YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Gift of
WILLIAM HENRY GAGE
Yale 1934

A DEBATE

UNIVERSALISM

WARSAW, KENTUCKY, MAY, 1844,

REV. E. M. PINGREE,
PASTOR OF THE FIRST UNIVERSALIST SOCIETY, LOUISVII/LE, KY.,

REV- JOHN L. "WALLER, A. M.,
PASTOR OF THE GLEN's CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH, WOODFORD CO., KY.

REPORTED BY A STENOGF.APHSR,. ANP REVISED BY THE DISPUTANTS.

/ "0

-v *9*-

CINCINNATI:
WM. L. MENDENHALL, PRINTER, 106 MAIN STREET,
1845.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by
E. M. PlNGREE AND J. L. WaLLER,
In the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio.

TO THE PUBLIC.
The following Debate is commended to your candid and
indulgent consideration. The question discussed is of
thrilling interest — deeply affecting the most momentous
concerns of the human family. We are conscious that the
subject is presented in a desultory way — an evil necessa
rily attendant on all oral discussions. Our endeavor has
been to present it to the public as it was spoken. We
were furnished by the stenographer with our respective
speeches, which we revised separately ; and then met and
examined each other's revision, and we believe fthat we
have, as nearly as possible, given you the Debate as it
occurred. Let those who read compare the points made
and argued, with the Sacred Scriptures, in the fear of
God, and with an earnest desire to know the truth.
E. M. PlNGREE,
Cincinnati, Feb., 1845. John L. Waller.

PROPOSITION AND RULES OF DISCUSSION,
AGREED upon between JOHN l. waller and e. m. fingree.
Question — Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness
and salvation of all men ?
Mr. Pingree affirms : Mr. Waller denies.
RULES.
1. The discussion shall be held in Warsaw, Kentucky,
to commence on Tuesday, May 28th, and continue four
days — five hours each day.

2. Each disputant shall have the privilege of speaking
twice, in speeches of forty-five minutes each, during the
forenoon's debate, (that is, from 10 a. m. until 1 p. m. ;)
and of speaking once each, in speeches of one hour each,
during the afternoon's debate, (that is, from three, until
five o'clock, p. m.,) of every day.
3. Mr. Pingree will open, and Mr. Waller will conclude
the debate, at each meeting. In the closing speeches of
the whole debate, no new matter shall be introduced.
4. The books introduced into the debate, by either
disputant, shall be free for the inspection and use of the
other. 5. The disputants are not to indulge in any personal
reflections toward each other; but shall treat each other
with respect and courtesy.
6. Neither disputant shall interrupt the other while
speaking, except for the purpose of correcting a misap
prehension of what he has said; or for explanation.
7. Each disputant shall choose a Moderator, and these
two shall choose a third, to preside over the debate, to
keep order, and to see that the above rules are observed,
as well as to discharge such other duties as are usually
performed by Moderators in similar discussions.
Signed, E.. M. Pingree, Affirmant.
John L. Waller, Respondent,.
March 26, 1844.

DEBATE ON UMYEESALISM.

At ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, May 28, 1844, the
disputants, the moderators, and a large audience being
present, at the Christian Church, in Warsaw, Kentucky,
Mr. Abbott, one of the moderators, having read aloud the
foregoing proposition and rules for discussion, the debate
commenced. [MR. PINGREE'S FIRST SPEECH.]
My Respected Friends — Before entering directly upon
the subject of discussion before us, it will be proper for
me to offer a few remarks of an introductory kind; and
this will be the character of my first speech, which will,
probably, not occupy all the time allotted to me.
I propose to name briefly — very briefly, the circum
stances which introduced this discussion : Mr.' Waller, my
friend, who is engaged in it, delivered one or two sermons
in this place, against the doctrine of universal salvation.
Some of the friends of that doctrine then invited him to a
discussion of the subject with some one of its advocates.
As Mr. Waller was not disposed to receive a challenge by
proxy, I wrote to him, at the request of my friends «n
Warsaw, inviting him to a discussion; this proposition he
did accept, and we are now here to engage in it. ,
That the subject is important, very important, none will
deny; more important than any other that can engage the
attention of the human mind. A question involving no
less than the destiny of all mankind, is here before us,
and before the whole Christian world. Upon this question,
there prevail two opposite systems of theology : one
holding to the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men ;

6 DEBATE ON
and the other to the endless misery of a portion of man
kind. I know there is a third; that in these latter days,
some hold the doctrine of the annihilation of a portion of
mankind; — but we have nothing to do with that notion
now. We do not find it either believed or advocated here;
and, therefore, I speak only of the two first named. In the
professed Christian world it is generally admitted, that
either all men will be ultimately happy, or some endless
ly unhappy. No inquiry can be more important. It
comes home to you, and to me, and to all, with most
thrilling power. It is desirable that the disputants, and
hearers should devote their earnest attention to it; and it
should be the object of the speakers, and of the hearers,
to know the truth; and not to gain a mere personal vic
tory in debate. It too often happens that on occasions of
this sort, both the disputants and the people assembled,
think too much of the victory and the triumph, and care
too little for the truth. I hope that Mr. Waller and my
self, and all present, will seek the truth alone upon the
question before us.
It is desirable, too, that all out-of-doors discussion — for
there will be much of it, (and I request it of my friends
particularly,) should be conducted with mildness and can
dor, and freedom from everything that is calculated to
excite disturbance and ill-feeling. Such a state of feeling
may be produced, and may last for months and years; and
remember that will be according as you and we act and
speak upon this occasion. But if speakers and hearers pur
sue the proper course, discussion will do no harm, and may
produce much good. No evil results necessarily follow
public discussions.
The last speech at every meeting will be made by Mr.
Waller; (it will be perceived that I do not use the prefix
" Brother," or the words " my antagonist," or " my op
ponent;" but the simple address of Mr., which is always
respectful and proper;) and I request all who may'hear his
last speech upon each or any occasion, to be present, and
hear my first speech on the succeeding meeting, in reply
to it; because he may attempt to create an impression in
his iast speech unfavorable to me and to my cause ; and
unless you are present to hear my reply, you will not
know how the matter actually stands between us. This is
a plain duty to yourselves, and to-the one who begins the
discussion.

UNIVERSALISM. 7
With these introductory remarks, I now proceed to de
fine the terms of the proposition, " Do the Scriptures teach
the ultimate holiness and salvation of all mankindV They
are simple and plain : there need be no mistake as to their
import. About the term, "Scriptures,'" there is no dispute. <It
is the Revelation of God's will, and of the duty and destiny
of man.
The term, " Ultimate;" what does that mean? — I pro
pose to carefully and precisely define the terms of the
proposition, as I intend to defend it. It is not the part of
Mr. Waller to lead you astray by arguing points not em
braced in the proposition, or by putting his own construc
tion upon the terms of the question, as proposed for
discussion. I do not mean, then, the holiness and salvation
of all men in this present life, -nor the holiness and salva
tion, of all men, at death. By " ultimate,''1 is meant a
condition followed by no condition opposed to it — the
immortal state; — not enduring for a few years, or five
hundred years, or five thousand, or five millions ef years;
hut final and immortal holiness and happiness.
" Holiness and Salvation." There is no dispute as to the
meaning of " Holiness.'" Every body understands the
common signification of that word. About the term " Sal
vation," there may be some dispute. I will explain dis
tinctly and precisely what I mean by it; and what I shall
defend. I do not mean that we shall go to heaven in our
sins: I do not mean that. Nor do I mean that we shall go
to heaven as we die: I do not mean that. I mean, this : a
final deliverance from sin, suffering, and death, into a state
of immortality, incorruption, and happiness.
The term "Salvation''' has various meanings in the
Bible. It is used to express a deliverance from temporal
evils. It is used to express a moral and spiritual salvation
here, by faith in the Gospel. But it is of no consequence
to discuss the. various meanings of the word as used in
Scripture. This is the one point I am to defend: the final
deliverance of "all men," every individual man, and
especially all sinful men, from sin, and suffering, and
death, into immortality, incorruption, and happiness. —
, That is the proposition. This is what I have defined to be
my meaning, and will defend; nothing more — -"nothing less.
Having stated my proposition, my course is to present

