced into 
 a state of salvation hereafter, a deliverance from the pre- 
 sent evils. This leads me to ask, if my friend has never " 
 heard of certain other "young men," not more than 200 
 or 300 years ago, who had something to do with a slow 
 fire of green wood, in the open square of Geneva?! 
 
 My friend attempts to limit the phrase, " all men," by 
 referring to those who went out of Judea to be baptized 
 by John. Is the phrase, all men, in reference to those 
 to whom the promises and purposes of God relate, to be 
 restricted by the words, "all men," or all Judea that 
 went out after Jesus, or John ? Does Mr. Rice himself 
 believe this ? If not, what bearing has that passage upon 
 the texts quoted? 
 
 As to my standing corrected on the Confession of 
 Faith — I honestly meant what I said ; that my impres- 
 sion of the Calvinistic views of the objects of Ciirist's 
 death was derived from the preaching of Presbyterians; 
 and if he showed that the Confession teaches another 
 doctrine, I was willing to stand corrected. I will read a 
 passage from Edwards, such as he denies is there, at our 
 next session. I am not discussing Calvinum, as Mr. 
 Rice intimates. All I have to do with Calvinism is to 
 present my friend's Creed against his arguments ; and 
 I show the propriety of this, by my friend's own course, 
 in his Discussion with Mr. Campbell, (page 465) where 
 he set his Creed, or doctrine, against his opinion or ar- 
 gument. He there says of Mr. Campbell, " But if his 
 opinion is true, his doctrine is false; and if his doctrine 
 is true, his opinion is false. His doctrine is, that bap- 
 tism is necessary in order to the remission of sins," etc. 
 Well, so"! say of Mr. Rice ; if his argmnmts are true, 
 his Confession of Faith is false; and if his Confession 
 is true, his arguments are false — for the reasons that I 
 1 have already presented. 
 
 As to the young churches of Campbellism and Univer- 
 salism ; I did not, as my friend says, make it a consola- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 287 
 
 tion for us, that Mr. Campbell's church was young. 
 That is my friend's remark — not mine. The doctrine 
 of universal salvation is not new. It is not a novel 
 doctrine. My friend admits this. He admits that it was 
 the doctrine of some of the Fathers, whom he himself 
 quotes with favor in his Discussion with Mr. Campbell. 
 It was held in the earliest ages of the church. So the 
 doctrine of endless misery was held in the second and 
 third centuries of the church ; and finally so extensively 
 gained ground, that Universalism was condemned in the 
 sixth century. 
 
 My friend says 1 asserted that many Universalists 
 taught that the soul was not altogether mortal. If I said 
 " souV^ — as I think I did not — it was a fapsus lingua. I 
 intended to say man. He inquires about man's being 
 nearly mortal ; and wants to know about his being alto- 
 gether mortal, or not. I presume every body understood 
 me, perfectly, except Mr. Rice. I meant that Univer- 
 salists did not believe in the total extinction of man's be- 
 ing by death. 
 
 Again, with regard to sin arising from "the flesh " — 
 our present physical organization. The Great Apostle 
 Paul was a good Christian ; yet he was under the injuri- 
 ous influences of '* the flesh." He speaks of " the war 
 in his members." His physical constitution had influ- 
 ence over his mind : it has over all Christians — over all 
 men. They all require a change after death; some re- 
 quire a greater change ; others a less. That is all. Man 
 has naturally a mortal constitution. Death came by sin ; 
 but not a natural death. " In the day thnt thou eatest 
 thereof, thou shalt surely die," said God to the first man. 
 It was not natural death, therefore ; for he did not thus 
 die, on that day ; nor is it eternal death. It is that death 
 which is the consequence of sin. " The wages of sin is 
 death," says Paul, in Rom. vi. 23. Dr. Adam Clarke, 
 on another passage, says the Greek word here rendered 
 " wages,''^ was used to signify the daily pay of a Roman 
 soldier. This fact illustrates the Aposde's language : " the 
 DAILY PAY of sin is DEATH." Natural death is not al- 
 
288 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ways a direct punishment for sin ; but frequently it is, 
 especially a violent, premature death. A man among us 
 is condemned to be hung for murder or any other crime; 
 we esteem it to be a punishment. So in the case of 
 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; — they were destroyed be- 
 fore their time came to die, naturally. See Num. xvi. 
 28 — 30 : " And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that 
 the Lord hath sent me to do all these works ; for I have 
 not done them of mine own mind. If these men die the 
 COMMON DEATH of all men, or if they be visited after the 
 visitation of all men, then the Lord hath not sent me. 
 [Moses makes his Divine authority and mission rest on 
 this.] But if the Lord maketh a new thing, and the 
 earth open her mouth and swallow them up, with all that 
 appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the 
 pit, then ye shall understand that these men have pro- 
 voked the Lord,'''' Death here was a penalty for sin ; 
 but it was not the " common death of all men." 
 
 As to the Pro and Con of Universalism ; it is a sound 
 and able work. It may contain an error in verbal criti- 
 cism. So I admitted, awhile ago. The author himself 
 is aware of it, and has been for some time ; but the ar- 
 gument is not affected by this error. There is no Greek 
 article there. The phrase in those passages rendered 
 "^Ae day of judgment," as found in the original, is equiv 
 alent to the English phrase, " a day of judgment" — thi 
 absence of the Article in Greek being frequently equiva 
 lent to the English indefinite Article. 
 
 We are not done with the doctrine of Vicarious Atone 
 ment. The Bible speaks, as Mr. Rice quotes, of sinners 
 being cleansed by the blood of Christ. Now, this is noi 
 being cleansed by the literal blood of Christ. Does the 
 gentleman take these words in their literal sense ? Does 
 he really believe it to be the real, literal blood of Chiist, 
 that cleanses from sin ? I will quote a passage from John 
 vi., to illustrate the use of the word, "blood," sometimes 
 by Jesus and his Apostles : " Except ye eat the flesh of 
 the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life 
 in you." Do the righteous really "eat the flesh of the 
 
'' OF UNIVERSALISM. 289 
 
 Son of Man ?" Is this passage to be tali.en literally ? Do 
 we really have to drink Christ's blood, in order to have 
 life ? ! If so^ the literal blood may cleanse from sin. 
 My friend attempts to ridicule the idesi thsit for sriveness 
 means cleansing the sinner. Did I say that ? My friend 
 makes a false issue. I said that the terms "cleansing," 
 '* healing," etc., referred to the same effect produced on 
 the sinner, as the term forgiveness ; as vi^here it is said 
 that a man is cleansed by the blood of Christ; and that 
 his blood was shed for the remission of sins. And there 
 are various other expressions showing the same result. 
 My friend's " various readings" on this subject will not 
 answer his purpose. They are of no avail. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to quote Lexicons. This 
 matter stands something as the word "ftajp/ire," in Mr. 
 Rice's Discussion with Mr. Campbell. Mr. Rice said 
 that the Greek word baptizo, which Mr. Campbell de- 
 fined, and /)ror<?i by Lexicons to mean "to immerse," 
 was used in the New Testament to signify " to wash," 
 "to cleanse," "^o purify,'' Mr. Campbell called for a 
 Lexicon defining the word as signifying "cleansing," or 
 "purifying." As Mr. Rice could not find a Lexicon to 
 give those meanings, he proceeded to show, by New 
 Testament usage, that this was Baptism. So I say with 
 regard to "forgiveness." When sinners are forgiven, then 
 sin is put away ; the Lamb of God taketh away the sin 
 of the world," said John the Baptist. Men in sin are 
 represented as unclean; but when forgiven, they are 
 said to be cleansed. So sin is a moral disease, requiring 
 a physician. The cure is equivalent to forgiveness. 
 All these expressions denote the same result, although 
 the terms are different. In 2 Cor. ii. 6, we read, as be- 
 fore quoted, " Sufficient to such a man is this punish- 
 ment; Now, therefore, forgive him," etc. This shows 
 that the man had been fully, sufficiently, justly punished, 
 and was then to be forgiven. Although this man had 
 been even damned, " delivered over to Satan," yet he 
 was to be forgiven and saved. Again, I showed a pas- 
 sage which spoke o^ ''^ every transgression having already 
 25 
 
290 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 received a just recompense of reward." Could thery 
 ]iave received if, in the past tense, if the just recompense 
 was endless damnalion? And if the punishment Vere 
 past, could it continue to all eternity? 
 
 The passage that my friend quoted, speaks of a " sorer 
 punishment;'' sorer than z^^Aa/ F Mr. Rice asks. Why, 
 sorer than death, I answer; but it does not say after 
 de^th. May not men suffer " sor^r punishment" than 
 death ? It is only necessary to refer to the time spoken 
 of by the Saviour, when men should " flee to the moun- 
 tains;" and of which Christ said, "Pray that your flight 
 be not in the winter, or on the Sabbath day," adding, 
 " For then shall be great tribulation, such as never was, 
 since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor 
 ever shall be^ Here was a punishment sorer than 
 death ; but not after death. The language of Jesus 
 Christ refers to sufferings in the present world. 
 
 Mr. Rice's eighth argument was, that Universalists deny 
 future retribution: all Universalists do not. Some be- 
 lieve that there is a limited punishment after death ; and _ 
 others do not. My friend's argument, therefore, is not 
 an argument against final universal salvation ; which alone 
 is the proposition before us. I do not myself believe in 
 punishment in the future life ; and so I have taken that 
 ground during the present controversy. Others take the 
 other ground ; and I shall not oppose them. 
 
 My friend made some remarks about the word "/)er- 
 tsA." He asks if it refers to natural death? I answer^ 
 No — not always. But does it refer to endless misery? 
 " They that sin without law, shall perish without law," 
 says Paul, in Rom. ii. What does that mean ? To whom 
 does it apply? To the Pagans. Now I should like a 
 distinct answer to this question : Can Pagans be saved? 
 I ask Mr. Rice if any Pagans can be saved ? This ques- 
 tion I would like to have answered in connection with the 
 use of the word " perish," in this connection. 
 
 He asks if there can be an eternal hour, day, week, or 
 month. Mr. Rice himself knows that the word rendered, 
 "eternal," "everlasting," etc., is frequently applied to 
 
-OF UNTVERSAilSM. 201 
 
 things of a limited duration. We do not say an eternal 
 week; because the word week is itself definite in its mean- 
 ing. But when " eternal life " is spoken of, it may mean 
 the spiritual life enjoyed here, and also refer to the immor- 
 tal life in the future world. It must not be taken for grant- 
 ed, that it refers only to the life in the future world. Mr. 
 Rice said, in his debate with Mr. Campbell, that men ** are 
 in actual possession of eternal /?/)?." 
 
 Mr, Rice again argues, that the condition of salvation 
 is faith. He ridicules Universalists for holding, that faith 
 is 7iot essential to salvation. I have shown that the sal- 
 vation to which fniih is necessary, is enjoyed here: " This 
 is life eternal ; to know thee, the only true God, and Je- 
 sus Christ whom thoTi hast sent," Hence, this *' eternal 
 life" is enjoyed here. Is faith essential to the ^na/ sal- 
 vation ? Then, if it is, what becomes of those millions — 
 one-third of the human race — who are not capable of be- 
 lief ? I put that inquiry against the doctrine, that faitu 
 is essential to salvation. Moreover, is Baptism essential 
 to salvation? He has not answered this question, made 
 in relation to his quotation from Acts. In Mark xvi., it 
 is said, " Whosoever believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 saved," I believe that baptism means washing, cleans- 
 ing, or purification. This is the influence of the Chris- 
 tian Religion on man. The prophecies respecting Christ, 
 say that he should cleanse, purge, or purify men from 
 iheir sins. So John the Baptist said — ^** He shall baptize 
 — r^^^ify — yo" ^^^^^ ^^^^ Holy Spirit, and with fire." So 
 my friend holds — that the essential Christian Baptism is 
 purification. And so I hold. In relation to the passage 
 quoted by my friend, we have an exposition given by Dr. 
 George Campbell, as quoted in Paige's Selections, show- 
 ing that it does not relate to future and endless damna- 
 tion. He says, in a note on that place : 
 
 *' This is not a just version of the Greek word. The term 
 damned, with us, relates solely to the doom which shall be 
 pronr^unced upon the wicked at the last day. This cannot be 
 affirmed with truth of the Greek katakrino, which corresponds 
 exactly to the English word -condemn,"" 
 
292 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 So Home also says : 
 
 "The sanctions with which our Lord enforces the precept 
 of faith in him, though generally applied to a future judgment, 
 do not appear to have any relation to it ; but only to the ad- 
 mission of Christian converts into the Christian Church, after 
 Christ's ascension, upon the same terms as he admitted them 
 himself. Jesus here, upon leaving the world, gives his Apos- 
 tles the same power whiph he himself had exercised, and or- 
 ders them to use it in the same manner: He that helieveth not 
 shall he condemned^ or accountable for his sins. 
 
 These texts have no relation to their condemnation or ac- 
 quittal at the day of judgment; at which time every man will 
 be judged according to his works, and according to what he 
 has received." 
 
 My friend talks about our criticism. The Saviour 
 says, those that believe shall be saved; those that believe 
 not shall be damned. The salvation and the damnation 
 were future from that time, when the Gospel was preach- 
 ed; and thenceforward, so long as men remained in moral 
 darkness and unbelief, they were to be damned. But the 
 Saviour elsewhere said, " He that believeth not, is C9n- 
 demned-— or damned — already ; because light has come 
 into the world, and men love darkness rather than light." 
 Those who now believe, are saved wdth a present " special 
 salvation." Those who do not believe, are condemned ; 
 yet ALL are finally to be saved. The great result is 
 certain to all in a future world. In the present life, sal- 
 vation depends upon contingencies ; but God will prove 
 true, in what he has promised, though every man should 
 prove a liar, or an unbeliever. See Rom. iii. 3, 4. 
 
 I will not enter at any great length, into a controversy 
 upon the Trinity, Vicarious Atonement, etc. ; only so far 
 as to show that my friend has not stated correctly these 
 doctrines, or the denial of them to be the premises of Uni- 
 versalism. Some Universalists hold these doctrines ; 
 some do not. Whether all do, or do not, does not con- 
 cern the proposition now before us. 
 
 I cannot anticipate my friend's next speech. He may 
 throw in a multitude of passages, relating to punishment, 
 aiid leave them to be interpreted by the mass of Orthodox 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 293 
 
 people present, according to their prejudices, and precon- 
 ceived opinions. If these passages are reserved till the 
 close of the discussion, the fault will be Mr. Rice's ; not 
 mine. Perhaps he does not desire them to have a full 
 and fair examination. I have given him ample time and 
 opportunity to investigate my proof texts, by presenting 
 only a few passages at a time, from the very commence- 
 ment of the controversy. He has read our works — the 
 Pro and Con, etc.; and knows how Universalists have 
 disposed of these passages. Hence, probably, he with- 
 holds them. If I have an opportunity, I will show that 
 they do not prove endless punishment. 
 
 I now advance another argument; which is this: when 
 the angel announced tlie advent of the Saviour of the 
 world, he said to the Judean shepherds, who were watch- 
 ing their flocks, "Fear not! for behold, I bring you good 
 tidings — the Gospel — of crkat joy, which shall be to 
 ALL PEOPLK. For uuto you there is bom, this day, in the 
 City of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord," 
 Luke ii. 10, 11. This was the subject of good tidings: 
 the great joy that the Saviour should finally bring to all 
 people. We claim this to be an explicit proof of univer- 
 sal holiness and salvation. Hence, after the proclamation 
 of the "good tidings" by the celestial messenger, r mul- 
 titude of the heavenly host praised God, saying, "Glory 
 TO God in the highest ! on earth peace, good will toward 
 men!" [^Time expired, 
 
 [mr. rice's fifteenth reply.] 
 I cannot permit any man to prescribe for me the course 
 of argument I shall pursue in a public discussion ; nor 
 am I disposed to dictate to my opponent. His insinua- 
 tion that I may be disposed to pursue an unfair course, 
 keeping out of view certain arguments, that he may not 
 have the opportunity to reply to them, is wholly uncalled 
 for, and a departure from the ordinary rules of courtesy. 
 The gentleman still insists, that the fundamental errors 
 of Universalism, which I have exposed, are not its prern- 
 ises / because the Restorationists, whose principles differ 
 25* 
 
294 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 essentially from modern Universalism, do not hold them 
 all. Restorationists believe, at least some of them, in the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, the atonement, &c ; and they be- 
 lieve in a future punishment, more or less extended in du- 
 ration. If I were debating with a Restorationist, I would 
 go into an investigation of the prominent principles of 
 their creed. But I am now discussing the merits of Uni- 
 versalism, with a IJniversalist, who does not believe the 
 Restorationists' principles to be true ; and I am sorry he 
 has not courage to defend his own principles, but that, 
 when they are assailed, he retreats, and attemps to shield 
 himself behind those of Restorationists. I trust, I shall 
 never shrink from the defence of the great religious prm- 
 ciples which I have solemnly adopted, and which I teach 
 to others. I have exposed the fundamental doctrines of 
 Universalism, as set forth and defended by Hosea Ballou, 
 the father of the system, by Abner Kneeland, by I. D. 
 Williamson, by Balfour and others ; and those, Mr. A. C. 
 Thomas says, are "th(? views of a large majority of 
 American Universalists." With Mr. Pingree, a Univer- 
 salist of the modern school, I will not discuss the prin- 
 ciples particularly of Restorationism. 
 
 In his last speech, the gentleman was constrained to 
 make a very important concession, viz : that the Bible no- 
 where says, in so many words, that any one ever will 
 come to Christ, or be reconciled to God afler death. 
 This is indeed something strange, unaccountably strange ! 
 Universalists admit, that great numbers of men do die in 
 their sins ; they assert, that the great truth the Bible was 
 specially designed to teach, is that all these will be saved ; 
 and yet it is admitted that there is not a passage in it, that, 
 in so many words, does teach this doctrine ! After all, 
 then, Universalists are obliged to learn and to prove 
 by inference the great truth which, they say, the Scrip- 
 tures are designed to teach ! Only think of it : the great 
 TRUTH which the Bible Was designed to teach, can be es- 
 tablished only by inferential reasoning ; the Bible says 
 not a word directly to the point ! ! ! 
 
 In regard to salvation he says, he has explained his 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 295 
 
 meaning, that there are no evils in the future life, from 
 which men are to bTe saved. Pecisely so ; and I am much 
 pleased to hear him thus avow his sentiments. If, then, 
 there are no evils in the future world, from which Christ 
 saves men, there can can be no salvation by Christ in the 
 future world. He may tell men, that they will be happy 
 hereafter; but it is abuse of language to say, that he 
 saves them, when there are no evils from which he de- 
 livers them. The gentleman does not pretend, that he 
 can find one lexicon in the world, which defines the word 
 salvation, as he does. So we are to take his authority 
 against the world ! 
 
 I must now pass rapidly over several points presented 
 in his last speech. The gentleman made a statement con- 
 cerning one of the most important doctrines of the Pres- 
 byterian Confession, which I proved to be precisely con- 
 trary to the truth. He stands corrected, but excuses him- 
 self by alleging, that he only intended to say, he had 
 heard it preached as he stated it, in Presbyterian pulpits. 
 I cannot, of course, say what he has, or what he has not 
 heard; but the difficulty in which he has involved him- 
 self, is this : he told us bgastingly, that he had studied 
 oiir Confession for fwo years, and understood it better 
 ' than Presbyterians themselves ! We had the right, there- 
 fore, to expect, that a gentleman making such pretensions, 
 would not publicly make so gross a mis-representation 
 of one of the most prominent doctrhies in the Confession. 
 His excuse is by no means satisfactory. 
 
 Universalism, he repeats, is not a modern doctrine. 
 The Gnostics, who held that Jehovah is an apostate, I 
 acknowledge, held universal salvation of some sort ; and 
 I by no means object to the gentleman claiming them as 
 brethren, and thus gaining for his principles a venerable 
 antiquity ! But let the audience mark the fact — the ear- 
 ly Christian Fathers believed and taught the doctrine of 
 eternal punishment. Polycarp, the disciple of the Apos- 
 tle John, did not believe or teach Universalism. Ireneus, 
 the disciple of Polycarp, did not teach it. This Mr. Bal- 
 iou, in his Ancient History of Universalism, admits. No 
 
%9^ AN OUAL DISCUSSION 
 
 one of tlie Christian Fathers taught even Restorationism, 
 until the lime of Origen, who lived in the third century, 
 when, as Mr. Pingree asserts, the church was very cor- 
 rupt. Moreover, as already remarked, Origen believed in 
 the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, and carried 
 to a ridiculous extent the allegorical mode of interpreting 
 the Scriptures. But let us have the testimony of Ballou 
 2d, concerning the primitive Christian writers. He is a 
 leading writer amongst the Universalists ; and, therefore, 
 he is an unexceptionable witness, I read page 57 of his 
 History : 
 
 "We will, however, observe that of the Orthodox writers, 
 nearly all alluded to, or expressly assert, a future judgment 
 and a future state of punishment ; seven call it the everlast" 
 ing, and eternal fire or torment ; but out of these there are 
 three who certainly did not think it endless, since two of them 
 believed the damned would be annihilated, and the other as- 
 serted their restoration to bliss." 
 
 Even Mr. Ballou, though searching most diligently for all 
 the ancient Universalists, is constrained to admit, that in 
 the Christian church, in the ages immediately succeeding 
 the apostolic. Only one man can be found who believed 
 even in Restorationism^ and he believed in a day of judg* 
 ment and future punishment of such duration, that he 
 called it "the everlasting, the eternal fire of torment ! ! !" 
 
 And it is a fact, a remarkable fact, stated by Mr. Ballou, 
 that the book which "contains the earliest explicit declara- 
 tion extant of a restoration from the torments of hell," about 
 the middle of the second century, called the Sybilline Ora- 
 cles, was a grossforgery, to use his own language, " brought 
 forth in iniqid'y!'''' pages 43, 44. Such was the origin, 
 not of modern Universalism, but of Restorationism, with 
 which the gentleman loves to claim fraternity ! 
 
 My friend says, he did not say, that the soul was not 
 altogetlier mortal, but that man is not. I had supposed, 
 that the soul is the man. But in M^hat kind of a predica- 
 ment does he place men after death? He says, they 
 are not allogethar mortal, and yet not inimortaL It 
 would seem, then, that they are in a most singular state, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 297 
 
 neither living nor dying. Is this a happy or an unhappy 
 condition? Can the gentleman inform us? 5f he will 
 say, the body is mortal, but the soul immortal, we shall 
 be able to understand him. But when he says, he does 
 not believe man altogether mortal, and yet does not in- 
 form us what part is immortal, or what he means by his 
 most singular language, I confess my inability to under- 
 stand his meaning. *- 
 
 The ridiculous blunder of Rev. Mr. Rogers, in the 
 Pro and Con of Universalism, he says, is only an error 
 in verbal criticism. It is not an error of this kind. The 
 truth is, he has manufactured a new Greek article, for 
 the benefit of Universalism; or rather, he has taken the 
 preposition en, and converted it into an indefinite article. 
 This learned gentleman, though pretending to be quite a 
 critic in the Greek language, is evidently ignorant of the 
 Grammar. Every school-boy who has studied the Greek 
 three months, must have learned, that it has but one arti- 
 cle, that it has no indefinite article ! 
 
 But the gentleman says, there is no article at all before 
 the word day, where the day of judgment is mentioned. 
 This is not correct. The article he is used ; and the in- 
 spired writers speak of he hemera — the day of judgment. 
 They wrote much concerning the great day of general judg- 
 ment, when all nations, the livmg and the dead, shall 
 stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, and be judged 
 according to the deeds done in the body. " And he shall 
 separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth 
 his sheep from the goats ; and he shall set the sheep on 
 the right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the 
 king say unto them on his right hand. Come, ye blessed 
 of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world. Then shall he say to them 
 on his left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlast- 
 ing fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels. And 
 these shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the 
 righteous into life eternal," Matt. xxv. 32. — This is the 
 great day of general judgment ; and the gentleman may 
 take this as a distinct argument, proving that there is to 
 
^yo AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 be a judgment after death, and establishing the doctrine 
 of the eternal punishment of the wicked. 
 
 Mr, Pingree attempts to prove, that the blood of Christ, 
 shed on the cross, is not efficacious in procuring remission 
 of sins, by referring to the passage — " Except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no 
 life in you," John, vi. 53. And. he asks, whether this 
 is to be understood of the literal blood of Christ. I an- 
 swer, Christ was speaking of the anxiety of the milltitude 
 to receive the bread which nourishes the body ; and he 
 took occasion to turn their attention to blessings of a no- 
 bler kind. The meaning of his language is, that the souls 
 of men must feed upon, or be nourished by, those spirit- 
 ual blessings procured for them by the wounding of his 
 body, and the shedding of his blood on the cross. If this 
 be not his meaning, will the gentleman inform us what 
 it is? 
 
 The efficacy of the sufferings of Christ to procure the 
 remission of sins, is clearly taught in Heb. ix. 13, 14: 
 " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
 an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purify- 
 ing of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of 
 Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself 
 without spot to God, to purge your consciences from dead 
 works to serve the living God." The blood of Christ is 
 the procuring cause of the cleansing of the soul from all 
 sin. S iich is the plain meaning of the Apostle. 
 
 Mr. Pingree says, he did not say, the words fort^ive, 
 pardon, justify, mean to cleanse, but that they mean the 
 same thing in cffecf — the same result. But what, I a^^^k, 
 do those words really mean ? Our Saviour teaches us to 
 pray thus : " Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our 
 debtors." Now every body knows, that when a man is 
 forgiven a debt, he does not pay it; he is release! f.'om a 
 legal obligation, from paying wh^it ho ow^s. Our Lord 
 represents our sins as debts ; tie forgiveness of sin, there- 
 fore, must mean the rele^ising of the person from h legrsl 
 obligaiion, from punishment which he deserves. If God 
 forgives a sinner, he does not inflict upon him deserved 
 
OF tJNIVERSALISM. 299 
 
 punishment ; and if, as Universalists assert, he does pun- 
 ish every man as his sins deserve, he does not forgive any. 
 
 There is not a respectable lexicon in the world, Greek 
 or English, that defines the words forgiveness, pardon, 
 justification, to mean any thing like cleansing, purify- 
 ing, healing. These two classes of words are as differ- 
 ent from each other in meaning, as any two classes that 
 can be found in the Greek or English language. The 
 former has exclusive reference to legal responsibililies ; 
 the latter, to moral character, I have at command some 
 eight or ten of the most celebrated Greek lexicons, all of 
 which perfectly agrefe in defining these words as I have 
 done ; and I shall be happy to place them in the hands of 
 my friend, that he may, if possible, sustain himself in re- 
 gard to their meaning. But I must protest against his as- 
 serting, that important words in the Bible mean so and 
 so, without furnishing the least authority or evidence that 
 he is correct. Does he really expect this large and re- 
 spectable audience to receive his mere assertion concern- 
 ing the meaning of the most important words in the Bi- 
 ble, though it be against all lexicons, commentators and 
 critics?! Why even Gregory XVI. would not require 
 more of his humble followers. If the gentleman were 
 one of the most learned men living, we should still expect 
 him to prove his assertions. There is no man who knows 
 every thing. 
 
 But he attempts to excuse himself by asserting, that in 
 my debate with Alex'r. Campbell I was placed in the 
 same predicament — that Mr. Campbell called upon me to 
 produce a lexicon giving to the word baptizo the meaning 
 which I gave it, and that I could not do it, but rehed sim- 
 ply on Bible usage. Now suppose this statement true, 
 what would it prove ? It would prove that I was in error. 
 But has the gentleman appealed to Bible usage to show, 
 that pardon, forgiveness, <fcc., mean cleansing ? He has 
 not, and he cannot. He cannot, therefore, place me in 
 the same predicament with himself, even if I were to ad- 
 mit the truth of his statement. But, unfortunately for 
 him, it is not true ; but precisely the opposite of what he 
 
300 AN ORAL BISCUSSION 
 
 has asserted, is tnie, as any one can see by turning to 
 that Debate. I produced some twelve or thirteen of the 
 most celebrated lexicons, ancient and modern, every one 
 of which gave the vrord baptizo the definition for which 
 I contended. I never shrink from testing the correctness 
 of my explanation of important words by an appeal to 
 lexicons of standard authority ; nor do I ask men to 
 take my assertion against all authority. I have not yet 
 attained to such greatness, as will allow me to take such a 
 stand. If Mr. Pingree is so much more learned than all 
 the world, it behooves him at least to afford us some evi- 
 dence of his extraordinary attainments ! I insist, there- 
 fore, on his bringing forward at least one lexicon to prove, 
 that the important words in question have the meaning he 
 has given them ! This is an important matter ; for cer- 
 tain it is that God does pardon, forgive, remit the sins of 
 believers, and justify them ; and if these words mean what 
 all lexicons, critics and commentators say they mean ; it 
 is not true, as Universalism teaches, that every man is 
 fully punished for his sins. 
 
 The gentleman insists, that punishment sorer than 
 death, which they must suffer who despise Christ, is only 
 temporal ; and he refers to the sufferings of the Jews in 
 the destruction of Jerusalem for an example of temporal 
 punishment sorer than death. If only the Bible had said 
 that the punishment of the Jews in this life was sorer 
 than death, there would have been some weight in his ar- 
 gument; but it says no such thing. He refers to the 
 declaration, that there had been no example of similar 
 suffering since the world began ; " no, nor ever shall be ;" 
 and this is evidence, he thinks, that in this life they suf- 
 fered a punishment more terrible than death. But, in the 
 first place, this suffering was to be endured by the Jewish 
 nation — by the Jews as a people ; and no nation, it is ad- 
 mitted, ever endured greater suffering. But did not mul- 
 titudes of those Jews — the very persons who suffered 
 most — endure death itself? How then could death be 
 sorer than death ? 
 
 But the language of the Apostle is very peculiar. After 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 301 
 
 speaking of capital punishment inflicted upon transgres- 
 sors of the law of Moses, he asks — " Of how much sorer 
 punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, 
 who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
 counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he v/as 
 sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto 
 the Spirit of Grace?" The Apostle does not undertake 
 to say how much more severe than death, the punishment 
 shall be ; but the question — " of how much sorer punish- 
 ment" — implies necessarily, that it will be inconceivably 
 more severe. This is an argument for future punishment 
 which the gentleman will not be able to answer. 
 
 The gentleman, as I anticipated, finds it impossible to 
 answer the argument found in John iii. 16: "God so 
 loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believelh in him, might not peiish, but have 
 everlasting life." The audience will remember, that, af- 
 ter showing that the word perish, in this passage, evident- 
 ly and necessarily means eternal punishment, 1 called 
 upon Mr. Pingree to tell us what he understood it to 
 mean. What was his reply ? Why, said he, Paul says, 
 "they that sin without law, shall perish without law;" 
 and very gravely and earnestly he asks me whether I 
 believe that a heathen man can possibly be saved ! What 
 has this question to do with the matter in hand ? Our 
 Saviour teaches, that those who believe in him, shall have 
 everlasting life, and those who do not, will perish, I 
 called upon the gentleman, if he objected to my exposi- 
 tion of the word perish, which here stands in opposition 
 to everlasting life, to inform us what it does mean. Instead 
 of answering the question, he asks me whether a heathen 
 man can be saved. He might as well have asked, how 
 far it is to Lexington, Ky ! 
 
 Suppose I admit, that all the heathens may be saved ; 
 does this prove that those who hear and reject the Gospel 
 will not perish ? — that they will, contrary to the declara- 
 tion of Christ, have everlasting life ? I again urge the 
 gentleman to tell us, what does the word periah mean in 
 the passage under consideration. My friend is evidently 
 26 
 
302 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 afraid to march up to this question. No man is more 
 courageous than he, when he sees no danger ; and no man 
 stops more promptly, when he finds himself running into 
 difficulty. 
 
 There are two other important words with which he 
 feels pressed ; I mean the words everlasting and etcmaL 
 He says they are used in a limited sense, with reference 
 to spiritual life in this world. I have asked him whether 
 these words express duration or not. Suppose an indi- 
 vidual has enjoyed spiritual life one day, one week, one 
 month, one year ; has he, in either case, enjoyed eternal 
 life ? If not, how long must he enjoy it before it can be 
 called eternal or everlasting life ? Will the gentleman 
 answer these questions ? 
 
 But he says, I asserted in my debate with Mr. Camp- 
 bell, that every believer is now in possession of everlast- 
 mg life. Yes — I said every believer has that spiritual 
 life which is begun here, and will continue forever. He 
 is spiritually alive, and will never die. But I did not say 
 that the words everlasiing and eternal were used in a limi- 
 ted sense concerning believers. I will give the gentle- 
 man till Monday evening to tell us, whether the words ex- 
 press dura-ion, and if so, what length of duration. 
 
 My friend admits, that faith is necessary to the present 
 salvation, but denies that it is necessary to eternal salva- 
 tion. I have repeatedly called his attention to 1 Pet. i. 
 3-5; but for the life of me I cannot rouse his courage 
 sufficiently to induce him to answer the argument. I 
 must now repeat it, perhaps for the third time, " 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, undefiled, 
 and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 
 who are kep,t by the power of God through faith unto 
 salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." Now I 
 earnestly desire the gentleman to tell us, is the inherit- 
 ance, the salvation here spoken of, in this world, or in 
 heaven? If it is in heaven, as Peter expressly says, then 
 
OF rmVERSALISM. 808 
 
 faith is necessary to eternal salvation; for those who 
 were to gain this inheritance, are said to be kept by the 
 power of God throKgh faith iinfo salvnfion. 
 
 But he is again in trouble about infants ; and he asks, 
 if faith is necessary to salvation, how can infants be 
 saved? I will cheerfully give what appears to me the 
 correct answer to this inquiry. God works by means, 
 when means can be used; but when they cannot, he is 
 free to work without them. When the Jews were in the 
 wilderness, passing from Egypt to Canaan, they could 
 not obtain food by the ordinary means; therefore God 
 fed them with manna from heaven. But when they 
 reached the land of promise, and could obtain food in the 
 ordinary way, the manna ceased to fall. Just so, in the 
 nature of the case, infants cannot understand and believe 
 the Gospel, cannot be saved by faith ; therefore, if God in 
 his wisdom call them into eternity in infancy, he can 
 save them without means. But what has this to do with 
 the argument concerning the salvation of adults'/ Will 
 the gentleman argue, that because infants cannot be saved 
 by faith; therefore adults are not required to beUeve in 
 order to salvation? Is it certain — is there any evidence 
 that adults are saved just as infants are? May not God 
 save adults by means, though infants cannot be saved 
 thus? 
 
 Mr. Pingree says, I have not yet answered his ques- 
 tion, whether I believe baptism necessary to salvation. 
 We are not now discussing the subject of baptism in any 
 of its bearings. I quoted the passage, "Repent and be 
 baptized for the remission of sins," to prove that Univer- 
 salism denies that God does grant remission of sins to 
 every true penitent. The gentleman, whilst constantly 
 seeking to draw me from the question under discussion, 
 does not fail frequently to complain, that I do not adhere 
 closely to it. He will not succeed in inducing me to dis- 
 cuss the design of baptism. I expect to keep very close 
 to the question — too much so, I apprehend, for the com- 
 fort of my friend. 
 
 One of my arguments in proof of future punishment 
 
804 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 was founded on the declaration of our Saviour, "He that 
 believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be- 
 lieveth not, shall be damned." The Saviour, I have 
 said, employed the future tense, and was, of course, 
 speaking of future salvation and condemnation ; whereas 
 Universalism uses the present tense, and talks of faith as 
 necessary only to present salvation. But, says my friend, 
 it was future, when the Saviour spoke. How happened 
 it, then, that previous to this time he said, "He that be- 
 lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life?" John iii. 36. 
 The reason is obvious; for every believer is now in pos- 
 session of that life that shall continue forever; and the 
 unbeliever is not only now condemned, but shall be here- 
 after. 
 