8 DEB A TE ON
proofs of the doctrine affirmatively: as Mr. Waller denies.
the proposition, he is to follow me, and set aside my proofs
of it, if he can. This is his especial duty, and not to build
up any opposite system of his own, but to set aside my
proofs first. Till this is done, he has no right to discuss
any other proposition, or to build up any other system op
posed to mine.
I shall present but few passages from Scripture, in each
speech — plain, explicit, and to the point. I shall not be
drawn away from this course. It is common to present
points to draw away one from the point in dispute, and for
persons thus drawn away to follow where they are led. I
shall not do this — I beg to be distinctly understood, further
than I may have time to. follow other points, after I have
presented my own proofs. I shall devote my time to
proving the affirmative of the proposition; if then I have
time and think proper to do so, I shall go aside to discuss
arguments in favor of other systems; but not otherwise.
1 hope I shall utter no sentiment, or exhibit, even in
tone or manner, any such spirit, through this discussion, as
I shall have reason to be sorry for afterwards, or ashamed
of. I hope we shall be influenced by nothing but a spirit
of candor, and an honest, sincere love of truth, and a de
sire to establish it : because this discussion is proposed to
be published. A reporter is present. It will go to the
world. It will last : and if my friend, Mr. Waller, or my
self, are ashamed and sorry for what we have, said, we
shall be ashamed and sorry for a long time.
I have no other remarks to make now, as introductory,
and, therefore, enter upon the discussion by presenting
the following argument, as the first. It is an argument
derived from the nature and character of God, and his
relationship to man. The inquiry is, what do the Scrip
tures teach to be the destiny of man? That destiny de
pends on tiie character and nature of God, and his rela
tionship to man. We know from Scripture the charater
and nature of God and his relations to us, and we bring
this to bear on the question in relation to the destiny of
his creatures.
There may be difficulties in interpreting the Bible. It
was written eighteen centuries ago. The languages in
which it was written are different from our own; and
besides that, the same phrases are differently understood

UNIVERSALISM. »
now, from what they were then, in the same language.
We bring the character and nature of God, the Author of
the Bible, to bear on its interpretation. This all will
readily see to be a proper mode of argument.
What, then, are the Nature and Character of God, as
introduced to our view by Scripture? He is "our Father,"
"the Father of our spirits;" " the God of the spirits of
all flesh." He is not only that, but his very. Nature and
Essence is Love. (1 John iv. 8, 12.) " God is Love." It
is his very Nature, Essence and Name. Again : God is
Good to all. Not only is he our Father, the Father of
our spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh, but " he is
Good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his
works." As Jesus Christ, in his sermon on the mount,
commands us to return good for evil; so he teaches us
that God is "kind even to the evil and unthankful "—he
is good to the sinful and unrighteous. It is well to remem
ber this; and that this nature of love, and this goodness in
the Father of our spirits, are unchangeable. God, is not
mutable; he changes not. He is. not one thing to-day and
another thing to-morrow. He is always of the same mind ;
now, and through eternity. Though he may punish us
for our sinS; (and he does so, for the Scripture say we are
judged, rewarded, or punished; according to our works;)
yet he punishes in kindness. Being unchangeable, and
forever the same, even if he should punish us in the
future life, his punishments would be directed by love and
goodness towards us, inflicted in the spirit of a Father.
Though our punishment should last for thousands and
millions of years, it would be for our benefit, " our profit,"
unless God changes at our death.
This truth in reference to the relation he bears to us,
I wish to be remembered throughout this discussion, ^as
bearing upon our exposition of Scripture. We must not
understand Scripture as teaching any doctrine opposed to
this nature and character of God. It is no imaginary na
ture and character of God that I have described. It is his
known and well understood character, as distinctly revealed
in his own Divine Word. It was proper for me to intro
duce this fact in the opening of this discussion; as it has
an important bearing upon what I shall say hereafter.
With these remarks we leave the subject in the hands
of our friend, Mr.. Waller, for the present.

10 DEBATE on
[mr. waller's first reply.]
May it please the Moderator: • •
Ladies and Gentlemen:— I feel that I owe it to this
community and to myself, to explain why it is I appear
here to. defend truths which the large mass of well-regu
lated mihds have, in all ages, taken for granted: and in
doing so, I would remark, that this controversy was not of
my seeking. I have all along felt almost an insuperable
repilgnanee to it. True, about a year ago, at the solicita
tion of my friends in this place, 1 delivered two sermons
on Universalism; I understood that the other side of the
subject had been frequently presented here, and I sup
posed I had the right, without question and without um
brage to any, to present my views also. I had no purpose,
and distinctly disclaimed any intention, of getting up con
troversy. But in the afternoon of that day, I received a
note from Dr. Chamberlain, inquiring whether I would
accept a challenge to discuss the subject of Universalism,
if from a respectable source, and from such a person as
the Universalists might designate. I replied, that it was well
known I had. said, orally and in print, that I neither sought
nor declined controversy; but held myself ready to pay atten
tion to the challenge qf any respectable individual, on any
important mooted question in theology; but that I would re
ceive no challenge by proxy. The tone of my refusal
was designed to close all further correspondence on the
subject. Judge then of my surprise, when, shortly after my arri
val home, I received 'a formal challenge from my friend,
Mr. Pingree !^and in such a shape, that in the estimation
of my most judicious friends, there was no way of escape
without inflicting a serious wound upon the cause of truth
in this place. I accordingly accepted it with extreme
reluctance. Mr. Pingree is welcome to the full benefit of
this reluctance. 1 then thought, as I now think, that long
settled truths, received by the common sense (perhaps I
should say, the common consent) of mankind, need no de
fence. Opposite opinions, if left to themselves, usually
work out their own destruction. But I had left the matter
in the hands of my friends. They believed it best to have
this discussion. 1 intended, as agreed upon, to have been
here months ago. Rumor has been rife here, I under
stand, and it even found its way into the Universalist orgaa,

UNlVERS ALISM. 11
of the West, that I was afraid to come ! Rumor, however,
in my own neighborhood, said I was dangerously sick.,. Be
that as it may,, in the providence of God, I am now here,
prepared to defend truths, which, in my humble opinion,
need no defence.
Preliminary to what I am about to say, permit yme to
remark, that I mean' no reflections upon the rectitude of
intention on the part of those who advocate the affirma
tive of the proposition now under discussion. I am free
to ascribe to them whatever of candor, honesty and sincer
ity they may justly claim to be entitled to. I impeach no
one's motives. But I shall freely speak of facts, and fear
lessly canvass opinions. .»
The world, for near a century past, has given birth to
many religious knights errant; aye, not religions merely,
but to all sorts of speculative knights errant! — individu
als who, judging by their self-importance, appear to esteem
themselves the predestined agents of Providence lightly to
adjust the crazy concerns of the world, which have all
gone wrong for the last sixty centuries! It would take
the genius of a Cervantes to do justice to the Utopian
achievements and exploits of "airy nothing" performed by
the religious and philosophical Quixotes, who have as
sumed that all the world, except themselves, have been
involved, since the beginning, in darkness and ignoranqe,
and that they are bright, peculiar luminaries, culminating
in the moral heavens, and pouring a flood of refulgence
into the night of the understandings of misguided man
kind! Among the last and most chivalrous of these adven
turers (the redoubtable Mormon leader, perhaps, alone
excepted) was the renowned projector of the Universalist
crusade. But more of him anon.
In no sentiments have men, in all ages, been more gen
erally agreed than in the following: First, The existence
of God; Second, The existence of the soul after degih;
and Third, That after death there is a state of rewards and
punishments. This is evident from the history,' written
and traditional, of all nations. And these doctrines have
generally stood or fallen together. Hence, when some of
the Academic school of philosophers consigned the soulto
oblivion, they denied the existence of Deity. These wete
the speculations of heathens. When the diffusion of the'
Bible irradiated with its celestial light the minds of men,

12 DEBATE ON
everywhere the doctrines above enumerated were received,
and throughout the civilized world, the learned and the un
learned gave them the- sanction of their most unqualified
approval. It was reserved for the last century to. produce
men of learning and of genius, who, enjoying the light of
revelation and of God's works, could look the smiling heav
ens in the fape, and in defiance of the dictates of reason, of
conscience, of common sense and of the Bible, and in despite
of the light and the language beaming and speaking from
the star-spangled heavens, and all the wondrous machinery
of the Universe, boldly to proclaim that "there is no God,
and. death is an eternal sleep." Atheism was too grossly
absurd Jong to receive the countenance of men; but the
philosophy (if I may so abuse the term) in which it origi
nated, gave birth to" other monstrous schemes, if less hid
eous to the "mind's eye," yet no less calculated to lead
men from feelings of accountability to God, and to wrest
from the conscience of the ungodly and the sinner, the
apprehension of a righteous retribution in the world with
out end.
- The doctrine which I am here to oppose, in that pecu
liar phase viewed by Mr. Pingree, is of modern origin — of
very modern origin! But I see already a manifestation,
on his part, of a disposition not to stand jam up to his
creed, as we say in the West. There are some parts of
his system, dearly cherished by him too, and to the de
fence of which he has hitherto- lent the might of his pen
and his voice, which he now .seems disposed to let pass in
neglected silence. I am surprized at his trepidation! . And,
forsooth, he has happily interpreted the question at issue
to suit his .convenience, and informs me with a very pat
ronizing manner, that I must follow where he chooses to
lead! JNfo doubt he would prefer that the deformities of
his system should escape inspection^ but I have come here
prepared to attack Universalism as it is — in the mass; nor
am I to be diverted or decoyed from my intention. If he
is ashamed of his cause, before this audience* be it so; I
hope he may be ashamed of it to the day of his death.
But to pass on.
I remarked awhile ago, that we sometimes injure a truth
by consenting to defend it. And especially is this the case,
where it is a truth to which the mass of intelligent minds
have always bowed in acquiescence. The amiable Des

UNIVERSALISM. 13
Cartes unwittingly inflicted a serious wound upon truth,
when he laid it down as a principle, that the first thing a
philosopher ought to do, is to divest himself of all preju
dice, and all his former opinions^ to reject the evidence of
his senses, of intuition, and of mathematical demonstra
tion: to suppose that there is no God, nor heaven, nor
earth, and that man has neithei* hands, nor feet, nor body.
In a word, he is to doubt every thing of which it is possi
ble to doubt, and to be persuaded that every thing is false
which can possibly be conceived to be- doubtful. That the
only proposition! to be taken for granted is, "Ego cogito,
ergo sum — I thinfe, therefore I exist." Des Cartes did not
mean seriously to dispute the existence of matter, but
only to call it in question, that he might give an exhibition
of his skill in demonstrating it. But the,re arose upon this;
a sect of philosophers who told an admiring world, to its
infinite emolument and - delight, that the- understanding
acting alone entirely subverts itself, and leaves not a trace
of- evidence on any proposition I That our ' bodies, the
earth, the sun, the stars, — in a word, that matter had no
real existence, or at least, could not be proved-- to exist ;
that it was a mere idea — a sheer impression of the mind !
These absurdities, advanced with ingenious subtilty and
maintained with great learning, were made so captivating
and injurious as to call forth replies from minds of the
most giant mould ! No marvel then, that Universalism has
had its advocates, honest, sincere, sabtle, intelligent. And
let this example, too, furnish you with the reason that
induced me' to appear here as its opponent. ' *
On this subject, I wish to present another thought: That
which has been received, after mature investigation, by
mankind generally, and especially the intelligent, ought
not to be rejected without great hesitation. A sentiment'
or doctrine, of which men have possessed a perfect oppor
tunity to be well informed, and always interpreted in a
particular way; and which, after all the means of informa-'
tion have been laid before them, and every fact and argu
ment in favor of an opposite doctrine have been presented,
examined,, and dismissed, certainly deserves' the utmost
respect, and possesses almost invincible presumptive proof
ef its truth, especially if the human mind is capable of
arriving at truth. 'Suppose a preposition, with all- the facts
And arguments pertaining to if, were placed before a hua-

14 DEBATE ON
dred competent judges, and they should come to a unani
mous decision upon it; and suppose another individual
should come forward, possessing no other advantages than
any one of these hundred, and should deliver an opposite
opinion, affirming that they were all wrong, and he alone was
right— what would be the natural and inevitable conclu
sion? Why, if the truth of the proposition could be
ascertained at all by these hundred and one persons, that
the hundred were right and the one was wrong. Just so
with the subject of future rewards and punishments. The
learned and intelligent have had this subject in hand ever
since the days of the Apostles, and frOm the day that the
final amen was affixed to the book of Revelation, until the
the year of our Lord 1818, when Hosea Ballou flourished,
not an individual existed, who admitted the authority of
the Bible, and yet denied that the wicked were punished
and the righteous rewarded in the world to come. How
happened it that he became in possession of more infor
mation on this subject, than any man that, during the
lapse of so many centuries, had existed in the civilized
world? Was he possessed of more intellect, more learn
ing? did he enjoy more of the divine light, or was he en
dowed with optics better adapted to pry into the Word of
God, than any of the innumerable host of his illustrious
predecessors? "I pause for a reply."
I know there were those termed Restorationlsts; — indi
viduals who admit a long and excruciating state of future
punishment, and deny its eternity. A few persons hold
ing this doctrine have been known to flourish, at different
and distant intervals, from the third to the last century.
But Restorationism and Universalism are two distinct sys
tems. They are not founded in the same premises — they
do not lead to the'same conclusions. They have no rela
tion the one to the other. The great mass of Restoration-
ists turn with loathing from the doctrine of Universalism,
and utterly refuse to hold communion with its advocates.
Mark my declaration: The doctrine of Universalism as
now professed, until A. D., 1818, had no advocate — that
until then, there existed no one who admitted the exist
ence of God and the immortality of the soul, or who ad
mitted the truth ofthe Scriptures, and yet denied a future
state of rewards and punishments. What then is the
argument? Why, that the whole creation groaned and

UNIVERSALISM. 15
travailed in birth for sixty centuries, but until the year of
grace 1818, brought forth no man with sense enough to
understand the Bible on one of its most thrillingly impor
tant doctrines, and to demonstrate the truth to mankihcl!
and that this prodigy of intellect— this production of na
ture's long, long agony is^Hosea. Ballou ! '! :But at pres^
ent, I forbear further comment upon this most astounding
phenomenon. I will await the advances of my opponent.
He says, I am not to lead, but to follow. In relation to
the point last alluded to, at all events, I will submit, with
the utmost humility, to his dictation.
I have said thus much by way of preliminary remarks.
I shall now proceed more directly to the subject in hand.
My only desire is that truth may prevail. God, who
knows the hearts of all men, knows I have no other mo
tive. I have no disposition to remain in error. I have no
interest but in the triumph of truth. I must now attend
to the arguments of Mr. Pingree.
His first argument is derived from --the nature and
character of God, and tlie relations he sustains to men. And
here I must notice a principle of interpretation which he
has laid down as applicable to the Scriptures. The prin
ciple is this: We must know the character of God in-order
to understand his Book. Now, the moral attributes, (his
moral character,) to .say the least, can. only he learned
from his Book. Then we cannot interpret his Book until
we know his moral attributes, and these are to be learned
only in his Book! This is an old monkish error, long
since exploded. The Universalists are wofully deficient
in the science of hermeneutics. I would respectfully ad
vise my opponent to give some attention to that subject.
The principle of interpretation that 1 am now opposing
teaches, that the Bible must first be understood theologi
cally, and then philologically ! — that we must first under
stand that which is revealed, in order to understand the
language of the revelation! This, I repeat, is an old
monkish absurdity. The true principle is, that we must
first understand the language, or we cannot know what is
revealed. How can we understand a book unless we know
the meaning of the language in which it is written ? The
Bible must first be understood philologically, and then we
can arrive at its theology. It is only by its language that
we ascertain its contents. If, therefore, we find any thing