 The gentleman makes a vain effort to give plausibility 
 to his reply by the authority of Dr. Geo. Campbell. He 
 cannot do it. Dr. Campbell believed the language of the 
 Saviour had reference to the future salvation of the right- 
 eous and the future punishment of the wicked; but he 
 preferred the word condemnation, as a fuller translation 
 of the original. He thought the translation should have 
 given the English word which corresponded most fully 
 with the Greek. His is a mere criticism relative to the 
 proper English word to be employed ; but concerning the 
 meaning of the Greek word in that connection, he did not 
 differ from the common view. 
 
 I will now invite the attention of my friend, (who seems 
 anxious to have a particular class of texts brought for 
 ward,) to Heb. ix. 27 : " And as it is appointed unto men 
 once to die, and after death the judgment; so Christ was 
 once oftered to bear the sins of many," &c. Universal 
 ists deny, that there is a judgment after death; but here 
 we have this truth expressly taught by the inspired Apos- 
 tle. 1 hope Mr. Pingree will attend to this argument. 
 
 Another passage to which I invite attention, is found in 
 Luke xiv. 12: " Then said he also to him that bade him, 
 When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not i\\y 
 frienda, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy 
 rich neighbors ; lest they also bid thee again, and a re 
 
Ot tJNIVEItSALlSM. 305 
 
 compense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, 
 call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind ; and then 
 thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: 
 for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the 
 just." This passage teaches, in language too clear to be' 
 misunderstood, that the righteous will be rewarded in 
 the future life for their righteous works performed in this 
 world. The Saviour exhorts a man to a kind of good 
 works for which he could not receive a recompense in 
 this life, that he might be rewarded hereafter. But Uni- 
 versalism asserts, directly in the face of our Saviour's 
 teaching, that men are luUy rewarded and punished in 
 this life, and that the conduct of men here, can have no 
 influence whatever upon their condition hereafter. 
 
 The next passage I quote in proof of the doctrine of 
 future rewards and punishments, is Matt. vi. 19, 20 : 
 *' Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where 
 moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break 
 through and steal." Christ exhorts men so to live, as to 
 lay up treasure in heaven ; but Universalism denies, that 
 it is possible for them to do so. It asserts, that men are 
 fully rewarded in this life ; and, therefore, their treasures 
 must be laid up on earth. Thus flatly does it contradict 
 our blessed Redeemer ! 
 
 The same doctrine is most clearly taught in the follow- 
 ing exhortation of Christ: " Fear not, little flock, for it is 
 your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 
 Sell that ye have, and give alms : provide yourselves bags 
 which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth 
 not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth." 
 Christ exhorts his disciples to provide a treasure in the 
 heavens ; but Universalism denies that they can do so— 
 thus directly contradicting him. 
 
 My next argument against Universalism is drawn from 
 the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 
 " The rich man was clothed in purple and fine linen, and 
 fared sumptuously every day. Lazarus lay at the gate, de» 
 siring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from his table ; 
 and the dogs licked his sores. The beggar died, and was 
 26* 
 
306 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 carried by the angels iato Abraham's bosom ; for Abra* 
 ham, as the Saviour teaches, was really living. The rich 
 man also died and was buried ; and in Hell he lifted up 
 his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, 
 and Lazarus in his bosom : and he cried and said. Father 
 Abraham, 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 lifetime receivedst thy good things, and like- 
 wise Lazarus evil things : but now he is comforted, and 
 thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us 
 and you there is a great gulf fixed ; so that they which 
 would pass from iience to you, cannot ; neither can ihey 
 pass to us that would come from thence." 
 
 Now whether we regard this remarkable portion of 
 Scripture as parable, or as history, it most clearly teach- 
 es, that immediately after death the wicked are punished, 
 and the righteous are happy. It, moreover, teaches in the 
 clearest manner, the eternal punishment of the wicked, 
 and the endless happiness of the righteous. Such, evi- 
 dently, is the meaning of the impassable gulf represented 
 as existing between them. I say now, that I take it as a 
 parable^ to save the gendeman the trouble of criticising it 
 as a history. [Time expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's sixteenth speech.] 
 Respected Auditors- — In commencing the labors of 
 another evening, of another week, it may be proper to 
 refer to the course of the controversy, so far as it has 
 progressed. All of you have perceived my course, as 
 the advocate of Universalism. I have presented, regu- 
 larly, each evening, a few of the specially strong and 
 pertinent passages of Scripture, in favor of the proposi- 
 tion, in order that they might receive full and deliberate 
 consideration from Mr. Rice. On the other hand, Mr. 
 Rice has proposed to himself to overthrow the doctrine 
 of -universal salvation, by discussing certain other doc- 
 trines, not necessarily connected with the proposition be- 
 fore us , and which he chooses to call the premises of 
 
OF UNIVfiRSALISM. 807 
 
 tJniversalisTii — while they are not so. This course he 
 pursued until Saturday night. He then took a new turn. 
 Not satisfied with making false issues upon a great va- 
 riety of subjects disconnected with the proposition, he 
 went into srnall personal matters; and took up indivi- 
 dual cases of error, in criticism, etc., leaving both his 
 former course of argument, and mine. I have not fol- 
 lowed him generally in this part of his course — nor, for 
 the most part, in the other. But yet, when little things 
 become great, by a great deal made of them, we are 
 sometimes obliged to notice them. This I propose 
 briefly to do, in relation to a portion of Mr. Rice's last 
 speech. I pass over his studied and ironical application 
 of the word "Reverend" to me; because I merely n>en- 
 tioned his so carefully withholding it on a former occa- 
 sion, when it would have been proper, and now c^iifer- 
 ring it where it is improper. I do not claim the title; 
 nor is it properly given here. If my mentioning it was 
 a <* small matter," it was a still smaller matter to stu- 
 diously withhold it in the published correspondence, and 
 the SMALLEST OF ALL to apply it thus, now. 
 
 But I come to a subject upon which much has been 
 said by Mr. Rice, viz. his exposure of the want of learn- 
 ing in the Universalist writers. " For instance, he makes 
 great ado about an error of Grammar, in the "Pro and 
 Con of Universalism." The author of that book has 
 made no pretensions to learning; but he shows, by his 
 criticisms, that he is well enough acquainted with the 
 Greek language, to arrive at the true meaning of a sen- 
 tence, although not possessing a minute and critical 
 knowledge of the Grammar of it. My friend here told 
 us that he had himself taught Greek; talked largely of 
 Lexicons ; and ridiculed the scholarship of Universalists. 
 Still all this had no relation to the proposition before 
 us. The phrase referred to in the Pro and Con, was, 
 "the day of judgment;" and the question was, whether 
 it meant the day of judgment, or a day of judirment. 
 The Greek phrase is, en heinera kriseos. Mr. Rogers 
 said the word hemera was preceded by the Greek inde- 
 
308 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 finite article en ; and not by the definite article ho. The 
 phrase occurs in Matt. x. 15; Matt. xi. 22, 24; 2 Pet. 
 ii. 9; and a similar phrase in Jude 6; the passages 
 quoted in the Pro and Con, and means, '* in a day of 
 judgment." I said, as did Mr. Rogers, that the definite 
 Article tvas not there; and that consequently the force 
 of Mr. Rogers's criticism was not destroyed; for that 
 the want of the Article in Greek is equivalent, in many 
 cases, to the indefinite Article in English. Mr. Rogers 
 said the indefinite Article was there ; and I said there 
 was no Article there. Mr. Rice said the very Greek 
 definite Article, (ho) which Mr. Rogers said was not in 
 the passage, was there; and assured us that he had 
 taught Greek — had taught it a long time. Indeed he 
 blustered a great deal about it. He then repeated the 
 phrase as he said it was in the original Greek — en he he* 
 mera kriaeos ; and said it meant, " in the day of judg- 
 ment;" and upon that, founded an argument. Now, in 
 the first place, if the Article had been there, it would not 
 have been as Mr. Rice read it; but, en te hemera hrueos. 
 But in the next place, it is not there. After all this blus- 
 tering, and talking about teaching Greek, the Greek Ar- 
 ticle IS NOT THERE ! ! ! I hopc WO shall hear no more 
 about small errors of criticism in the Greek language, 
 and calling out for Lexicons. The Greek Article which 
 our Professor of Greek says is there, is not there. If 
 he still disputes my assertion, let him read the Greek of 
 these passages to you. I think, however, he had better 
 leave these small matters, and go back to his preaching 
 on the Trinity, Vicarious Atonement, etc* He probably 
 expected, in his last speech on Saturday night, to please 
 his friends, who might put full faith in all his statements, 
 and who consider him good authority in all things. 
 
 Another thing: I staled that the Confession of Faith 
 teaches that the death of Christ was to gain tlie love of 
 God to man. Mr. Rice denied this : and in corroboration 
 of this denial, he read a passage from the Confession, 
 which teaches that God so loved the world that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 309 
 
 might not perish, but have eternal life. I said in reply, 
 that, if it were a fact that the Confession did not teach 
 what I said it did, I was willing to stand corrected ; and 
 I supposed we should hear nothing more about it. I sup- 
 posed that he would be satisfied with an honest confession 
 of error. Not so, however; he could not appreciate so 
 frank an acknowledgment; and began immediately to 
 talk largely, and bluster as before, in relation to my igno- 
 rance of his Creed, etc. I did not know but I was wrong, 
 when I made the admission ; but when he took it in the 
 spirit he did, I thought I would examine the subject a 
 little further. I therefore looked over the Confession of 
 Faith again. I found then, in the first place, that all men 
 were under the curse of GocU for the sin of Adam ; and 
 then, that in the Westminster Catechism, 49th question 
 and answer, it is said Jesus Christ ** felt and bore the 
 weight of God's wrath "; and finally, in the 38th ques- 
 tion and answer, I find these words : " Jf'hy was it re- 
 quisite that the Mediator should l)e God? Answer. It 
 was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he 
 might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking 
 under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of 
 death ; give worth and efhciency to his sufferings, obedi- 
 ence and intercession ; to satisfy God'* s justice ; |C?* pro- 
 cure HIS FAVOR ; purchase a peculiar people," etc. Now 
 we have it. Jesus Christ did die, according to the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, to bear the wrath of God, which would 
 otherwise have been inflicted on us; and thus ** procure 
 HIS favor." That sounds very much like what I said at 
 first! You may be disposed to say that the Confession 
 also teaches, that it was the love of God which sent Je- 
 sus Christ to save us ; and that therefore the Confession 
 is not consistent with itself. 1 cannot help that. I know 
 its inconsistencies are many, and monstrous. But that is 
 not my look out. There is the express declaration, that 
 Christ did sutfer, to procure God's favor. . 
 
 But 1 have not done yet. I want to finish the work 
 now ; as it is not essential to the controversy, and I do 
 not intend to turn aside to it again. I said Calvinists 
 
310 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 taught and believed that the sight of the misery of the 
 damned would increase the happiness of the saved. I 
 referred for proof of this, to their leading authors ; — Bos- 
 ton, Edwards and others. Mr. Rice denied this state- 
 ment, and called loudly and repeatedly for the books ! — 
 the books J — the books ! ! and tried to throw a general 
 suspicion upon all my quotations. I have not brought 
 many books into this controversy. The most that I 
 wanted was the Bible, on one side ; and the Confession 
 of Faith, and Mr. Rice's Discussion w^th Mr. Campbell, 
 on the other. I did not come here with a trunk full of 
 books, like Mr. Rice, in order to prove the ultimate holi- 
 ness and salvation of all men. The Word of God is my 
 Magazine of proofs. But since my friend has denied 
 my statements in relation to these writings, and demanded 
 the books, he shall have the books ! I hold in my hand 
 a copy of Boston's " Fourfold State." The writer is a 
 believer in endless damnation, and a Calvinist. I do not 
 know that he was a Presbyterian. I read from page 336: 
 
 "The Lamb of God shall roar as a Lion against them ! (the 
 wicked.) He shall excommunicate, and cast them out of his 
 presence forever, by a sentence from the throne, saying, ' De- 
 part from me, ye cursed.' He shall adjudge them to everlast- 
 ing fire, and the society of devils forever more. And this 
 sentence also, we suppose, shall be pronounced with an audi- 
 ble voice by the man Christ; and all the saints shall say 
 * Hallelujah, true and righteous are his judgments.' None 
 were so compassionate as the saints when on earth, during the 
 time of God's patience. But now that time is at an end ; their 
 compassion over the ungodly is swallowed up in joy, in the 
 Mediator's glory, and his executing of just judgments by 
 which his enemies are made his footstool." 
 
 Now comes the passage which I qoted from memory ; 
 
 *' The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the Judge in 
 the condemnation of her ungodly husband ; the godly husband 
 shall say Amen ! to the damnation of her who lay in his 
 bosom ! ! the godly parent shall say. Hallelujah ! at the pas- 
 sing of the sentence ^of their ungodly child; and the godly 
 child shall from his heart, approve the damnation oi hi^ wicked 
 parents, the father who begot him, and the mother who 
 bore him" ! 
 
OF UNIVBRSALISM. 31 1 
 
 So much for Thomas Boston. 
 
 I will now quote the words of another writer, to show 
 how the Orthodox represent the happiness of the saved 
 to be increased by the sight of Hell torments. It is a 
 work written by a Calvinistic minister, of London, 
 Thomas Vincent, a believer in endless damnation, and 
 was first published two hundred years ago, soon after the 
 great fire in London. Listen ! 
 
 "This will fill them with astonishing admiration, ana won- 
 dering joy ; when they see some of their near relatives going 
 to Hell ; their fathers^ their mothers, their children, their hus' 
 hands, their wives, their brethren, their sisters, their intimate 
 friends and companions, however they are grieved now to see 
 them take such courses, and walk in the way to Hell ; and 
 they labor to pull them out of the way, and would fain per- 
 suade them to walk in Heaven's way; and are troubled to 
 forethink of the torment which they must endure, if they go 
 there ; yet hereafter, relative ties (mark you) and those af- 
 fections which now they have to relatives out of Christ, will 
 CEASE ; and they will not have the least trouble to see them 
 sentenced to Hell, and thrust into the fiery furnace! but 
 rejoice in the glory of God which will be manifested upon 
 them in their destruction ; and, oh ! the joy that they will be 
 filled withal, to think that they were not passed by with the 
 rest of their relatives, and that they are not under the same 
 deserved condemnation with them: that God should choose 
 but one or two in many families, and thei/ should be in the 
 number of the chosen ones; that when his chosen were com- 
 paratively so few, and the reprobates so many, that they should 
 be elected ; when there was no motive in them (mark I) to in- 
 cline God to the choice of them, that he should choose them 
 freely : if he had not chosen them, if they were now to change 
 places with some of their wicked relatives going to Hell ; 
 this would be dreadful ; but that they are going from Hell, 
 when their relatives are going into it ; this will fill them with 
 JOY unspeakable " ! ! ! 
 
 I quote now from a sermon by Mr. Patten, preached 
 in Enfield, Massachusetts, A. D. 1771, as given in a late 
 work by Messrs. Tomlinson <fe Liverraore. These are 
 his words : 
 
 " O dear hearts, how can we endure to see you roaring in 
 those flames, and the devils tormenting youl ! but God will 
 enable us to it ; and if you perish, we shall glorify him to all 
 
812 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 eternity, Q:^ sing sweet hallelujahs in your damna- 
 tion" I ! ! 
 
 You may recollect an especial denial as to Edwards ; 
 and how Mr. Rice here particularly wanted the book. I 
 have procured a copy of Edwards' Works, although not 
 from Mr. Rice's library. I hold in my hand, from which 
 I shall read, the London Edition, printed in 1839. I will 
 first give you a passage from the Sermon on " the eter- 
 nity of Hell torments :" 
 
 "The sight oi Hell torments will exalt the happiness of the 
 saints forever I ! It will not only make them more sensible 
 of the greatness and freeness of the grace of God in their 
 happiness ; but it will really make their happiness the greater, 
 as it will make them more sensible of their own happiness; 
 it will give them a more liveli/ relish of it; [yes, that'.^ the 
 word ; the sight of Hell torments increases the saints' relish 
 of celestial glory!!] it will make them prize it more. [0! 
 what saints are these!] When they see others, who were of 
 the same nature, [those who are saved are naturally no better 
 than those who are sent to an endless hell!] and born under 
 the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, O.! it will 
 make them sensible how happy they are. A sense of the op- 
 posite misery, in all cases, greatly increases the relish of any 
 joi/ or pleasure ! ! 
 
 The sight of the wonderful power, the great and dreadful 
 majesty, awful justice and holiness of God manifested in the 
 eternal punishment of ungodly men, will make them prize his 
 favor and love vastli/ the moi-e,- and they will be so much the 
 more happy in the enjoyment of it!" — Works, vol. ii. p. 87. 
 
 Again in the Sermon — "The wicked useful in their 
 destruction only," (vol. ii. p. 127,) we read : 
 
 "The misery of the damned will give them ^the saints'] a 
 greater sense of the distinguishing grace and love of God to 
 them, that he should, from all eternity, set his love on them, 
 and make so great a difference between them and others who 
 are of the same species, and have deserved no vwrse of God than 
 they. What a great sense will this give them of the wonder- 
 ful grace of God to them I and how will it heighten their 
 praises ! with how much greater admiration and exultation 
 of soul will they sing of the free and sovereign grace of God 
 to them ! When they shall look upon the damned, and see 
 their misery, how heaven will ring with the praises of God's 
 justice towards the wicked, and his grace towards his saints'*^!! 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM, 318 
 
 Once more, in the Sermon— "The end of the wicked 
 contemplated by the righteous," (vol. ii. pp. 208-9) we 
 find this beautiful passage : 
 
 " When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful 
 state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the 
 blessedness of their own state, so exceedingly different from 
 it ! When they shall see how miserable others of their fel- 
 Low^cREATURES are, who were naturally in the same circum- 
 stances with themselves ; when they shall see the smoke of 
 their torment, and the raging of the flames of their burning, 
 and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that 
 they^ in the mean time, are in the most blissful state, and 
 shall surely be in it to all eternity ; how will thev re- 
 joice!!!" 
 
 I think this will answer for the present. J trust Mr. 
 Rice is satisfied now, with the books ! I imagine I have 
 given him books to his heart's content ; and that we shall 
 hear no more such loud demands for the books ! ! 
 
 While I have Edwards in hand, I will read another 
 passage. Mr. Rice quoted Father Ballou's passage on 
 original sin, and what God had to do with it ; (though in 
 any event, he was admitted to be the innocent Cause.) 
 Hear, now, what President Edwards says. I will set 
 one statement by the side of the other; and you will see 
 that they may both be interpreted in the same way. I 
 take the passage from his Essay " on the Freedom of the 
 Will," Part IV. sect. ix. (Works, vol. 1. p. 76.; 
 
 " They who object, that this doctrine makes God the Author 
 of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that 
 phrase. The Author of Sin, I know the phrase, as it is com- 
 monly used, signifies something very ill. If, by the Author 
 of Sin, be meant the Sinner, the Agent, or Actor of Sin, or 
 the Doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and 
 blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In this 
 sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin ; rejecting 
 such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely 
 to be abhorred ; and deny any such thing to be the consequence 
 of what I have laid down. But if, by the Author of Sin, is 
 meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of Sin; and, at the 
 same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a man- 
 ner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, 
 that Sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most cfx* 
 V 
 
314 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 tainly and infallibly follow -, I say, if this be all that is meant, 
 by being the Author of vSin, I do not deny that God is the Au- 
 thor of Sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that 
 which, by use and custom, is apt to carry another sense,) it 
 is no reproach for the Most High to he thus the Author of Sin, 
 This is not to be the Author of Sin, but, on the contrary, of ho" 
 liness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exer- 
 cise of the infinite excellency of his nature. And, I do not 
 deny, that God being the Author of Sin, follows from what I 
 have laid down, and, I assert, that it equally follows from the 
 doctrine which is maintained by most of the Arminian di- 
 vines." 
 
 This passage from Edwards will relieve me from the 
 necessity of dwelling more at length upon this subject. 
 
 My friend has a great deal to say on the subject of 
 Christ's character, and the nature of his temptations; and 
 as to his having a devil, and the blasphemy of ascribing 
 human passions and infirmities to him, &c. In reply to 
 all this, it will be enough to remind my friend that Christ 
 had our human nature, perfectly, and that, according to 
 the Word of God, " he was in all points tempted like as 
 toe are; yet without sin," Heb. iv. 15. Again, in rela- 
 tion to the human nature of Christ, his "feeling our in- 
 firmities," I present the gentleman's own Confession of 
 Faith. See the 39th Question and Answer: 
 
 " Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man? An- 
 swer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that 
 he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the laws, 
 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fel- 
 low-feeling of OUR INFIRMITIES, that WO might receive the 
 adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness 
 unto the throne of grace." 
 
 This expresses all that any of us have expressed as to 
 Christ's enduring all our temptations, and feeling our in- 
 firmities ; yet Christ was without sin. 
 
 I will now review Mr. Rice's last speech of Saturday 
 evenings. In doing this, I shall, of course, have to be des- 
 ultory. My friend says he will not debate with me on 
 Restorationist grounds. / do not ask him to do it. But 
 I do expect him, nevertheless, to debate the proposition 
 which he has engaged to debate, and to examine my 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 315 
 
 proofs of the affirmative of it; so far as they bear on the 
 final condition of mankind. 
 
 We come now, again, to the remark that there exists 
 no evils in the next world, from which we are to be saved. 
 Our evil condition is here, on earth, from which condi- 
 tion we need to be saved, and introduced hereafter into a 
 state of holiness, and immortality, and glory. I presume 
 I am perfectly understood by everybody— except Mr. 
 Rice. 
 
 He says that not one early Christian Father, until Ori- 
 GEN, taught the doctrine of final universal salvation ; and 
 mentioned Poly carp, Ireneus, and others. I think my op- 
 ponent has made a slight mistake here. Clement of Al- 
 exandria taught this doctrine before Origen. Indeed he 
 was the teacher of Origen, both in Philosophy and The- 
 ology. 
 
 Mr. Rice insists on an appeal to the authority of Lex- 
 icons, upon the question whether men are punished for 
 sin, if pardoned. We do not need a Lexicon to decide 
 such a question as that : we can do better with the Pres- 
 byterian Confession of Faith ; and I will therefore now 
 quote from it. See Chapter XL Sect. V. 
 
 " God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are 
 justified: and although they can never fall from the state of 
 justification, yet they may by their sim fall under God^e fath- 
 erly DISPLEASURE, and not have the light of his countenance 
 restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess 
 their sins, beg pardon and renew their faith and repentance." 
 
 Now it appears that it is true that bven the saints suf- 
 fer God's displeasure, although he forgives them. 
 
 Mr, Rice maintains now that no punishment can be in- 
 flicted upon us in this life, "sorer" than death ! Does 
 not John in the Revelation, (ix. 6,) say, that the time was 
 coming when " many should seek death, and not be able 
 to find it" ? So in relation to the sufferings foretold by the 
 Saviour, in Matt. xxiv. ; when the people were to endure 
 greater tribulations than w^ere ever known before, or ever 
 should he ! — and all in this life, including death itself. 
 Moses' law, to which my friend refers, inflicted natural 
 
310 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 death ; but concerning this period, Christ says, as already 
 quoted : "Then shall be great tribulation, such as was 
 not since the beginning of the world, to this time ; no, nor 
 EVER SHALL BE." That was the "sorer punishment" 
 than the Mosaic punishment of death ; which greater pun- 
 ishment was to be inflicted on those who disbelieved in 
 Christ, and rejected him as the Messiah. 
 
 My friend insists upon it that the word " perish," 
 means to perish endlessly ; and yet he says he will not 
 answer any questions about the Pagans, but wants I 
 should say what "j)eri5/i" means. He desired to leave 
 the impression from his quotation, that " to perish" meant 
 to suflfer eternal torment in Hell. But I brought another 
 quotation from Scripture, containing the same word "y^er- 
 isA," viz : " they that sin without law, shall perish with- 
 out law ;" and I asked him to tell us why the interpreta- 
 tion of the word in the one passage, might not be the 
 same as in the other ? For it appears that if one means 
 endless suffering in Hell, the other shotdd also mean the 
 same thing ; and Mr. Rice admits that some Pagans may 
 be saved. To this he has made no reply. 
 
 He asks, if one is a Christian for a year, and falls 
 away, whether he has " eternal life ?" " Eternal life" is 
 said to be the knowledge of God. Some may enjoy 
 " eternal life," and then lose it. They may be said to 
 have enjoyed the blessedness signified by that phrase; 
 though they do afterwards lose it. 
 
 Mr. Rice says he quoted a text three times, and I did 
 not notice it. This text is found in 1 Pet. i. 3, 4, 5: 
 " 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, and 
 undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven 
 for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith 
 unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time." 
 What does the Apostle Peter evidently refer to as " the 
 last timeP^' because '^the salvation^^ to which they were 
 " kept by faith'' related to that " last time." Did he re- 
 
OF UNH^RSALISM. 317 
 
 fer to the future immortal world ? No'; for in the 20th 
 verse of the same chapter, he says, Christ "was manifest 
 in these last times for you." John says, (1 John ii. 18,) 
 " Little children, it is the last time ; and as ye have 
 heard that anti-Christ shall come, even now there are 
 many anti-Christs ; whereby we know that it — this — ^is 
 the last time." Hence, it is evidc3nt that the salvation to 
 wliich those Christians are kept by faith, was not the sal- 
 vation to be enjoyed in the resurrection state. Conse- 
 quently this passage affords my friend's doctriue no sup- 
 port. [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. rice^s sixteenth reply.] 
 It may be as well to answer the last part of the gentle- 
 man's speech first. " Salvation ready to be revealed in 
 the last time," he says, does not mean the salvation of the 
 soul hpreafter. My friend evinces considerable skill in 
 avoidir.g knotty point;:. I placed no emphasis on the 
 words, " the last time," but my argument was foni^- 
 ed on the preceding part of the verse. I asked Iiim, 
 whether the ''^inheritance incorruptible , undefiled, and 
 that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven /or ;/o^," is 
 enjoyed in this world ? If it is not, (and even a cliild can 
 see that it cannot be,) the doctrine of Universalirm is 
 overthrown; for this inheritance is reserved in heavei/or 
 those who are kept by the power of God through faith 
 unto salvation, ready to be revealed at the end of the 
 world. Thus it is proved beyond contradiction, that faith 
 is absolutely necessary to eternal salvation; and if so, 
 Universalism is false. Did the gentleman intend to throw 
 dust in your eyes by emphasising a pari of the p issage 
 to which I attached most importance in the argume'.t,and 
 keeping out of view that part which effectually over- 
 throws his system ? Is he afraid to march up to the real 
 question at issue ? 
 
 I desired him to inform us, whether the words everhtst- 
 ins; and eternal express duration or not. I cannot in- 
 duce him to answer the question; and I venture to pre- 
 dict, that he will not attempt it. He repeats the Scrip- 
 27* 
 
318 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ture passage : " He that believeth hath everlasting life," 
 and says, the knowledge of God is eternal life. But I 
 repeat the question — what do these words, as here used, 
 mean ? I understand them to mean, a life which, though 
 begun on earth, is to be of endless duration iyi heaven. 
 If this be not their meaning, what is it ? I shall press 
 this question till the close of the discussion, if the gentle- 
 man do not answer it. Do the words everlasiing and 
 eternal express duration, or do they not ? If they do, 
 has a man enjoyed eternal or everlasting life, when he 
 has been a Christian one day, or one month, or one year, 
 or fifty years? If these words express duration, at what 
 period of a Christian's life can he be said to have en- 
 joyed eternal or everlasting life? Let us ascertain the 
 meaning of these most important words. If the gentle- 
 man denies, that they express duration, let him give us 
 some authority, if he will not quote Lexicons, to sustain 
 him. 
 
 We are not yet through with difficult words. And let 
 me here remark, no one can be an interpreter of .the Scrip- 
 tures, without inquiring into the meaning of particular 
 loords, I have called upon the gentleman to inform us, 
 what the word perish means, as it occurs in John iiii. 16, 
 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot- 
 ten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, 
 but have everlasting life." Here the word perish 
 stands as the antithesis of everlasting life, and of course 
 it means the opposite of everlasting life, that is, eternal 
 death. If Mr. Pingree says, this is not its meaning, let 
 him show what it does mean. Lexicons, critics and com- 
 mentators, as he will acknowledge, give it the meaning 
 which I have given it. He has referred to the declaration 
 of Paul concerning those who have not the written word 
 of God — " For as many as have sinned without law, shall 
 also perish without law," Rom. ii. 12. Evidently the 
 word here means eternal punishment. The heathen, who 
 have not the written word, but who persevere in sinning 
 against the light they have, shall perish under sentence of 
 the law of nature. Such, for example, was Alexander the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 319 
 
 Great, whose restless ambition made him a murderer by 
 wholesale, and who died a drunkard. If the heathen per- 
 severe in sinning against the law thej^ have, must they 
 not endure the penalty of that law ? But what does the 
 word perish mean, in the passage before us ? The gen- 
 tleman will surely not pretend that it means natural 
 death ; for those who believe on Christ, are not to per- 
 ish, but to have everlasting life ; but believers in Christ 
 do suffer natural death. This, therefore, is not its mean- 
 ing. The word evidently, necessarily means future, 
 eternal punishment. There is no escaping from this con- 
 clusion. My friend seems afraid to undertake an expla- 
 nation of this word. 
 
 To show that the punishment sorer than death, men- 
 tioned in Heb. x., is not future punishment, the gentleman 
 speaks of some who sought death, but could notlind it. 
 It is doubtless true, that men often plunge themselves into 
 greater evil by seeking to escape from those evils under 
 which they are suffering. But the Apostle not only speaks 
 of a punishment really sorer than death, but exclaims, 
 " Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall be 
 thought worthy !" 
 
 He says, the Bible does not say, in so many words, 
 that any are damned after death. The Bible does say, 
 " it is appointed unto men once to die, and after death the 
 judgment." This looks very much like it. But the fol- 
 lowing passage must forever settle this point. The Sav- 
 iour said to his disciples, " 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 hell," 
 Matt. X. 26. Again: "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," Luke xii. 4, 5. Men cannot kill the soul; for even 
 Mr. Pingi'ee admits, that man is not " altogether mortal." 
 But God can destroy both soul and body in hell, after 
 death. Do not these passages prove, beyond contradic- 
 
320 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 tion, that they who do not fear God, will be punished in 
 hell, after death. 
 
 The gentleman seems most earnestly to deprecate the 
 discussion of the principles of Universalism. He says^ 
 he does not desire to debate the principles of Restoration- 
 ists. I do not wonder at this ; for their principles are 
 widely different from those which he has embraced. 
 From the early part of this discussion, he has quoted a 
 number of texts of Scripture, but has seemed exceeding- 
 ly anxious to avoid committing himself by stating any im- 
 portant principles. In his first speech, however, he was 
 not quite so guarded ; for in that he distinctly stated his 
 doctrine, that in the resurrection^ not before nor after, a 
 change is to be effected, which ivill introduce all men in- 
 to a state of holiness and salvation. This doctrine the 
 Restorationists do not believe. In his first speech, there- 
 fore, he took ground against Restorationists, undertaking 
 to establish modern Universalism. When pressed with 
 arguments against the principles involved in his doctrine, 
 which he could not answer, he attempted to cover his re- 
 treat by asserting that these are not the principles of Uni- 
 versalism — that some Universalists, viz : the Restoration- 
 ists, do not 'hold them ! Really one is tempted to believe, 
 that Universalism has no principles. ^^ 
 
 The Bible, I had supposed, presents to us a sublime 
 system of truth — teaching us not only the fact that many 
 may and will be saved, but the great principles — the glo- 
 rious foundation — upon which this salvation is secured. 
 But the gentleman would have us believe, that no princi- 
 ples, no process, no plan of salvation, are presented, but 
 that we are to believe simply the fact that all men, good 
 and bad, righteous and unrighteous, will be equally happy, 
 without knowing how or why ! Yet Paul, as a wise mas- 
 ter builder, laid the foundation upon which men are to 
 build, seeming, at least, to think, that if they do not build 
 upon the sure foundation, they can have no rational pros- 
 pect of salvation. But modern Universalism has this pe- 
 culiar advantage, that, being built on no foundation, and 
 havinor no premises, it would not fail if all its principles 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 321 
 
 were swept from under it ! It rests upon no principles ; 
 it is a kind of visionary thing — a shadow without sub- 
 stance. It cannot be attacked nor defended ! So it would 
 seem. 
 
 But we are not to be misled by representations of this 
 kind. I regret that the gentleman is afraid to attempt a 
 defence of the fundamental principles of his own system 
 of faith. How does Mr. Ballou undertake to prove the 
 truth of Universalism ? He commences with these pre- 
 mises : 1. That God created man mortal and imperfect — 
 2. That he is not a free, but a necessary agent ; and, 
 therefore, from his physical constitution, he cannot but 
 sin. 3. That sin is not committed directly against the 
 perfect law of God, but against the imperfect law of man's 
 own constitution. 4. That God is the cause of all sin. 
 From these premises he concludes, that sin is a very lim- 
 ited evil, and deserves not a great deal of punishment — 
 that, consequently, the punishment inflicted on men in 
 this life, is quite as great as they deserve, and, of course, 
 there can be no future punishment. And if these princi- 
 ples be admitted, it follows, that men have no need of a 
 Saviour; because, as each one fully pays his own debts, 
 he is exposed to no evil or danger from which he needs 
 to be saved. 
 
 Now if Mr. Ballou's premises are true, his conclusion 
 follows of course. If God created man an imperfect be- 
 ing and a necessary agent, sinning necessarily from his 
 physical constitution ; and if his sin is not against the 
 law of God, but against the imperfect law of his own 
 mind; then, indeed, sin deserves no punishment at all. 
 Such are the principles I find advocated in every leading 
 Universalist author with whom I am acquainted, from 
 which they infer the salvation of all men. Mr. Pingree 
 shrinks from the defence of the fundamental principles of 
 Universalism— the very principles he inculcates upon his 
 own congregation ! I should blush, if I could be justly 
 charged with fearing to defend the fundamental doctrines 
 of my faith — especially when assailed at my own earnest 
 solicitation ! 
 
322 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The doctrine of universal salvation depends upon those 
 principles; and if they are proved false, it necessarily 
 falls to the ground. Therefore I have presented and re- 
 futed them as they arise successively in the system; and 
 Mr. Pingree refuses to defend them ! But is he not bound 
 to do it ? What was the doctrine slated by him in his 
 first speech ? It was, that in the resurrection a change is 
 to be effected, which will introduce all men into a state of 
 holiness and salvation. I earnestly and repeatedly urged 
 him to tell us, what becomes of the soul between death and 
 the resurrection ? and, as I have proved, there are but 
 three possible suppositions in the case, one of which must 
 be true, viz : 1. The soul, immediately after death, is holy 
 and happy ; or, 2. It remains unholy and miserable ; or, 
 3. It dies with the body. There is no other supposition 
 possible. Mr. Pingree does not believe, that the soul is 
 holy and happy immediately after death ; for he says, all 
 are to be made holy and happy in the resurrectio)! — not 
 before. He does not believe that it continues unholy ajid 
 miserable ; for he denies all future punishment. He must, 
 therefore, believe that it dies with the body, 
 
 I have presented a number of arguments, proving that 
 this doctrine is false — that the soul is immaterial and im- 
 mortal ; that sin and holiness belong only to the soul ; that 
 the separation of the soul from the body, will not change 
 its moral character ; that the soul, immediately after death, 
 is holy and happy, or unholy and miserable. I proved 
 this last truth, by the reply of our Saviour tolhe dying 
 thief — ^" This day shall thou be with me in Paradise." I 
 also quoted the language of Stephen, the first Christian 
 martyr — " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." I quoted the 
 language of Paul, who said, "I am in a strait belwixi two, 
 having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far 
 better." Eaclj of these passages, with others quoted, af- 
 fords an unanswerahie argument against the gentleman's 
 doctrine, that in the resurrection, noi before, all wiii be 
 made holy and happy; and yet he has ji^t aftem.pieii to 
 reply to any one of iheni. lie refuses to defi-nd Ins own 
 principles — the doctrine announced in his first speech — 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 323 
 
 and retreats behind Restorationism for safety. I do not 
 intend to follow him in his wanderings. I shall still ex- 
 pose Universalism. 
 
 In relation to the charges made against Edwards, Bos* 
 ton, and others, the gentleman declines saying mu(;h ; be- 
 cause, as he says, these things are not necessary to the 
 subject. True, they are not; but who introduced them 
 into this discussion? Who charged those excellent men 
 with ^^ gloating ^^ over the damnation of the wicked? 
 The gentleman himself introduced them. Why did lie 
 do so ; since he acknowledges that they have no connec- 
 tion with the subject under discussion^ He must have 
 done it, because he had nothing better to offer ; or because, 
 being unable to answer my arguments, he desired to ex- 
 cite such prejudice with the audience, as would prevent 
 them from weighing them candidly. 
 
 Of Vincent, I know nothing, and shall, therefore, say 
 nothing. But Edwards and Boston say, not that the right- 
 eous will rejoice, and say hallelujah, because the wicked 
 suffer, but because the justice of God is vindicated, and 
 because they will be grateful to Cod, who, in infinite mer- 
 cy, saved them from a similar doom. When Bunyan saw 
 the miserable drunkard staggering along the street, he 
 thanked God, not that the man was a drunkard, but that 
 Bunyan was not ! > 
 
 But why does not the gentleman rail against the Bible 
 itself? For it contains language very similar to that used 
 by Edwards and Boston. In Exodus xv. we read, that 
 when Pharaoh and his host perished in the waters of the 
 Red Sea, Moses and the Israelites stood on the shore, and 
 sang a song of praise to God — *' Then sang Moses and 
 the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, 
 saying: I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed 
 gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into 
 the sea." Was it a malignant feeling that caused them to 
 rejoice? No — they rejoiced, not because Pharaoh and his 
 host were destroyed, but because the justice of God was 
 gloriously vindicated, and his people delivered. So in 
 the Book of Judges, eh. v„ we read, that Deborah, a pro* 
 
824 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 phetess of the Lord, rejoiced and sung the praises of the 
 God of Israel, when thousands and tens of thousands 
 of the persecutors and oppressors of God's people had 
 been slain in battle — " Then sang Deborah, and Barah, 
 the son of Abinoam, on that day, saying, Praise ye the 
 Lord for the avenging of Israel, when the people willing- 
 ly ofiered themselves," Slc, Did she rejoice in the blood- 
 shed and in the groans of those who fell in battle, or in 
 the mourning of widows and orphans ? Surely not. She 
 rejoiced that God's justice was vindicated, and his people 
 saved. 
 
 I will present one more example of this kind, which, I 
 presume, will be sufficient. Just here it occurs to me, 
 that the gentleman was quite eloquent in declaiming 
 against our Confession of Faith, because it says — God 
 hardens and blinds men, by withdrawing from them his 
 divine influence, because of their perseverance in sin. I 
 wonder if it occurred to him that he was abusing the very 
 language of inspiration! Does not the Bible say — 
 " Whom he will he hardeneth ?" Rom. ix. 13. Does not 
 Paul, the Apostle, say — -" For this cause God shall send 
 them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that 
 they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but 
 had pleasure in unrighteousness?" 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. 
 Was the gentleman aware, that he was heaping abuse upon 
 the language of inspiration ? 
 
 But the passage I was about to read, is found in Rev, 
 xix. 1 — 3: "And after these things I heard a great voice 
 of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, 
 jind glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our 
 God: for true and righteous are his judgments: for he 
 hath judged the great \vhore, which did corrupt the earth 
 with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his 
 servants at her hands. And again they said. Alleluia. 
 And her smoke rose up forever and ever." Are the 
 saints in heaven represented as rejoicing in the sufferings 
 of the wicked, here spoken of under the similitude of the 
 great whore? No — but they rejoice because the honor 
 of God was vindicated by the punishment of those who 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 325 
 
 trampled under foot his laws ; and they blessed God for 
 the deliverance of his church, and for their own salvation. 
 JTet their language is precisely that so perverted by the 
 gentleman, when found in the writings of Boston and Ed- 
 wards. They say Alleluia, in view of the endless suf- 
 ferings of the wicked. But in speaking of theii* senti- 
 ments, Mr. Pingree used one of the most offensive words 
 in the English language ; he represented them as " gloat- 
 ing " with a fiendish delight over the miseries of the lost. 
 Is there one word in the extracts he read from them, which 
 can be tortured into such a meaning ? There is not. 
 They represent the righteous as acquiescing and rejoicing, 
 not in the sufferings of men, but in the justice and the 
 grace of God. Will the gentleman say, that the righteous 
 ought not to acquiesce in God's judgments upon the 
 wicked? Is it wrong for them to praise God for their 
 own salvation, though others may be lost ? The senti- 
 ments of those men are as opposite to those charged upon 
 them by Mr. Pingree, as day to night. 
 
 The gentleman, who boasts that he has studied the 
 Presbyterian Confession two years, and understands it 
 better than Presbyterians, though he agreed lo stand cor- 
 rected concerning the object of the mission of Christ into 
 the world, returns to the charge. He has actually ascer- 
 tained, that the Confession represents Christ as having 
 suffered the vengeance of God to procure his favor to 
 man. He seems to have forgotten that '* vengeance" is a 
 word found in the Bible: " Vengeance is mine ; I will re- 
 pay, saith the Lord." God is represented as taking ven- 
 geance on men, when he executes upon them the just 
 penalty of his law. The word vengeance, as many oth- 
 ers, is applied to God in accommodation to human weak- 
 ness. Jesus Christ, in taking the place of sinners under 
 the law, and bearing their sins in his own body on the 
 :ross, is represented as suffering that vengeance — that 
 just penalty of the law — to which his people are exposed. 
 This is all. 
 
 I am truly gratified, that the gentleman has made it my 
 luty to occupy some time in correctly slating the doctrine 
 28 
 
826 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 of our Confession; for I have repeatedly heard of persons, 
 since the commencement of this discussion, who have 
 said, that their minds are disabused of prejudices they 
 had conceived against that book. I thank God for the 
 privilege of presentinrj to the minds of so many the 
 real principles of that b.ossed bonk, v^^hich, next to the 
 Bible, I most highly prize. 
 
 The gentleman would fain conviu^e the audience, that 
 my course of argument has been quit3 irregular, and that 
 on Saturday evening I took a new tack. On that evening 
 I presented my eigh h argument. He, of course, saw 
 no connection between it and those which preceded it. 
 He has proposed for our considera.ion no principles. 
 Why should he see the force of those presented by me ? 
 I have said, and Mr. Pingree has not denied, that accord- 
 ing to one of the fundamental principles of U niv^rsalism, 
 every man is adequately and fully rewarded and i inished 
 in this life ; and that, consequently, tlie action^^ of the 
 present life have no influence whatever upon the happi- 
 ness of men hereafter. This principle I have proved 
 false by the fact, that Christ suffered for the sins of his 
 people, that every true penitent is pardoned and not pun- 
 ished. In my eight argument I undertook to prove this 
 principle false by the fact, that the Scriptures expressly 
 teach the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. 
 This was proved by such passages as the following : *' Lay 
 not up for yourselves treasures on earth, &:c. — but lay up 
 for yourselves treasures in heavcn.^^ I read several other 
 passages ; and I propose to present some more. I desire, 
 however, to solicit the special attention of Mr. Pingree to 
 that one in Matt. x. : '* 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." I hope he 
 will find time to notice this important passage. 
 
 I now invite attention to Rom. ii. 5, — " But, after thy 
 hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself 
 wrath against the day of the wiath, and revelation of the 
 righteous judgment of God ; who will render unto every 
 man according to his deeds : to them who by patient 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 327 
 
 continuance m well-doing, seek for glory, ?ind honor, and 
 immortality, eternal life : but unto them that are conten- 
 tious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteous- 
 ness; indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, 
 upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew 
 first, and also of the Gentile," Slc, When will this be 
 done? Paul answers: "In the day when God shall judge 
 the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to my 
 Gospel," (ver. 16.) Here let it be remarked, the right- 
 eous are to be gloriously rewarded in the day of judg- 
 ment ; and the wicked, instead of being punished here 
 according to their sins, are represented as treasuring up 
 wrath against the day of judgment. Here, then, we find 
 the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. 
 
 And here I am reminded of the gentleman's effort to 
 extricate his brother Rogers from his ridiculous position 
 about the indefinite Greek Jirtide en. Mr. Pingree as- 
 serts, not that the indefinite article is before the words, 
 '•*day of judgment," but that there is no article at all be- 
 fore the word day ; and hence he concludes, that his 
 brother Rogers was not far wrong in saying, the Scriptures 
 speak of a day of judgment, hut not of the day of judg- 
 ment. I am not in the habit of making hasty assertions. 
 Now if the gentleman will take the trouble to look at 1 
 John iv. 17, he will see precisely the expression, " en te 
 hemera kriseos,^^ in the day of judgment. Here we 
 find the definite Article. 
 
 But the gentleman would be greatly gratified at my 
 making a similar bhmder; and he tells you, that in speak- 
 ing I used the expression en he hemera. I did no such 
 thing; I spoke of he hemera, in the nominative case, 
 which is precisely correct. 
 
 This book of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pingree says, is an 
 able work, an invaluable book; and yet the author, in a 
 grave argument concerning the day of judgment, tells his 
 opponent and his readers, that the inspired writer does 
 not use the definite Article ho, but the indefinite Article 
 en — a day of judgment! 1 repeat the declaration, that 
 any school-boy who has been three months studying his 
 
m 
 
 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Greek Grammar would know, that the Greek lan^age 
 has but one Article. But Mr. Rogers goes further, and 
 asserts, that '^fhis is almost imiformly the form of the 
 phrase, and this materially alters the face of the argu- 
 ment." Now, either Mr. Rogers understands the Greek 
 language, or he does not. If he does, he has deliberately 
 stated what he knows to be untrue, in order to deceive 
 the unlearned. If he does not, he has practiced upon 
 his readers a gross imposition, and thus deceived them, 
 for he wrote as if he were perfectly familiar Avith Greek. 
 
 This is no trifling matter. Since the discussion of Sa 
 turday evening, I received a note from a gentleman, in 
 forming me, that this very criticism had been repeatedly 
 pressed upon his attention by Universalists, as proving 
 conclusively, that the Scriptures do not speak of the 
 day of judgment; and he inquires how many editions of 
 the book are to be published, before the error will be 
 corrected. 
 
 I now offer another argument in favor of the doctrine 
 of future rewards and punishments. Paul wrote to Tim- 
 othy as follows: "Charge them that are rich in this 
 world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncer- 
 tain riches, but in the living God who giveth' us richly 
 all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich 
 in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communi- 
 cate: laying up in store for themselves a good foundation 
 against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eter- 
 nal life^"* 1 Tim. vi. 17. Now observe, Universal ism 
 teaches, that men are fully rewarded and punished in 
 this life. If this be true, how can they, and why should 
 they employ their riches in good works, in order that 
 they may obtain eternal life? 
 
 And so Paul, in the immediate prospect of death, says, 
 "I have fought the 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 unto me at that day; and not 
 to me only, but unto all them also that love his appear- 
 ing," 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8. AH this, according to Mr. Pingree's 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 329 
 
 ereed, is nonsense. If he had been with "Paul the 
 aged," he might have said to him, "All your labor, of 
 which you speak with such interest, is in vain. You 
 have received your reward. If you had not fought the 
 ^ood fight; if you had abandoned the faith instead of 
 keeping it ; if you had not run your race and finished 
 your course, you would have had the same crown you 
 now expect to receive !" But does Paul say, the crown 
 of righteousness is to be given to all men, righteous and 
 wicked ? Universalism says so, and so Paul, if he had 
 been a Universalist, must have said. But to whom 
 does Paul say, the crown will be given ? — " Not to me 
 oiily, but to all them also, that love his appearing I^^ 
 
 [Time expired, 
 
 [mr. pingree's seventeenth speech.] 
 You recollect that my friend said, awhile ago, in one 
 rf his playful moods, that I reminded him of a sign he 
 Lad seen over the door of some mechanic — "All sorts of 
 twisting and turning done here !'* And although you lai/gh' 
 ed, you saw how little applicable such remarks were to 
 my course ; because I have pursued a straight forward 
 course throughout this discussion, — except when it be- 
 came necessary to follow Mr. Rice. When, in his last 
 speech, he got hold of Edwards and Boston, and the 
 Greek Article, it appeared to me that you must have most 
 plainly seen which of the two was the better workman, 
 at this trade of "twisting and turning." It must have 
 been manifest to you all, that it required great effort on 
 Mr. Rice's part, to escape from the difficulty ; and in 
 truth, he succeeded better than I expected. 
 
 I now resume the argument. Some Universalists deny 
 the punishment of sinners, in the immortal world ; others 
 do not. Universalists disagree on that subject. My de- 
 claration was, that I did not myself believe in punishment 
 after the resurrection. That there is to be punishment 
 before the resurrection, is not evident to me from Scri|> 
 tiire — I find no evidence in the Word of God, of any 
 punishment after deatli. But that is uot the question b^ 
 28* 
 
330 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 fore us. I deny that I have used distinctive Restoration- 
 ist premises. I do not reason from them, except so far 
 as they agree with the affirmative of the proposition be- 
 fore us ; which is, " Do the Scriptures teach the iiUimate 
 holiness and happiness of all men F" 
 
 In Mark xvi. 15, it is said, " Go ye into all the world, 
 and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believ- 
 £th and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned." My friend said that this passage 
 referred to salvation or damnation in the future world. 
 I said the salvation was future to the beliefs and thence- 
 forward, from the time the Saviour's words were uttered. 
 For both are elsewhere stated to be enjoyed or endured 
 in this world ; as where Christ says, " He that believeth, 
 hath eternal life;" and "he that believeth not, is con- 
 demned — or damned already.''^ I ask again, if he refers 
 it to a salvation in the future life, dependent upon faith 
 here ? without which, is no salvation hereafter. If so, 
 how does lie understand the words following that text? — 
 "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my 
 name they shall cast out devils : they shall speak with 
 new tongues. They shall take up serpents ; and if they 
 drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them : They 
 shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Is 
 this faith essential to the final salvation of men ? 
 
 Mr. Rice has referred us to Hebrews ix. 27, 28, " And 
 as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the 
 judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of 
 many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear 
 the second time, without sin, unto salvation.^' I will 
 here make a remark, or two, in relation to the doctrine of 
 the Judgment, as taught in the Scriptures. In the first 
 place, there are various special periods of Judgment, in 
 tliis life ; sometimes called days of Judgment. But the 
 General Judgment \s the present and coyiHmted reign 
 AND rule of Christ in his kingdom — the kingdom thai 
 God gave him at the period of his first appearance on 
 on earth* We are now under that Judgment. Some- 
 times, therefore, the passages referring^ to the Judgment, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 331 
 
 relate to these special Judgments ; and sometimes to this 
 reign of Christ in his kingdom. 
 
 Sliitthew XXV. 31, which my friend has quoted, refers 
 to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory ; when 
 all nations were to be gathered before him, and when he 
 should separate the righteous from the wicked, etc. The 
 Saviour said, as recorded in the previous chapter, that this 
 coming in power and glory was to he in those days ; and 
 that the generation then living should not pass away till 
 all these •things should be fultilled ; and I challenge Mr. 
 Rice to produce a single passage in the New Testament, 
 where the phrase '''this generation,^^ there used by the 
 Saviour, is affixed to any race of people in its whole ex- 
 istence on earth ; as some pretend to say this relates to 
 the whole existence of the Jewish race, as a distinct na- 
 tion. Illustrative and confirmatory of this, we have 
 Matt. xvi. 27, 28, " For the Son of man shall come in the 
 glory of his Father, with his angels ; and then he shall re- 
 ward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto 
 you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of 
 death, till they see the Son of man coming in his king- 
 dom." The coming of Christ, alluded to in connection 
 with these declarations relating to the General Judgment, 
 is not a personal coming; but a coming in power and 
 glory, in his kingdom ; and thenceforward he was to reign 
 and rule, judging men according to their works. 
 
 The passage in Hebrews, does not refer to either of 
 these classes of Judgment ; — to the infliction of particu- 
 lar temporal calamities, or to this General Judgment. 
 Mr. Rice frequently quotes passages, without showing 
 that they mean what he says. For instance, tliis passage 
 in Heb. ix. 27, 28: "And it is appointed unto men once 
 to die, and after that the judgment; so Christ was once 
 offered, to bear the sins of many : and unto them that 
 look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, 
 unto salvation." Now before Mr. Rice takes this pas- 
 sage to prove a General Judgment after death, he must 
 show, 1. That the word "??ie?i," here means all men ; and 
 why the Greek Article attached to the word should not, 
 
833 AN ORAL BtSCtJSSlOS* 
 
 in this case, be translated — " the men," some particulaf 
 men ; 2. That the dying here relates to the natvral death 
 of all men; 3. That the Judgment is to result in endless 
 damnation to any human being ; and, 4. That there is 
 any similarity between the natural death of all men, fol- 
 lowed by a Judgment of damnation, and the sacrificial 
 death of Christ; expressed by the particles, "As," and 
 " so " — in like manner* I say, my friend, Mr. Rice, 
 must show all these things, before it will be necessary for 
 me to enter into a full exposition of the passage* 
 
 As to "laying up treasures in heaven," and all that class 
 of texts, the meaning is evidently the same as where we 
 are told to ^'set our affections upon things above, and not 
 on things on the earth," All such language is in 2. figu- 
 rative sense; as applicable to the state of mind and heart 
 we should possess here. 
 
 We have now arrived at the case of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus. My friend says it is a parable ; and I wish 
 you to remember that admission. It is what fi^w Ortho- 
 dox people will say ; because, if a parable, it affords no 
 proof of punishment after death. In this case, the lan- 
 guage must h^ figurative. It cannot refer to the natural 
 death of all men, and punishment immediately following 
 it. I should like to see how the gentleman will make it 
 bear on the subject in hand. Let him say if Hell, in that 
 parable, means a place of endless damnation* 
 
 I would here make a few general remarks with regard 
 to the word translated, Hell, in this passage. There are 
 four different words in the Bible, rendered Hell, in our 
 English version. Hades is the Greek word used here, 
 corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew word transb^ted 
 Hell, in the Old Testament. When writers in the New 
 Testament quote passages from the Old, containing this 
 word, they use the Greek, Hades* Respectable Orthodox 
 Lexicographers and Commentators, so far as I know, say 
 that the Greek Hahs, here used, is equivalent to the He- 
 brew Sheol, the Hell of the Old Testament. JNow, all 
 words may have di figurative or secondary meaning, as 
 well as literal. Literally, this word Hadeg means thi 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 333 
 
 grave ; or rather, the state of all the dead ; not Ihe tombs, 
 the word found in John v. Figuratively, — alluding to the 
 darkness and gloom of the grave, — the word is used to 
 represent a state of moral degradation and svffering on 
 earfh. In the former sense — that is, with a literal signi- 
 fication — Jacob uses it, when he says that his gray hairs 
 would be brought down in sorrow to the grave — Heb. 
 Sheol — Greek, Hades, The wise man says, " There is no 
 wisdom, nor knowledge, nor device, in the grave — Heb. 
 Sheol — Greek, Hades, Hell — whither thou goest." In 
 this literal Hell, there is no suffering, so far as the Bible 
 expresses it, by the w^ord rendered Hell, in the parable of 
 the Rich Man and Lazarus. Of Jesus Christ, it is said, 
 (Acts ii. 27, 31,) that "his soul was not left in //f//." 
 Consequently, Christ was in Hell ! — the literal Hell. 
 Speaking of the resurrection of all the dead, to immor- 
 tality and glory, Paul asks, '» O grave ! — Gr. Hades — Hell ! 
 — where is thy victory V The word does not mean the 
 suffering of spirits damned in the i'uture world. 
 
 David uses the word in a fgurative sense, when he 
 says, ** The pains of Hell got hold upon me." Jonah, 
 the prophet, says, " Out of the belly of Hell cried I ; and 
 thou heurdst my voice." The Saviour, foretelling tem- 
 poral calamities to come upon a wicked city, said, "And 
 thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be 
 thrust down to Hell." In ihe parable of the Rich Man 
 and Lazarus, the word must be used figuratively, to re- 
 present a state of moral degradation and sufTering in this 
 life ; although the allusion is to the general state of the 
 dead. 
 
 Besides, if this parable refers ta the literal Hell ; if 
 Hades is here used in its primary sense, it makes that Hell 
 in sight of heaven ! What, then, must be the condition 
 of the saints in glory ? — ! Edwards says tlie righteous 
 will REJOICE to see the wicked in Hell ! So, also, if tlie 
 parable is taken to be a literal relation of man's condition 
 after natural death, the prayers of the damned, for mercy, 
 will continually ring in the ears of the saved ; and tliere 
 will be no mercy for them ! What do you think of such 
 
334 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 a state of things ? Edwards says the righteous will have 
 their happiness increased by it. Suppose you were in 
 heaven, and right in your presence, were visible to your 
 eyes the sufferings of your relations in this Hell ; (unless 
 you believe with Prof. Stuart, of Andover, that "' the social 
 susceptibilities of the saved may be extinguished !" — the 
 affections all die ! !) and you should hear the cry coming 
 up from the infernal Pit — Help ! help! help ! ! — a "drop 
 of water to cool my tongue !" — could you afford it? No, 
 no ! — you could not even give a drop of water ; but must 
 hear the wailing and screaming of those friends or rela- 
 tions damned in Hell, forever and ever ! ! Is this the 
 Heaven Mr. Rice expects to go to ? to look across the 
 gulf, to see those sights, and to hear those cries of despair 
 forever ? Is that the heaven you all are looking to enjoy 
 hereafter? ! 
 
 I come now to the beginning of my friend's last speech. 
 The passage quoted by him, in which the Apostle speaks 
 " of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fa- 
 deth not away, reserved in heaven for those who are kept 
 by the power of God through faith unto salvation^ which 
 was ready to be revealed in the last time," was under- 
 stood by my friend to refer to the salvation to be enjoyed 
 after death; assuming that ''''the last time'''' related to the 
 immortal state. I quoted other passages where " the last 
 time" was spoken of as a period then passing ; and that, 
 consequently, this salvation to which they were "kept 
 through faith," could not be the ultimate salvation in eter- 
 nity. Thus the Apostle John said, in relation to the pe- 
 riod in which he lived, " It — this — is the last time." 
 The phrase never relates to the future state of existence. 
 Why cannot my friend find one passage representing the 
 final salvation as depending on faith ? 
 
 He wants to know if the word " eternal " does not ex- 
 press duration ? Yes, sometimes ; but not always — es- 
 pecially not endless damnation. As to the word "/^emA," 
 I suppose it relates sometimes to natural death, and some- 
 times to a state of moral degradation and suffering in this 
 life. Thus the Gospel is said to be " to them that per' 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 335 
 
 tsA," — those already perished, or perishing, — "foolish- 
 ness; but to those who are saved^ the power of God." 
 As to Pagans perishing: he says that Alexander the Great 
 perished eternally. In that case, the same may not only 
 be said of him, but of the whole Pagan world. They all 
 "sin without the law," and all must be damned! for it 
 is said "they shall ;9em7i without law." He must either 
 say that no Pagan can be saved^ as his Creed does, or 
 that all may ; and that the word " perish " does not mean 
 to suffer endlessly. By the admission that some Pagans 
 may be saved, he forever puts it out of his power to prove 
 his doctrine by the word " perish." 
 
 He speaks of my refusing to defend my own principles. 
 Has this audience perceived any such refusal on my part ? 
 He says I relied upon the resurrection of the dead to 
 change men, until he pressed me upon that point. Did 
 you think me " hard pressed," in relation to my argument 
 from the resurrection ? ! I leave the audience to decide 
 who is most " pressed." 
 
 He represents it to be Mr. Ballou's opinion of sin, that 
 it is a small matter — a finite evil. Does Mr. Rice dare 
 affirm the contrary? Edwards says so; and that there- 
 fore it deserves infinite torment. Well, my friend has 
 contended that Jesus Christ sufl^ered our punishment. If 
 we commit infinite evil, how can it be removed ? How 
 could Jesus Christ have suffered infinite punishment ? ! 
 How can an infinite thing be put away ? How could Je- 
 sus Christ do it, even if he were really God ? How is 
 this ? If he does not tell us how an infinite thing can be 
 put away, I hope we shall hear no more about our doc- 
 trine, that sm is not infinite. 
 
 Mr. Rice says I am " afraid." Afraid ! — That's the 
 word ; afraid! — afraid ! ! ? 
 
 But he thinks I am abusing the Bible, while quoting 
 Edwards ; and refers to the song of Moses and the Israel- 
 ites, at the destruction of Pharaoh and his host ; the song 
 of Deborah on another occasion ; and the exultation of 
 the saints at the destruction of Babylon, the abominable 
 city mentioned in the Book of Revelation. These are 
 
336 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 all different from Edwards ; all those refer to temporal 
 judgments in this life ; not to endless torments in Hell. 
 They were punishments inflicted hy a good God, to be 
 followed, ultimately, by purity, holiness and peace. Men 
 may rejoice over temporal calamities ; because the pun- 
 ishments inflicted by God are . disciplinary, and are to 
 work benefit to the punished. There is some difl^erence 
 between that, and the idea that the pure spirits in heaven 
 can derive an additional " relish " to their joy, by the 
 contemplation of the remediless, unmerciful, unutterable, 
 and endless damnation of their fellow men in the pit of 
 despair ! ! And for Mr. Rice to bring up cases of tem- 
 poral punishment, to bear on the point in controversy, 
 does not come within a million of miles of the sentiments 
 advocated by Edwards, and Boston, and Vincent. 
 
 Then look at the other parts of their system ; such as 
 God's hardening sinners, to prevent them from repent- 
 ing , and affording others only " some common opera- 
 tions of the spirit," just enough to damn, but not to save 
 them — having, from the beginning, irresistibly reprobated 
 them to endless perdition ! ! I know that the Bible says, 
 that God hardened Pharaoh and others, — but not to all 
 eternity. The Jews, whom he hardened and cast away, 
 he was to receive again. " If the casting away of them, 
 be the reconciling of the w^orld," Paul asks, " what will 
 the receivi7ig of them be, but life from the deadP^^ 
 There is some difference between God's hardening the 
 soul forever, to prevent it from ever coming to him, and 
 hardening men for pm'poses of good to all. These ideas 
 - are as far apart as the Orthodox Hell is from Heaven ! 
 
 The gentleman is much grieved that I should say that 
 any gloat over the miseries of others. What is the lan- 
 guage of Tertullian, but that he should rejoice, /«?/^7i, 
 and EXULT over the misery of the wicked in Hell ? the 
 very words of several Orthodox writers, to show what 
 their views and feelings were ! My friend could not get 
 rid of this fact. He evaded, and tried to explain it ; but 
 it would not do, as you all saw. 
 
 I am giad, but somewhMt surprisejd, to hear from the 
 
OF UMVERSALISM. 337 
 
 gentleman that ne has succeeded by his efforts in con- 
 %'incing so many (!) of the glorious and sublime Gospel 
 truths contained in the Confession of Faith ; which he 
 calls " a blessed book." Oh! a Blessed Book indeed! 
 which teaches that " Qo(\foreorduined whatsoever comes 
 to pass, from all eternity ; predestined some of his crea- 
 tures to eternal life, and some to eternal suffering, with- 
 out foresight of faith or good works, or any condition on 
 their part moving them thereto; though all naturally 
 stand in precisely the same relative position towards 
 God; and that all the heathen are so placed under the 
 providence of God, as not to be saved, but are predes- 
 tined to endless misery* and caknot be saved! and this 
 is called ** a Blessed Book! ICT" Blessed Book ! ! ! 
 
 I come now to my friend's 9th (or 8t!i) argument ; the 
 one relating to rewards and punishments in this world. I 
 have quoted Hebrews, where it is said that »* every trans- 
 gression had received (in the past tense) its just recom- 
 pense of reward.'* If so, is it endless ? or was it not 
 necessarily endured in this life ? How can it be said that 
 endless damnation is the just recompense of reward for 
 sin, when the Bible says it was already received^ That 
 which is endless^ cannot be spoken of in the past tense, 
 as having been fully "received.** 
 
 I was wondering how my learned friend, our Greek 
 Professor, would escape from the difficulties into which 
 he had thrown himself by his incorrect assertions in rela- 
 tion to the presence of the Greek Article in the phrase, 
 "the day of judgment,'* as discussed in the "Pro and 
 Con." He has found a passage, at last, in which he finds 
 the Article ; but it happens not to be one of the passages 
 quoted by Mr. Rogers, or to which he or I referred ! ! 
 and in reference to which the denial was made, and the 
 learned blustering! He now talks about Mr. Rogers' 
 knowing better, or not, in relation to the statement in the 
 Pro and Con, that en heniera kriseos was the ^^cdmost 
 uniform form of the phrase in the New Testament, ren- 
 dered * in the day of judgment.' " Mr. Rice seems to 
 deny the correctness of this statement ; and now I atsert 
 2W 
 
3B8 AN ORAL macvssioN 
 
 it triie^ and challenge Mr. Rice to convict me of error, 
 by giving us the Greek of all the passages, and showing 
 that the Article is found in a majority of them. Let him 
 do this, or else hold his peace about the Greek ! I re- 
 peat, as I stated before, that the argument is the same as 
 if an indefinite Article had been there; and though such 
 an Article does not belong to the Greek language, yet the 
 force of a word where there is no Article, in Greek, is 
 frequently equivalent to the Article a or an, in English. 
 My friend has not denied the correctness of this assertion. 
 Mr. Rice quotes the 10th of Matthew — " Fear him who', 
 after he has killed, is able to destroy both soul and body 
 in Hell;" and wants me to explain it. I will do so, by 
 and by. Without any explanation from the gentleman, 
 and understood literally, it proves only the power of God 
 to effect the destruction of the soul and body. He ridi- 
 cules Universalists for believing, as he asserts, that the 
 soul dies ; and I would therefore like to have him explain 
 the passage himself, before he quotes it for me; and show 
 what is meant here by destroying the soul. Suffer me 
 to say, however, that this is not the word usually signify- 
 ing the IMMORTAL SPIRIT. That is never said to be de- 
 stroyed in Hell. [Tim,e expired, 
 
 [mR. rice's SEVENTEENTH REPLY.J 
 
 I will reply to the last part of the gentleman's speech 
 first. The word translated soul, in Matth. x. 20, he 
 would have us believe, does not mean the immortal part 
 of man — the soul. I need not say, that the word (psuche) 
 is constantly used for the immortal soul ; for in the pas- 
 sage under consideration, there can be no doubt concern- 
 ing its meaning. The Saviour says — "Fear not them 
 which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." If 
 the word does not mean the immortal soul, why cannot 
 men kill it? and what becomes of it w^hen the body is 
 killed? But the language of the Saviour, as recorded by 
 Luke, is — " Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath 
 power to cast into helW'' Here we find a punishment in 
 hell, after death — an eternal punishment ; for the Saviour 
 
OF UMVERSALISM. 339 
 
 Speaks of it as the destruction of both soul and body in 
 hell. The genUeman suggests, that if this passage teach 
 future punishment, it must be annihilation, because the 
 soul and body are to be destroyed in hell. Not at all. 
 The meaning of this word " destroy," is abundantly ex- 
 plained in such passages as the following : " When the 
 Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his migh- 
 ty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them 
 that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished vj\\\\ everlast- 
 ing destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from 
 lh(3 glory of 1-is power," 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9. Matt. xxv. 
 46, " And these [wicked] shall go away into everlasting 
 punishment" These passages sufficiently explain the 
 nature of the destruction of the wicked in hell. 
 
 My friend would better not attempt to defend the ridic- 
 ulous blunder of his brother Rogers, about the indefinite 
 Article en ! It admits of neither explanation nor justifica- 
 tion. Mr. Pingree challenges me to prove, that he is 
 wrong in asserting, that generally, the day of judgment is 
 spoken of without the Article. This is not what he said. 
 He said, that the most uniform mode of expression is, 
 en hemera kriseos — a day of judgment. Mr. Rogers as- 
 serts, that generally, the indefinite Greek Article is before 
 the word daj/ ; whereas every tolerably informed school- 
 boy knows, that the Greek language has no indefinite Ar- 
 ticle, and that the word en is 3. preposition, meaning in. 
 
 Mr. Pingree asserts, that the passage quoted, in which 
 is found the phrase eji te hemera kriseos — in the day 
 of judgment, is not one of the passages referred to by 
 Mr. Rogers. The simple question before him was, 
 whether the Scriptures speak of the day of judgment. 
 Mr. " Pro and Con" says, they do not — the definite Ar- 
 ticle is not used. I have referred to 1 John iv. 17, and 
 proved that it is used. " Herein is our love made perfect, 
 that we may have boldness en ie hemera kriseos — in the 
 day of judgment." And if the gentleman desires a word 
 stronger than the Article, I will refer him to passages 
 which speak of the day of judgment, as ekeine hemera — 
 
340 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 that day, (employing the demonstrative pronoun) and as 
 the great day. 
 
 To prove, that every individual is fully punished foi 
 his sins in this life, the gentleman quotes Heb. ii. " For 
 if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every 
 transgression and disobedience received a just recompense 
 of reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
 salvation V Why, if Universalism be true, we shall es- 
 cape without difficulty. But what does Paul mean by 
 saying, every transgression received a just recompense of 
 reward ? In chap. x. 28, — we find the answer : " He that 
 despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or 
 three witnesses." The transgressor of the civil law en- 
 acted by Moses, received the punishment attached to his 
 crime, even though it were death. This was the recom- 
 pense of reward; but who ever imagined, that the civil law 
 was intended adequately to punish sin against God's 
 moral law ? Hence the Apostle says — '' Of how much 
 sorer punishment, [even than death] suppose ye, shall he 
 be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the law of 
 God." The argument is this : If a man suffer death for 
 breaking the civil law, how much more deadfully must 
 he suffer for despising the divine law, and the grace of 
 God in Christ ? This very scripture, relied on by the 
 gentleman to prove Universalism, affords a conclusive ar- 
 gument in favor of future punishment ! 
 
 The gentleman heaps on our Confession no slight abuse 
 because it represents God as bestowing greater spiritual 
 blessings upon some, than upon others. Will he be good 
 enough to inform us, io what extent God may differ in 
 the bestowment of his favors on different persons, before 
 he becomes chargeable with partiality ? He objects to 
 the Confession, because it represents God as making a 
 difference. Will he deny, that God does bestow greater 
 blessings on some, than on others ? One is born blind, 
 while another is blessed with sight. One is born with a 
 feeble constitution, and from birth is afflicted and diseas- 
 ed ; another is born to health and comfort. One is born 
 in deep poverty ; another, in great wealth. In a word. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 841 
 
 we see in the providence of God, an endless variety in 
 the bestow ment of Aivors ; and this difference extends to 
 the means of salvation. How far, then, may God differ in 
 his treatment of individuals, before he becomes chargeable 
 with partiality ? So long as men do not suffer more than 
 they deserve to suffer, they have no ground of complaint. 
 
 I read to the audience several portions of Scripture in 
 which we find language about identical with that so much 
 abused by Mr. Pingree in the writings of Edwards, Bos- 
 ton, and others. But, says he, those were temporal pun- 
 ishments in which the righteous rejoiced, and were to be 
 followed by the happiness of the sufferers. This requires 
 proof; for in Rev. xix. 3, we read, "And again they said 
 Alleluia And her smoke rose xx^^ forever andever,^^ How 
 long was that ? Can the gentleman prove, that this was 
 ieiaporal punishment? 
 
 But suppose the punishment here mentioned were tem- 
 poral, it alters not the case. For what purpose did I in- 
 troduce those examples of the joy of righteous men in 
 view of the calamities of the wicked? I introduced them 
 expressly to prove, that they did not rejoice because the 
 wicked suffered, but because God's law was vindicated 
 and his people delivered. So Edwards and Boston rep- 
 resent the righteous as rejoicing, not in the eternal suffer- 
 ings of the wicked, but because God's justice is vindica- 
 ted, and because of their own salvation from deserved 
 punishment. Moses and Deborah rejoiced, not in the 
 sufferings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, but in 
 the glory of God and the deUverance of his church from 
 persecuting enemies. 
 