16 DEBATE ON
stated on its sacred ¦. pages, in plain language, we must be
governed by the plain and obvious import of that, lan
guage. I will lay down the following axiom: That if we
change the obvious meaning of the language of the Bible by
what we learn outside' of it, then we do not give its mean
ing at all, but have perverted it. We are,not,.then, to in
terpret a book by what we may know of its author, but by
its language. Who ever claimed to interpret. the Declara
tion of Independence by inquiring into the temper and dis
position of Thomas Jefferson? But we interpret that instru
ment likewe do everything elseia the English.language ; we
learn by the words employed, the meaning of the author.
Hundreds who read the declaration do: not know anything
of the character of Jefferson; -and many, perhaps, do not
know that he wrote it at all. And how many books are
there, of whose authors nothing is known! There are
thousands. I have works in my library, many of them,
too, of whose authors I know nothing. Take the letters
of Junius as an illustration; a work of almost unsurpassed
celebrity, and of which no man knows the author. Then,
according to my friend's rule of criticism, no. man can
understand it!
The Bible Was written in the language of men and for
men ; - and it must be interpreted, like other books^ by the
laws of language. Deny this, and»we are thrown upon- a
sea of speculation, without compass or chart, tempest tost
by the conflicting elements of every wild and visionary
theory. That I may not be thought singular, I will sus
tain my positions by authority. I will quote from Erncsti,
translated by Stuart, the highest authority on principles
of Biblical interpretation.:
. "The principles of interpretation are common to sacred
and profane writings. Of course, the Scriptures are to be
investigated by the same rules as .other books. * * * *
If the Scriptures be. a revelation- to men, then are they to
be read and understood by men. If the same laws of Ian-;
guage are not to be observed in this revelation, as are
common to men, then they have no guide to a right under
standing of the Scriptures; and ah" interpreter needs inspi
ration as much as the original writer. It follows of course,
that the Scriptures would be no revelation in themselves;
aor of any use, except to those who are inspired. . But
such a book the Scriptures are not; and nothing is more

UNIVERSALISM. 17
evident than that; wAen God has spoken to men, lie has
spoken in the language of men ; for he has spoken by men,
and for men." P. 15.
The principle of depending, in our interpretations, upon
things and not upon woTds, is condemned; for, says our
author., "In this way interpretation.1 becomes uncertain,
and truth is made to depend merely on the judgment of
men, as soon as we depart from the words, and endeavor
to decide uport the sense by the use of meansnot connec
ted with them, ***** ^he meaning is, that they
decide from that knowledge of things which they suppose
themselves already to possess, rather than from the words
ofthe author; they decide by what they suppose he ought
to mean, rather than by what he says." Pp. 15 and 16.
Again: "Any method of interpretation not philological, is
fallacious. ***** It is by the words of the Holy
Spirit only that we are led to understand' what we "ought
to think respecting things. Said Melancthon very truly:
•The Scripture cannot be understood theologically, until it
is understood grammatically.'' Luther also avers, that a
certain knowledge ofthe sense of Scripture depends solely
on a knowledge of the words," P. 16V
Every one must perceive that Mr. Pingree's principles
of interpretation directly contravene those just read from
Ern6sti. The latter are based in. reason and common
sense. I have demonstrated the. absurdity of the former,
and shall now proceed to notice the arguments 'by which
he attempted to sustain his first position.
He said that God was- our Father^his nature was love —
he was good unto alii That this goodness and kindness is
unchangeable. He punishes in his kindness— his punishments
dictated by goodness; If we are not to understand this
language to mean that God, punishes sinners oniy for their
good, I' subscribe to this character I propose to show
before I am done,, that sinners are not punished for their
individual good. Bilt I will not press this point now. I
now, however, charge that Universalism does not make
God good and merciful ; and if Mr. Pingree is a genuine
Universalist, (which, from the tenderness he manifested in
treading upon certain points in the system, during the
progress of his last speech, 1 arn led to distrust,) I charge
him too with not subscribing to the character he has given
of God ! I will read, in proof of this, from some Univer-

18 DEBATE ON
salist books which my friend himself Teeorarmeraded to me
as containing a fair expose of his doctrine.
The Universalist's Guide, by Whittemore, says: "Now
the truth is, we do not read one word in the, Bible about
saving men in a future state. Jesus was anxious to save
people from their.sins, and their errors, and bring them to
a knowledge of the truth. He was anxious to save the
Jews from the awful judgments that were impending over
them, and all the apostles partook of the same solicitude.
Paul .says, (Gal. i. 4,) that Jesus gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world.
The evils from which Jesus came to save men are in this
world, and for this -reason he came into this world to save
them." Pp. 253-4.
So writes a scribe in the Universalist Israel! You
doubtless now see why it was,*tbat Mr. Pingree gave Us
warning that he would not defend all of his system; He
affirms the " ultimate holiness and salvation of all men."
Now, according to his "Guide," this holiness and salvation
must .take place in-thisilife. ' But his same Guide tells us
that the Jews and others were not made holy and happy,
and were not saved in this life! . Therefore' the doctrine
of Mr. . Pingree., by one of his masters, is. decapitated.
But I, read, this to show that Universalism cannot subscribe
to the declaration, that "God is love,'" whale it deprives the
world of a Savior. I know they affirm in round phrase,
that Jesus saves all men ; ¦ but when, you bring them to de
tails, he saves no one. , He saves them from what-? Not
punishment in a future state, for they say there is nOne.
Not - from punishment . due to sin ; for they say they,
endure that. Yea, but they are saved from sin in this
world. So, the Universalists affirm; but the .Bible declares
that " there' is no man that liyeth and sinneth not." Uni
versalism robs men of the Savior provided by our heav
enly Father, and, that, too, by what they call God's rela
tions to man!!;
Lwill read just one proposition in th£ "Pro and Con of
Universalism," another, book of my friend?s recommend
ing. "In the governmeiit-.of God, there is,, there can be no
escape from deserved punishment. P. 243.
Let us hear from the Father of Universalism. Ballou.
in his "Select Sermons," says: ."We see, my friends, that
there is, in the moral government of our heavenly Father,

UNIVERSALISM. 19
an established administration", which secures to those who
love and obey him. a present complete reward;1 ahd one'
which delays not to give to the wicked the reward of his
hands. To deny this, however popular the contrary opin
ion maybe, is a moral delirium* a fatal insanity, which
not only exposes us to danger, but absolutely plunges us
into- trouble." . Pp. 87, 88. • V
Mr. Pingree, of course, believes this. It is the same
sentiment as in the Univetealist's Guide, already read and
commented on.
But once more. I will read from the Universalist Cir
culating Family Library. Mr. Everett, its editor, says::
¦' They all (Universalists) agree in the sentiment that
every man shall be- justly, Certainly, and adequately pun
ished for all his sins." P. 6.
Again; be says: "We hold that the salvation promised
in the Scriptures is a deliverance from sin; and no more
expect to escape just and adequate 'punishment for our
transgressioris,, than We do to elude the vigilance of"
Almighty God, or- hurl him headlong from his throne."
P. 35. • , ' ' ¦'.-¦ -, '¦¦"
So Universalism not only teaches that we have rio Sav
ior, but that there1 is no forgiveness with God! — that he/
has 'no .mercy' on Sinners ; that he' metes 'out to every
transgressor.'under all circumstances, a full,.complete and1
adequate punishment. ! Who then shall be .able to stand ?'.'»
And what sort of a Father is he when he will not forgiVe
his children, though Jesus,- Ms welL-belovei Sori;. inter
cedes?1— not even when they come. to» hiin heart-broken,
for their transgressions, Confessing their faults and Casting
themselves before his throne, imploring his merCy by the '
recollections of Calvary? - - • '
But really I had supposed that the Bible taught a differ
ent doctrine. I had, by sOtne means or other, learned that
God had said, that if we forgive men their trespasses", he
would -forgive us our trespasses: And surely the Bible
does inform us, that Jesus instructed his disciples to pi'ay
to their heavenly Father, "Forgive us our debts as ,"•&¦« for
give our debtors." What, theh, are we to think of thai
system which represents him, like the cruel debtor, as
seizing the contrite sinner by the throat, arid sternly 'say
ing to the trembling penitent, "Pay me, what thou owest;"'
and then casting the poor bankrupt into 'prison, not to.