 But my friend evidently thinks it right to rejoice in the 
 most awful sufferings of men, if only they are temporary, 
 and to be followed by happiness. Really I should think 
 the man who could take delight in witnessing distress and 
 anguish inflicted upon his fellow-beings, must have the 
 heart of a fiend ! No, Moses and the Israelites did not 
 rejoice in the sufferings of the Egyptians ; but they re- 
 joiced in the deliverance of God's people, though effect- 
 ed at such expense of human suffering. 
 29* - 
 
 i 
 
348 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Suppose, for example, a hundred robbers should attack 
 a village of honest people, and in attempting to murder 
 them and seize their property, should all be killed ; would 
 not every virtuous individual rejoice? Not because of the 
 sufferings of the robbers, but because of the deliverance 
 of the honest villagers ; even though they vi^ere saved at 
 the expense of the lives of the robbers. Even so, no 
 true Christian can ever rejoice in the sufferings of his fel- 
 low-creatures, whether temporal or eternal; but all Chris- 
 tians will rejoice when God is glorified, and when his 
 church is delivered and blessed, even though these im- 
 portant ends be accomplished, not without the sufferings 
 of the wicked. 
 
 But the gentleman says, all the sufferings of the wick- 
 ed are designed for their own good. Was it for the good 
 of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and their company, that tlie 
 earth opened and swallowed them up in a moment ? Or 
 was this awful judgment inflicted upon incorrigible tein- 
 ners, for the benefit of others ? Of Avhat advantage to 
 them was their own sudden and awful death? Was it in- 
 tended to effect their reformation ? If Universalism is 
 true, would they not have been saved, whether thus kill- 
 ed or not ? Pharaoh and his host were suddenly over- 
 whelmed by the waters of the Red Sea. Of what advan- 
 tage was this sudden destruction to them ? Did it in any 
 way promote that change, which, according to the faith 
 of Universalists, is to make them holy and happy in the 
 resurrection ? Will Mr. Pingree give us some informa- 
 tion on this subject ? 
 
 The gentleman seems to take it for granted, that I re- 
 gard every sin as infinite, I have said nothing about 
 infinite sin. Murder is not an infinite act, and in that 
 sense, not an infinite sin ; but it may be followed by in- 
 calculable evils ; and though committed in a moment, it 
 may be justly punished by death, or by imprisonment for 
 life. We are poor judges of the demerit of sin. We know, 
 it is committed by free moral agents, against a God infi- 
 nitely worthy to be loved and obeyed, sustaining pecu- 
 liarly interesting relations to them, as Creator, Preserver, 
 
OF UNIVERSAJ.IS3f. 343 
 
 and Redeemer. What sin committed against such a Be- 
 ing, and under such circumstances, deserves, we are not 
 capable of judging; but we know, the disposition of men 
 is, and ever has been, to look with allowance upon their 
 sins, and that they deserve far greater punishment than 
 they suppose. 
 
 But they who are not sanctified in this life, but die in 
 sin, will not be sanctified hereafter. They will, there- 
 fore, continue to rebel and sin against God forever ; and 
 consequently they will be miserable forever. The pun- 
 ishment of the wicked will be eternal — 1st. Because of 
 their sins committed in this world. " The wages of sin 
 is death." 2nd. Because they will continue to sin here- 
 after. They who have persevered in sinning llirough 
 life, and have formed habits of sinning, which are as sec- 
 ond nature, are not likely to become holy, after they have 
 passed from under the influences of the Gospel, into the 
 eternal state. As readily might the Ethiopian change his 
 skin, or the leopard his spot^'. So says the prophet. 
 
 " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot- 
 ten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not per- 
 ish, but have everlasting life." I have not yet succeeded 
 in getting from my friend an explanation of the word 
 perish, as it occurs in the passage. He quotes 1 Cor. i. 
 18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that per- 
 ish, foolishness," Sic. The quotation of this passage 
 does not explain the meaning of the word. I again ask, 
 what does the word perish mean, as it here stands, the 
 antithesis of everlasting life ? 
 
 If the heathen cannot be saved by the law of nature, 
 how, the gentleman asks, can they possibly be saved ? If 
 God chooses to save any who have not the written Word, 
 he can save them through Christ ; but the Aposde Paul 
 asserts -repeatedly, that no man, heathen or Christian, 
 can be justified and saved by obedience to the law. 
 
 The gentleman is quite indignant at being thought 
 afraid to meet certain difficult questions I proposed to 
 him. Afraid ! he afraid ! not he ! Well, he is not afraid 
 to answer them ; and yet he does not do it. The reason, 
 
344 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 then, I presume, is, he cannot, I inquired o|* him, 
 whether the words everlasting and eternal express dura- 
 iion^ or not. He says, sometimes they do ; and some- 
 times they do not. What evidence did he produce in 
 proof of this assertion ? Did he quote any lexicon ? No — 
 he does not wish to hear any thing more about lexicons ; 
 he is either above, or below them. He is a great enemy 
 to such books ; he does not use them ! He is the first 
 man I have ever seen or known, who, in a public discus- 
 sion, depending upon the meaning of important words, 
 positively renounced the authority of all lexicons, sub- 
 stituting for them his own unsupported asser'ions I 
 Why, if he is indeed so great a man, as to contemn all 
 such works, I am willing to call him Reverend, Rt. Rev- 
 erend, and Doctor also ! Still I call for evidence. 
 
 But he says, sometimes these words express duration'; 
 and sometimes they do not. Now will he be kind enough 
 to inform us, when they do not express duration, wlia^ lo 
 they express ? Ah ! Universalism is in perishing neec^ )f 
 a new lexicon. 
 
 I am willing to admit that the story of the rich /r n 
 and Lazarus, is a parable ; but the truth it was int^.'.ci 
 to teach and illustrate, is a reality. What did out /iord 
 intend to teach, when he uttered this parable ? lif rep- 
 resents a rich man faring sumptuously every (^ ly, and 
 clad in the most costly dress, and yet permitt'n^ i poor, 
 but righteous man, to lie at his door, and to ret on the 
 crumbs that fall from his table. " The rirh /r.dn died, 
 and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor L-^nt." He 
 dies, and immediately is punished, tormenleJ f^r his sins. 
 The gentleman says, the word here traa »lj'ed Hell, is 
 Hades, which does not mean a place of f ^ li^hment after 
 death. It is wholly needless to enter iiAj any criticism 
 of this word here. The sinner is repi vented a^ having 
 died, and as suffering punishment af'vt death; and this 
 is all I wish to prove. I feel no conct'i/, about the name 
 of the place where he suffered. 
 
 Lazarus, we are told, died, and wa* carried by angels 
 to Abraham's i^osom ; and there he Ww- happy. It mat- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 345 
 
 ters not whether you call the place heaven or not ; he 
 was happy immediately after death ; and that is enough. 
 
 The parable most impressively teaches two important 
 truths, viz : 1 . That immediately after death the right- 
 eous are perfectly happy, and the wicked are miserable, 
 punished, because of the deeds done in the body; and, 
 2. That the happiness of the one and the misery of the 
 other will be eternal. This truth is intended to be taught 
 by the impassable gif{f, represented as between the 
 righteous and the wicked ; so that there can be no passing 
 from the one to the other. 
 
 I did hope the gentleman would venture to give the par- 
 able the interpretation generally given by his standard 
 writers ; but he did not ; nor did he giye any exposition 
 of it. I must not say, he was afraid I But as he came 
 from a land whose inhabitants are said to be fluent in 
 asking questions, he imitates them here. He desires to 
 know, whether we believe that heaven is right by the side 
 of hell, and that the righteous will witness the sufferings 
 of the wicked. Not at all. Our Lord, doubtless, de- 
 signed simply to teach, that the ricli who scorn the 
 righteous poor, will see the day when they would be glad 
 to have their assistance ; but it will be beyond their reach 
 forever. Lazarus, however benevolent, could not afford 
 the rich sinner any mitigation of his torment ; nor can the 
 righteous in heaven relieve the ungodly in hell. This 
 parable alone affords a most triumphant refutation of Uni- 
 versalism ; it teaches most forcibly the doctrine of future 
 rewards and punishments, and the eternity of both. 
 
 But the gentleman asks, if faith is necessary to salva- 
 tion, according to the teaching of our Lord — " He that 
 believeth not shall be damned " — what is to be thought of 
 the succeeding verses : " And these signs shall follow 
 them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils ?" 
 &c. I answer: 1. Christ did not say these signs should al- 
 ways continue to follow them that believe. Miracles, we are 
 distinctly taught, were intended for the contirmation of the 
 truth of the Gospel ; and when that purpose was accom- 
 plished, they ceased. 2, Paul, the Apostle, said, they 
 
346 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 would cease : " But whether there be prophecies, they 
 shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; and 
 whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away," 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 8. But did the Apostle say, ihat/mVA should cease? 
 Far from it: on the contrary, he said: " And nowABiDETH 
 faith, hope, charity, these three ; but the greatest of these 
 is cITarity," verse 13. These three graces were to con- 
 tinue to adorn the Christian character, till faith be ex- 
 changed for vision ; hope, for fruition ; and charity, never 
 ceasing, fill all heaven with happiness and praise. 
 
 IX. I will now offer my 7iinth argument against Uni- 
 versalism. It is this : The very strongest ivjrcl-j in the 
 Greek language, expressive of duration, are emploiielto 
 express ike dura-ion of the punishment of the wicked — 
 the same which are employed to express the endless hap- 
 piness of the righteous, and the same which are used to 
 express the immutable arid eternal perfcc'ions of God, 
 If, therefore, the happiness of the righteous will be end- 
 less ; so will the punishment of the wicked ; for the same 
 words are used in precisely the same manner, and in the 
 samo connection, to express both. 
 
 We will read a few verses in the 25th chapter of the 
 Gospel by Matthew. " When the Son of man shall come 
 in his glory, and all the holy angels wiih hinj, then shall 
 he sit upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall 
 be gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them one 
 from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
 goats : and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
 the goats on the left. Then shall the King say to them 
 on his right hand. Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
 the kingdom prepared for you from tlie foundation of the 
 world: for T was an hungered, and ye gave me meat," &c. 
 *' Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. De- 
 part from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
 the devil and his angels ; for I was an hungered, and ye 
 gave me no meat," &c. "And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment : but the rio-hteous into life eter- 
 nal." The Greek word here translated "everlasting," is 
 the same which in the last clause of the verse is traasla 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 347 
 
 ted "eternal," and is therefore very properly, by Dr. 
 Campbell, so rendered — " eternal punishment." If, then, 
 the happiness of the righteous is to be eternal, in the un- 
 limited sense, so will the punishment of the wicked; for 
 the duration of it is expressed by the same word, in the 
 same connection, and without qualification. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us, this judgment of all nations 
 relates exclusively to this world. Christ, it is true, did 
 come in his terrible judgments, and destroy Jerusalem ; 
 but will Mr. Pingree inform us, when did Christ gather 
 all nations before him, separate the righteous from the 
 wicked, and give to each their reward ? When did the 
 righteous go into life eternal? When did the wicked go 
 away into everlasting punishment 1 The wicked, accord- 
 ing to Universalism, are always punished according to 
 their sins; but when did the judgment here spoken of 
 occur? When will the life of the righteous terminate? 
 When will the punishment of the wicked end ? Both are 
 to be eternal. 
 
 And here I am reminded of the only reply Mr. Pin- 
 gree attempted to make to all those passages I adduced, 
 in which the righteous are exhorted to lay up treasure in 
 heaven, and are represented as rewarded hereafter for 
 works done in this life. These passages, he tells us, mean 
 not that the conduct of men here is to have any influence 
 on their happiness hereafter ; but that they ought to set 
 their offecfions on things in heaven ! What evidence did 
 he furnish, that such is their meaning ? But Mr. Pingree 
 is above all evidence ! He asserts, against the authority 
 of all the learned and the good, that these things are just 
 so ; and we are to receive and rely on his decision ! But 
 look at the absurdity of this perversion of God's Word. 
 The Saviour said — " Lay up for yourselves treasures in 
 heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt; and where 
 thieves break not through and steal." Did he mean that 
 moth and rust do not corrupt, and thieves do not steal, the 
 affections; or did he mean, that the treasure we are to 
 lay up in heaven, by the proper use of earthly blessings, 
 will be safe and enduring ? 
 
348 AN ORAL biscussio!^ 
 
 Our Saviour, in bestowing life eternal on the righteous, 
 says — " For 1 was an hungered, and ye gave me nrieat; 1 
 was thirsty, and ye gave me drink," &c. ; and in pro* 
 nouncing sentence of condemnation on the wicked — " I 
 was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat," &c»^-thu8 
 teaching, in the clearest manner, that the works, both of 
 the righteous and the wicked, have a most impottant bear- 
 ing upon their future and eternal happiness. 
 
 But to return to the Words eternal and everlasting — 
 Mr. Pingree says, (without the slightest proof, however,) 
 they sometimes express duralwn ; and sometimes they 
 do not. When, or under what circumstances, do they 
 express duration? When that meaning would not mili- 
 tate against Universalism, I presume ; but when it would, 
 they must mean something else, or nothing ! 
 
 The natural meaning of the Greek word employed in 
 the passage under consideration, is eternal — unlimited 
 duration. The word is aionios, from aiei on, never 
 ENDING. Dr. Clarke thus comments on this word : 
 
 " But some are of opinion that this punishment shall have 
 an end: this is as likely as that the glory of the righteous 
 shall have an end: for the same word is used to express the 
 duration of the punishment, kolasin aionion, as is used to ex- 
 press the duration of the state of glory : zoenaionion, I have 
 seen the best things that have been written in favor of the fi- 
 nal redemption of damned spirits ; but 1 never saw an answer 
 to the argument against that doctrine, drawn from this verse, 
 but what sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to 
 acknowledge. The original word aion is certainly to be taken 
 here in its proper grammatical sense, continued being, aiei on-^ ' 
 NEVER ENDING." 
 
 These words, I repeat, are tne very strongest in the 
 Greek knguage to express endless duration. True, they 
 are sometimes used in a limited sense, as are the 
 English words — everlasting and eternal ; but unless limit' 
 ed in meaning by the context, or the nature of the things 
 to which they relate, they are to be understood in their 
 full meaning. Thus we read of everlasii7ig hills; and 
 the hills will exist as long as the earth on which they 
 are formed. The Aaronic priesthood, too, was called 
 
•OF UNIVERSAUSM. 349 
 
 everlasting; and it was to continue as long as the Dis- 
 pensation in which it originated. So the happiness of 
 the righteous is to be everlasting, eternal — that is, it will 
 continue as long as the soul, of which it is predicated, 
 shall exist. The punishment of the wicked will be eter- 
 nal, that is, it will continue as long as the souls of the 
 wicked exist — forever, in the most unlimited sense. The 
 word aionios expresses a limited duration, only when 
 the objects in connection with which it is used, are of 
 limited existence. 
 
 The most eminent critics and commentators agree per- 
 fectly concerning the meaning of the word in the passage 
 before us, such,4br example, as Matthew Poole, (whom 
 I understood the gentleman to claim as a Universalist!) 
 Dr. Campbell, Dr. Clarke, &c. &;c. Poole thus translates 
 the passage : '* Hi ibunt in supplicium eternum" — fhese 
 shall go into eternal pimislnnent; and he remarks; 
 "Even according to human laws, the continuance of the 
 punishment is almost always longer than the period of 
 committing the crime ; and the reason is, 1 . Because 
 punishment docs not so easily repair, as sin perverts. 
 2. Such is the disposition of the sinner, that he will sin 
 forever, if he can. 3. An eternal God of infinite majesty 
 is offended." 
 
 The learned lexicographer, Bretschneider, defines the 
 word aionios — "That which is always, forever." Schri- 
 vellius defines it — "eternal." Groves, "eternal, immor- 
 tal, perpetual." I might refer to others ; but it is not 
 necessary. My friend must excuse me for occasionally 
 quoting lexicons. I am not wise enough to expect men 
 to rely, in matters of so much moment, upon my asser- 
 tion! 
 
 The younger Edwards, in his Reply to Chauncey, 
 states the following facts : ^^ion and aiones fan aionon^ 
 (forever, and forever and ever) occur in the New Testa- 
 ment one hundred and four times. In thirty-two of these 
 it means temporary duration; in seven the meaning may 
 be doubtful; in sixty-four, "it plainly signifies endless 
 duration.'* *,Sion<, with the preposition a«, occurs sixty- 
 30 
 
350 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 one times ; in six of which it is applied to future punish- 
 ment ; and in the remaining fifty-five it is certainly used 
 in the endless sense, jiionios (eternal) occurs in the 
 New Testament seventy-one times; in forty-four of 
 which it is used to express the future life of the right- 
 eous. In Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 1 Pet. v. 10, 
 Heb. ix. 14, it is used to express the perfections of God. 
 In 2 Cor. iv. 18, it is used to express things eternal, in 
 contrast with things temporal. In view of these facts, 
 Edwards thus reasons: "And \{ aionios be used seventy- 
 one times in the whole — sixty-six besides those instances 
 in which it is allowed to be appUed to future punish- 
 ment ; and if, in all those sixty-six instjfuces, except two, 
 It certainly means, or at least may fairly mean, and must 
 naturally be understood to mean, an endless duration ; 
 if in all except six, it must necessarily be understood in 
 the endless sense, what are we hence to infer?" He in- 
 fers, and every unprejudiced mind must infer, the very 
 strong probability, if not the certainty, that the punish- 
 ment of the wicked will be endless. 
 
 But no room for doubt is left, when we remember the 
 circumstances under which the sentence is pronounced. 
 At the end of the world all nations shall stand before the 
 judgment seat of Christ. Then, at the end of time, he 
 will appoint the righteous to eternal life, and the wicked 
 to eternal punishment. There is nothing to limit the 
 happiness of the one, or the punishment of the other. 
 Each human being then launches forth on the boundless 
 ocean of eternity. His canvas is spread for an endless 
 voyage ; and the only question concerning each, is, whe- 
 ther lie is to be driven by never-ceasing tempests over 
 fiery billows, or wafted by heavenly breezes through 
 seas of heavenly bliss and glory. Beyond this there is 
 no change, either of character or condition. 
 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pixgree's eighteenth speech.] 
 Respected Auditors — As this passage fpom the 10th of 
 Matthew — " Fear him which is able to destroy both soul 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 351 
 
 and body in Hell " — is presented, I will make some gen- 
 eral remarks upon the word here rendered Hell, as found 
 in the Bible. The word in this place is not. Hades — the 
 grave, or state of the dead, generally ; used figuratively, to 
 represent the condition of the^ Rich Man ; — but another 
 word — Gehenna. I have already given our general views 
 of Hades; both as regards its literal and its figurative sig- 
 nification, and I now propose to do the same in relation to 
 Gehenna, 
 
 Lexicographers tell us the word (and this is undisputed 
 ground) here translated Hell, is made up of two words ; 
 the first signifying "ear^/i," or "ta/Zey," and the other 
 the name of an individual — Hinnom. Gehenna was the 
 name of a valley near Jerusalem, where living sacrifices 
 were once oflfered to Pagan Gods, and children were 
 burned alive, as a propitiation to Moloch. It was after- 
 wards desecrated by a good ' king of Israel, to be used as 
 a place of common deposit for ofl'al from the city, and 
 dead bodies, which were burned there. Here the fires 
 burned, and the worms fed on the carcasses continually. 
 That this was the literal Gehenna of the Scriptures, is 
 undisputed. It is thus spoken of in the 7th chapter of 
 Jeremirh. So also in Jer. xix. See the whole cliapter. 
 There it is recorded that the Lord commanded the Prophet 
 to go into Tophet, which was in the Valley of Hinnom, 
 and prophesy; he then returned, and told the people that 
 the city of Jerusalem would become «v Tophet ; and thus 
 the great calamities prophesied again.'t Jerusalem, in her 
 final destruction, were FiorRATiVELY represented by the 
 Valley of Hinnom, or Tophet. Jeremiah thus foicibly 
 and vividly set forth the fimporal calamities that shc.uld 
 thereaf:er come upon the people. The word is therefore 
 used with its figurative meaning, in this passage, in the 
 10th of Matthew. When Jesus Christ c^me and told the 
 Jews of the calamities about to befall thc^m, according to 
 the prophecies of Jeremiah, he used the word Gehenna^ 
 which is now translated Hell. 
 
 Mr. Rice knows that Classical Lexicons are of but lit- 
 tle use iu settling the meaning of Bible words ; for so he 
 
352 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 proved in his Discussion with Mr. Campbell. The 
 Lexicon says Gehenna is the place of eternal damnation. 
 I certainly will not receive Orthodox Lexicons as authori- 
 ty for the meaning of a Bible word, when the definition is 
 given hi accordance with the peculiar religious ^ydem of 
 the Lexicographer. The Lexicon says Gehenna means 
 Hell; that is, the Orthodox Hell. Mr. Rice hin^. self says 
 that Classical Lexicons sometimes mislead us ; as in the 
 ease of the word Baptizo, I agree with him. We must 
 try the Lexicons by the Scripture use of words; and not 
 Scripture by Lexicons. 
 
 When Jesus came, the Jews had their Sacred Wri- 
 tings, which foretold the destruction of the City, in a cer- 
 tain way. It was represented by the desolations of To- 
 phet ; it was to become as the valley of Hinnom, or Ge- 
 henna. Our Saviour used the word in the sense in which 
 he found it in the Scriptures ; for thus, and not otherwise, 
 would the Jews understand him. The "destroying of 
 soul and body," was a proverbial expression among the 
 Jews, in the time of our Lord ; and was used to express 
 the entire overthrow of a thing. It does not express a 
 state of endless misery ; nor does it sitrnify utter annihi- 
 lation. This passage in the 10th of Matthew, is an ex- 
 ample of this mode of expression. And the prophet 
 Isaiah uses the same language, to represent a total over- 
 throw of a certain people ; see Isaiah x. 16: "Therefore 
 shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones 
 leanness ; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning 
 like the burning of a fire. And the light of Israel shall 
 be for 3. fire, and his Holy One for n flame: and it shall 
 burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day ; 
 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his 
 fruitful field, both soul and body !" Will Mr. Rice pre- 
 tend to say that this refers to the misery or annihilation 
 of the immortal part of man in a future state? If not so 
 there, why in the other case ! It is an equivalent expres- 
 sion to destroying or cutting off a thing, "root and 
 branch;" an expression found elsewhere in the Scriptures. 
 
 The gentleman says the Bible speaks of the day of 
 
OF VNIVERSALISM. 353 
 
 judgment. I answer, only in one or two cases ; and they 
 do not refer to a day in the immortal world. I should 
 like to know why it is called a day. The expression 
 does not belong to the immortal state. It is exclusively 
 applicable to time, and not to eternity. 
 
 The Apostle asks, "How shall we escape, if we neg- 
 lect so great salvation ?" Escape v)1iaV^ Hell, in the 
 world of spirits ? No; but the "just recompense of re- 
 ward;" of wliich he had just before been speaking; the 
 " sorer punisliment," of which the Saviour spoke ; — 
 "such as never was to that time;" viz: the destruction 
 of Jerusalem ; " nor ever should be again ;^^ no, not even 
 in the eternal world ! 
 
 To show that endless misery is referred to in Rev. 
 xix.>, wliere the saints rejoiced, Mr. Rice calls our atten- 
 tion to the expression — " the smoke of their torment 
 went up forever and ever." Now refer to the 34th chap- 
 ter of Isaiah, where the Prophet speaks of the destruc- 
 tion of Idumea, representing only temporal calamities. 
 What form of expression does he use ? The same as we 
 find in Revelations xix. He speaks of that event in this 
 language : " For it is the day of the Lord's vengeance, 
 and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion. 
 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pi'c/i, and 
 the dust thereof into brimstone^ and the land thereof shall 
 become burning pitch ; [like " the lake of fire and brim- 
 stone," in Rev.] It shall not be quenched night nor day ; 
 the smoke thereof shall go vp forever,'''' Here are the 
 same expressions applied to the temporal desolation and 
 destruction of a country and people, that tlie gentleman 
 says are applied to the endless punishment of men in the 
 immortal world. But let us read on: " From generation 
 to generation it shall lie waste : none shall pass through 
 it FOREVER AND EVER : [Tlicsc words still applied to this 
 world.] But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess 
 it: the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it; and he 
 shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the 
 stones of emptiness." Thus is it demonstrated that such 
 language does not relate to eternity. 
 30*^ 
 
354 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 The gentleman still talks about infinite sin, and infinite 
 evil ; but has not answered my question how Jesus Christ 
 could at all put «sw/e infinite evil. It is not necessary 
 for me to dwell on that point. 
 
 He says the reason why we are punished hereafter and 
 forever, is that we sin forever. Aye ! that's Calvinism : 
 God puts men where they must sin forever, and then 
 punishes them forever! He puts them where they can-- 
 NOT do otherwise than sin, and blaspheme the name of 
 God, and curse Jehovah, forever and ever ! ! How much 
 better a doctrine than that, is the one that teaches that all 
 men will finally be made pure, holy, and happy ! How 
 much more like a God of love ! ! 
 
 The gentleman is so mirthful as to apply the titles, 
 Reverend, Right Reverend, and Doctor, to me, because I 
 will not refer the question to Lexicons. I ask pardon of 
 my learned friend, for not before giving him his proper 
 title ; for, if I am correctly informed, he has been made a 
 Doctor of Divinity, since his discussion with Mr. Camp- 
 bell. Perhaps this is a hint for me to extend to him his 
 proper title — Rev. Doctor Rice, and Professor of Greek, 
 to boot ! 
 
 As to the case of Lazarus and the Rich Man ; if that is 
 a parable, it cannot be understood literally, as a history. 
 But while Mr. Rice admits this, he claims also that the 
 parable was intended to convey a real truth. So it was: 
 but is the literal meaning of the words here, the real truth! 
 for this is necessary to Mr. Rice's interpretation. When 
 it is said in the Book of Judges, that the trees of the for- 
 est went out to anoint a king over them, applying to the 
 olive tree, the vine, and the bramble, — was that the real 
 fact ? or so intended to be understood ? 
 
 It was intended by this parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus, to convey real truth in the form of fiction. The 
 story i^ fictitious ; but the truth is real. It was intended 
 to represent, by figures drawn from the darkness and 
 gloom of death and the grave, a condition on earih, of 
 moral blindness, darkness, and suffering. •' Lazarus was 
 carried by angels to Abraham'^ bosom-.^^ I suppose my 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 355 
 
 friend will hardly say that this is to be understood accord- 
 ing to the literal import of the language ; for it does not 
 speak of the spirit of Lazarus; but represents him as in 
 the body. Dives looked up and saw Lazarus afar off, in 
 Abraham's bosom, and asked Abraham to send him to 
 " dip the tip of- hisjinger in water, and cool his tongue, 
 for he was tormented in x\\e flame. ''^ Will the gentleman 
 tell us that this was a literal flamk of fire ? ! for it is so, 
 if the passjige is to be understood literally. Is Hell a 
 place where men are in the incorruptible, spiritual state ? ! 
 really burned in the fire. Will Mr. Rice carry us back 
 to the good old Orthodox notions of fire, and flames, and 
 red hot gridirons, and the bodies and souls of human be- 
 ings roasting there, forever and ever ? ! 
 
 Mr. Rice said that was the place of torment, and that 
 it was eternal, Hetloes not believe, then, in the destruc- 
 tion of Hades ; does he ? I thought the Scriptures taught 
 the final destruction of Hades, Does my friend deny 
 this Bible truth ? A " place of torment." Not the lite- 
 ral Hades; for of //»«/, Solomon thus speaks: "There 
 is no knowledge, nor device, nor wisdom in the grave — 
 Gr. Hades — whither thou goest." Hades, when relating 
 to a condition on earth, used figuratively, does represent 
 "torment"; but not when representing the state of the 
 naturally dead. 
 
 As to the manner in which my friend replies to my an- 
 swer, that " laying up treasure in heaven," meant the same 
 as "setting our affections on heavenly things," by ridicu- 
 ling the idea that " moth and rust corrupt " the affections, 
 and "thieves break tlu'ough and steal" them; may all go 
 for what it is worth. I did not mean to be interpreted in 
 that manner. My idea was, that the language was to be 
 applied to the things on which our affections were to bo 
 placed; whether they were earthly, or heavenly. 
 
 In relation to the Judgment, in my friend's ninth argu- 
 ment, and what he has said of the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, and the 25t)i chapter of Matthew, I will remark, 
 that the great mistake of the Orthodox, and of Mr. Rice, 
 is, that they place the Judgment by Christ at the close oi 
 
356 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 his reign, or in the resurrection state* Now, if the Rich 
 Man went to Hell as soon as he died, it was before the 
 Judgment ; and thus there will be some confusion in my 
 friend's ideas upon that subject — having a man damned in 
 Hell before he is judged ! ! It is a great mistake to place 
 the judgments of Christ at the close of his reign. The 
 Bible speaks of it, as in Daniel, as commencing at the he- 
 ginning of his reign. Who ever heard of establishing 
 a tribunal of judgment at the winding up of the affairs 
 of a government?-! In all Kingdoms, States, or Com- 
 monwealths, properly governed. Courts must be estab- 
 lished, and be coequal with the existence of the govern- 
 ment; and must commence with the legislation^ or as 
 soon as the laws are broken. If Christ has a Kingdom, 
 he has also a judgment-seat — a tribunal of justice; and 
 that judgment will be going on with the progress of his 
 Kingdom, from the commencement until the close of 
 it. *' Then cometh the end," says the Apostle ; " when he 
 shall have delivered up his Kingdom, having put down 
 all rule, authority and power, that God may be all in all." 
 There is no judgment there, at the resurrection, and the 
 close of his reign ; but all will have been subdued to 
 Christ, himself subject to God, "that God may be all 
 IN all!'* Such is the Bible account of Christ's reign 
 and judgment, in his Kingdom, and during its progress. 
 His judgment commences at the beginning of his reign, 
 and closes at the end of it, at the resurrection, terminating 
 in UNIVERSAL salvation. O! how different are the re- 
 presentations given by Orthodoxy, and those given by the 
 Bible and Universalisra, in reference to that time ! ! 
 
 The 24th and 25 ^h of Matthew say not a word of the 
 resurrection ; but relate to the General Judgment by 
 Christ, in his kingdom, to commence within the life time 
 of some whom he addressed ; (Matt. xvi. 27, 28 ;) with- 
 in that '-' gineraiion^'' and to embrace some special judg- 
 ments that were to come upon the Jewish people, in their 
 overthrow, and the destruction of their City and temple. 
 Tiic gentleman asks whether the nations have befn *'• ga- 
 thered together" before the judgment-seat of Christ f I 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 367 
 
 answer, Not personally ; but all nations are made mani- 
 fest before him ; and this is all that is intended by that 
 language. 
 
 . My friend wants to know if the Christian enjoys his 
 "everlasting life" in this world ; and whether the sinner 
 endures his "everlasting punishment" here? and calls 
 aloud for Lexicons on the word rendered " everlasting." 
 Lexicons are not necessary here. Lexicons arc intended 
 to be a transcript of the usage of words ; and we (^an as- 
 certain the meaning of words, according to their usage, as 
 well as the lexicographer. The proper way to settle tlie 
 meaning of a word in the Bible, is to compare one pas- 
 sage with another, where the same word is used. The 
 Lexicon, for instance, quoted by Mr. Rice, defines, aionioft 
 to mean "eternal" — nothing else. But we can demon- 
 strate the error of the Lexicon ; for by examining Scrip- 
 ture, we find that the priesthood of Aaron was to be "ev- 
 erlasting" — Gr. aionios. So the " possession" of the land 
 of Canaan, by the Jews, was to be " everlasting" — aio- 
 nios. So it is evident that the Scripture use of the word 
 convicts that Lexicon of egregious error. Every Lexicon 
 which pretends to define a Bible word, must be governed 
 by .the Scripture use of that word ; or it is no true defi- 
 nition, and not worth a straw ! 
 
 My friend says, the word aionios always means etev'^ 
 nal, unless limited by the sutjecf to which it is applied. 
 Well, we aflfirm that all punishment is limited. Says the 
 Lord by the Prophet, " I will %f:j^ not cast off forev- 
 er." Thus is the word limited, when applied to punish- 
 ment; which shows that we are not to understand, by 
 " everlasting pvmishment," a state of endless torture in a 
 future world, as represented by the Orthodox. The word 
 rendered " eternal," and " everlasting," is applied to pun- 
 ishments whose termination we find recorded in the Bible 
 itself. Thus when the Jews were carried away into cap- 
 tivity, it was said it should be " an everlasting reproach ;" 
 yet it lasted only seventy years. It was not endless, nor 
 in eternity. They were afterwards brought back to their 
 country. So the punishment of the cities of Sodom and 
 
358 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Gomorrah, is described as " eternal" — "the vengeance of 
 eternal fire." Was it a fire in the spiritual world, aiid 
 endless ? 
 
 My friend says that Dr. Campbell defines mon, from 
 which comes aionios, to mean always being. Now I 
 assert that it very seldom has this meaning in the Bible. 
 We read of " the end of the world" — aionos ; and of " the 
 ends of the world," or worlds — aionon; and of ages of 
 ages, or worlds of worlds — aiones ton aionon. Shall we 
 say the end of eternity, or "always being"? — ! Thus 
 Scripture usage demonstales the error of any lexicograph 
 er who defines the only proper meaning of aion to be " al- 
 ways heingr or eternity; and aionios to be stricdy eter- 
 nal or endless. I have now shown that the word render- 
 ed " eternal," however it may be applied to God, and his 
 perfections, does not necessarily, or of itself, prove end- 
 less misery. If Mr. Rice will show that punislmient is 
 in the immortal world, it might be another thing. But it 
 is not so. Then when we reflect on the character- of 
 God ; — that he is love ; that he is the Father of our 
 spirits, and good to all, unchangeably the same; — we sav 
 that the word does not and cannot mean endless, when 
 applied to punishment. 
 
 According to Calvinistic Orthodoxy, we should have 
 universal damnation ! Dr. Joel Parker, of New York, has 
 said that "the punishment of the wicked is as weighty as 
 God's curse, and as certain as his ability to inflict it 1" 
 Now, all are sinners; and if sin be infinite, and the 
 penalty certain to be inflicted, as Dr. Parker asserts, how 
 can any escape it? Let Mr. Rice ask himself, if this 
 doctrine does not necessarily involve universal, endless, 
 remediless damnation ! ! 
 
 I have already advanced one argument from the 5ih 
 of Matthew; where we are required to love our enk- 
 MiES, in order to be like God ; thus proving that God 
 loves his enemies — sinners. I now found another argu- 
 ment on the same injunction, to love our enemies. Is 
 not this an eternal, univer&al law? But how can we love 
 them, if they are in Hell ? ! Hence I take this position : 
 
OF tNlVERSALlSM. 359 
 
 That the happiness of the samd requires the happiness 
 of ALL. Paul says, "If one member suffers, all the mem- 
 bers suffer with itJ'^ The entire human race are bound 
 together by sympathy, and the best of men are made un- 
 happy by the sight of misery and suffering. If we arc 
 not greatly changed after deaths and for the icorse, we 
 shall feel that sympathy in the world to come. The Or- 
 thodox deny any change after death ; but there must be a 
 great change, before man can witness the misery of his 
 fellow-man unmoved, or with a feeling of satisfaction; 
 especially if he obeys the great law — love your ene- 
 mies. Professor Stuart, of Andover, felt this difliculty 
 pressing upon his mind, in relation to this point. How 
 is it? he asked. How can the saved be ha|)py, while 
 knowing the sufferings of the lost? This was the way in 
 which he solved the difficulty! ^^ God may, in mercy, 
 extinguish their SOCIAL susceptibilities!" There it is! 
 In order to make heaven a place of happiness, a consist- 
 ent Orthodox man must extingtiish and blot out all sym- 
 pathy, and even humanity itself! If not, I ask with all 
 earnestness, how can we be happy, and witness the 
 ETERNAL TORMENTS of fcUoW human Spirits damned in 
 Hell?! 
 
 I now present another argument for universal salvation. 
 The Bible speaks of the present joy of those who be- 
 lieved the Gospel of God's impartial grace. It b rclate(i 
 that Peter, after he was converted to Universalism, iUt 
 great joy. He was not always a believer. The Saviour 
 had said to him, (Luke xxii. 32,) "when thou art con- 
 verted, strengthen thy brethren." He was converted to 
 Universalism by a vision, as related in Acts xi. 5-10. 
 Giving an account of it, he says, " I was in the ciiy of 
 Joppa, praying: and in a trance I saw a vision — a cer- 
 tain vessel descending, as it liad been a great sheet, let 
 down from heaven by four corners ; and it came even 
 unto me: Upon the which, when I had fastened mine 
 eyes, I considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the 
 earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls ^ 
 the air: And I heard a voice saying unto me, ^ 
 
360 AN ORAL DISCtJt^SION 
 
 Peter, sljiy, and eat." [Peter started back with horror, 
 at this.] *' But I said, Not so, Lord : for nothing com- 
 mo7i or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 
 But the voice answered me again from heaven, what God 
 hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was 
 done three times : and all were drawn up again in- 
 to heaven." The beasts liere represented men; and 
 the truth announced was, that all men were to be finally 
 cleansed, and received into heaven. This was the faith 
 Peter derived from it ; and therefore he afterwards said, 
 "Believing, I rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full 
 OF GLORY !" If Peter had believed, like Partialists, ia the 
 endless damnation of a vast multitude of his fellow-crea- 
 tures, he could not have experienced this unspeakable 
 joy. His feelings would have more resembled those of 
 the benevolent Calvinist Saurin, whose language I have 
 already quoted ; to whom the doctrine of endless woe 
 was "a mortal poison — rendering his life a cruel bitter, 
 and causing him not to wonder tliat the fear of Hell made 
 some melancholy, and others mad !" The believer in a 
 perfect Gospel possesses this "joy that is unspeakable, 
 and full of glory ;" while the Partialist views only poi- 
 son the soul, and renders ''life a cruel bitter!" and 
 some it even makes mad — raving maniacs ! ! ! These are 
 some of the effects of Calvinism, and all forms of Par- 
 tialism. O my God ! how difierent from the teachings 
 of the Bible, in reference to the faith of the Gospel, 
 and its blissful influences ! Which of the two views is 
 correct, think you ? Where is the truth foufid ? in Ortho- 
 doxy, or in the AVord of God ? 
 
 I will now add another argument. The first and great- 
 est command of all is, that we should " love God ivith 
 all our souU and all our strength, and all our mind !!^\ 
 Is not this law eternal ? Is it not universal ? Does it not 
 bind ALL men and all intelligent beings in the universe 
 of God, in ti ne and in eternity ? If universal and eter- 
 nal, can it jver be fulfilled, if the majority of men, or 
 even any, > emain disobedient, and hate and curse God, 
 to all eternitv ? Yet llie Saviour informs us, that " not 
 
OF UNIVERSALIS^. 361 
 
 one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, till all be 
 FULFILLED." Now will that first law of God ever " be 
 fulfilled," until all mankind are brought to love God su- 
 premely, and their neighbors as themselves? I appeal to 
 you, my respected Auditors, if it be not an eternal law ; 
 and if it will not be fulfilled, as Christ affirms; all thus 
 become holy and happy, ultimately, and be introduced 
 into a world of immortal joy and bliss ? 
 
 Another argument I will offer, drawn from the love of 
 God and his attributes ; that all the attributes of God are 
 the attributes of love. But as my time is expired, I will 
 defer a more full development of this argument until to- 
 morrow night. [T^me expired. 
 
 [mr. rice's eighteenth reply.] 
 In replying to the last speech of Mr. Pingree, it may 
 be well to make some remarks concerning the proper use 
 of lexicons, critics, and commentators, in a discussion of 
 this kind. In some respects, the present has been the 
 most singular discussion in which I ever engaged, I had 
 not thought it possible for any man to be engaged twenty 
 hours in the discussion of a great theological question, 
 the settlement of which must depend upon important 
 principles of mental philosophy, and especially upon the 
 correct interpretation of the language of Scripture, with- 
 out stating one principle of philosophy, of theology, or 
 of interpretation. Nevertheless, the gentleman has thus 
 far succeeded admirably in this non-committal business. 
 The principles of interpretation have been reduced to a 
 system, well understood by all scholars. The gentle- 
 man, in the course of this discussion, has had much to 
 do in interpreting language ; and yet, if my memory 
 serves me, he has not stated any one rule, or general prin- 
 ciple of interpretation ! The reason doubtless is — that 
 Universalism can be sustained only by destroying or re- 
 versing all established principles of language. 
 
 He has sought to place me in an equally unenviable 
 aldtude, by asserting, that in my debate with Mr. Camp- 
 bell, I objected to referring to classical writers afnd lexi- 
 31 
 
862 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 cographers. The statement is wholly incorrect. I did 
 object, as all writers on sacred criticism do, to relying ex- 
 chisively, or even chiefly^ upon classical usage to deter- 
 mine the meaning of words in the Bible, and asserted, 
 that standard lexicons of the New Testament, which is 
 written, not in classical, but in " Hebrew, Greek," anc*! 
 Jewish usage, were safer guides ; and so say I now 
 But both Mr. Campbell and myself referred constantl} 
 to classical authors, clasical lexicons, lexicons of the Ne\T 
 Testament, critics and commentators. I wish the gen 
 tleman would read that Debate, before he agaii;^ attempt? 
 to state important facts concerning it. No man, I alTirm, 
 has the right to expect the people to rely in matters of so 
 much importance upon his own ipse dixit — his mere as- 
 sertion. He who expects to be believed, must produce 
 evidence upon which they can rely. Hr::.^^ 1 then ap- 
 pealed, and now appeal to men w^ C/oe known talents and 
 learning have given their wr^irngs the reputation of stand- 
 ard works. 
 
 It is proper also to say, that the momentous question, 
 whether the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and 
 salvation of all men, is not to be determined by attempt- 
 ing to harrow up the feelings of the audience, by horrible 
 descriptions of the torments of the wicked. I could give 
 such descriptions of the sufferings caused by the Deluge, 
 by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jerusa- 
 lem, and of a thousand other scenes of distress, as would 
 strongly affect the feelings, and awaken the sympathies of 
 all who hear me. And by such appeals to feelings and 
 to prejudice, I could make an argument against the truth 
 of the Bible, and even against the existence of God, of 
 precisely the same kind, and equally conclusive as those 
 so constandy and vehemently urged by Mr. Pingree, and 
 so much relied on by him to sustain Universalism. Re id 
 the Lectures of Abner Kneeland on Universal Benev(>- 
 lence ; and you will find them abounding with appeals of 
 this kaid. You would imagine that his benevolent heart 
 could never endure the horrible doctrine that the ungodly 
 should perish in their sins. No wonder that he^after- 
 
OF UNIVERSAXISM. 3B3 
 
 wards employed similar arguments against the Bible, <ind 
 then against the existence of God, and finally placed him- 
 self in the front ranks of blaspheming atheists. Such 
 is the downward tendency of religious error. The great 
 question before us is not to be determined by appeals and 
 declamations of this kind. My business is to state im- 
 portant principles, and sustain them by the clear teaching 
 of God's word, whether Universalism becomes horrified, 
 or not. 
 
 X. My tenth argument against Universalism, is found 
 in the folloAving scriptures, which I will read : " And I 
 saw a Ucjv. hrnvon nnd a new earth : for the first heaven 
 and the first earth were passed away ; and there was no 
 more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusa- 
 lem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as 
 a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great 
 voice out of heaven ; saying. Behold the tabernacle of 
 God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and ihey 
 shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, 
 and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears 
 from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neith- 
 er sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more 
 pain : for the former things are passed away. And he 
 that sat upon the throne said. Behold, I make all things 
 new. And he said unto me, Write ; for these words arc 
 true and faithful," Rev. xxi. 1 — 5. Thus far Universal- 
 its read ; and since God promises to wipe away all tears 
 from their eyes ; — that there shall be no more death, 
 neither sorrow nor crying, nor any more pain ; — and 
 since he will make all things neio ; the conclusion is 
 tj'iumpliantly drawn, that Universalism is true — that all 
 men are to be holy and happy. But let us read the 7th 
 and 8th verses: "He that over comet h [none others] 
 shall inherit all things ; and I will be his God, and he 
 shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and 
 murderers, and whoremongers, sorcerers, and idolaters, 
 and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burn- 
 eth with fire and brimstone ; which is the second death." 
 The gentleman may appeal to the feelings of the audi- 
 
364 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 ence, and pronounce the doctrine of future punishment 
 most horrible ; but here it is most clearly and impressive- 
 ly taught. I might respect the candor of the man who 
 would openly renounce the Bible, because he dislikes its 
 doctrines ; but I cannot say as much for those who still 
 profess to believe it true, whilst they pervert its plainest 
 declarations, and represent it as teaching doctrines pre- 
 cisely the opposite of those it most obviously inculcates. 
 
 In connection with the foregoing, I read the following : 
 
 " And he saith unto me, seal not the sayings of the proph- 
 ecy of this book ; for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, 
 let him be unjust still : and he which is lilthy, let him be 
 filthy still : and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still : 
 and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Behold I come 
 quickly, and my reward is with me to give every man accord- 
 ing as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
 ginning and the end, the first and the last, [observe,] Bless- 
 ed are they, that do his commandments, that they may have 
 right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates of 
 the City ! \_Those who do not keep the commandments have no 
 right to the tree of life, and cannot enter the City.'] For without 
 are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, 
 and idolaters, and whosoever maketh or loveth a lie, [verse 18.] 
 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the 
 prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, 
 God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this 
 book ; and if any man shall take away from the words of the 
 book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of 
 the book of life and out of the holy City, and from the things 
 that are written in this book. He which testifies these things, 
 surely, I come quickly." 
 
 These passages require no comment. Their meaning 
 is clear. 
 
 XI. My eleventh argument against Universalism, is 
 founded on the fact stated by Mr. Pingree, in his last 
 speech — that the Ajiostle Peter ivas not a believer in Uni- 
 versalism before the vision recorded in the lOth chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles ! He told the audience, with 
 an air of triumph, that Peter was not a Universal ist before 
 that time, but was converted to Universalism by the vis- 
 ion of the sheet let down from heaven, and by the voice 
 which said unto him — " What God hath cleansed, that 
 
or TTNIVERSAXISM. 365 
 
 call not thou common ;" from which language, he told us, 
 Petef learned, that ail men are to be made holy and hap- 
 py ! I am truly gratified, that my friend stated this fact, 
 and made this important admission. It affords a most 
 conclusive argument against Univcrsalism. 
 
 Peter, we are told, was not a Universalist, but a " Par- 
 tialist," before he received this revelation ; and he was 
 converted to Univers-dism by the vision. All the other 
 Apostles were, of course, in the same error with Peter ; 
 for they called Peter to account for going and preaching 
 unto the Gentiles. The}^ therefore, were not Universal- 
 ists, but were converted to this faith, we are to suppose, 
 by Peter's defence, recorded in Acts xi. ! Now it is a 
 fact, that at the time when this revelation was made to 
 Peter, he and the other Apostles had been preaching the 
 Gospel not less than eight yeurs^ from the day of Pente- 
 cost. From this fact, in connection with Mr. Pingreo's 
 admission, we are able to reach several most important 
 conclusions, such as the following : 
 
 1. Jesus Christ, though he preached the Gospel per- 
 fectly, did not preach Univcrsalism. They had heard 
 all his discourses and instructions, private and pul)lic, for 
 more than three years ; and yet they did not believe in 
 universal salvation. Christ, the great teacher, did not 
 tench Univcrsalism, either privately or publicly. After 
 his resurrection he was with the Apostles forty (hn/s, 
 " speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom ;" and 
 yet they were not Universalists. Of course, he did'not 
 then teach Univcrsalism, but the opposite. Christ preach- 
 ed the Gospel, and instructed his Aposdes in the things 
 pertaining to the kingdom ; but he did not preach Uni- 
 vcrsalism, nor teach it to his Aposdes. Therefore, Uni- 
 vcrsalism is not the Gospel ; nor is it included in " the 
 things pertaining to the kingdom" of Christ. 
 
 2. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles were qualified 
 by the special gift of the Holy Spirit for the discharge of 
 the momentous duties connected with their office. 'They 
 were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
 with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance," 
 
 31* 
 
3d6 an oral discussion 
 
 Acts ii. 4. And yet they were not Universalists ; for Mr 
 Pingree says, they were converted to Universalism, eight 
 years after this ! They were inspired and infallible preach- 
 ers of the Gospel ; they preached it, therefore, without 
 mixture of error ; and we receive their discourses, left on 
 record in the Acts of the Apostles, as parts of the word 
 of God ; but they were not Universalists, and did not be- 
 lieve in universal salvation! This Mr. Pingree admits. 
 
 For eight years after the day of Pentecost, these inspir- 
 ed servants of God went forth preaching the Gospel ; but 
 they did not believe, and, therefore, did not preach Uni- 
 versalism. They did believe, and, therefore, did preach 
 what the gentleman calls " Partialism ;" that is, they be- 
 lieved and preached, that some of the human race would 
 not be saved, would be forever lost ! Then if Universal- 
 ism be true, if it be the Gospel, as Mr. Pingree contends, 
 the inspired Apostles, during eight years of their minis* 
 try, did preach the most serious and revolting errors ; 
 and yet they spoke " as the Spirit gave them utterance ! " 
 Moreover, the Holy Spirit bore witness to the truth of 
 their doctrine by his miraculous influences ; and yet, if 
 we are to believe Mr. Pingree, they were preaching gross 
 errors, the very errors he is now so zealously combating!! 
 
 Now either the Apostles, during those eight years, 
 preached the Gospel, or they did not. If they did not, the 
 Holy Spirit inspired them to teach gross error, and con- 
 firmed that error by his miraculous agency. If they did 
 preach the Gospel, Universalism is not the Gospel, nor 
 any part of the Gospel ; for Mr. Pingree acknowledges, 
 that they did not preach Universalism ! How can the 
 gentleman escape? 
 
 But these are not the only difficulties in w^hich he has 
 involved himself. He told us, in his last speech, that Pe- 
 ter was not a Universalist, did not preach Universalism 
 until eight years after tlie day of Pentecost. Now I hold 
 in my hand a tract, of which E. M. Pingree is the au- 
 thor, in which he quotes Acts iii. 20, 21 — the second 
 sermon preached by Peter immediately after the day of 
 Pentecost, as a triumphant and unanswerable proof of the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 367 
 
 truth of Universalism ! He gives, first the passage, and 
 then his remarks upon it, as follows : 
 
 ".Universal Restitution. — And he shall send Jesus Christ, 
 which before was preached unto you ; whom the heavens must 
 receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God 
 hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the 
 world began. Acts iii. 20, 21. 
 
 Remarks. — Why in the name of wonder, is it, that men 
 will reject the doctrine of the Universal Restoration of man, 
 in face of the testimony of 'all God's holy prophets, since 
 the world began ' ] Surely men are beside themselves, and 
 know not what they do. The Lord give them light, and open 
 their eyes !" 
 
 The gentleman here asks why, in the name of wonder, 
 will men reject the doctrine of the Universal Restoration 
 of man, in the face of the testimony of all God's holy 
 prophets, since the world began ? He thinks, they must 
 be beside themselves ; and in the fervor of liis benev- 
 olence he prays that God will give them light. And yet 
 this same gentleman now admits, that at the time Peter 
 uttered these words, and for eight years afterwards, he 
 did not believe, and, of course, did not preach the Univer- 
 sal Restoration of Man ! ! ! He, of course, admits that 
 " all God's holy prophets," referred to by Peter, did not 
 preach it, and that Mr. Pingree himself, when writing this 
 Tract, was greatly in the dark ! 
 
 Is it not strange that the gentleman should have selected 
 a discourse preached by a "Partialist" — a believer in fu- 
 ture punishment — a discourse which directly refutes Uni- 
 versalism, as a triumphant proof of its truth ? Look at 
 Peter's language in the verse immediately preceding the 
 verses quoted in Mr. Pingree's Tract : " Repent ye there- 
 fore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, 
 when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence 
 of the Lord ; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which be- 
 fore was preached unto you ; whom the heavens must re- 
 ceive until the times of the restitution of all things," &c. 
 Observe, Peter called upon men to repent^ and be con- 
 verted, in order that their sins might be blotted out at 
 the time of the restitution of all things, when Christ 
 
368 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 should come. But according" to Universalism, their re- 
 pent !iir-e and converf^ion coiilJ have no influence in secur- 
 ing the blotting- out of thtnr sins at that time; for then, Mr. 
 Pmgree tel^s us, ah will be made holy aud happy, whether 
 they repented and were converted in this life or not ! 
 
 No wonder the gentleman now acknowledges, that 
 Peter was not a Universalist when he preached this ser- 
 mon ; for he most disiinctly teaches, that repentance and 
 conversion are essential to salvation. But how came he 
 so to slander Peter in his Tract ? How could he repre- 
 sent Peter as preaching Universalism, eight years before 
 he M^as a ITniversaUst, and in a discourse in which he 
 preached precisely the contrary ! How could he so per- 
 vert the phrase " restitution of all tlnngs V^ Certainly the 
 gentleman must now acknowledge that he has greatly mis- 
 represented Peter, and flady contradicted himself! 
 
 But Peter, my friend says, was converted to Univer- 
 salism by the vision recorded in Acts x., and immediately 
 he went and preached to Cornelius and his family. Doubt- 
 less the audience will feel intensely interested in examin- 
 ing Peter's first Universalist sermon. He is now a young 
 convert, in the warmth of first love, and havhig preached 
 error so long, he will now speak out plainly ! He has- 
 tened to Cornelius' house, and on hearing his account of 
 the angel's visit, " Then Peter opened his m.outh, and 
 said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of 
 persons." A pretty good beginning for a Universahst 
 sermon, you say. Let us read further: "But in every 
 nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is 
 accepted with him," verses 34, 35. Now this is indeed 
 an unpromising text from which to preach Universalism. 
 He says, not that God is no respecter of persons, and, 
 therefore, will ultimately save all men — this would have 
 been Universalism. But he says, in every nation fheij 
 who fear God and ivork righfeoiibness, (no others,) are 
 accepted with him. Why, we all believe this. 
 
 But let us read a little further : " 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 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 369 
 
 dead." Worse and worse ! What ! Christ Jesus ap- 
 pointed to judge the dead! Do Universalists beheve that 
 men are to be judged after death ? No — no. What a 
 poor Universalist Peter was, even after his remarkable 
 conversion ! But let us read again : " To him give all 
 the prophets witness" — To what do all the prophets give 
 testimony ? — that God will save all men ? No — they 
 bear witness, **that through his n^me whosoever believeth 
 in him, shall receive remission of sins,^^ verses 42, 43. 
 Verily, this is as poor a Universalist sermon as I ever 
 read. Why, even Mr. Pingree, though not an Apostle, 
 can preach better Universalism ! Observe, Peter here 
 makes faith necessary to salvation. Indeed it is impossi- 
 ble to find one Universalist sentiment in this first Univer- 
 salist sermon of Peter ! He evidently continued to preach 
 the very doctrines he held before his conversion ! 
 
 And it is not a little strange, that the other Apostles were 
 as stupid as Peter. For when they called him to account 
 for preaching to the Gentiles, and he rehearsed to them 
 all that had occurred, and, of course, how marvellously 
 he had been converted to Universalism, the inspired his- 
 torian says — " When they heard these things, they held 
 their peace, and glorified God, saying," — What did they 
 say ? — that God will save all men ? No — they " glorified 
 God, saying. Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted 
 repentance unto Jife^'' ch. xi. 18. What I converted to Uni- 
 versalism, and yet making repentance necessary to eternal 
 life ! They were quite as poor Universalists, as before 
 their conversion. I verily believe, that Peter and the 
 Apostles, if they were now here, and were to preach these 
 doctrines, would be denounced and excommunicated by all 
 real Universalists ! ' 
 
 But let us see whether Peter's Universalism improved 
 as he advanced in life. Near the close of lile, he wrote 
 his second Epistle. I will read in chap. ii. " For if 
 God spared not the angels that sinned, [mark the fact ! — 
 Universalists deny that the angels sinned,] but cast them 
 down to hell ; and delivered them into chains of darkness, 
 to be reserved unto judgment, &c. — the Lord knoweth how 
 
370 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 to deliver the ^odly out of temptations, and to reserve the 
 unjust luito the day of judgment, to be pvmished, &;c. 
 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried 
 with a tempest : to wfiom the mist of darkness is reaerv- 
 ed forever,'''' Again: ch. iii. "But the heavens and the 
 earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, 
 reserved unto fire against the day of judgment an I per- 
 dition of ungodly mcn.''^ Such was the creed of Peter, 
 when about to close his ministry on earth. Is this Uni- 
 versalism ? Does it bear any resemblance to it? Is it 
 not precisely the contrary ? 
 
 I will now pay my respects to the fifei"itlemaTi's argu- 
 ment founded on the moral law. The law, he says, re- 
 quires all man to love God with all their heart, soul, mind 
 and strenoth, and iheir neighbor as themselves; and our 
 Lord said, not one jot or tittle of the law should pass 
 away, but all should be fulfilled. Now, he argues, most 
 strangely, that if the period should never come, when all 
 men will thus love God and their fellow-men, the law 
 must pass away, and cannot be fulfilled ! Two things are 
 essential to a law, viz : reward and pencdty. Now every 
 one must see, that a law is as truly sustained and fulfilled, 
 when its penally is executed upon transgressors, as when 
 its rewards are bestowed upon those who obey it. Who 
 ever imagined, tfiat a law passes away, or is not fulfilled, 
 because some men traiisgress, and are punished ? 
 
 The Constitution and laws of these United States are 
 by many disregarded, and are likely to be thus violated 
 in future. Will the gentleman say that they have passed 
 away, wholly or in part, when men disregard their re- 
 quirements aiul are punished ? The design of law is to 
 promote the general good, by inflicting suitable punish- 
 ment on transgressors, and bestowing suitable rev/ards on 
 those who obey it. Paul says — '* The sting of death is 
 sin ; and the strength of sin is the law." The law stands 
 as firmly, and the government is as truly honored in tlie 
 infliction of just punishments, as in the bestowment of 
 suitable rewards. Every transgressor of God's law will 
 be punished, unless forgiven through Christ ; and there- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 371 
 
 fore one jot or tittle of the law will never pass away. 
 Mr. Pingree would not have offered such an argument, if 
 he had not been sorely pressed. He is too sensible a man 
 not to see that it is a mere sophism — witliout even plau- 
 sibility to recommend it. But it was that or nothing. 
 
 I pressed upon his attention that remarkable passage in 
 Heb. ix. 27, 28 : " And as it is appointed unto men once 
 to die, and after this the judgment; so Christ was once 
 offered to boar the sins of many," &c. The gentleman 
 handled this argument very tenderly. He evidently hes- 
 itated to say much about it. He dropped a few hints, 
 made a few inquiries, and left it. Perhaps he remember- 
 ed the misfortunes of poor " Pro and Con," about the i/i- 
 definite article en ! I will present fully the llniversalist 
 exposition oi' this passage, from Rev. I. D. Williamson, 
 author of " Exposition of Universalism," who is doubt- 
 less as good a linguist as Mr. Rogers, of the *' Pro and 
 Con." He says: 
 
 " If you will compare the passage, as written by the Apostle, 
 with the common quotation, you will find it materially differ- 
 ent, and even our common translation fails of giving the true 
 meaning of the original. For some reason unknown to me, 
 our translators have left out one word from the original, and 
 have not translated it at all. I allude to the article before the 
 word men ; and I have no fear of contradiction, from any man 
 who knows even the alphabet of the language, and has read 
 the Gre<='k Testament, when I say, that a faithful translation 
 would be, 'And as it is appointed unto the men (or these men,) 
 once to die, and after this the judgment,' &c. Appointed unto 
 these men once to die. What menl Look at the preceding 
 context, and you will find the answer. The Apostle was treat- 
 ing of the sacrificial death of the High Priests under the law, 
 as a type of the death of Christ, and of the judgment of the 
 children of Israel. Immediately following this typical death 
 of the High Priest, and in this passage, he draws out the 
 parallel between the two cases: — As it was appointed (in the 
 Jewish law) unto these men once to die, (figuratively, for the 
 sms of the people,) so Christ was once offered for the sins of 
 many; and as the High Priest came forth from the holiest of 
 holies, after his typical death, to judge the people and pro- 
 nounce them clean, even so should Christ come not to con- 
 demn, but without sin unto salvation," pp. 1 19, 4*20. 
 
3TZ AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Such is the learned criticism of Mr. Williams, adopted 
 also by Rogers, Whittemore and others. He tells us, the 
 article ho is before the word men; and the translation 
 ought to be — " it is appointed unto the men, or these men 
 once to die." Thus he makes the Greek article equiva 
 lent to the demonstrative pronoun, these. Now every 
 man even tolerably acquainted with the Greek language 
 knows that the Article has no such force. To convince 
 every one who hears me of the unsoundness and folly of 
 this learned criticism, I will read a few passages in which 
 the Article is used just as in the one now under conside 
 ration, and will translate the Article as Universalists say, 
 our translators ought to have rendered it here : Matt. v. 
 16— "Let your light so shine before the men, or these 
 men, {to?i anthropon^) that they may see your good 
 works," &:c. Chap. vi. 1 — "Take heed that ye do not 
 your alms before the men, or these men, to be seen of 
 them." Chap. vii. 12 — "All things whatsoever ye would 
 that the men, or these men, {hoi anthropoid) should do to 
 you, do ye even the same to them." Chap. x. 32 — 
 " Whosoever shall confess me before the men, or these 
 men, {ton anlhropon,) him will I confess," <fec. See also 
 Luke vi. 31. I could multiply examples of this kind, 
 showing how perfectly unfounded is the Universalist crit- 
 icism upon the common translation; but it is unnecessary. 
 No respectable critic will sustain it. 
 
 But what does the passage mean ? According to these 
 Universalist critics, the men who were appointed once to 
 die, were the high priests. They were appointed to die, 
 not really, but typically ; or, as Whittemore says, ^^by 
 proxy,'''' They died typically, or by proxy, when they 
 went, once a year, into the holy of holies, with the blood 
 of bulls and goats, to offer for the sins of the people ; and 
 when the high priest came out of the temple he pronoun- 
 ced the people clean, and this was the judgment after 
 death J 
 
 But it will not do to apply this death to the death by 
 proxy of the high priest ; for he went into the holy of 
 holies once every year, and, therefore, died by proxy a 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 3*y3 
 
 great many times ; whereas the Apostle says, it is ap- 
 pointed unlo men oxce to die. I think I can help them 
 to a better exposition. The goats and bullocks, whose 
 blood the priests carried into the holy place, actually died, 
 and died but once. These must have been the gentle- 
 men to whom our critics referred ! {laughter,) Yes — it 
 is even true, that Universalism can be sustained only by 
 making men of bulls and goals ! J I And why not ? It 
 makes man a m^cre animal, a material being ; and why 
 should the number of legs make any serious difference 
 between him and other animals ? So grossly, so awfully 
 is the Bible perverted from its plain, obvious, and only 
 meaning, by men pretending to be critics, whilst ignorant 
 of the simplest principles of the Greek language ; — and 
 all for the purpose of sustaining the absurdiiies of Uni- 
 versalism ! 
 
 In proof of the doctrine of futur^ punishment I quoted 
 Matt. X. 28 : " Fear not them Avhich 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 hell." The gentle- 
 man first said, the word here translated soul does not 
 mean the immortal part of man. He was asked in reply, 
 why, then, cannot man kill it ? And what becomes of it, 
 when the body is killed ? Driven from this absurd criti- 
 cism, he now says, the expression is proverbial, signify- 
 ing an entire overthrow, as when a tree is said to be de- 
 stroyed root and branch. Well, when a tree is destroy- 
 ed, root and branch, is not the whole tree entirely destroy- 
 ed ? And when the soul and body of man, the immortal 
 as well as the mortal part, are destroyed in hell, after 
 death, (as Luke says,) is not the man utterly and forever 
 ruined ? How could stronger language be employed to 
 teach the future, eternal punishment of the wicked ? 
 
 XII. My twelfth argument against Universalism, is — 
 that whilst the Gospel brings consolation to the peni" 
 tent ayid obedient, those who '^fear God and work right- 
 eoKshess,^^ Universalism comes specially to comfort the 
 wicked in their loickedness. The prophet Isaiah, speak- 
 ing in the name of Jesus, and predicting his advent, thus 
 32 
 
374 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 discourses concerning the design of his coming, and the 
 nature of his Gospel: '-The Spirit of the Lord God is 
 upon me : because the Lord hath anointed me to preach 
 good tidings unto the meek ; he hath sent me to bind up 
 the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, 
 and the opening of the prison to them that are bound ; to 
 proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of 
 vengeance of our God ; to comfort all that mourn ; to 
 appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them 
 beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment 
 of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be 
 called trees of righteousness, the planiing of the Lord, 
 that he might be glorified," chsp. Ixi. 1-3. Compare 
 with this, Luke iv. 16. From these and other passages 
 we learn, that the ^Gospel offers consolation and joy 
 only to those who repent, and turn to God, and thus 
 become "Trees of Righteousness." It says — "Let the 
 wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
 thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will 
 have mercy upon Irtm: and to our God, for he will 
 abundantly pardon," Isai. Iv. 7. The Gospel is,~ indeed, 
 "glad tidings of great joy unto all people;" but it is tid- 
 ings of .salvation only on condition that the wicked for- 
 sake his way, and return to the Lord. 
 
 Bnt Universalism says to the most ungodly, to the 
 drunkard, the debauchee, the liar, the oppressor, the mur- 
 derer — to all the wicked who are resolved to persevere 
 in their iniquities, even to death ; to all of them it says, 
 "It shall be vv^ell with you; fear not. In the repurrec- 
 tion you shall stand amongst prophets, apostles, martyrs, 
 and saints, and wear a crown as briglit as theirs !" Paul 
 fought tb.e good fight, finished his course, kept the faith ; 
 but Universalism says, all this shall be of no advantage 
 to him in the next world! The greatest villain shall be 
 in a condition as desirable as he! 
 
 Thus, instead of calling on men to love God, and lay 
 up treasures in heaven, it discourages the righteous by 
 assuring them that all their labor, toil and suffering in the 
 cause of truth and righteousness, is vain, so far as eter- 
 
OF UNIVERSALI8M. 375 
 
 nity is concerned. It encourages the wicked to perse- 
 vere in sin, by assuring him that he will suffer only in 
 this world; and wickedness will take him as far towards 
 heaven and eternal felicity, as obedience of God's law 
 and zeal for the Gospel of Christ! 
 
 We, it is true, hold, that even the thief on the cross 
 may be pardoned, if penitent ; but we assure all men, as 
 does the Gospel, that the longer they persevere in sin, 
 the less hope there is, that they will break their evil 
 habits, and turn to God. [77me expired. 
 
 [mR^ PINGREE*8 NINETEENTH SPEECH.] 
 
 My respected Auditors — The question before us is 
 this — " Do the Scriptures teach the ultimaJe holiness and 
 salvation of all men?^^ I affirm ; Mr. Rice denies. I 
 have presented my arguments, a few at a time, in order 
 that he might have an opportunity to examine them all 
 fully, and set them aside, if possible. I now present 
 another argument, which I have alluded to before, but 
 which he has not noticed ; and will not, I presume, unless 
 I name it as a distinct proof. It is the declaration of the 
 Apostle Jolm, that '• God is Love ;" that Love is his very 
 nature and essence, 8o that-liis name is Love. If tliisbe 
 a fact, then it follows that all God's attributes are the 
 attributes of Love; that Love is the guiding, motive prin- 
 ciple of all his attributes. His mercy is the mercy of 
 Love ; his justice the justice of Love ; his vengeance 
 the vengeance of Love ; his power the power of Love, 
 and his WISDOM the wisdom of Love; — all centering in 
 the boundless Ocean of Love — all arising from the infinite 
 Source of Love ! The result is the final purification and 
 blessedness of all men. How different is this from the 
 character ascribed to God, by Calvinism ! — a Being who 
 created men according to his own will, with a certain de- 
 termination to damn tliem to all eternity ! 'i'he natural 
 consequence of the true character of God is to reconcile 
 all his intelligent creatures to himself — to gather them in- 
 to the fold of Christ — to bless them, and cause them to 
 come to Christ — to return to God — that Himself may be 
 
376 AN ORAL DISCITSSION 
 
 all in all ! This is all reasonable, and what we shouW 
 naturally expect from the revealed nature of God, which 
 is Love, the foundation of all his attributes, "'as it is the 
 very essence of his being. But look at the opposite pic- 
 ture, as drawn by Calvinism : " By the decree of God, 
 for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels 
 are predestiiiated unto everlasting life, and others forkor- 
 DAiNED TO EVERLASTING death /" Oonfessiou of Faith, 
 page 16. God foreordains whatever comes to pass. He 
 determines what the ultimate destiny of men shall be, be- 
 fore they are created. He reprobates some to endless 
 damnation. So reads the Confession, page 19: "The 
 rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the un- 
 searchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth 
 and withholdeth mercy as he pleaseih, for the glory of his 
 sovereign power over his creatures, /o pass by and to or- 
 dain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise 
 of his glorious justice !" Yet he formed them with a per- 
 fect knowledge that they iiwuld sin, and so be damned, 
 endlessly ; and consequently created them on purpose to 
 be damned ! And look at the great evil of that damna- 
 tion. Infinite, unutterable, remediless torment! — as great 
 as Almighty God can inflict, or a created being endure in 
 Hell ! ! GoD is Love— -his nature itself is Love ; and yet 
 he reprobates from all eternity, some of his creatures to 
 endless, unutterable damnation ! Listen to the language 
 of Vincent, in his work on Christ's Sudden Appearance 
 to Judgment, page 133, (Edition of 1667): "He will glor 
 rify his infinite wisdom in the punishment of the damned, 
 which will contrive such tortures for them [Oh mark ! 
 this is God, the Father of our spirits ; the God of liOVE,] 
 that if all the men in the world should jo/??. their wVs to- 
 gether and take to their help all the Devils in Hell, 
 they could not invent the like : dreadful ingredients will 
 his wisdom find out to pour into the cup which he will 
 put into the hands of the wicked to drink." Such tor- 
 ture as Devils could not invent, God inflicts eternally on 
 the spirits of which he is the Father!! Such is the 
 doctrine opposed to Universalism — that heavenly and 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 37t 
 
 sublime Faith, which arises out of the very nature of 
 God! 
 
 Why, if the doctrine of endless damnation were tnie, 
 it should not be difficult to find in the Bible. It should 
 be so plain that all could see it at once. It should be 
 written upon the heavens in letters of fire — Eternal tor- 
 ment for the wicked! It should be traced in siorns upon 
 the sky above — Etenial torment for the wicked ! The 
 Sun in his course shoidd reveal it to every eye — Eternal 
 torment for the wicked ! The spirits of the dead should 
 cry out to us — Eternal torment for the wicked! Every 
 footstep of every man should echo it — Eternal torment 
 for the wicked ! Voices in heaven and eardi should ut- 
 ter it forth aloud to every ear — Eternal torment for the 
 wicked ! ! If God designed it to be revealed in his Gos- 
 pel to man, it should be spoken abroad upon the winds, 
 seen in the vivid lightning's fiash, and uttered i!i thunder 
 voices of nature herself, that at every footfall of man he 
 might pause to listen to his doom — Eternal torment 
 FOR the wicked ! ! And then, horror of horrors ! they 
 are such torments, to be endured endlessly, as all the 
 Devils in Hell could not invent — ^reserved for those Whom 
 God has predestined to be damned! If this were the 
 truth, it should be so plainly told, that no man could fail 
 to see it. Yet there are thousands Avho cannot see it at 
 all, though they have examined the Bible most carefully, 
 to see if it be there. The Orthodox themselves cannot 
 find it there, so as to convince us of its truth. Yet they 
 expect such damnation to be inflicted on hum:m souls. 
 V/hat are we to think? In the name of reason, how can 
 the Church of God believe such doctrines ? Upon what 
 principle are such horrible dogmas held, in preference to 
 the high, the holy, the sublime Fsith, that God designs to 
 bless the whole human family, and through Jesus Christ 
 to bring them finally to a state of holiness and happiness? 
 