20 DEBATE ON
come out until he has paid the uttermost farthing! This
is what Universalism means by the goodness and love
of God!
But I cannot pursue this subject further at present, for
the want of time. Before I conclude, permit me to say
to my friends, that I hope they will refrain from indulging
any appearance of excitement or ill-feeling. This is an
important subject— one that demands our prayerful atten
tion. And remember, that in a short time we must go the
way of alh the earth, where all controversy must cease.
Good men may differ in this world, but in those bright
abodes reserved in/ heaven for those that love God, we
shall all he of one mind and of one heart. By man's
erring mind, truth can only be clearly perceived in the
light of eternity. My prayer to God is, that so much of
it as is now controverted, may triumph in this diseussion.
{Ml. PINGREE'S SECOND SPEECH.]
Respected Friends : — It is difficult to decide as to whom
Mr. ¦¦ Waller is discussing with; whether it be with Mr.
White, Mr. Whittemore, Mr. Ballou, Mr. Rogers, Mr.
Everett, or with Mr. Pingree. It would seem as if he was
discussing with all of them together. It should be under
stood that I am the advocate of Universalism on the pre
sent occasion; and that Mr. Waller should devote his
attention to me, and to my arguments.
What seems to trouble my friend most is, that, as he
says, the doctrine of Universalism is new and modern, in
his estimation. He says it is strange that all men should
have gone, astray upon the subject, and for so long a time,
etc. What a pity my friend had not lived in the time of
Baal's prophets, and Elijah! He would have said, if he
had witnessed their controversy, that the prophets of Baal
were right, because they were four hundred and fifty in
number, and Elijah was wrong, because he was only one
man. If he had lived in the days of Je,sus Christ, he
would have been on the side of the Jews. At that time
you might have looked over the whole world, and what
man of ever so enlightened a mind, had clear ideas of a
future life? Jesus Christ came to bring it "to light."
But he was alone. My friend, according to the spirit of
his argument, would have been of the number of those
who said to him : Here you are only one man, and the

UNIVERSALISM. 21
whole world is of a- contrary opinion. We will not accept
your testimony. "Away with him! Crucify him!!1' The
world has not had these views; therefore they must be
wrong. Suppose he had lived in the days of Luther. According
to his present rule, he would have stood"- by the side of
Rome and the Pope. The whole church was Roman and
Popish; nay, was Rome and the Pope. And' my friend
would have been there. He would have told Luther to
go away ; that he was one' man^ right in the face of the
whole church and all Christendom, and therefore' in the
wrong. When in after ages, a philosopher introduced
the- theory of the movements of the heavenly bodies, he
would have been of those who condemned him to silenee,
because he stood alone, and • uttered for truth what was
new. Or when Harvey discovered the circulation of the
blood, had my friend been there, he would have1 said that
it certainly could not be so, since the whole scientific
world denied it. He would have said to this great discov
erer : You are but one man alorteS It is a modern- dis
covery — away with it!
Just so here ; that is, granting, for the present, all his
assumption; and upon this principle of settling ques
tions, there could be no human progress; the world would
never- become any wiser'. It would remain ignorant for
ever. It would never progress without new light being from
time to time shed upon its old opinions, -and if an opinion
must always be held- because it has onee been held.
But let that pass. He says he must call on Cervantes
to write the history of the Don Quixotism of Universalism.
I think he is quite sufficient of himself for this task. Let
him to the work!
What has the sentiment of the whole world as to the
existence of God, to do with this discussion? I have not
denied his Existence and Character. I acknowledge him
as the Creator and Savior of. the Human Race. The
whole universe, the earth, the stars,' our very bodies, and
all our senses andmental faculties proclaim the fact abroad.
Does he mean to represent Universalists as denying
or disputing it? If he gives me the appearance of
denying it by arguing for it as if arguing against me,
I say it is not so. I believe in the : existence of one
God, the Creator and Savior of- all men. To intimate
that we do not, is a mere ruse on the part of Mr. Waller.

22 „, D E B A T E O N
But he thinks I am afraid to sustain what I believe- He
says he wants to make me ashamed of my real sentiments
for lifp, etc: My friend will find me ready to sustain the
proposition now in discussion; and that is all I intend, or
am under obligations, to sustain, at the present time. I do
not choose to discuss now, even if able, all the subjects
in theology. , My friend may have the victory all to him
self, upon other points. The audience will judge whether
I, advance what 1 cannot or will not sustain. All that he
said about monkish errors and popular translations of the
Bible,. has nothing to do with the subject in hand.
What is the proposition which I have undertaken to
defend;? f The ultimate holiness and salvation of all men-'''
and not any minor points. I am not to be drawn from the
foint in this way* by the introduction of other matters.
t is. absurd to talk of my being ashamed to defend what
I believe. - 1 trust this will be understood.
Who has expressed any doubt whether we had eyes,
or . -hands1, or bodies, etc.; or about the existence of the
earthy and the, heavenly bodies? Not I. Why, then,
introduce into this discussion mere nonsense for the pur
pose of upsetting it? These arguments do not bear upon
the subject in hand; and there is no need to introduce
them. -
The declaration was not distinctly made, but an impres
sion was attempted to be produced, (and I notice it merely
to deny the statement now,) that from the time of the
Apostles down to the year 1818, no advocate was ever
found of the doctrine of no future punishment.
Mr. Waller rose to explain. Ls^id, that no man was
ever found prior to Mr. Ballou,' who admitted the exist
ence of God and the divinity of th© Bible, and who at the
same time denied the doctrine of future rewards and
punishments. Mr. Pingree. There was a book written (I have it
not with me,) nearly two hundred years ago, by a man
who admitted the existence of God and the divinity of the
Bible, who advocated the sentiment of no fu ture punishment.
if necessary, I will produce it. Butwhat has the doctrine
of no future punishment to do with the proposition? That
question is not now before us. A man might be punished
in the next world for thousands and tens of thousands of
years,' and yet it would have nothing to do with this dis
cussion. That is not the. question, whether there be no

universalism. 23
,'futurespunishment; but whether all men will ultimately be
holy and happy. •
We come now to the 'first argument derived- from the
nature and character of God, and his relationship to man.
Mr. -Waller- attempts to set aside the- correctness of the
opinion, that the nature and character of God must be
brought to bear upon the interpretation of his written Word,
by ascribing a sentiment to me which -I do not hold, viz.
that the Bible must first be understood theologically, before
we can interpret it philologically.- I expressly said we
must leara the nature and character of God and his
relations to man from the plain language of the Bible,
and then bring thait to bear upon the teachings' of the
Bible. To what parts of the Bible shall we then apply it?
Evidently, to ambiguous, passages. There is no dispute
about Ernfesti: I subscribe to all he has read. from him.
I only say we mutet apply it to'places where the language
is ambiguous. ' • < ;.. l
Now, if we should understand the disposition of a
father to his children, who we were told was a kind and
tender father, we should- say it was not probable that he
would torture his child as long as he lived, arid when
about to die, should exert his power to make him' live again,
and so continue to revive and torture hind Over and over
and over" again,- as long as it was possible lo make -him
live. Or suppose we Were told that a father had made
such a declaration of his intention towards his child who
hadr offended him; would it not be proper to look at the
disposition of the parent, his character, (if the language
was ambiguous, I mean,) in reference to the true interpre
tation of the language expressing his purpose? This
would riot be violating the laws of language, but simply
bringing the' author's character to beais upon his own*
language where it was ambiguous. In this way we endea
vor to find out the true meaning of the passages relating
to ?' Hell," "Damnation'''' or "Everlasting punishment,"
which you must admit are equivocal. I shall not discuss
these passages now. < But when such passages arp ambigu
ous, how shall we always find out. their meaning, except
by. finding out the character of God who has revealed the
truth in. those words of Scripture? I. pass that then for
the present; . .**",- •
My friend, Mr.1' Waller, says he subscribes to the char-