 J will now present another argument ; which must be 
 
 my last; because in my next speech, the only one left 
 
 me, I must recapitulate ; and by the rules of the discus 
 
 eion, shall not be allowed to ofl?er any new arguments. 
 
 32* 
 
3^8 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Nor shall I have time to reply to any new arguments 
 which my friend may advance in his next speech. He 
 knows this ; and if he presents any new arguments, he 
 will do it with the knowledge that I shall have no time to 
 notice them. I do not refer to any exposition he may 
 give of my arguments; but to new arguments, which he 
 may advance on his side. 
 
 I say, then, that the fact of the destruction of all 
 THE ENEMIES OF MAN, by Jesus Christ, affords us the 
 ground for our belief in final universal salvation. And 
 first, we have the assurance that sin, the great enemy of 
 the human race, the curse of the soul on earth, is to be 
 destroyed. We were "made subject to vanity" and sin — 
 But John the Baptist, looking at Jesus, cried, " Behold 
 the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the 
 WORLD." Jesus Christ, it is said, " wns manifested that 
 he might destroy the works of the Devil ^ Of course, 
 he was to destroy Sin. We are taught by Paul, that " ev* 
 ery man's work shall be tried," etc.; and that if his 
 works be destroyed, " he shall suffer loss ; but he himself 
 shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." Sin is the first ene- 
 my ; and that shall be destroyed, by all becoming right- 
 eous. It shall not therefore exist in the life to come. 
 "The sting of death is sin," says Paul; but death sliali 
 /o5e its sting; for the Apostle exclaims, in reference to 
 the resurrection of all men to glory, " O death ! where is 
 thy sting ?" Consequently, there will be no Sin in the 
 immortal world! 
 
 Again ; the Devil is to be destroyed. Mr. Rice quo- 
 ted Matt. XXV. 41, that speaks of punishment in everlast- 
 ing fire, prepared for the Devil, as proof of endless mis- 
 ery. I have quoted a passage, in which a certain man 
 was to be delivered over to Satan, according to the "judg- 
 ment" of Paul ; and this suffering was endured in the 
 present life. Such language does not relate to a future 
 life. There is no " everlasting fire" in the incorruptible 
 spiritual state. In proof of the final des'rucfion of tlie 
 Devil, I quote Heb. ii. 14, 15. It is not necessary to stop 
 now, and explain what is meant by " the Devil ;" wheth- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 379 
 
 er a fallen angelic spirit, or not. Whatever the Devil 
 may be, he shall be destroyed. Now listen : " Forasmuch 
 then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 
 himself [Christ] likewise took part of the same, that 
 through death he might destroy him that had the power 
 of death, that is, the Devil; [What else?] and deliver 
 [this word is equivalent to "salvation" in our proposi- 
 tion ;] them, who through fear of death, were all their 
 lifetime subject to bondage." The Apostle does not sayv 
 deliver those who are subject to bondage a part of their 
 life, and become believers before they die ; but those who 
 are all their lifetime subject to bondage. Thus the 
 Devil is to be destroyed ; and all are to be delivered out 
 of his power, and out of the power of death* 
 
 If we are to believe that 'Uhe serpent ^^ that tempted 
 Eve was the Devil, I will quote another passage, to con- 
 firm the truth of this doctrine. God said to our first pa* 
 rents, ** The Seed of the woman [Christ] shall bruise 
 the serpent'' s heacL** If that relates to the Devil, whom 
 the Orthodox bring into the future world, he is to be de- 
 stroyed — his head bruised. But I suppose " the serpent" 
 there represents the evil passions of human nature, or the 
 common tempting influence. Whatever the word may 
 mean, the serpent shall be destroyed ! But how docs 
 this compare with the doctrine that the Devil is to have a 
 kingdom, forever, embracing more souls than Heaven it- 
 self? — a kingdom, greater and more mighty than that of 
 God, the Creator of all souls ; and that, too, in spile of 
 all the efforts of God ; in spite of the sufl^erings and death 
 of Jesus Christ; and in spite of the sanctifying influences 
 of the Holy Spirit ! How does this compare with those 
 declarations in reference to the destruction of the Devil, 
 and all evil influences ? 
 
 Hence, we see that the 25th of Matt,, with its Devil 
 and its angels, and its everlasting fire, does not and cannot 
 relate to the future state of being — an almost almighty 
 Devil, and endless woe. 
 
 Again : we have the destruction of Hell, or the grave, 
 — Hades. The Prophet Hosea, (chap. xiii. ver. 14,) or 
 
380 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the Lord by the Prophet, says — " O death ! I will be tby 
 plagues ; 6 grave ! I will be thy destruction." The 
 word here translated ''grave'' is rendered Hell, in the 
 passages that speak of "the wicked being turned into 
 Hell, and the place where the Rich Man went^— Hades ; 
 (although used figuratively in those places.) So Paul, in 
 1 Cor. XV. says, "O death ! where is thy sting? O grave! 
 — HaJes — Hell— where is tliy victory ?" Here we have 
 the destruction of that Hell; all being raised to the incor- 
 ruptible, immortal, glorious state. I now put this inqui- 
 ry: Can we suppose that the resurrection of the dead 
 would cause the Apostle to exult in this language: "O 
 death! where is thy sting? O grave! (Hades,) where is 
 THY VICTORY?" if Hadcs weve the Orthodox Hell, and 
 to retain its victory forever. Tiie cry would come forth 
 from the pit of despair, — the mingled shouts of demons 
 and devils, and the yells of the damned,~/r<?re.' — here 
 is our victory forever ! ! This \\ould be the answer to 
 the Apostle's exultation. But this Hell has no such vic- 
 tory ; for destruction awaits all the enemies of man. 
 
 Again; Death itself is to be destroyed. See 1 Cor, 
 XV. 25, " For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies 
 under his feet*'' The last enemy that shall be destroyed 
 is Death, (or, the last enemy shnll be destroyed, l)ea;.h.) 
 And so it is said elsewhere, '^Dea^h is swallowed up iii 
 victory." I wish yen to mark this ; that Death is the 
 LAST ENEMY. Thcrc fS uo cneiuy beyond that: and it is 
 to be destroyed at the resurrection. The Apostle Paul 
 calls it " the last enemy." There can be no Death, no 
 Sin, no Hell, in the immortal world; because Death is the 
 last enemy; and that shall be destroyed. Paul refers to 
 Isa. XXV. 8, where the Prophet says, "He will swallow 
 up death in victory ; [Paul speaks of this ; — but what 
 more then?] and the Lord God will wipe away 
 TEARS FROM OFF ALL PACES; and thc rcbukc of his peo- 
 ple shall he take away from off all the earth: for the 
 Lord hath spoken it." Here we have the destruction of 
 all the enemies of man — Sin, the Devil, the grave or Hell, 
 and finally Death, " the last," " when tears shall be 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 381 
 
 wiped away from off all faces." I ask you, in view of 
 all this testimony, is it not clearly established, that there is 
 to be a deliverance of man from all his enemies^ introdu- 
 cing all men into a state of liberty and blessedness ? 
 
 I now leave the argument ; and proceed to review the 
 speech just delivered. The first observation of the gen- 
 tl^nan, was upon classical usage and Lexicons. To a 
 certain extent 1 do not go against Lexicons, except where 
 they give Orthodox, instead of Scripture meanings to 
 words ; and in this I follow the example of Mr. Rice, in 
 his Debate with Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell said, and 
 proved by all the Lexicons, that the Greek word baptizo 
 meant to immerse, Mr. Rice said. Not so ; but that it 
 meant, in the New Testament, to purifi/. So I say with 
 regard to the word Gehenna; which is defined in Ortho- 
 dox Lexicons, to be a place of endless damnation. I say 
 that the Bible does not attach to it that meaning of Hell, 
 in the Orthodox sense — Lexicons to the contrary notwith- 
 standing. Lexicons profess to be compiled from usage ; 
 and they must be tried by usage. Lexicons may lead 
 us greatly into error. Take, for example, an English 
 Lexicon — Webster or Johnson, and look for the word 
 Hell ; what will be the definition ? " the place of the 
 damned/^ Am I to receive that as authority on a Bible 
 question ? Never. I trust you see, that while showing the 
 Scripture use of words, it is all-sufl[icient to refer to '.he 
 Bible itself. I did not come here to occupy my- time in 
 a mere logomachy. But I have produced text after text, 
 to show the meaning of words in tlie Scriptures. The 
 true course is to ascertain the meaning of Bible words, 
 by comparing passages together, and showing how they 
 are used. We can do tliat as well as Lexicographers. 
 I have perused the Discussion between Mr. Rice and Mr. 
 Campbell. I think they used some forty Lexicons. 
 What did they establish ? Mr. Rice did not find one de- 
 fining baptizo to mean purify — the signification he at- 
 tached to it. 
 
 I now take another argument out of the hands of Mr. 
 Rice. In the first part of Revelation, the angel shows 
 
382 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 John what he said was " shortly to come to pass ; and 
 at the close, he told him that " the time was at ha:ad^' 
 when all these things should come to pass, which were 
 foretold in that Book. Most of the events of that vision, 
 I have no doubt, relate to the same things that the Sav- 
 iour speaks of in Matt, xxiv., xxv., all of which were to 
 come to pass in that generation. In Revelation, the 
 New Jerusalem spoken of by my friend, is described as 
 " coming down from God, out of heaven !" Does that 
 refer to the immortal world ? It does not: for even the 
 Orthodox do not always so understand it. The Holy 
 City coming down from God out of heaven, could not 
 be heaven itsefl 
 
 I now revert to another argument of the gentleman ; 
 w^hich he says is the best argument he had, and which, 
 he tells us, he got from me : to wit, Peter's conversion to 
 Universalism* He says that Universalism teaches that all 
 men are clean. No ; nor did I say so. I said it was the 
 purpose of God to cleanse all men, as represented in 
 Peter's vision of the great sheet. He says that I repre- 
 sented Peter as preaching the Gospel eight years before 
 he was converted to Universalism. I ask if Mr. Rice 
 himself will deny that Peter did preach the Gospel at a 
 time when he did not understand its whole teachings ? 
 and will he say that Jesus Christ did 7iot say to him, 
 "When thou art converted, ^ixengihen thy brethren?" 
 Mr. Rice admitted that Peter was in error about the 
 Gospel, Avhen he refused to preach to the Gentiles. 
 Why, then, does he deny his being in error in the other 
 case 1 The prophets of old, and the disciples also, uttered 
 some things they did not fully understand and compre- 
 hend themselves. So in this ca?e ; the Gentiles were to 
 he embraced in the- Gospel, as Mr. Rice admits; tiut 
 Peter did not then know it. Why should it seem 
 strange, then, that he should have preached the Gospel 
 truly, though he did wot fully understand all the fullness, 
 and the universality, and its revelations ! Peter did not 
 err in relation to the nature of the Gospel _; it was only 
 in relation to its extent — and Mr. Rice concedes as much. 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 383 
 
 There is a passage in Peter, as my friend quotes, de- 
 scribing some angels as bouxd in everlasting cliaiyis un- 
 der darkness ; does this refer to the Devil ? Well, if he 
 is thus '''houndr how can he be wandering over the eartli, 
 tempting you and me, and all men? Is it the same? We 
 want a fuller explanation. 
 
 Mr. Rice has referred to those passages that speak of 
 the heavens and earth passing away, etc. : as in Peter, 
 and in the Book of Revelation. All such language repre- 
 sents only changes on earth. It was the custom of the 
 Prophets to employ strong metaphorical language, drawn 
 from the heavens, to describe those events which were 
 about to happen on earth, in the overthrow of rulers and 
 empires. In Isa. xxxiv. 4, 5, we find this strong language 
 applied to the overdirow and desolation of Idumea, — all 
 fulfilled on earth : " And all the host of heaven shall be 
 dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a 
 scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth 
 off from the vine, and as a falling Jig from the fig-tree. 
 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven : behold, it shall 
 come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my 
 curse, to judgment." No one will pretend that this pas- 
 sage refers to the destruction of the material universe. 
 Why interpret Peter, and Malt, xxiv., and the Book of 
 Rev. differendy ? 
 
 My argument from the law, to love God, did not refer 
 to the passing away, but to the fidjilhnent of the law. I 
 said that all would finally love God, and that then this law 
 would be fulfilled. 
 
 Universalists confess that those who sin are miserable', 
 and jusdy so; but deny what Calvinism teaches: to wit: 
 that God has predestined some to an endless Hell. 
 They do not sink the soul deeper in the pit of darkness, 
 as does the Confession, — reprobating men to everlasting 
 damnation, placing them under the "outward ministry of 
 the word," giving them only " common operations " of 
 the Spirit, enough to leave them '^inexcifsaijle,^^ but not 
 euflficient to enable them to comply with the requirements 
 of the law. They cannot turn to heaven and be saved : 
 
384 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 they are not able to avail themselves of the offer of the 
 Gospel, because they are reprobated ; and the " opera- 
 tion " of the Spirit on them is not "effectual" to bring 
 them to Christ ! O, solemn mockery ! thus to offer sal- 
 vation ! to call men, and to give " some common opera- 
 tions " of the Spirit to those whom God has reprobated 
 to everlasting death ! Look at that, in connection with 
 his remarks about Universalism " preaching to comfort 
 sinners,'^'' What does Paul say ? That Jesus Christ came 
 to save the righteous? No; Paul says, and the Saviour 
 affirmed the same, that he came to " save sinners \ — of 
 whom I am the chief," he adds. Saul, and Peter, and 
 David were great sinners; and yet God saved them. 
 Why not, then, save others ? — ^^all others ? David was 
 called a murderer; Peter denied his master; and Saul per- 
 secuted the Christian church ; — yet all these were saved. 
 In like manner I say that all^ sinners may be saved; that 
 is, by being made righteous. They are not saved in 
 their sins ; they are not taken in their corruption up to 
 heaven ; but they are first purified and reconciled to God. 
 Can there be any objection to this sentiment, in view of 
 all the light thrown upon it by the Scriptures of Truth ? 
 
 [Time expired, 
 [mr. rice's nineteenth reply.] 
 I wonder what my friend, Mr. Pingree, would do, if it 
 were not for the Confession of Faith ! ' AVe have had the 
 same paragraphs read, and the same remarks made upon 
 them, I should think, more than twenty times, since the 
 commencement of this discussion ! He must suppose 
 that the audience have wretched memories, or little sense ; 
 or he has nothing better to offer. One of these reasons 
 must influence him to his singular course. If a man were 
 to say to me the same thing, as frequently as he has given 
 the same quotations from the Confession, Avith the same 
 remarks repeated, I should suppose, he thought me 
 stultified. But let us admit, that the Confession is an 
 erroneous, an abominable, a horrible book, and say, 
 therefore the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and 
 salvation of all men ! Premises and conclusion ! 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 385 
 
 The gentleman, in all his declamations, labors under 
 one serious difficulty — he knows nothing about Calvin- 
 ism. He has been convicted of the grossest misrepre- 
 sentations in regard to some of its most prominent doc- 
 trines. He agreed to stand corrected ; and he represents 
 his acknowledgment of his blunder as a stretch of mag- 
 nanimity which I am incapable of appreciating. But, in 
 the first place, he had boastingly informed us, that he had 
 carefully studied our Confession two yewrSy and under- 
 stood it much better than Presbyterians themselves ! And 
 in the second place, he stood corrected, after his ignor- 
 ance had been so severely exposed, that he could not do 
 otherwise. I certainly feel under no obligations to him 
 for his acknowledgment, made under such circumstances. 
 
 He tells you, that according to the Confession, those 
 not elected to life, are not permitted to turn and serve 
 God. The Confession teaches no such thing; let the gen- 
 tleman prove it, if he can. The Confession, as I have 
 proved, teaches that every man is a free moral agent, and 
 that the great difficulty with men is that of which the 
 Saviour spoke, *' Ye will not come unto me that ye might 
 have life^^ John v. The Confession teaches, that men 
 cannot obtain life unless they will come to Christ ; and 
 so teaches the Saviour. Universalism says, they will have 
 life, whether they come to him, or not. The Confession 
 and the Saviour are together ;• and Universalism is against 
 ^oth ! I hope, the gentleman will read those paragraphs 
 a few more times, if he feels like it. 
 
 Xni. My thirteenth argument against Universalism is, 
 that it is not only dangerous, but cruel, in the highest 
 degree, for any man to teach or preach it, however firm' 
 ly persuaded of its truth. Thfs proposition may strike 
 toe audience as very strange ; but I think, I can prove it 
 to be strictly true. In the first place, if Universalism be 
 true, it is certain that all men wiH be saved, whether they 
 believe it or not, whether they oppose it and contemn it 
 or not. If it be true, it is admitted, that in the future 
 state we shall all be quite as liappy as the Universalists 
 themselves. In the second place, " the Partialists," as 
 33 
 
386 AN ORAL rnscussioN 
 
 the gentleman calls us, are getting along pretty well in 
 this world. The shouting Methodist feels quite as hap- 
 py as the Universalist. The demure Presbyterian en- 
 joys many sublime meditations and soul-cheering hopes. 
 The Episcopalian pours forth thanksgiving as well a» 
 supplications over his Prayer-book ; and the Baptist de- 
 voutly sings the songs of Zion. So far as man can judge, 
 we are all, to say the least, as happy as the Universalists. 
 And it Avill not be denied, that the members of other 
 churches are quite as moral in their general conduct, as 
 just in their dealings, as blameless in their lives, as kind 
 neighbors, even more zealous and liberal in giving the 
 Bible to those who have it not, and in sending the Gos- 
 pel to the heathen. What great practical advantage, then, 
 would be gained by converting them to the Universalist 
 faith ? If it be true, they are quite as safe, as the Uni- 
 versalists themselves. 
 
 But look at the other side. Supposfe Universalisra 
 turns out to be false ; how stands the matter ? Why, 
 those who embrace it, are deeply injured — ruined ! They 
 build upon a foundation of sand ; and when the rains de- 
 scend, and the floods come, and the winds blow, their 
 h(^se will fall, and great will be the fall. 
 
 Now what are the probabilities in the case ? Univer 
 salists, as well as ourselves, are fallible men ; they may 
 be in error. Suppose, for illustration, you put a book 
 into the hands of one hundred men — all equally capable 
 of understanding its contents, and all equally interested 
 in understanding it correctly ? This book, we will sup 
 pose, is designed distinctly to teach some prominent truth, 
 in which they are all deeply and equally interested. They 
 all examine the book carefully. Ninety-nme agree in 
 expressing their clear conviction, that it teaches a certain 
 truth ; one, insists, that it teaches precisely the opposite. 
 Who is probably right ? The chances are as ninety-nin^ 
 to one. It is almost certain that the one is wrong. Let 
 us increase the number to one tho7/sand. Nine hundred 
 and ninety-nine agree, concerning the contents of the 
 book ; but the one is confident, not only that they are all 
 
OF UNIVER8ALISM. 387 
 
 ♦frong, but that the book was designed to teach a truth 
 precisely opposite. Now the chances are as nine hun- 
 dred and ninety-nine to one. Increase the number to ten 
 thousand. All are equally qualified and equally interest- 
 ed in understanding the book correctly. Again, all but 
 one agree concerning its contents. Now the chances are 
 as nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine to one ! 
 It is reduced almost to a perfect certainty, tliat llie one is 
 in error. 
 
 This last supposition presents about a fair illustration 
 of the case in hand. The Bible is the book. All its 
 readers arc equally interested in understanding it correct- 
 ly ; and it will not bo protended by the gentleman, that 
 the Universal is ts, as a body, are better qualified to ascer- 
 tain its meaning, than those who diflfer from them. And 
 the relative numbers of those who have believed in the 
 future, eternal punishment of the wicked, are, I venture 
 to say, as one to ten thousand of the readers of the Bible ! 
 Now I ask any man, in his senses, whether the Univer- 
 salists are not almost certainly wrong, judging now only 
 from the probabilities of the case ? 
 
 Look at the subject fairly and candidly. If the Uni- 
 versalists are right, all are safe, whether they believe or 
 reject Universalism; and all seem, at least, to do about 
 as well in this world. If they are wrong, those who em- 
 brace it are ruined fi)rever. There are nine thousand nine 
 hundred and ninety-nine chances to one that Universalism 
 is fiilse. How awful the responsibility of the man, who, 
 depending on his own fallible judgment, after a few months 
 or a few years of examination, will venture to persuade 
 his fellow-men to embrace a system of religion declared 
 to be false by a majority so overwhelming, of men equal- 
 ly or more capable of ascertaining the meaning of the 
 Scriptures ; when, if it be true, all are safe ; if false, all 
 whom he influenees to embrace it, are forever undone ! 
 
 Allow me to present the subject in another form, which, 
 I am persuaded, must reach the understanding and the 
 heart of every one who hears me — especially of every 
 parent. Your child, we will suppose, is ill. It is very 
 
aOO AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 dear to you ; and you are inexpressibly anxious, if pos- 
 sible, to save its life. You call in one hundred physi- 
 cians, whom you regard as equally acquainted with the 
 medical science, equally skillful practitioners. Ninety- 
 nine agree, in regard to the general treatment of the case, 
 and assure you, that by pursuing a certain course, your 
 child will certainly recover. One of them insists, that a 
 different course is decidedly preferable. He acknowledges 
 that it will certainly recover its health under the treatment 
 prescribed by the other physicians ; and he even asserts, 
 that it will get well without taking medicine of any kind. 
 He proposes to give it medicine, which, he says, will 
 either cure or kill it. He feels very confident, however, 
 it will effect a cure more speedily than the course pre- 
 prescribed by the ninety and nine. They, to a man, as- 
 sert that his medicine will most certainly kill your child. 
 Let me ask every father and mother in the house, what 
 would you do in such a case? Would you not, without 
 the least hesitation, refuse to follow the piescription of 
 07ie physcian, against the solemn advice of the ninety- 
 nine? Would it not l>e the very refinement of cruelty, 
 to give the dose to your child ? Every one answers, 
 yes — yes ! 
 
 Apply the illustration to the case in hand. You, I will 
 suppose, are a confirmed Universalist. You have chil- 
 dren who look to you for instruction, and whose confiding 
 minds readily receive your sentiments. Now, you un- 
 derstand the Bible to teach Universalism ; but more than 
 a thousand, perhaps ten thousand, to one of those equally, 
 many of them better, qualified to understand it, and equal- 
 ly interested in understanding it correctly, are as firmly 
 persuaded, after long and careful examination, that it teach- 
 es future rewards and punishments. A thousand chances 
 to one you are in error — serious, dangerous error. If 
 you should be in the right, it is certain that your children 
 are safe — tliey will be forever happy, whether they believe 
 Universalism or reject it. If you should be wrong, and 
 should induce them to embrace your views, you do them 
 an irreparable injury. Now, will you so far rely on your 
 
OF UMlVfiRSALlSM. 389 
 
 fallible judgment, against that of so many equally or more 
 wise, and take the responsibility of teaching your child- 
 ren Universalist sentiments? Wdl you give them the 
 dose ? 
 
 I declare most solemnly, if I were a Universalist in 
 sentiment, I would not, for the world, influence one hu- 
 man being to embrace my sentiments. I would never tell 
 my children that I held such views. Why should I ? If 
 my views were correct, my children are perfectly safe ; if 
 false, they will be ruined by embracing them. Why 
 should I risk so much for nothing ? How could I do so 
 without being chargeable with both presumption and 
 cruelty? 
 
 To prove that all men will be ultimately holy and hap- 
 py, Mr. Pingree quotes t!ie text — " God is love." A.nd 
 he tells us, all the attributes of God are attributes of love. 
 His justice is the justice of love, &c. Does he forget 
 that Paul says — ** Our God is a consuming fire,'' Heb. 
 xii. 29. Are we thence to infer, that all his attributes are 
 the attributes of consuming fire, of vindictive justice ? — 
 that his truth, his mercy, his love are attributes of con- 
 suming fire? Certainly not. The folly of such an in- 
 terpretation of Scripture language is perfectly manifest. 
 We understand by these two passages taken in connection, 
 that God is as just as he is benevolent — infinitely just, in- 
 finitely benevolent ; and therefore as determined to punisn 
 the wicked, as to bless the righteous. Universalists, I 
 know, explain the language to mean, that the^re of love 
 consumes sin, and makes all happy ; but the language and 
 the context prove this a mere quibble. Besides, this 
 interpretation would poorly explain what the same Apos- 
 tle declares — that " it is a terrible thing to fall into the 
 hands of the living God." And again : " For we must 
 all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every 
 one may receive the things done in his body, according to 
 that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing 
 therefore the terror of the Lord^ we persuade men^ 2 
 Cor. V. 10, 11. True, God is love ; for " he so loved the 
 world, that he gave his onlv begotten Son ; that whosO' 
 33* 
 
AN ORAL DISCTTSSION 
 
 ever believeth in him, might not perish, but have ever- 
 lasting lifey 
 
 Mr. Pingree gives us much yiews concerning the liews 
 of the Orthodox. He tells us, the Orthodox believe, or for- 
 merly believed, that the Devil will have much the larger 
 portion of the liuman race — a larger Kingdom than Christ. 
 I thought I knew something of the views of the Ortho- 
 dox; but I find myself greatly at fault. I was not aware 
 that they had undertaken to determine what number or 
 proportion of the human race were to be saved. Cer- 
 tainly to do so, would be presumption. So far as I know, 
 God has given us no definite information on this subject. 
 A certain man asked the Saviour — " Are there few that 
 be saved?" But instead of gratifying his curiosity, he 
 said to him, '* Strive to enter in at the strait gait ; for many, 
 I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be 
 able," Luke xiii. 23, 24. Again — " Enter ye in at the 
 strait gate ; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that 
 leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in 
 thereat, because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way 
 that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," Matt. 
 vii. 13, 14. The Saviour did not mean, I suppose, that 
 few would be saved before the end of time, but that few, 
 at that time, walked the narrow way of life. He, how- 
 ever, earnestly exhorted those whom he addressed, to 
 strive earnestly, to labor to enter in at the strait gate, lest 
 they should fail of salvation. But Universalism says, all 
 shall enter into life, vvhether they strive or not — thus di- 
 rectly contradicting Christ ! 
 
 It may be possible that some erratic genius may have 
 ventured to calculate how many \n'\\\ be saved ; but I have 
 met with none such. But where is there a respectable 
 writer of any Evangelical denomination, v/ho has given 
 the gentleman ^hy just ground for his assertion ? I know 
 of none. I venture to hope, and believe, that the large 
 majority of the human family will be saved — the majority 
 of those who shall have existed when the w^ord shall end ; 
 but I pretend not to know. 
 
 The gentleman says, death is to be destroyed. Yes, 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 391 
 
 temporal death ; for the passage he quoted (1 Ccr. xv.) is 
 admitted to refer to it ; but it is nowhere said, that " the 
 second death " will be destroyed. 
 
 Hell or Hades, too, he tells us, is to be destroyed. 
 Y"es, but it is nowhere said, that Gehenna (the proper 
 word for hell) will be destroyed. But our Lord did say, 
 that God can destroy the wicked, soul and body, in hell — 
 in Gehenna. They are the enemies that are to be sub- 
 dued, put under the feet of the King of Heaven. 
 
 Here again, we meet with one of the peculiarities of 
 Universalist interpretation of Scripture. When the Bible 
 teaches, that the Devil, and Death, and Hades will be de- 
 stroyed, the Universalists understand it of entire destruc- 
 tion ; but when it teaches, that the wicked will be de- 
 stroyed in hell, after death, they still insist, that thoy will 
 all be saved ! 
 
 But if eternal punishment is the doctrine of the Bible, 
 says the gentleman, it ought not to be obscurely taught ; 
 it should be so plainly revealed, that all could see it. 
 Well, for 1800 years, almost every reader of the Bible 
 did see in it the doctrine of future punishment; and almost 
 all, during that period and since, have understood it to teach 
 the eternity of future punishment. Even Origen, in the 
 3d century, though by the aid of a most absurd philoso- 
 phy, and the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, 
 he sought to maintain ultimate restoration, yet held to a 
 long period of future suffering, in the case of those dying 
 in sin. And Murray, the first Universalist preacher of 
 the Restorationist school, in this country, believed, the 
 Scriptures taught that the wicked would suffer in Hell, 
 during a long, but indefinite period. The first man, so far 
 as I can learn, (except that other man named by Mr. Pin- 
 gree,) who could see no future punishment in the Bible, 
 was Hosea Ballon, yet living ! But since he made this 
 discovery, his followers can see, as clear as light, that 
 the Bible teaches no future punishment ! 
 
 But if the doctrine of eternal punishment be not taught 
 in the Bible, how shall we account for the fact that men 
 have almost universally thought, they found it there ! 
 
392 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Is it not most unaccountable, that, notwithstanding the 
 general disposition of men to overrate their virtues, and un- 
 derrate their vices, and notwithstanding the universal desire 
 of men to have their future prospects bright ; this doctrine 
 has so generally and almost universally commanded the 
 belief of men — even of the wicked? **0h," said one, 
 the ottier day, " I wish Universalism were true; I would 
 live as I please ; but it cannot be proved." There is a 
 deeply seated conviction upon the minds of men, that they 
 do not suffer in this life, as much as their sins deserve. 
 The whole world. Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, have be- 
 lieved in future punishment, and even in eternal pun- 
 ishment. This fact can be accounted for only on the 
 ground, that men are conscious of deserving more than 
 they here suffer, and that the Scriptures teach the doc- 
 trine of future punishment, with almost irresistible clear- 
 ness. 
 
 But if Universalism be true, especially if it be, as the 
 gentleman contends, the great truth the Bible was design- 
 ed to teach ; ought it not to be taught with very great 
 clearness ? And if it is thus clearly taught, how can he 
 account for th^ unaccountable fact, that during eighteen 
 hundred years so extremely few of the readers of the 
 Bible ever saw even Restorationism in it, and only two 
 men saw Universalism as now held and defended by Mr. 
 Pingree! How can we account for the amazing stupidi- 
 ty of all Christendom, for so long a period ? 
 
 The gentleman attempts to extricate himself from the 
 terrible difficulty into which his admission concerning 
 Peter, threw him. Peter, he said, was converted to Uni- 
 versalism, after he had been preaching the Gospel, as an 
 inspired Apostle, for eight years ! He now says, Peter 
 did not err in relation to the nature of the Gospel, but on- 
 ly in relation to its extent. Worse and worse ! Mr. Pin- 
 gree and his brethren contend, that the Gospel is Univer- 
 salism, and Universalism is the Gospel. Nov/ he ac- 
 knowledges, that for eight years, Peter was what he calls 
 a " Partialist !"— believing in future, eternal punishment, 
 and, of course, preaching it — preaching, that faith, repent- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 398 
 
 ance and conversion are essential to salvation ; and yet he 
 says, Peter was in error, not concerning the r ature of the 
 Gospel, but only concerning the extent of it ! It is indeed 
 true, though Universalists do not admit it, that the Gospel 
 is the same, whether preached to one or ten thousand. 
 Peter, therefore, preached the Gospel fully and infallibly ; 
 and yet he preached what Mr. Pingree calls " Partial- 
 ism ;" and so did all the Apostles! We must, then, be 
 lieve, either that Universalism — which is the uncondition- 
 al salvation of all men — is false ; or tliat all the Apostles, 
 for a number of years, at least, were engaged in preach- 
 ing gross error ! 
 
 But mark the fact: the gentleman still contends, that 
 Peter was converted to Universalism by the vision record- 
 ed in Acts X. ; and yet it is a fact, as I have proved, that 
 he has quoted Peter's discourse immediately after the day 
 of Pentecost, (and duriug this very discussion he has 
 quoted from Peter's first discourse) as a triumphant proof 
 of Universalism : What reliance, I ask, can be placed 
 on the statements and reasonings of a man who thus flat- 
 ly and terribly cantradicts and refutes himself? ! ! What 
 shall we think of Universalism, when she proclaims that 
 the inspired Apostles, who spoke under the immediate 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit, were preaching most serious 
 error for eight years ? 
 
 But their preaching was just as successful in winning 
 souls to Christ before their pretended conversion as after- 
 wards. Three thousand souls were converted, under 
 Peter's first Partialist sermon ; and thousands, and tens 
 of thousands were afterwards added to the church under 
 similar preaching. I presume, my friend, with all his 
 superior light, will never preach as effectually as Peter, 
 when a ** Partialist ! " And where is the evidence, that 
 the conversion of the Apostles to Universalism, of which 
 the gentleman speaks, made them either more efficient 
 or more successful in this great work ? 
 
 I am truly glad, that the gentleman has so clearly de- 
 livered himself on this important point — that he has charg- 
 ed the Apostles with preaching the awful error of " Par- 
 
d94 AN ORAL DISCirSSION 
 
 tialism " for eight years ! This admission throws great 
 light on Universalism. 
 
 I propose now, briefly to review the ground over 
 which we have passed, tliat we may have the whole ar- 
 gument distinctly before us. 
 
 Tiie question before us is this — Do the Scriptures teach 
 the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men ? Mr. 
 Pingree affirms ; I deny. We agree on three points, viz : 1. 
 That the question must be determined by an appeal to 
 the Scriptures ; 2. That holiness is essential to happiness, 
 and consequently none can be saved, who are not made 
 holy; 3. Thai; all who are converted to Christ before 
 death, will be saved. But Mr. Pingree undertakes to 
 prove, that those who die in dn will be made holy and 
 happy after death. 
 
 His doctrine, as stated in his first speech, was — that 
 in (he resurrection from the dead^ a change is to be ef- 
 fected, which will introduce all men inio a state of ho- 
 liness and salvation. This doctrine, let it be remarked, 
 is directly contradictory of Restorationism. And it is al- 
 so worthy of special remark, that according to Mr. Pin- 
 gree's own acknowledgment, the Bible nowhere says, 
 in so many words, that any who die in sin, will after 
 death come to Christ. And yet precisely this, he says, it 
 was specially and chiefly designed to teach ! But let us 
 review the arguments I have offered : 
 
 I. My first argument was founded on the novelty of 
 Universalism — its extremely modern origin, in its present 
 form. Even in the form of Restorationism, very few have 
 believed it. Now the Bible is a plain book, designed for 
 tlie instruction of plain people. Is it, then probable — 
 is it credible, that during eighteen hundred years, the 
 Gospel was understood clearly, only by one or two men ? 
 And is it credible, that the only people, in ancient times, 
 who had any correct views on this great point, adopted 
 the most absurd philosophy, and the most ridiculous 
 method of interpreting the Bible ? The Gnostics, for ex- 
 ample, the first Universalists, held, that Jehovah was an 
 apostate ! Is it probable, is it credible, that all Chris- 
 
Olf UNiVERSALIS^Mi 306 
 
 tians, during eighteen hundred years, induding all the 
 eminently wise and good, who studied the Word of God, 
 day and night, did, after all, not get even a glimpse of the 
 true character of tiie Gospel ? Can you, my friends, be- 
 lieve, that all the readers of the Bible, durmg that long 
 period, utterly failed to understand even the first and sim- 
 plest principles of the gospel ; until Hosea Ballon, a young 
 and comparatively uneducated man, rose to enlighten the 
 world ? — nay, that they understood it to teach doctrines 
 precisely opposite to those it was intended to teach ? 
 
 II. My second argument was — that according to Uni- 
 versalism there is in the Gospel no such thing as saha- 
 lion. The question is — Do the Scriptures teach the ul- 
 timate holiness and salvation of all men ? What does 
 the word sahation mean, as it is used in the Bible ? It 
 means deliverance from evils which those saved are actual- 
 ly suffering, or to which they are exposed. But accord- 
 ing to Universalism, Christ does not save men from any 
 suffering to which they are justly exposed in this w^orld, 
 nor in the future world ; for all men, the gentleman con- 
 tends, do actually suffer, in this life, all they deserve to 
 sutler for their sins ; and in the future world they are ex- 
 posed to no evil, and, of course, can be saved from none. 
 