24 DEBATE ON
acter arid nature of God, and his relationship to man, as I
have described them. That is therefore admitted. But
how can he deny the conclusions from it? God is the
Creator and Father of men, and his nature is Love. He
is good to the evil and unthankful, even in punishing them.
He is the same and unchangeable in purpose, now and
forever. Does it not follow from this, that all men will be
ultimately holy and saved, seeing that love worketh no ill?
That his purpose must be that they shall be finally happy?
I ask you where is the display of goodness in originating
an order of things by which the great mass of his crea
tures must be ultimately and forever1 wicked and misera
ble? In putting man into a condition where he Cannot
repent or reform; where he will not be allowed to reform;
where he may cry for mercy to all eternity, and have no
mercy; where God compels him to sin to all eternity? Is
there any goodness, or kindness, or mercy in that?-!
But according to my friend, Universalism gives a contra
ry character of God, — and he quotes'Rogerg, Whittemore
Ballou, and Everett. 1 have heard that before : that there
isno goodness, no mercy in God, because we ascribe to
him such a character as the BibLe teaches, viz. that he will
always certainly punish the sinner. What ! is it not so? Is
not that the Word of God 2. Is it not said that he will " by
no means clear the guilty?" that " he will render to every
man aceording.to his. works?" that "though hand join in
hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished?" Does my
friend say there is no mercy in that decree of God? They
arehis words, and they muststand; and if out friend charges
a want of mercy on any one, he charges it on God, and not
oil us. ,
But he thinks it a dreadful thing that God should inevi
tably punish the wicked — that there should be a certain
retribution here or hereafter; there is no mercy there; no,
even though he punishes to reform, and with a purpose to
make men ultimately holy and happy! But there is good
ness in THis-T-rthis is the height of benevolence — that he
should take his creatures and consign their souls to utter
perdition, where they must writhe in agony to all eternity,
and scream with devils and demons damned forever!! VThis,
to my friend, is pure benevolence! To punish them for
their benefit is cruel; but to take them and damn them
without mercy or hope, not for their benefit, but from

universalism. 26
revenge and vindictively, for no good object,- that is bene
volent, and kind, and merciful; is it?-!
Take the idea that the doctrine of endless damnation is
true, and connect it with that declaration that God will
"by no rneans clear the guilty;" and this, that "though
hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished;''
and take the idea that this punishment applies to a future
life, and to all eternity; and then take the passages, "for
all have gone astray," " the world lieth in wickedness,"
and what follows? " Why, universal damnation, to all
eternity,- unless you deny the Divine affirmation, that God
will "by no means clear the guilty."
We do not deny " the forgiveness of sins." We deny
the forgiveness of deserved punishment. John says,
"\Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of, the
world j" not the deserved punishment. That is what we
hold : the forgiveness of sin.
Another thought in reference to this idea of cruelty.
The common doctrine ofthe church whose sentiments
Mr. Waller represents, is that Jesus Christ suffered, the
punishment which men ought to have endured for their
transgressions. There are some here, ( I do not know
whether my friend is an Arminian or a Calvinist; but
there are both here,) who hold that Jesus Christ suffered
as the substitute for all those who deserved to suffer end*
less damnation for their sins. Here we have Jesus Christ
suffering as a substitute, in the stead of sinners, all the
punishment that was justly due to each sin of every sin
ner, past, present, and to come, in his own person. (And
yet, all were then not saved!) So, then, here is a double
vengeance taken — a double damnation inflicted! In the
first place, it is all inflicted to its full extent upoii Jesus
Christ as the substitute for men, and then God punishes
those very men themselves eternally! It is as ifa court
of justice should condemn a. man to death "for crime, and
a substitute should offer himself to die in his stead; and
the court should hang the substitute, and then turn
round and bang the criminal too!! That is a perfect
illustration of the doctrine !
I; have now noticed all that it was necessary for me to
notice in the last speech of my friend. My argument
from the nature and character of God, and his relationship
to man, as bearing upon the interpretation of the general

26 debate on
purposes of God to man, revealed- in Scripture, has not
been removed. I have noticed what he has said, and shall
wait for more from him.
- I now advance another argument — my second argument
— from the plain language of the Bible. I presented my
first argument rather as an inference. I do not propose
that this shall be so. I appeal now, for the present ar
gument, to the Apostle Paul, in the 8th chapter of his Epis
tle to the Romans, verses 18, 19, 20 and 21. I will read
the whole passage. " 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. For the earnest
expectation of the creature;" [I shall maintain that the
word "creature," here-means the whole human creation;
when I am driven from that position, I will yield the pas
sage; but not till. then. I assert that the word "crea
tion" does not mean the brute beasts, as John Wesley said;
that it does not mean the glorified saints, as some say;
nor the angels of God in heaven, as another has said, not
the fallen angels^- but human creatures, the whole human
creation] — "for the earnest expectation of the creature
— the creation — waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity,
hot willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected
the same in hope." Does not the Apostle apply the word
"creature" to man in general? To what else can it
apply? 1 will read on; "Because the creature itself also
[I would read it ' creation itself;' that being the true
meaning;] shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup
tion into the glorious'liberty of the children of God:" '
"I have not introduced, as you will see, a passage con
taining the word "saved-" because that word might have
ari'ambiguous signification. - There are various salvations
spoken of in Scripture. It saves the trouble of disputing,
to select an expression which is not ambiguous. Of such
a character is the expression here : " The creature [crea
tion] shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. For we
know that the whole creation [the same word is here trans
lated " creation," which was before translated "creature;"
this will be admitted;] groaneth and travaileth together in
pain until now; and not only they, >but ourselves also,
which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves

UNIVERSALISM. 2.7
groan within ourselves, waiting for the -adoption, to wit,
the redemption of our body." ' ,
I shall enter into no details of the argument now; nor
anticipate the views of Mr. Waller. If I followed his ex
ample, I should bring books of orthodox writers of dis
tinction, and show that one said- the <' creation" meant
the brutes; another,' the angels in heaven; another, that
it meant tlie human body only ; another, the saints now in
the body, etc. I might, • according to his example in -the
case of Universalists, take What anybody and everybody
has said, who passes by the name of orthodox, arid com
bat that. Should I do this? No: nor should he take all
the writings of Universalists' into this discussion, and con
trovert them. It is not his duty, nor mine. I shall sim
ply, present the passages, with only a few brief remarks,
for him to comment upon; and shall then demonstrate
that they teach the doctrine of universal salvation.
I may as well introduce another , passage to the same
point, now, to save time. It is -the 14th and 15th verses of
the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews:
"Forasmuch then as the children, [i. e. human beings in
general,] are. partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself
likewise [i. e. Jesus Christi] took part of the same; .that
through death he might destroy him that had the power
of death, that is, the devil;" [I do not mean now to dis
cuss the existence of a personal devil; grant all that is
believed about him,, for tbe present ;] and what • else?
"and deliver them, who through fear of death, [mark!
the . passage in Romans 8th says that the whole creation
"shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption," etc.
This passage is to the same point ;] were' all their lifetime
subject to bondage.'''
Whether this embraces more or less of the human race^
whether the elect only, or the wicked; all those who
" were made subject to vanity j" Me to' be " delivered from
the bondage of corruption ;" and so also those who Were
"all their life subject to bondage." You can settle it
in your minds whether this embraces all men, or not. It
is certain,.that if any are excepted, they are those who were
riot " made subject to vanity," and those who have not
"been subject to bondage through fear of death." Where
are such? Where are those who are not included in this
promise of deliverance? If you limit the passage, 1

28 DEBATE0N
should like to have it explained; who are they that are
not included? and let us have them brought forward. I
will thten give up the point; that is to say, if the excep
tion is established.
I invite his especial and careful attention to these pas-
sagesj particularly the one in Romans 8th. I admit can
didly, that it is one, (though not the only one,) of the
main pillars of the doctrine of^ universal salvation.- I
confess that I rest much of my hope on that one passage.
I shall not leave it till it is taken but of my hands. But
I have no fears of its being removed.
I will make one remark in conclusion by way of warn
ing, in reference to either Mr. Waller or myself. Either
of us may present proof texts that do not sustain our posi
tions. We may be in error on some particular passage.
Possibly this may be shown. Now though this may be
shown in one passage comingeither from him or me, it does
not follow that the system we support falls with that one
passage.' For my own part, though I do not intend to
introduce passages which will not stand the test of dis
cussion, I feel disposed, should 1 be shown to be in error,
to acknowledge it. But till that is done, I shall hold on
to them( and stand by them, and present them as pillars of
the system which 1 advocate on the present occasion.
[me. waller's second reply.]
1 will, at the outset, dispose of what Mr. Pingree is
pleased to term his second argument, based upon Romans
viii. 18 — 23. And I cannot refrain expressing my admi
ration at his singular prudence! After I have taken my
position on the passage, tlien he will show what it means!! ,
Most adroit disputant, truly! He quotes a passage of
Scripture as the basis of his second argument, but before
showing how it at all answers his purposes, waits to hear
my exposition of it! Am I to forge his thunder bolts!
And, verily, I thought from his former speech that he
would lead, and I must follow,
1 And his interpreUrtion of the passage, too, as far as he
ventured to interpret, was no despicable exhibition of
Falstaff's "better part of valor." The " whole creation,"
you will see in the sequel of his course, will mean just
that part of creation which suits' his purposes! He has
already told you, that it does not mean angels or brutes, or
inanimate things. But he has not proved that it must stop

UNIVERSALISM. 29
there. When he shows how many parts of the whole
creation are to be rejected to suit the dire necessities ,of
his cause, then, perhaps, I will want him to reject some
other parts. - But I will wait patiently his advances- on this
point. I am not wont to manufacture weapons for my
opponents. He professes to be at a loss to determine with whom I
am debating; perhaps the sequel will dissipate his embar
rassment. Probably he will, before we are, done,, learn
that 1 war with his whole system. I protest against and
hope to expose all of it, if the time allotted will be suffi
cient. I think it. all necessarily included in the proppsi-
tion under discussion. He says he did not come, here to
defend the ground of his brethren- This resolution is
admirably adapted to the emergency of his affairs — it
relieves him from attempting what he nor any one else
can perform. He also prudently resolves not. to say
whether the punishment for sin is in this life or in that
of the future. It suits him best to strut in the plumage
of the Restorationists, as- occasion may require. Like
the bat in the fable, he wants to be beast or bird, accord
ing as the battle waxes. If occasion requires, he wants to
sail in rnid air with the Restorationists; and when this
becomes dangerous he can fold up his wings, and creep
on the earth with the Universalists ! ., Is. this the far-famed
knight before whose prpwess, according to fhe Universa
lists hereabouts, my organ of courage disappeared last
fall? But he must take grounds. He riiust place himself
either with the Universalists or the Restorationists, I am
ready to demolish either system. If he admits- that the
wicked are in hell for one hour, I will keep them there
forever. If he puts them in the prisOn of perdition, I will
fasten the gates with the Bible.
The magnanimity of Mr. Pingree, too, seemed lo be
exercised altogether for his own benefit! He thought it
very illiberal in me to say anything on the Universalists'
view of punishrnent in contradistinction to that of the Re
storationists;, but then it was all the very pink of liberality
in him to descant on vicarious atonement, Calvinism, Ar
minianism, etc., etc. ! And while he denied my right to
refer to his sentiments on the punishment of sinners, he
did not hesitate to declare and to comment upon mine!
He represents me as contending for the endless punishment

30 '•' DEBATE' ON >
of the wicked ; when, from ought that I had said, he did not
know but I denied their ^punishment, and taught their
annihilation! By this unwillingness to do unto others as
he would they should do unto him, and his condemning in
me what he allows in himself, I apprehend he feels that
he is liard pressed. ' .
But language would fail to do justice to the modesty of
Universalism, as presented by Mr. Pingree in his' last
speech. -So fa* from ' denying, he justified the claim set
up by. his system, that all the world were enveloped
in a cloud of ignorance on the subject of a future state,
until modern Universalism arose to dissipate the mist's!
He went further. Tie compared himself and his coad
jutors to the prophet Elijah, in his controversy with the
priests of Baal! Well, when be' brings down fire from
heaven, like that venerable/ seer, I will bow>to his be
hests; but not until then can I admit the comparison. —
But even Elijah was not of suitable stature' to measure
his lpfty pretensions! But he was like the son of God,
who' spake as never man -spake; and .because Messiah
found none of the people to help him, but was rejected
by his own nation, therefore Universalism from , the
mOuth of -Mr. Ballou or Mr, Pingree, might be as true as
the Gospel from the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth ! If he
did not mean this, by his allusion to Jesus Christ, what
could ho- mean? But I cannot deceive the mission of
"Father Ballou," to use the filial designation of my oppo
nent, until, like our1 Savior, he confirms it by 'miracle.
Let him' raise the dead, cleanse the leper; heal the sick,
cast out devils, open the eyes ofthe blind, and unstop the
ears of the deaf. Then, but not till then, can I see how
lie at all resembles the blessed Savior in his mission, or
deserves similar credit.
¦ You Were told, that had I lived in the days of the Re
formation, I would have been found on the side of Rome,
etc. My friend has condescended a little — " fallen some
what from his high estate" — when he compares himself
to Luther, the giant of' the Reformation, after the mag
nificent comparison of himself to Elijah, and the Son of
God! But he will pardon me if I even dispute his claims
to equality with the reformer of Wirtemberg. Luther
contended for the common-sense interpretation of the
Bible. He waged no war against the reason and enlight
ened judgments of men. These he fostered, and warred

UNIVERSALISM. 31
to rescue them from the vassalage of superstition and
spiritual -despotism. No doctrine of the Bible that had
received the unanimous sanction^ of the mass of enlight
ened minds since the days of the Apostles, was ever op
posed by Luther. The cases, then,, are not parallel.
Luther was a very different individual from Mr. Ballon,
or Mr. Pingree !'. As to the Coperniean system, and the
discoveries of Harvey, when he demonstrates his theory
by aotual experiment; when he brings one from " that
bourne frpm which rio traveler has returned," to attest by
actual ohserationi the truth of his doctrine, then may he
place his on an' equality with the discoveries of Harvey.
Whenever, by mathematical demonstration, he makes his
system good, then it may claim to. rank with the Coper
niean. But he has done none of these things. I cannot
then consent to place Mr. Ballon or Mr. Pingree along
side of Elijah, Jesus Christ,1 Luther, Copernicus, Harvey,
or any other great instructor and reformer of mankind.
I introduced Atheism and the Cartesian philosophy for
the avowed purpose of showing that there were no 'opin
ions, however absurd, and- no systems however chimeri*
cal and preposterous,, but may have their advocates, and
even their martyrs. To this end, and as an apology for
Universalism, I referred to these monstrous abortions of
misguided minds.
To vindicate himself from the charge that the Univer-
salist's God never forgives; he alleges that my system
makes him unkind and inhumane; and that even granting
my position, still his system represents his Character in a
more amiable light than mine. I wholly deny those state
ments. My -system blends, in glorious harmony, the
mercy and justice of the Almighty. It represents him as
upholding a law that is "holy, just, and good," while he
extends pardon, for the sake of his Son, to the violators of
it, who seek his face sorrowing. But I intend to say
more on this, in its appropriate places Suffice it how to
say, that I deem it more merciful for. God to forgive some
times, than never to forgive under any circumstances.
But oh, says my friend, he does forgive! Aye, he for
gives after the sinner bas suffered a full and adequate
punishment for his sins! Singular forgiveness! and a
most singular jurisprudence that sanctions it!'-. An individ
ual owes another one- thousand dollars,' and tfhe 'creditor