 But the gentleman defined the word to suit himself. 
 Did he refer to any lexicon, or produce the least authori- 
 ty to sustain his definition? No — he does not use lexicons; 
 he cannot submit to their authority. Lexicons, he says, 
 are to be tried by the Bible. True ; but lexicographers 
 have carefully examined the usage of the Bible in regard 
 to the meaning of w^ords ; and their known learning, and 
 the accuracy with which they have defined words, nave 
 acquired for them a reputation as standard works. The 
 best scholars, therefore, feel bound to pay some respect to 
 their authority. The man ought to be truly and most 
 eminently wise, who ventures to differ from them all in 
 (he definition of important words, and who expects his 
 issertion to outweigh them in the estimation of the people. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, Mr. Rice could find no Lexi- 
 on, in his debate with Mr. Campbell, that defined tli€ 
 
3§6 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 word baptizo, to purify. I found Lexicons in abundance, 
 that defined the word precisely as I did, as any one can 
 see, who will take the trouble to examine. It is not true 
 that I disregarded the authority of Lexicons. 
 
 What is the salvation of Universalism ? It is deliver- 
 ance, in another world, from sin, suffering and death, to 
 which men are subject in this world. But are they ex- 
 posed to these evils in another world? Universalists say, 
 and Mr. Pingree says, they are not. Then why do they 
 need a Saviour? and how can he save them after they 
 are out of danger ? But will the gentleman tell us how it 
 happens, that salvation has one meaning, as applied to 
 this world, and an entirely different meaning, as applied 
 to the next? Since he will not quote Lexicons, but ap- 
 peals to Scripture usage, has he compared different pas- 
 sages where it occurs, and thus proved the correctness 
 of his defiinition ? He has not ; he has made assertions, 
 and left the audience to receive them or reject them, 
 without evidence of any kind. 
 
 But he says, he will not submit to the authority of or- 
 thodox Lexicons. Well, there are in existence hetero- 
 dox, as well as orthodox {jexicons, made by men who 
 believe not in the inspiration of the Bible. I am willing 
 to appeal to any respectable Lexicon in the world, ortho- 
 dox or [leterodox, (if the author were not a Universalist,) 
 even though the author were an infidel, and to prove that 
 the gentleman's definition of the word salvation is wholly 
 incorrect. The gentleman cannot be allowed to define 
 the word to suit his own system, for it is a Bible word. 
 And unless all men have been ignorant of its meaning 
 there is no salvation in Univeisalism. 
 
 in. My third argument was, the Scriptures clearly 
 teach, that there will be a resurrection both of the just 
 and of the unjust; the one to eternal life, the other to 
 condemnation; and, consequently, it is not true that in 
 the resurrection all will be made holy and happy. To 
 prove his doctrine, Mr. Pingree appealed to 1 Cor. xv. 
 I replied — 1. By calling on him to point to one passage 
 which teaches, that any who die in sin will be made 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. ^St 
 
 holy and happy in the resurrection. He has not done it; 
 and he cannot. 2. I desired him to tell us how the re- 
 surrection, effected by the physical power of God, upon 
 the body, can make men holy. He has not done it. 
 He said, repeatedly, that there was " something more'^ 
 in the resurrection, than a mere physical operation on 
 the body. I have never been able, however, to ascertain 
 from my friend, what that " something more" is. 3. I 
 replied to his argument from 1 Cor. xv., by showing that 
 that chapter has reference to the resurrection of the just 
 only. How do I show this? We are told that men 
 shall rise, "every one in his own order — Christ the 
 first-fruits, and afterwards they that are Christ's at his 
 coming." And who are they that are Christ's? They 
 who fall asleep in Christ, as the Apostle himself ex- 
 plains in this same chapter, verse 18. I asked him 
 16 show me a single passage which says, that the wick- 
 ed fall asleep in Christ, He has not done so — and 
 he cannot. Again, only those who are " Christ's at 
 his coming," will participate in this blessed resurrection. 
 And who are Christ's ? The Apostle himself explains : 
 " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of 
 his," Rom. viii. 9. The same doctrine was proved from 
 Phil. iii. 10 — where the Apostle Paul represents him- 
 self as undergoing great self-denial and toil, " If by any 
 means he might attain to the resurrection of the dead." 
 And yet, according to Mr. Pingree, he could not help 
 attaining it ! Still we find Paul denying himself, and suf- 
 fering the loss of all things to gain it. Oh, says Mr. 
 Pingree, he desired to get up higher in this life ! but he 
 adduces no proof to show that Paul so understood the 
 phrase, " resurrection of the dead ;" or that it was ever 
 so understood by any body ! Mr. Pingree asserts that it 
 is so, and that is the end of the matter! 
 
 [Time expired. 
 
 [mr. pingree's twentieth speech.] 
 
 Respecfed .Auditors — I remarked, when up before, that 
 
 Mr. Rice's preceding argument was his best — which he 
 
 savs he ffot from me : but I am of opinion now, that the 
 
 34 
 
398 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 argument (?) he has introduced last of all, is the best. It 
 now seems that yowT fears are to be excited, so that you 
 may not listen candidly to my arguments. That is most 
 excellent, for a last argument ; for with many, it avails 
 more than a thousand proofs. 
 
 In relation to the question — "Are there few that be 
 saved ?" — it is taken for granted that the salvation there 
 spoken of. is the iiiial salvation in the immortal state. 
 This must not be assumed; for it is denied. 
 
 Mr. Rice says, that it is temporal death, which is spo- 
 ken of as to be destroyed; and that there is a "second 
 death," which is not to be destroyed. This is a mistake. 
 What is called "the second death," is endured in this 
 world. Jude speaks of some who were then already 
 " TWICE DEAD." They had suffered " the second death ;" 
 and yet were naturally alive. " The lake of fire is the se- 
 cond death ;" and I have proved, by Isa. xxxiv., that this is 
 in this present world ; and not in eternity. Natural death, 
 which is to be destroyed, is, after all, "'the last;'''' for so 
 Paul affirms. 
 
 I have explained already as to tlie clearness of Peter's 
 view of the Gospel — whether it should be preached to the 
 Gentiles, or not. Mr. Rice himself admits that Peter was 
 in error on that point; and I say the same thing as to his 
 having a clear and perfect view of the greatness of the 
 object of the mission of Jesus Christ. If he was mista- 
 ken in one point, he might be in another, until more fully 
 enlightened. That lie was, to a certain extent, is evident; 
 and this is conceded by Mr. Rice. 
 
 My friend says I had better give np the question ! I 
 wonder if you have seen any sufficient reasons advanced 
 by him, why I should give up the doctrine of universal 
 salvation. The very opposite is the feeling of my mind ; 
 for I feel animated and determined to hold on more strong- 
 ly and firmly to what I believe to be the Truth, after 
 the vain and futile effort made on the present occasion to 
 overthrow it. It stands as firm as the Rock of ages. Mr. 
 Rice is notable to shake it. I will not give up this high, 
 holy, and most sublime Faith ever preached among men ! 
 
OP UNIVERSALISM. 899 
 
 I propose now to recapitulate the arguments I have ad- 
 vanced during this discussion. In the first place, I stated 
 and defined the terms of the proposition, which is, ** Do 
 the Scriptures teach the ulimate holiness and salvation of 
 all men /" I then presented a brief outline of the histo- 
 ry of Universalism. I showed that, soon after the time 
 of the Apostles, the whole Christian Church became cor- 
 rupt, — as my friend stated in his Discussion with Mr. 
 Campbell, — by the mixture of Pagan philosophy and the- 
 ology with the simple truths of the Gospel. Some still 
 held to the final salvation of all men; as Clement, of Al- 
 exandria, Origen, Gregory Nyssen, and others. This 
 Faith was not entirely lost in the Church, until condemn- 
 ed in a General Council of the 6th century. Then came 
 the reign of moral night — " the dark ages." After the 
 Reformation, when the Bible was given to men, the doc- 
 trine was revived, and held by many of the wisest and 
 best men, even in the Orthodox sects, until now ; and is 
 at this time extensively believed in this country and in 
 Europe. 
 
 I next stated the General System, in which we believe, 
 to wit : that there is One God, the Father of our spirits ; 
 that his nature is Love ; that he is good to all, unchange- 
 ably antl forever good ; that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God, our Saviour; that the Scriptures contain the reve- 
 lation of the will of God, and the duty and destiny of 
 man ; that virtue brings its own rewards, and vice its 
 punishment ; and that there shall be a resurrection of 
 all men to a state of immortality, incorruption, and bles- 
 sedness. 
 
 I then proceeded to my proofs of the proposition in 
 hand ; having shown that "salvation" was the deliver- 
 ance of man by the power of God, from the sin and suf- 
 fering of the present life, and from death, into a pure and 
 happy and glorious immortality beyond the grave ; this 
 was my definition of " salvation ;" all that my friend has 
 said to the contrary, notwithstanding. I defined clearly, 
 the meaning of the word, '■^s expressing what 1 was to de^ 
 fend in this discussion. 
 
400 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 My first argument was founded on the resurrection. 
 Before appealing directly to the Bible, however, I showed 
 the necessity of a change after death ; that with regard 
 to Pagans, infants, idiots, the Christian sects, all men, 
 this change after death was absolutely necessary in order 
 for any to be saved. I said also that we should remem- 
 ber, while examming the Scriptures, that God, who is 
 the Author of the Bible, is " the Father of our spirits," a 
 God of love, who desires to secure the highest good of 
 his intelligent creatures. 
 
 My first Bible testimony was drawn from 1 Cor. xv., 
 and Acts xxiv. ; where Paul speaks at great length of the 
 resurrection of the dead; — a " resurrection of the just and 
 unjust," for which the benevolent Aposde hoped ; be- 
 cause in the resurrection all would be just and happy. 
 The language of Christ to the Sadducees, was then addu- 
 ced, declaring that in the resurrection of the dead, we 
 shall become as the angels of God in heaven, to die no 
 more; and that "all live unto God." These passages 
 taken together, show that all that die in Adam are to be 
 made alive in Christ. The Apostle also teaches in an- 
 other place, that we shall be clothed on with a heavenly 
 house ; and that as we have borne the image of the earthy, 
 so we shall bear the image of the heavenly. It is not 
 this physical body that we shall have, in the future hfe, 
 but an immortal, glorious, and spiritual body. So Paul 
 distinctly and explicitly affirms. I showed that a corrupt 
 soul would not be put into a spiritual, incorruptible body ; 
 because the Apostle declares that '■' corruption cannot in^ 
 herit incorruption." In answer to my friend's frequent 
 inquiry for the "something more" than ^physical charrge 
 in 1 Cor. xv., I showed that then would be co^npleted the 
 Saviour's work of subduing all to himself, so that God 
 will be all in all. This is the grand consummation, to 
 which we confidently and joyfully look forward, as fully 
 set forth, and glowingly described in 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 My next argument was from Romans v., where Paul 
 teaches that as many as have sinned, shall be made 
 RIGHTEOUS, and consequently saved ; — for the grace of 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 401 
 
 God shall abound much more than sin, is the Apostle's 
 " afKrmation, 
 
 The next argument was from the 8th of Romans — 
 showing that " the creature," or creation — not. God's in- 
 ferior works, — but the human race, that was made sub- 
 ject to vanity, shall be delivered from the bondage of 
 corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
 God. This is ** salvation" — a deliverance from corrup- 
 tion here, to liberty hereafler, Mr. Rice says that the 
 creation in this passage refers to the inferior creation ; 
 such as the trees, hills, and mountains. But I demon- 
 strated that it was not so ; th.at it was a creation which 
 could hope for the manifestation of the sons of God, that 
 was made subject to vanity, and that could enjoy the 
 liberty of the children of God. 
 
 The 1st chapter of Ephesians was then adduced ; in 
 which Paul speaks of the ''ingathering of all things in 
 Christ;" which also illustrates the expression in 1st Cor. 
 XV. as to who shall be *' Christ's" at the resurrection. It 
 is seen to be God's " purpose," plainly declared and re- 
 peated, in which there shall be no failure, that all shall 
 be his — all be in him — gathered into one fold, and under 
 one Shepherd. 
 
 My next argument was founded on the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, as held by us, and taught in the Bible, to wit : that 
 one was elected for the benefit of all ; that Jesus Christ 
 was God's principal Elect One — chosen and sent to be 
 the Saviour of the world. After him, the Apostles were 
 elected ; but for the benefit of others — of all men. Con- 
 sequently we reject and abhor the doctrnie of the repro- 
 bation of some souls to endless wee ! 
 
 My next argument was from Collossians i., where, 
 and in 2 Cor. v. 19, it is declared, that God wdl recon- 
 cile all things — the world — unto himself. These terms 
 comprehend all men ; and this reconciliation will be com 
 pleted at the resurrection of the dead. If all shall be re- 
 conciled, all will be saved. About this, there is no dis- 
 pute. Therefore, as I have proved universal reconcilia- 
 Hon to God, I have proved final universal salvation. 
 34* 
 
4{)*4 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Inasmuch as Mr. Rice had quoted the language of 
 Christ to the Jews — *' Whither I go ye cannot come" — 
 to prove their endless misery, I next proved from Scrip- 
 ture, that the Jews who were cast away, should be re- 
 ceived AGAIN ; as tauffht in Rom. xi., "For if the casting 
 away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall 
 the RECEIVING of them be, but life from the dead 1" and 
 when "the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, all Is- 
 rael shall be saved." 
 
 We next listened to the testimony of Paul, in the last 
 verse of Rom. xi., where he concludes his argument for 
 universal salvation: "For of Him, [God,] and through 
 Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory 
 forever, — Amen !" This is the glorious consummation 
 which we anticipate : all that come from God, and subsist 
 through God, shall finally return to God, the Father of 
 all. 
 
 . My next argument was founded on the evidence of the 
 final subjection of all to Christ; as presented in 1 Cor. 
 XV. It was shown that Christ received from God his 
 kingdom, mentioned in Dan. vii., that " all people, nations, 
 and languages, might be brought to serve him." When 
 this shall be accomplished, and all subdued to the Sa- 
 viour, — which will be completed at the resurrection, — 
 then this kingdom shall be delivered up to the Father, that 
 God may be all in all ! I proved also, from Heb. xii., 
 that this spiritual subjection brought life. I replied to 
 an objection of Mr. Rice, in relation to putting "enemies 
 under his feet," by showing that these enemies were not 
 men, but Sin, Death, the Grave, Hell, etc. ; of which 
 Death is "the last." 
 
 I next showed how beautifully final salvation is repre- 
 sented in Rev. v. 13: "And every creature w^hich is 
 in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such 
 as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, 
 saying, Blessing, honor, glory, and power, be unto Him 
 who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever 
 and ever !" 
 
 My next argument was drawn from passages contain- 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 403 
 
 ing the words "saved," " Saviour," and "salvation." 1. 
 We are told in 1 Tim. iv. 10, that " God is the Saviour of 
 ALL MEN, especially of those who believe." It was shown 
 that all men are not saved in this world; therefore, if 
 these words be true, all will be saved j^;i«//y; while those 
 are now " specially saved," who havefaitJi. 2. 1 Tim. 
 ii. 4, was then adduced; where Paul affirms that "God 
 WILL HAVE all men to be saved." Mr. Rice attempted to 
 restrict the meaning of "all men" here, by quoting the 
 passage representing " all Judea," etc., to be going after 
 John the Baptist. I asked if "all men" meant no more 
 xn the former case, than in the latter ? To this, we have 
 had no answer. The gendeman then said, that God de- 
 sires only, but does not purpose the salvation of all. I 
 never heard a man of the Calvinistic Creed talk about 
 God's desiring to save all! Will he admit that God will 
 possess an ungralilied desire to all eternity ? ! and will he 
 venture to assert that God did desire the salvation of 
 those whom he foreordained and reprobated to ever- 
 lasting death ? ! 3. In connection with these passages, 
 I introduced the words of Paul to Titus: "The grace of 
 God that bringeth salvation to all 3ien, hath appear- 
 ed," etc. Mr. Rice says it is offered to all; but they will 
 not receive it. According to Calvinism, they have only 
 the "outward ministry of the word," and some "common 
 operations of the Spirit;" so that they are not allowed 
 to accept the offer, (!) or to receive this grace. 4. Other 
 passages were then quoted ; as where John teaches us 
 "that the Father sent his Son to be the Saviour of the 
 
 WORLD." 
 
 Thus we have universal salvation, declared in almost 
 every form of expression. I produced all these passages, 
 pointing directly to the proposition, and showing that, al- 
 though all are not saved here, it is the purpose of God to 
 save all hereafter ; and his purpose cannot fail. 
 
 I then introduced the promise of God to Abraham, con- 
 firmed by his own solemn oath, that in his Seed, Jesus 
 Christ, he would bless all the nations of tije earth. 
 I then showed from Rom. iii. 3, 4, that the unbelief of 
 
40 i AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 men, would not nullity the promises of God, for the final 
 salvation of all men ; but that those who believe, enjoy a 
 special salvation, arising from faith ; yet the blessing 
 promised is to be conferred on all nations. The Apostle 
 Peter teaches us in the last verses of Acts iii., that this 
 " blessing" is the " turning of men away from their ini- 
 quities^^ — ^^holiness and salvation. This salvation, which 
 is the result o^ faith, is not offered to infants jr idiots, 
 or those who cannot believe ; for the salvation dependent 
 on ftiith, does not relate to the immortal destiny of man ; 
 but is a special salvation enjoyed in this life. We must 
 keep in mind, that faith is not essential to the final sal a- 
 tion, in which all are to be included ; — millions, as Mr. 
 Rice himself believes, that cannot have faith. 
 
 My next argument was founded on the various declara- 
 tions that all are finally to come to Christ ; that all are 
 given to him ; that all shall come to him, and none be cast 
 out. The Saviour himself says, " I will draw all men 
 
 UNTO ME." 
 
 My next argument was made for the sake of Mr. Rice, 
 and all Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is, that 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal. But they 
 are not equal, unless the Son saves as many as tho Fa- 
 ther creates, — all men ; and unless the Holy Spirit 
 sanc'ifies as many as the Father creates, and the Son 
 saves. 
 
 My next argument is drawn from the death of Jesus 
 Christ for all ; whether vicarious', or as demonstrating 
 the love of God to man. And I showed that Calvinism, 
 or Jlrmirdani^m, so far as they agree with the Bible, on 
 this subject, when properly united, make Universalism, 
 
 I next referred to the words of the Saviour, in Matt 
 V. ; where we are required to love our enemies, in or- 
 der to be like God, our heavenly Father. The Confes- 
 sion of Faith teaches the opposite doctrine ; and Mr, 
 Rice, and all Presbyterians, believe that God will hate 
 hts enemies to all eternity. If we are to be like God, 
 therefore, we cannot love our enemies ; but must hate 
 and damn them, like our Father in Heaven ! ! 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 405 
 
 The next evidence of universal salvation, was taken 
 from Isa. Ixv. 22 — 24 ; where the Lord says by the proph- 
 et — "Evf:RY KNEE shall bow to me, and every tongue 
 swear ; surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteous- 
 ness AND STRENGTH." This passage Mr. Rice has not 
 even deigned to notice at all. 
 
 Corresponding with, and illustrating this, was the testi- 
 mony of Paul in Phil. ii. 9, 10 : " 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 eve- 
 ry TONGUE SHOULD CONFESS THAT JeSUS CaRIST IS LoRD, 
 
 to the glory of God the Father." Will the screams and 
 groans of the damned in Hell, glorify God ? No ! not 
 if this passage be true. There has not been even an «//w- 
 sion to this argument, on the part of Mr. Rice. 
 
 My ne^ argument was built upon the fact of men's 
 being judged, and rewarded or punished, according to 
 THEIR WORKS. I showcd that this was impossible, ac- 
 cording to Orthodoxy. If the time should ever come 
 when men can be said to have been rewarded according 
 to their works, then punishment ceases ; therefore end- 
 less damnation cannot be true. That time can never 
 come — never, in all the ages of eternity; and if not, then 
 these passages can never he verified. The Bible never 
 can be fulfilled, if Partialism be true. Besides, Calvin- 
 ism saves or damns men, according to the decree of 
 God, before the foundations of the world. Presbyte- 
 rians, therefore, have no right to talk of men being re- 
 warded according to their works ; for our doom is fixed 
 in Heaven or in Hell, by ^n irresistible decree! 
 
 1 then founded another argument on the command to 
 LOVE our enemies. To do this is impossible, according 
 to Orthodoxy. If our enemies go to Hell, how can we 
 love them there ? but is it not an eternal law ? Yet wo 
 CANNOT love our enemies hereafter ; we shall not be 
 able to obey that law. 
 
 I next demonstrated that the happiness of each re- 
 quires the happiness of all. We are all bound together 
 by a mutual sympathy. " If one member suffers," says 
 
406 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Paul, "«// suffer wVh ity If one scul is damned end- 
 lessly, all will be damned, by sympathy ; except those 
 who can shout Hallelujah ! and glory in wiine.^sing the 
 misery of the damned, and hearing their groans in Hell, 
 and thus receive a higher ^'^ relish'''' of heavenly joys, as 
 Edwards and others have said. Professor Stuart, how- 
 ever, is obliged to extinguish all the social affections and 
 sensibilities of the saved, in order to make heaven ar 
 happy place. I do not expect such a change after death, 
 as this ; for this would be making us only demons, re- 
 joicing in the unutterable and endless misery of our fel- 
 low-men, by nature as good as we. Nor do I expect to 
 be deprived of all benevolence and aifection, in the extin- 
 guishing of our social susceptibilities. No! — so long as 
 the feeling of the common brotherhood remains, the hap- 
 piness of each will require the happiness of all. 
 
 My next argument was founded on the present joy of 
 believers; as M^here Peter said, he "rejoiced with joy 
 UNSPEAKABLE AND FULL OF GLORY ;" and I placed tliis 
 in contrast with the language of Saurin ; who said that 
 the doctrine he believed was to him a mortal poison, 
 making his life a cruel bitter ; and so horrible is it, 
 that thousands grow melancholy for fear of Hell, and 
 many are consigned to the mad-house — raving maniacs!! 
 O how different from this was the influence of the Gos- 
 pel on the early Christians ! 
 
 I next asked your attention to the tmiversal and efer- 
 nal law to love God supremely. This can never be 
 fulfilled according to Orthodoxy ; for a time will come, 
 when some will not be allowed to love God ; but con- 
 signed to the pit of despair, they shall hate and curse 
 Qcc\{i, blaspheming his Holy Name, forever and ever!! 
 and where they are not permitted, even if they wish it, 
 to obey this eternal law of love to God. 
 
 My next evidence of universal salvation, was the lan- 
 guage of the celestial messenger, in his annunciation of 
 the birth of our Saviour: "Fear not! for I bring you glad 
 tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people," Luke 
 ii. Then the song of the heavenly host — " Glory to God 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 407 
 
 in the highest I and on earth peace, good will to all men." 
 
 I then founded a distinct argument on the nature of 
 God, and his attributes. " God is Love," says an in- 
 spired Apostle ; it is his very nature and essence, and 
 the guiding principle of all the operations of his govern- 
 ment over men, forever. Then it follows that all God's 
 ATTRIBUTES are the attributes of love. My friend's re- 
 mark, as God's being "a consuming fire," is not applica- 
 ble here. That expression is used in a totally different 
 manner from " God is Love." The latter is a full, beau- 
 tiful, and sublime expression of God's very nature and 
 ESSENCE. The other is figurative language, applied to 
 particular circumstances under God's providential gov- 
 ernment. If God is " a consuming fire," it is the fire of 
 Love; '*for God is Love." 
 
 My last argument was founded on the evidence drawn 
 from Scriptures, of the final destruction of all the 
 ENEMIES OF GoD AND MAN ; — Sin, the Devil, HcJI, and 
 Death, which is "the last." Then, according to the 
 prophet Isaiah, there shall be no more sorrow nor sufier- 
 ing; for God shall wipe the tears fro^i all eyes — a 
 consummation well worthy of God, and of his Son ; and 
 full of joy, and hope, and consolation to all who believe 
 the testimony that thus portrays the final blessedness of 
 the entire human race ! 
 
 The opposite of this doctrine of Scripture is most 
 horrible ! — Endless torment — eternal sinning — blas- 
 phemy — REBELLION — rcmcdilcss and unutterable damna- 
 tion ! — all foreseen and foreordained by the almighty, 
 all wise, all merciful Jehovah ! ! ! 
 
 Has Mr. Rice met these proofs from Holy Writ, to 
 your satisfaction ? My friends, this great inquiry is to 
 be settled in your own minds — each one for himself; and 
 not by vote, or numbers, or any human authority. I sup- 
 pose a large majority of you, hold the views of my op- 
 ponent ; for thus have you been taught from earliest 
 childhood. Biit this fact cannot be regarded as proof of 
 ^he falsity of our views. Elijah the Prophet of God, 
 siuod alone, with four hundrejji and fifty prophets of 
 
408 AN ORAL DlSCUSSI05f 
 
 Baal against him. Luther and Calvin, at the com- 
 mencement of the Reformation, were ahnost entirely- 
 alone, against the whole Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Our Faith is immovable as the Rock of ages. It is 
 founded on the Love of God, and will finally bring about 
 the reconciliation of the world to himself — and Himself 
 be " ALL IN ALL ! " This glorious and heavenly consum- 
 mation harmonizes all the Divine Attributes ; agrees with 
 Reason and Revelation, and displays a universe filled 
 with light, and love^ and immortal blessedness ! ! 
 
 I have shown that the system which Mr. Rice brings 
 up in opposition to this, is in violation of the character of 
 God, as the Father of all ; is against Reason, Nature, 
 and Revelation ; and that in sentiment, it blights and blasts 
 this fair universe of God forever and ever ! I have de- 
 monstrated that Partialism represents the Author of our 
 being as suffering an eternal failure in his purposes ; 
 for, although he wills that all shall be holy and saved, 
 and that the law^s he has laid down for the government 
 of his creatures shall be effectual to carry out his will, and 
 perfect his work, in blessing all men; yet that he is 
 obliged forever to resign the greater portion of his King- 
 dom to the Devil, who is his arch enemy, and who will 
 succeed against Almighty God, and thus triumph over 
 him to all Eternity ! ! 
 
 As one of old said, " If the Lord be God, follow him ; 
 if Baal, then follow him;^^ so now I say, If this holy and 
 sublime Faith be thus clearly sustained by Revelation, 
 Nature, and Reason, receive it and rejoice in it, throwing 
 aside that relic of Paganism, that most dreadful of all 
 human dogmas — remediless, useless, unutterable final 
 damnation, said to be inflicted by a Being who is the 
 Father of all, and whose very nature, essence, and name 
 is Love ! Throw it aside ! I pray you, as one of the rem- 
 nants of Pagan theology, not found in the Word of God ; 
 and receive the holy and sublime Faith of final univer- 
 sal salvation! 
 
 I find I have not time now to notice Mr. Rice's argu 
 ments, in opposition to thi^ heavenly Doctrine. These 
 
OF UNlVERaALISM. 109 
 
 arguments are mostly attacks upon what he calls the 
 premises of Universalism ; but which are not so. The 
 PREMISES of Universalism, I have fully and repeatedly 
 stated, to be the love of God, his character, and nature, 
 and relationship to his creatures, and the Revelation of his 
 Holy Word and Will in the Bible ; and not the Trinity, 
 or Vicarious Atonement, *or the m^iteriality of the soul, or 
 Go^ being the author of sjn ; oi» a denial of these senti- 
 menls*- None of these bear upon the question before 
 u^, in the way in which my friend presents them. I 
 have given epcpositions, so far as I have had time, of all the 
 passages he has produced, and all he has said on the sub-, 
 ject of everlasting damnation ; and I have showed that his 
 texts relating to Hell, damnation, etc., when properly and 
 fairly examined, and scripture compared with scripture, 
 are not opf)Osed, as he supposes, to the doctrine of final 
 universal salvation. 
 
 There were some incidental remarks which seemed to 
 bear on the subject; but I -have not time to repeat what I 
 have already said in relatiem to them. You recollect how 
 Mr. Rice lias proceeded teoughout this^ discussion ; how 
 the most, the vast majority of4,he passages he has quoted, 
 relate entirely to other subjects— ruot bearing at all upon 
 the proposition that " the Scriptures teach the final holi- 
 ness and salvation of all men." Yet I have paid attention 
 even to these passages, when I have had time, without 
 neglecting the evidences of my own Faith. 
 
 I have presented our yiews of the General Judgment, 
 as taught in the Bible, — showing that " now is the Judg- 
 ment of this world,'* during the reign of Clirist, in his 
 kiiigdom. 
 
 I have shown the truth with reference to Hades, or 
 Heil ; .that it is used in a literal, and a figurative sense. 
 So have I shown the Bible use of the word Gehenna, an" 
 other Hell mentioned in the Bible. 
 
 I have proved, from Bible usage, that aionios, tire Greek 
 
 word rendered ** eternal'' and "everlastings" sortietiines 
 
 may mean endlessy and sometimes not ;— certainly not 
 
 when appiied to punishment. I have demonstrated that 
 
 35 
 
410 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 the noun aion, from which it is derived, does not mean 
 eternity, as used in the Scriptures ; for we read of its 
 " end,^^ of its " beginning,''^ of this, and of fhat oion, of 
 the past axon J and the aion to come, etc. Consequently, 
 aionios does not always mean endless ; nor does its being 
 applied to punishment, necessarily, and of itself, prove its 
 endlessness. 
 
 I noAv tender my sincere thanks to this large audience, 
 for the candid and patient hearing they have given to me, 
 throughout this discussion. I am glad to have enjoyed 
 the opportunity of speaking to so many more than ever 
 -before, on the holy and sublime Faith of Universal Salva- 
 tion. And I most sincerely and earnestly pray that you 
 all may be led to the knowledge of " the Truth as it is in 
 Jesus Christ," and so be enabled to rejoice together, " in 
 hope of th-e glory of God ! " 
 
 I give my thanks to the Moderators, for their presence 
 and ^.tention, and their impartial and dignified manner of 
 presiding over this discussion-. I rejoice that so good 
 order and good feeling have prevailed throughout 
 
 May the Lord Almighty, according to hi« revealed and 
 blessed will, finally bring us all, and a ransomed world, 
 to enjoy the life, and light, and glory of his Presence, in 
 our immortal Home — the Home of all souls 1 Amen ! 
 
 [mr. rice's closing reply.] •. 
 
 My friends, we are now about to close this important 
 discussion — a discussion involving the eternal interests of 
 the soul. Let us do so with that solemnity of feeling and 
 that disposition candidly to weigh the arguments advanc- 
 ed, "becoming a subject so grave, and beings so deeply in- 
 terested in the conclusion to which our minds may come. 
 I trust, there will be no expressions like applause pn the 
 part of those who entertain the views I am advocating. 
 The subject is one too momentous to allow any thing of 
 the kind. I am exceedingly gratified at the very respect- 
 ful attention,. and deep interest manifested by the audi- 
 ence thus far. Let the discussion close with solemnity. 
 
 My friend is now through with his arguments and his 
 
OF» UNIVERSALISM. 411 
 
 recapitulation. You have heard them all. Now I will 
 suppose, for the sdce of argument, that he has made 
 it appear probable, that the Bible teaches Universalism. 
 It is nevertheless true, that thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands much more learned, more capable of weighing evi- 
 dence and reasoning conclusively, equally interested in 
 receiving only the truth, have, after liuich exaniination, 
 come to an opposite conclusion. ..The numbers against 
 him, (compared with those who agree wdlh^him, are as ten 
 thousand to one. I again ask, is il^not awfully probable, 
 that he is iu error ? We are not chargeable with deter- 
 iTiiumg>:eligious questions by votc^ when, acknowledging 
 ourselves fallible, we pay some regard to the opinions of 
 wise and good men, equally interested in knowing, and, 
 m many instances, more capable of ascertaining the truth, 
 than ourselves. If Universansm is true, all are safe, 
 whether they believe, or reject it. If it is false, Avhat 
 must be the consequences ? The danger is all on one side. 
 This.con??ideration may have but little weight with many 
 Ininds now; it will have more hereafter. - I remember a 
 conversation I had with an aged and very intelligent gen- 
 tleman, several years since; He had been a Deist, a con- 
 firmed Deist during the early part of his life. He told 
 me, he had often ridiculed the argimient urged upon him 
 by Christians, that if Deifsm were true, they were as safe 
 as he ; but if it should turn out to-be false, the condition 
 of the' infidel must be deplorable. But he said, as he 
 found himself approaching the termination of life, tread- 
 ing on the verge of the grave, he felt that the argument 
 he had so often ridiculedi, -iiad great weight. Some who 
 hear me now, may yet'feel the* weigh't of tliis argunxent 
 against Universalism. 
 
 After a few remarks in reply to the gentleman's la^^ 
 speech, I propose to cornplete the brief recapitulation 
 commenced at the close of my last. 
 
 He says, he has proved, that all the enemies of man 
 will de destroyed. Yes,'and I have proved, by language 
 too clear to be misunderstood or perverted, that the wick- 
 4Bd will be destroyed, both soul and body, in helL " Fear 
 
412 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 not them/' said our Saviour, " 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 hell," Matt. x. 28. 
 The word here translated hell, is Gehenna ; and the gen- 
 tleman has not proved, nor can he, that Gehenna is to be 
 destroyed. But it is easy to prove, that the wicked shall 
 be destroyed in Gehenna. 
 
 He attempted to prove Universalism by the passage — 
 " God is love." I yeminded him, that another passage 
 says — " Our God is a consuming fire." But, says he, 
 this language is Jigitrative. Yes, and so is the^ language 
 of the passage quoted by him. We no more imagine that 
 God is literally love, than that he is literally consuming 
 fire. Admit the language to be figurative, is it the less sig- 
 nificant on that account? Has figurative language no rer 
 al meaning ? The one passage beautifully expresses the 
 infinite heiievolence of God ; the pther awfully expresses 
 his m^mie justice. 
 
 Mr. Pingree quoted the 5th chapter to the Romans, as 
 affording evidence in favor of Universalism. "There- 
 fore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all 
 men to condemnation ; even' so by the righteousness of 
 one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
 life." And I replied: 1st. That he does not himself be- 
 lieve, that all, or any of the human race were brought in- 
 to condemnation, ox made sinners by Adam's transgress- 
 ion, as Paul says 'they were. He has not denied it. I 
 said, 2nd. He does not himself believe, that all, or any 
 are justified or made righteous by the obedience of Christ. 
 This he cannot deoy ; for his dflqtrine, as stated and de- 
 fended in this discussion, is, that all are to be made right- 
 eous by having suffered as much as they deserve to suf- 
 fer in this world, and by a change to be effected by the 
 power of God in the resurrection. 3d. Hosea Ballou, . 
 the father of modern Universalism, says., as I have prov- 
 ed, that Christ did not come into this world to save men 
 in another woydd. If, then, Universalism is true, Christ 
 will make all righteous, and save them in this world, or 
 never. Consequently all those passages quoted by the 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM, 413 
 
 gentleman, which speak of Christ as the Saviour of the 
 world, as drawing all* men to him, as reconciling all 
 things to himself, as <5ausing all to how. to his authority, 
 &:c.> mu'st relate to the work of Christ in this iboxld ; 
 for Ballon says, Christ saves nobody in the neDct^world ! 
 'The force of all these passages is entirely destroyed, if it 
 be true, as Universalists assert, that Christ saves men on- 
 ly in this world. If Mr. Pingree consider^' " father Bal- 
 lon" in gross error on this important subject, I must leave 
 the fatlier and son to settle the difficulty between them- 
 selves — simply remarking, that if they contradict each 
 other in relation to docirines of so much importance, they 
 cannot expect the public to place confidence in them. 
 4th. But I proved, by the immedilite. connection, that Paul 
 made faith necessary to justification, to. being made right- 
 eous. Thus bis argument for Universalism only involv- 
 ed him in contradictions. 
 