32 DEBATE ON
forgives the debt after it is all paid! And this is what is
taught us in that petition pf the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive
us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;" meaning that,
as we exact the uttermost farthing of our debtors, therefore
our Heavenly Father will please, in mercy and benevo
lence, to exact the uttermost farthing Of us!!, What
would be said of the clemency of a father who should
punish, to its fullest extent, the disobedience of his son,
and then say, he had forgiven his transgression? '! A crime
is committed against the State, and the criminal suffers a
full arid adequate- punishment for it; and this, in the vo
cabulary , of Universalism, is denominated forgiveness!
Such language is not of earth. No nation, or kindred, or
people, ever used such speech! I defy such a meaning
for the term forgiveness to be produced from any diction
ary extant. But he says, " God does not forgive the sin
ner, but the sinV Well, r let us see how this will work.
The Savipr makes intercession in behalf of a repenting
sinner, and God, in consequence, punishes the sinner to
the full extent of his sins, and then forgives his sins! Is
there another system of jurisprudence in the universe
like this? But my friend discourses about the forgiveness
of the sin and the punishment of the transgression ! I
have heard of metaphysical scissors, capacitated to
Sever and divide
" A hair 'twill south and southwest side.",
And, verily, he must be using these. What is sin?
The Bible defines it to be,, " transgression of law;" one
tells us, that " where there is no law there is no trans
gression." And yet Mr. Pingree's system punishes every
transgression, and at the same time forgives every sin!?
This is marvelously profound! It is beyond my depth.
I shall await further developments. I cannot plunge fur
ther into such a metaphysical abyss! I beseech you, how
ever, to bear in mind, that he contends that every trans
gressor, or sinner, receives a full and adequate punish
ment. I shall have use for this "before our discussion
terminates. He told you, that I had not answered his first argument,
and that all I said in reply, bad no application to the ques
tion. I must appeal from his decision, to you. I suspect
he is not the most disinterested judge in the world. I

UNIVERSALIS M. 33
submit the matter to your intelligent and impartial deci
sion. I fear I should be most -signally discomfitted, if the
decision of this' contrbversy we're left to his judgment.
We are so prone to over-estimate the Strength of our rea*
sonirig. In the excitement of debate, pigmy arguments,
in the estimation of him that advances thern, swell out to
giant proportions. Some men,, when they set" out to
achieve some notable exploit, are certaip to be successful
in their own imagination; just so Cervantes records of
his hero whb Went out to wage war upon giants, that once
upon a time he demolished a showman's puppets," believ
ing they were veritable giants,! . It is not always safe,
then, to conclude that everyone esteems our arguments
as formidable as we do Ourselves, It is not1 eveiy one
who is blest with the gift of " seeing' ourselves' as others
see us." I will not therefore, in imitation of his example*
venture an opinion upon the strength of my answer to his
first argument. ¦ I will submit the matter, with all defer"
ence, to be judged of by the audience. ' . r ' '
Having thus paid all the attention to his. arguments,
which, in my huriible estimation, they deserve, I shall
prdceed to present a- few facts -for your consideration^
for I perceive^ that if I go no faster than he leads, -w'e
shall get very slowly over the ground ; and I am not dis*
posed tc waste timer The ifollo wing are facts:
'.' 1;'- It Is a. fact, that the Apostolic Fathers all believed
that Jesus and his Apostles taught a state of future retri
bution — 'that the righteous should be "happy, and the
wicked should be' miserable, after death. These rnen
lived in and near the apostolic age: They were mostly
Greeks, to whom 'the inspired language of the New Tes
tament ' was Vernacular. Were they more likely than
Hosea Ballou to mistake' this matter?
2. It ife a fact, that the whole, church* immediately sue*
ceeding the apostolic age$ held and taught, as the doctrine
of Jesus and- his Apostles, that the righteous would bo
saved, and the wicked 'be eternally damned, in the world
to come: I say the whole'ghurch of the second century.
Not a discordant voice was,heard.
3. It is a. fact, that all' the Christian. Fathers, affirmed
that this, doctrine was taught in the Scriptures. Some of
the more visionary of them, held that the punishment was
not eternal; as Origen, of the third century, and perhaps

34 debate on
Gregory Nazianzen ; but they did not profess to derive
any support for this opinion from the, Bible, but from their
own crude philosophical speculations. These two Fathers
were the most speculative and visionary of all the writers
of 'antiquity". Origen laid it down as a, principle of inter
pretation, that the letter of the Bible was never to.be fol
lowed, but the spirit..,., "The letter killeth," said he, " but
the spirit maketh alive-" He is the prince of spiritual-
izers. I will give you a specimen of his exposition. The
Bible tells .us that Pharoah's daughter ifound^ the infant
Moses in an ark of bull-rushes in the river, and took bim
out, and adopted him as her sou.. That, says Origen, is
the letter, and must be rejected..; The, spiritual or true
sense is, that Pharpah is the devil; his daughter, ' the
church; Moses is Jesus Chrisfc and his. being taken out
of the water, the- baptists of the Savior!!, The peculiar
excellency of this mode of interpretation, may be seen, by
its making the devil the father of the church! This was
his manner of treating God's word.,; He, moreover, tried
to conform it. as much as possible t© the drearily theories
of the heathen philosophy, to which he was ardently at
tached. ' His notions of the wicked, in a future state were,
that after suffering a long series of years, they would be
admitted to a state of probation again, where, if they
sinned, they were again to be punished. This he derived
from the heathen philosophers, as he. did alibis doctrine in
relation to the soul ; and he urged that the soul; for transgress
sion in its pre-existent state, was doomed to inhabit a mortal
body; and that for sins in this body, it would, unless saved
by repentance, etc. be sent' tb hell, there to be punished for
a long series of years, as already mentioned.- For these
visionary notions, he pretended no support from the Scrip
tures, nor did he ever intimate that Jesus and his Apostles
taught- them. On; the contrary, he testifies, as I will
show in due time, that the Savior and hisi Apostles taught
the eternal punishment of the wicked- Gregory Nazian
zen was, a disciple of Origen's. But, it is sufficient for the
present, that Origen tells us thgt the whole church of his
day, held that the punishment of the wicked was eternal.
4. It is a fuel, thatall Christian Greeks, in whose lan
guage, the New Testament was written by the Evangelists
and Apostles, and who of ;cpurse ought to know the mean
ing of the wordsJ employed in the Scriptures relative to

UNIVERSALISM. 35
the doctrine in controversy, have ever believed, since the-
first implantation of Christianity among them, that Jesus
and his Apostles taught the eternal happiness of the right
eous; and the ^ternal misery of the wicked, in a future
state. Now, so far as the meaning of the.wprds in ques
tion are concerned, -this settles the (controversy; and the
whole of it turns upon the true meaning of these words..
Now, who. can understand the Greek language, if the
Greeks- did not? -Shall Mr. Pingree or ,myself-profess to
know more of it, than those who spoke .and Wrote it as
their mother tongue? What if a Germariv fresh from
Germany, should come here; and because he had studied
English for a session or two in his owii country, and could:
translate a dozen English' books into German, should as-.
sume to know more 'of the English language, than all the
men in England or America? would we not all spurn him
as a most sublimated specimen of self-conceit? The fact,
then, that the Greeks, from the day that Paul and Silas-
first preached the Gospel to them, down to the present
time, have always understopd that the Scriptures, in their
tongue, taught a state of future, retribution, and that the
wicked shoill^ be, eternally punished; settles the import of
the words in debate, beyond the power of appeah Fqi?
to whom can we go, if the Greeks themselves donet un
derstand their own language? :
5. It is a fact, that all. the translators, of the Scrip
tures, into all the languages into which they have been.,
made, and of which we have any information, have withr-
out an exception, so far as I have been able to learn, so.
translated them as to teach the everlastinghappiness of
the righteous,, and the etei;nal punishment o.f the wicked.,
I -have something upwards of a dozen different tisanslations.
with me — they are free for the inspection of Mr. Pingree
-r-they are all so translated- They use the strongest
words in their respective languages to convey the idea of
eternity. The whole host of. learned and distinguished
men, ancient and, modern, who, under the providence of,
God, have given the Word' of life to. their fellow men. by,
means of translations, agree in thus -interpreting the lan
guage of Christ -and .his Apostles; at least, this is true so
far as my information extends, and I have taken great-
pains to inform myself.
6. It is a fact, that all the most