 Strangely enough, Mr. Pingree asserts, that if the doc- 
 trine- of eternal punishment is true, men never can be re- 
 warded accorxling to their work^. Their works deserve 
 eternal punishment ; and they will sin forever ; conse- 
 quently they will suffer forever. But here I desire dis- 
 tinctly to state the fact, that Mr. Pingree has not pro- 
 duced one passage of Scripture, ivhich says, that any 
 who die in their sins, iviU be reconciled, will come to 
 ■Christ, or be saved, after death. There is no such 
 passage in the Bible. 
 
 The gentleman says, according to Calvinism God hates 
 his enemies ; and, therefore, in order to be like God, we 
 must hate ours ; which is contrary to the command, " love 
 your , enemies." According to Calvinism, as I have 
 proved, " God so loved the world, that lie gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not 
 perish, but have everlasting life." As to the healheti, he 
 holds none responsible for more light than they have. 
 God hates the wickedness of the wicked ; and we are 
 bound to hate it. . God calls on the wicked to turn to him 
 and live; and we are bound to seek their conversion. In 
 regard to reprobation, it is sufficient once more to say, we 
 35*^ 
 
414 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 do not believe, that God ever decreed to incline any man 
 to sin, nor to punish any human being, except for 
 his sin. Moreover, we hold fully and strongly to the 
 doctrine of free moral agency. 
 
 The gendeman has again spoken of the eminent men in 
 Orthodox Churches, yA\o have, been Universalists. I* 
 have called for evidence on this subject; and I especially 
 insisted on his" producing the evidence, that Sir Isaac 
 Newton was a Universalist. He has not produced it ; 
 though the writings of those men are yet extant. Why has 
 no evidence been produced? Mr. Whittemore says, Sir 
 Isaac Newton " was inclined to Universalism ;" but, like 
 Mr. Pingree, he attempts not to adduce proof. I, there- 
 fore, deny the charge.* 
 
 I now resume my recapitulation. Against Universalism, 
 I have offered the following arguments : 
 
 I. Its novelty — its extremely modern origin, and the 
 smallness of the number of readers of the Bible who have 
 beheved it, prove it very probably, almost certainly, false. 
 
 II. If Universalism be true, there is in Christianity no 
 such thing SiS salv aliens and Christ is not a Saviour. 
 The gentleman insists, that he has defined the word sal- 
 vation, as he chose to defend it. But it is a most impor- 
 tant Bible-word ; and the question is — did he define it ac- 
 cording to its Scriptural meaning? Christ, the Bible 
 teaches us, came to save his people from their sins — 
 from the consequences of their evil actions, to which they 
 were exposed. Universalism teaches, that men suffer 
 fully as much as their sins deserve in this life ; that they 
 are not exposed by any law either to sinning or suffering 
 hereafter ; and consequently, that Christ really saves them 
 from nothing to which they are exposed here or hereafter. 
 Then there is no salvation, and Christ is not a Saviour, 
 if Universalism be true. This argument cannot be met. 
 
 III. The Scriptures clearly teach, that there is to be a 
 resurrection not only of the just, but of the unjust — that 
 the former will rise to life eternal, and the latter " to 
 shame and everlasting contempt." In \he blessed resur- 
 rection of the just, none will participate, as Paul clearly 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 415 
 
 teaclies, but those who **fall asleep in Christ," — "those 
 who are Christ's Tit his coming" — those who " have the 
 Spirit of Christ," 1 Cor. xv. 18, 23 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14; 
 Rom, viii. 9. Paul gladly suffered the loss of all things, 
 endured great labor and self-denial, " if by any means he 
 might attain to the resurrection of the dead," Phil. iii. 10, 
 11. He certainly believed these exertions absolutely 
 " necessary on his part, in order to attain to that blessed re- 
 surrection ; and yet if Universalism is true, he could not, 
 if he would, have avoided attaining to it ! How directly 
 Universalism contradicts Paul ! 
 
 Ancient believers, also, endured fiery trials, " not ac- 
 cepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resur- 
 rection,^'* Heb. xi. 35. They certainly believed, that there 
 would be a resurrection which would not be desirable, and 
 that they could secure the better one, only by persevering 
 in righteousness in the midst of the most terrible perse- 
 cutions. Vainly has the gentleman labored to evade the 
 force of this unanswerable arginnent. At first, he told us 
 the resurrection was called beffery because it was better 
 than to be delivered from danger, and live' in this world. 
 This exposition, or rather perversion, was too absurd. 
 He then told us, the resurrection those believers sought, 
 was better than the restoration of some of their friends to 
 life. But the question has been again and again pressed 
 upon him — JVJiy should, they persevere 'in the midst of 
 trials the most terrible, not accepting deliverance^ in or- 
 der to obtain the better resurrection ; which, if Univer- 
 salism be true, Jhey must have obtained, whether they 
 persevered or not, whether they desired it or not ? Why 
 should they labor so much, that they might obtain a 
 blessing they would as certainly gain without such labor — 
 a blessing which such labor had no tentlency to secure ? 
 This question the gentleman has not attempted to answer ; 
 foi^.the best of all reasons — it admits of no answer ; it is 
 clear, conclusive, destructive to Universalism. 
 
 This doctrine, as I have proved, is taught in John v. 
 28, 29, in language so clear, that it is almost impossible 
 to misunderstand or pervert it. As if to prevent the pos- 
 
416 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 sibility of misapprehension, our Lord spoke, first, of the 
 spiritual resurrec ion : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 the time is coming, and now is, when the dead shall liear 
 the voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall 
 live," verse 25. Immediately after, he says- — " Marvel 
 not at this : [I am about to tell you something more- won- 
 derful:] for 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 to the resurrection of dam- 
 nation." Observe, he does not say of the literal resurrec- 
 tion, as he does of the spiritual, — the hour now is ; but, 
 the hour i-s coming. ' ., 
 
 How did the gendeman reply to this argument? Why, 
 he represents both resurrections as spirilfal. The Sa- 
 viour, according to him, first spoke of the spiritual resur- 
 rection, and then said lo his disciples — ^' Marvel not at 
 this," aad repeated the very same thing! But what- are 
 we to understand by x\\e\Y coming out of their graves? 
 He tells us, these are graves of superstition and igno- 
 rance. But inasmucli as superstition and ignorance are 
 always found in connection with depravity and wicked- 
 ness, we must undarstand the Saviour to mean coming out 
 of superstition, ignorance and depravity. Now look at 
 the gentleman's exposition : They who have done good 
 in the graves of ignorance, superstition and corruption, 
 are to come forth out of them to' life ^ and they who 
 have do7ie evil in the graves of ignorance, superstition 
 and depravity, are to come out of their ignorance, super- 
 stition and depravity, unto condemnation'! 
 
 Is this the obvious meaning of the Saviour's language? 
 No respectable commentator or critic ever go understood 
 it. Why, then, Hiust it be. so grossly perverted from its 
 obvious sense ? Because if we understand Christ to mean 
 what he says, Universalism is overtlirowji ! This inter- 
 pretation is adopt<5d for its special benefit I 
 
 After all, UnJversallsts themselves cannot agree about 
 the meaning of this plain passage. " Father Ballou" 
 makes it refer to the destruction of Jerusalem ! 
 
OF , UNIVERSALISM. 4 17 
 
 The gentleman has attempted to make an impression 
 by quoting the language of Christ in connection with the 
 resurrection — " For all live unto him." But, as I have 
 shown, the immediate connection limits this language l*to 
 those wlio-shall be accotmted worthy to obtain that world, 
 and the resurrection from the dead." They indeed will 
 all live to God. 
 
 But, after saying much about the resurrection of the 
 dead, Mr. Pingree comes out and Jlatly denies, at least so 
 far as eur bodies are concerned, that there will ever be a 
 resurrection. He denies that the body that dies, will ever 
 be raised ; and yet hebelieves in the resurrection of the 
 dead. Now, if there »be a resurrection of the dead at 
 all, either their bodies or their souls must be raised. And 
 since jMr. Pingree denies the resurrection of their bodies, 
 he rnfcftt; of ^course, believe that their souls will be raised 
 from the dead. BuUif the soul is to be raised, it must 
 die; and if it die, it must be matericd,' Now the gentle- 
 man Asserts, that the body cannot be raised, because, be- 
 ing matter, it is decomposed, and enters into the compo- 
 sition of other bodies. But if the soul be material and mor- 
 tal, it must also be decomposed, and its resurrection be- 
 comes impossible. Universalis m, therefore, forces us to 
 believe, that men are cmnihilated, and that God will cre- 
 ate an entirely new raQ.e of beings, and take ihem to hea- 
 ven ! tltiiver^aksm promises life and salvation to all, and 
 yet drives all to annihilation ! 
 
 B»t I proved the resurrection of the body that dies, by 
 several arguments, to which the gentleman has given no 
 reply. — 1st. Paul says: " It is sown incorruption ; it is 
 raised in incorruption." I have urged him to tell us, 
 what it is, that is sown in corruption, and raised in incor- 
 ruption. Again: "It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in 
 glory : it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power." 
 TVJiat is sown in dishonor and in weakness, the soul or 
 the body ? Again: "It is sown a natural body; it is 
 raised a spiritual body." Can any man now doubt, 
 whether the natural body is to be raised from the dead ? 
 It, the body, will be raised up, and wonderfully refined 
 
418 AN ORAL ©xscfrssioN * *^*" 
 
 by the power of God; so that it will become a fit taber- 
 nacle — which the pure spirit shall inhabit forever. As 
 one star difFereth from another star in glory, though both 
 cojuposed of matter, so will the body, when raised and 
 made spiritual, be almost inconceivably more i^efined than 
 the natural body, as we now see it. 
 
 '2d. The resurrection of the body was further proved, 
 by Phil. iii. 21. "Who [_Chri.'it'] shall change our vile 
 body, [this natural bojy,] that it may be fashioned like 
 unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby 
 he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." The 
 gentleman's first reply to this -ar^nn^nt, was — that the 
 word bo ly is used here in the singular number, and there- 
 fore cannot refer to the resurFection. But I proved, that, 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 35, 'where he admits that the resurrection 
 is spoken of, the word is used in the singular-niihiber. 
 He also informed us, that the please "our vile body," 
 might mean the 'body of our hiimiliation, I inquired 
 earnestly and repeatedly, what he understood by the body 
 of our humiliation. I received no answer. 
 
 3d. This doctrine was also proved, unanswerably prov- 
 ed, by Rotn. viii. 11:" But if the Spirit of him that raised 
 «p .Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up 
 Christ fromx the dead shall also quicken [make alivel 
 yom- mor/a/ 6of/i>5 by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 
 Language (^ould not more clearly reveaU the literal resur- 
 rection of the body that dies. No wonder, then, that Mr. 
 Pingree attempted not to reply to this argument, tjiough 
 repeatedly pressed on his attention. By thes^ and other 
 arguments, such' as the resurrection of the just and the 
 unjust, spoken of by Paul, I have proved that the right- . 
 eous will rise from the dead to life and glory ; and the 
 wicked, to everlasting shame and contempt. And if this / 
 doctrine be true, Universalism, whicli teaches that, in the 
 resurrection, all will be made holy arid happy, is false. 
 
 IV. My fourth argument against Universalism, is — 
 that it teaches the materiality and mortality of the 
 souL But the gentleman insists, that this is not one of 
 ihe premises of Universalism. I am aware that those 
 
• OF UNiVERSALISM. 419 
 
 called Universalists hold principles sq contradictory, it is 
 no easy matter to find them all. But not only the gen- 
 tleman's standard writers, such as Ballon, Kneeland, Wil- 
 liamson, and others, teach this doctrine, but the position 
 assumed by himself, in his first, speech, clearly and ne- 
 cessarily involves it. A change, he affirms, is to be ef- 
 fected in the resurrection, not before, which will intro- 
 (kice all men into a state of holiney and salvation. The 
 qfiiestion at once arose, ivhat becomes of the soul between 
 death and the resurrection? On this subject I could ob- 
 tain from him no information. One of three supposi- 
 tions, I have said, must be true,' viz : 1. IiDmediately af- 
 ter ^ath, the soul is holy and happy ; 2. Or it is unholy 
 and rfltserable ; 3. Or it dies with the body. Mr. Pin- 
 grere does not believe that ail, or any, are»holy and happy 
 imfnediately after death; for, according to his iaith, all 
 are to be made hoj^' and happy in tlie resurrection, not 
 before. He does not believe that all or any are unholy 
 ^id miserable ; for he denies all punishment after death.- 
 He is, therefore, forced to adopt the third supposition — 
 th^ revolting doctrine, that the soul is. material and mor- 
 tal; that men die as do their horses. •And' this 4n\'Dlve« 
 not only the mortality, but the 7nateriality of the' soul ; 
 and consequently the impossibility, according to the gen- 
 tlewaT\*s logic concerning the resurrection, of eithel- soul 
 or body being raised to life again ! 
 
 'IJe told us, he did not believe^ tljat man is altogether 
 mbrtaL What he meant Jby this singular language, I 
 could not comprehend ; and, therefore, I called upon him 
 for some expla/iation — whether the soul almost dies, but 
 does not quite expire ; whether tliis half-living, half-dy- 
 ing^tate is one of conscious happiness, or of conscious 
 misery. xVgain the gendeman was silent. ' /; 
 
 In opposition to this fundamental doctrine ofvUnivers- 
 aliam, I stated and proved the following truths': 1. That 
 the soul and body are distinct substances, not only difier- 
 ent, but*opposite in all their properties ; that matter is ex- 
 tended, divisible, inert ; mind is not extended, indivisible, 
 essentially active, capable 'of thiilking, reasoning, loving. 
 
420 AN ORAL DISCUSSION ** 
 
 hating. 2. That sin and holiness are predicable only of 
 the soul, not of the body; of mind, not of matter. God 
 requires man to know him, and to love him with all his 
 heart, soul, mind and strength. Matter cannot obey or 
 disobey God's law. 3. That all men are sinners in heart 
 and conduct. " All have sinned, and come short of the glo- 
 ry of God." " The whole world lieth in wickedness." 4. 
 That, since sin and holi^iess belong exclusively to the mind^. 
 not to the body, the separation of the soul from the bod^ 
 by natural death, cannot change its moral character. 5. 
 That immediately after death the righteous are perfectly 
 holy and happy, and the wicked unholy and misejable. 
 This must be true, since the soul and body are distinct 
 substances, and since sin and holiness belong exclusively 
 to the former. They who die in sin, must be sinful after 
 death. The soul enters eternity with all its depraved af- 
 fections and passions, its love of sin ^nd its aversion tr^ 
 holiness. Its separation from the body does not sanctify 
 it. And if they who die in sin are sinful in eternity; -it . 
 is admitted they wiJl certainly be miserable there. *' He 
 that is unjust, kfe»him be unjust still ; and he that is filthy? 
 let hhn be filfhy ^ill : and he that is righteous, let him 
 be righteous still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy 
 still." \ ! 
 
 Accordingly, our Saviour, speaking of God as th^ God 
 of Abraham, Iskac and' Jacob, says, he is " the God, not 
 of the dead, but of the Uving." Abraham, Isaac and Ja- 
 cob, though dead, as to their bodies, were then living. 
 The Saviour said to the penitent thief — " This day thou 
 shalt b'e with me in Paradise." He was to be holy and 
 happy immediately after death. Stephen the first Chris- 
 tian martyr, when dying, prayed — "Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit." He expected to go immediately to heaven. 
 Paul had :a desire "to depart and be with Christ, which 
 is far better," than to live in this world. He expected im- 
 mediately to be with Christ in glory. In the parable, the 
 rich man is represented as dying, and being, imnT^di^-tely 
 afterwards, in torment ; and Lazarus, as being happy in 
 Abraham's bosom. N(3w if the righteous are happy, and 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 421 
 
 the wicked miserable, immediately after death, the doc- 
 trine of future punishment is true, and Universalism false. 
 6. Since sin and holiness belong exclusively to the mind, 
 and, therefore, those who die in sin, will be sinful and 
 miserable after death ; the resurrection, effected by the 
 physical power of God exerted on the body^ cannot change 
 the moral character of the soul. Therefore, those who 
 die in sin, will be unholy after the resurrection, and con- 
 sequently miserable. Thus I have established the doc- 
 trine of future punishment, not only after death, but after 
 the resurrection. Universalism, therefore, which teaches, 
 that in the resurrection all will be made holy and happy, 
 is false. To these argimients, sustained by a number of 
 passages of Scripture, though they clearly overthrow the 
 doctrine of Universalism, Mr. Pingree has not even at- 
 tempted to reply. He is wise in passing them in silence. 
 They admit of no reply. 7. This doctrine is further 
 confirmed by the declarations of our Saviour concerning 
 those who die in their sins — unpardoned and unsanctilied, 
 John viii. 21, 24: "Then said Jesus again unto them, I 
 go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your 
 sins: whither I go ye cannot come. I said, therefore, 
 unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe 
 not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Mr. Pin- 
 gree attempted to evade the force of this argument by 
 quoting our Saviour's language to his disciples : " Little 
 children, yet a little while 1 am with you : ye shall seek 
 me, and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot 
 come : so now I say unto you," ch. xiii. 33. But unfor- 
 tunately for him, the language of Christ to his disciples 
 is essentially different from that addressed to tlie unbe- 
 lieving Jews. In the first place he did not say to his dis- 
 ciples, as he did to the Jews — ^^ ye shall die in your 
 sm.s." In the second place, he said to Peter, in reply to 
 his inquiry — " Whither I go thou canst not follow me 
 now, but thou shall follow me afterwards.'''' This he 
 did not say to the Jews. His disciples were not to die 
 in their sins ; and when they died, they were to go to 
 Christ. The Jews were to die in their sins, and were 
 3G 
 
422 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 never to go to Christ, Here, then, we have, distinctly 
 taught, the doctrine of future eternal punishment. 
 
 V. My fiflh argument against Universalism is, that it 
 7nakes God the author of all sin in the world. Leading 
 Universalist writers, such as Ballou, Kneeland, Balfour, 
 &c., maintain the following unscriptural and impious prin- 
 ciples: 1. That God created man an imperfect heing, 
 mortal, and predisposed and constrained to sin from his 
 very organization, as he came from the hands of God. 
 2. That he is not a free, but a necessary agent. 3. That 
 men, in sinning, do not transgress the law of God, but 
 the imperfect law of their own minds. And yet John, 
 the Apostle says, "sin is the transgression of the law." 
 4. That God is really the cause of all sin. From such 
 premises they reach the conclusion, that sin is a small 
 evil, deserving very limited punishment; that every man 
 suffers in this life, as much as he deserves to suffer ; that 
 therefore he needs no Saviour, but that God is constrain- 
 ed by his perfections to save all men. 
 
 In opposition to this doctrine I have proved: 1. That 
 God made man upright ; that he created him in his own 
 image, possessing true holiness. 2. That he is, from the 
 very constitution of his mind, a free moral agent. Of 
 this, the consciousness of every man affords most con- 
 clusive evidence. 3. That sin is the transgression of 
 God's moral law, which is " holy, just and good." 4. 
 That sin is tlie cause of all natural evil, of sickness, suf-. 
 fering and death ; " sin entered into the world, and death 
 by sin." 5. Tliat consequently sin is an evil of incon- 
 ceivable magnitude, deserving far greater punishment 
 than men imagine. The doctrine of Universalism, which 
 seeks to save all men by making God the author of all 
 sin, is blasphemous. The gentleman has not attempted 
 a reply to these arguments, which strike an effectual 
 blow at the very foundation of his system. 
 
 VI. My sixth argument against Universalism was, — 
 that it teaches that every man suffers, as much as he 
 deserves to suffer in this life, pays fully his own debts, 
 and therefore denies the great doctrine of the Gospel — 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. ' 423 
 
 the vicarious sufferings of Christ* Abel C. Thomas 
 says — " I believe that God will render to every man ac- 
 cording to his own deeds; consequently I reject the 
 doctrine of vicarious atonement." And he says, he ex- 
 presses the views of the great majority of American Uni- 
 versalists. Denying the doctrine of the atonement, they 
 are led to deny the Divinity of Christ, and to regard him 
 as a mere man. Abner Kneeland labored to prove "the 
 simple humanity" of Christ. I. D. Williamson says, 
 Universalis in considers him nothing more than a man, 
 possessing great gifts from God. Hosea Ballon and Bal- 
 four represent him as an imperfect man^ tempted by the 
 same kind of ambition wliich made Alexander the Great 
 the conqueror of the world, possessed of what the Scrip- 
 tures call "/Ae Devil a P"* At this blasphimy we cannot 
 wonder, when we find Universalists recognizing as Chris- 
 tians, the ancient Gnostics, who maintained that Jehovah 
 was ^n aposfafeJ J ! 
 
 In opposition to this doctrine, I proved, by many pas- 
 sages of Scripture, that Christ is God as well as man, 
 Divine as well as human : that he is represented as " a 
 child born, a son given," and yet as " the mighty God, 
 the everlasting Father," whose goings forth were from 
 of old, even from everlasting ; that he is David's Lord as 
 well as David's son, the root and the offspring of David ; 
 that he is " the brightness of the Father's glory, the ex- 
 press image of his person, and upholding all things by 
 the word of his power;" that he "thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God ;" in a word, that all divine attri- 
 butes and perfections are ascribed to him. 
 
 Concerning the tvork of Christ I proved, that there 
 were two great difficulties in the way of the salvation of 
 men, viz. 1. All have sinned, transgressed God's law, 
 and are, therefore, condemned ; and, 2. That all are sin- 
 ful and polluted, and therefore unfit for God's service and 
 kingdom. Since all have broken the law, none could be 
 justified by the deeds of the law; and yet the perfect 
 law of God cannot be repealed or changcid. Christ, 
 therefore, in boundless mercy, was made under the law 
 
m 
 
 424 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 to redeem them that were under the law. Being made 
 under the law, he dehvered his people from the curse by 
 being made a curse for them. He bore their sins in his 
 own body on the tree — was bruised for our iniquities. 
 Thus was he set forth to be a propitiation, through faith 
 in his blood, for the remission of sins ; " that God might 
 be the just, and the justifier of him that believeth." His 
 blood cleanseth from all sin. Thus by his obedience un- 
 to death he laid a foundation, deep and broad, on which 
 guilty men may build their hopes for eternal life. 
 
 But with Mr. Pingree and the Universalists, the char- 
 acter and work of Christ are minor matters; though 
 Paul said, " God forbid that I should glory, save in the 
 cross of Jesus Christ, my Lord." And again: "I deter- 
 mined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and 
 him crucified." Thus Universal ism, whilst with "great 
 swelling words" it promises salvation to all men, irres- 
 pective of character, sweeps away the sinner's only refuge, 
 the only foundation on which he can build for eternity ! 
 
 To this argument Mr. Pingree has attempted no reply, 
 although, if sound, it overthrows one of the main pillars 
 of the temple of Universalism. For if Christ suffered in 
 the stead of his people ; if he did bear the penalty due to 
 their sins, and they are pardoned for his sake ; it is not 
 true, that every man suffers as much as he deserves to 
 suffer. This principle being false, the conclusion from it 
 that there is no future punishment, is also false ; and Uni- 
 versalism is overthrown. 
 
 VII. My seventh argument against Universalism was — 
 that if it be true, there is no such thing in the Gospel, as 
 pardon, forgiveness, remission of sins, justification by 
 faith ; which things are abundantly taught in the Bible 
 If every man sutlers as much as he deserves to suffer — 
 fully pays all his debts, there can be no forgiveness, par- 
 don or remission of sins ; and every man, if justified, is 
 justified not by faith, but by the deeds of the law — on the 
 ground that he has fully met all its demands against him. 
 The gentleman told us, that forgiveness or pardon, means 
 the same as cleansing, purification. He, however, gave 
 
OF UNIVERSALISM. 425 
 
 not the slightest evidence of the truth of this assertion, 
 either by appealing to standard authorities, or by showing 
 that Bible usage justifies it. I quoted the most respecta- 
 ble lexicographers against him, and, by reference to a num- 
 ber of passages of Scripture, proved the perfect absurdity 
 of his explanation of those words. He made no attempt 
 to tell us what the Scriptures mean, when they so con- 
 stantly speak o^ justification by faith, I will not now 
 repeat the various passages of Scripture which T quoted, 
 to prove, that those who repent, are not punished as their 
 sins deserve, but are freely forgiven, enjoy remission of 
 sins ; that the preaching of the Gospel is the proclama- 
 tion of repentance and remission of sins. 
 
 To this argument, though fatal to Universalism, the 
 gentleman has made no reply, if we except a few scat- 
 tering remarks. It is fatal to Universalism ; for if those 
 who repent, are forgiven, justified by faith, they are not 
 punished ; and if fully punished, they are not forgiven. 
 
 VIII. My eighth argument against Universalism, was, 
 that it denies the ^locf vine of future n wards and pun- 
 ishments^ which is pJctinly taught throughout the Bible. 
 Universalists, as already shown, believe that die righteous 
 are fully rewarded, and the wicked punished, in this life,* 
 and, consequently, that their conduct in tliis life, has no 
 bearing or influence wliatever, good or bad, upon their 
 character and happiness hereafter. In refutation of this 
 doctrine I proved — that the Scriptures every where make 
 faith necessary to salvation. I need not now repeat 
 the passages. Mr. Pingree admits that faith is neces- 
 sary to Gospel salvation^ but denies that it is necessa- 
 ry to eternal salvaHon. I have repeatedly and earnestly 
 called on him to tell us, whence he derived his authority 
 to preach any other than Gospel salvation. The Saviour 
 directed his Apostles to preach the Gospel, and, of course, 
 Gospel salvation. Who authorized Mr. Pingree to 
 preach any other salvation? He has given us no answer, 
 I desired him to tell us where^ in the Scriptures, I:e finds 
 two sahations by Cl:.rist. He gave no answer. I in- 
 quired on what prii ciples he expected to prove from the 
 30* 
 
426 AN ORAL DISCFSSION 
 
 Gospel a salvation which is not Gospel salvation. He 
 answered not ! 
 
 I proved that "father Ballon" says, Christ did not 
 come into this world to save men in another world; and, 
 of course, if Mr. Pingree agrees in faith with him, he 
 cannot consistently quote any of those passages that 
 speak of Christ as saving men, to prove salvation in the 
 future world* And yet, in flat contradiction of his own 
 faith, he has continued thus to apply them ! 
 
 The gentleman relied much on Rom. viii. 19, to prove 
 Univessalism ; but I proved — 1. That the declaration 
 "that God made the creature subject to vanity, not wil- 
 lingly," will not bear the Universalist interpretation, that 
 God made man an imperfect, corrupt being; for the Scrip- 
 tures expressly declare, that he made man upright, and 
 that death came by sin. 2. That the creature, for crea- 
 tion) though vv^aiting for the manifestation of the sons of 
 God, to be delivered from the wickedness of men, did not 
 wait to be made sons of God. 3. That the inspired 
 writers constantly represent the inanimate, as well as the 
 animate creation, as grieving over the wickedness of men, 
 or rejoicing in the prevalence of righteousness. 4. That 
 in the immediate connection we are taught, that only 
 those who become God's children, and are willing to suf- 
 fer with Christ, can gain the inheritance. 5. That the 
 inheritance is reserved in heaven for those who are he- 
 gotten again in this world, and "kept by the power of 
 God, through faith unto salvation," 1 Pet. i. 3. 
 
 The gentleman was particularly pressed with John iii. 
 16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him, might 
 not perish, but have everlasting life." The word perish 
 here stands as the antithesis of everlasting life, and neces- 
 sarily means just the opposite — everlasting punishment. 
 If God had not loved the world, and given his Son, all 
 would have perished — none would have received ever- 
 lasting life. The meaning of the language here is too 
 plain to be mistaken. The gentleman has not yet ven- 
 tured to explain the word perish, in this passage ! 
 
OF UNtVERSALISM. 427 
 
 Many other passages were quoted, such as the follow- 
 ing : Lay up treasures in heaven ; be rich in good 
 works, laying up a store against the time to come, that 
 you may lay hold on eternal life ; thou shalt be recom- 
 pensed in the resurrection of the just, <fec. Also such 
 as represent the wicked as treasuring up wrath against the 
 day of wrath ; Heb. ix., which speaks of a judgment af- 
 ter death ; Matt* x. 26, where the wicked are said to be 
 destroyed, both soul and body in hell, after death ; the 
 parable of the rich man and Lazarus, of which the gen- 
 tleman has not ventured to give any particular explana- 
 tion. How far these arguments have been answered, I 
 cheerfully leave the audience to judge. 
 
 IX. My ninth argument against Universalism, was — 
 that the strongest possible language is used without qual- 
 ification, to express the duration of the punishment of the 
 wicked — the same which is employed to express the 
 eternal perfections of God — the same which is used to 
 express the endless bliss of the righteous, and used in the 
 same connection. Therefore, if the righteous are to be 
 eternally happy, the wicked will be forever miserable. 
 If the eternal punishment of the wicked is not taught in 
 the Bible, human language cannot teach it ; for the very 
 strongest words in the Greek language, expressive of du- 
 ration, are employed without qualification or limitation of 
 meaning. How far the gentleman has replied to this ar- 
 gument, I leave the audience to judge. 
 
 X. My tenth argument against Universalism, was 
 founded on Rev. xxi. 1 — 8, and xxii. 10 — 15, and 18, 
 19 — where we are taught, that when the present earth 
 and heavens shall pass away, and there shall be no more 
 sea ; when God shall wipe away all tears, and there shall 
 be no more sorrow, nor pain ; then the wicked shall have 
 their portion "in the lake which burneth with fire and 
 brimstone ; which is the second death.'* And some will 
 have their part taken out of the Book of Life, and out 
 of the holy city, and from the things which are written hi 
 this book. 
 
 XI. My eleventh argument against Universalism, was 
 
428 AN ORAL DISCUSSION 
 
 founded on the acknowledgment of Mr. Pingree, that for 
 eight years after the day of Pentecost Peter, and, of course, 
 the other Apostles, did not believe in Universalism. Du- 
 ring this period, though they spoke as the Spirit gave 
 them utterance, though the Spirit bore testimony to the 
 truth of theiy doctrines, and tens of thousands were con- 
 verted ; it is admitted, that they were "Partialists," that 
 they preached not Universalism — unconditional salvation 
 to all men — but the necessity of faith, repentance and 
 conversion, in order to salvation ! Either the Apostles did 
 not preach the Gospel; or Universalism is not the Gospel, 
 nor any part of it. Either Universalism is false, or the 
 Holy Spirit bore his testimony in favor of gross error ! 
 In making this fatal admission, the gentleman, as I proved, 
 flatly contradicts himself. Such is the most unenviable 
 predicament in which he is placed ! 
 
 XII. My twelfth argument against Universalism, was, 
 that whilst the Gospel comes with consolation to the pen- 
 itent and the obedient, comforts those who mourn in Zion, 
 and turn from sin ; Universalism comes to comfort the 
 wicked in their persevering wickedness — to say to the 
 liar, the thief, the debauchee, the murderer, be of good 
 cheer — fear not; it shall be well with you. In the resur- 
 rection, you shall stand with prophets, apostles and mar- 
 tyrs, and be as glorious as they ! It says to tlie righteous, 
 lay not up treasures in lieaven ; you cannot do it; all the 
 reward you gain, even if you die a martyr to truth and 
 righteousness, must be in this life. You shall not be re- 
 compensed in the resurrection of the just! Is this the 
 Gospel of Christ? Is not its tendency most demorali- 
 zing? most encouraging to the wicked, who are resolved 
 to live and die sinning, and most discouraging to the right- 
 
 eous 
 
 XIII. My thirteenth argument against Universalism, 
 was, that however an individual may be persuaded of its 
 truth, it is dangerous and cruel, in the highest degree, to 
 preach it. For, a th.ousand probabilities to one, it is false; 
 wiuist, if it be true, ail are equuliy sale in ^ ejecting, as in 
 believing it. And in this life, so far as we can see, others 
 
OF tJNIVERSAl.lSM. 429 
 
 are doing quite as well, in all respects, as Uaiversalists. 
 Why, then, risk so much for nothing? Why will any 
 man teach his children Universalism, or persuade others 
 to embrace it ? He who does so, I say, is chargeable with 
 presumption and cruelty in the highest degree. 
 
 I now leave you, my friends, to judge of the arguments 
 offered. Those I have offered, are such as have weight 
 with my own mind. My clear, unshaken conviction is, 
 that Universalism, whilst it promises salvation indiscrim- 
 inately to all, denies every prominent doctrine of Revela- 
 tion, and takes away the only foundation on which a sin- 
 ner can rationally and scripturally hope to be saved; that it 
 awfully dishonors God, and hopelessly ruins those whom 
 it succeeds in persuading to believe its dangerous errors. 
 For the sentiments I have advanced in this discussion, I 
 expect to give account at the bar of God ; and I would 
 speak to this crowded collection of immortal souls as in 
 the immediate view of that awfid tribunal. My friend 
 differs from me here. He believes, that however errone- 
 ous, and even ruinous, the Ifcntiments he has advanced, 
 he will not be called to account for them hereafter! 
 
 I close this discussion with the kindest feelings toward 
 all parties, toward- Universalists as well as toward those 
 who adopt my views. May God, in infinite mercy, guide 
 us all to a saving knowledge of the truth ; and in the great 
 DAY, may we all stand on the sure foundation — the Rock 
 of Ages. 
 
 Gentleman Moderators, permit me to tender to you 
 my sincere thanks for your kindness in presiding over 
 this discussion during so many successive evenings, and 
 for the dignified and impartial manner in which you have 
 discharged this office. If my prayers are worth anything, 
 they shall be for your happiness in this world and in 
 heaven. 
 
 THE ENljrV Of THB^*^ 
 
 [Uiri7BESITYl 
 
JUST PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES, 
 Baker, near Walnut, betw'n 3d & 4th sts., Cincinnati. 
 
 THE BICENTENARY, 
 
 OF THE ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES AT WESTMINSTER, 
 
 Held at Edinburgh, July 12 and 13, 1843: containing a fall and 
 authentic report of the Addresses and Conversations, with an Intro- 
 ductory Sermon by Rev. Dr. Symington. PubUshed under the sanc- 
 tion of the Assembly. With an Introduction to the American Edi- 
 tion by Rev. William Wilson. 
 
 ADDRESSES. 
 
 By Rev. Mr. Elliott, Opening Address. 
 
 By Rev. Thos. McCrie, On the Leading Incidents and Characters of 
 the Assembly. 
 
 By Rev. W. M. Hetherington, On the Real Character and Bearing 
 of Westminster Assembly, and Refutation of Calumnies. 
 
 By Rev. Dr. Cunningham, On the Opposition of Westminster As- 
 sembly to Popery, Prelacy, and Erastianism. 
 
 By Rev. Dr. King, On the Influence and Advantages of Presbyteri- 
 anism, especially in reference to the Education of Youth and the 
 extension of the Kingdom of Christ. 
 
 By the Chairman, (Rev. Dr. Chalmers,) An Introductory Address. 
 
 By Rev. Prof. Harper, On the Uses and Value of Subordinate Stan- 
 dards. 
 
 By Rev. Chas. I. Brown, On the Leading Features and Excellencies 
 of the Westminster Standards. 
 
 By Rev. Dr. Candlish, On the Importance of Adhering to Sound 
 Scriptural Standards, and Aiming at Union on that Basis. 
 
 The Book, of Psalms, iv Metre : translated and dili- 
 gently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations. 
 More plain, smooth, and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore. 
 Allowed by the authority of the General Assembly of the Kirk of 
 Scotland, and appointed to be sung in Congregations and Families. 
 With a General Index, containing the first line of each verse, in Al- 
 phabetical order. Printed from the Glasgow Edition. Approved by 
 tlie Board of Publication of the Calvinistic Book Concern. 
 
 ]Vew Testament, on Large Type, with Polyglot notes 
 in centre column, with or without Psalms of David in metre, — in 
 press, and will be published early in the fall. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 lOAN DEPT. 
 
 .^!!!::Zl^2^^:if2^;^biec^^ recall. 
 
 . General Library 
 
 Unjversity of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
-kv^OO 
 
 HA 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY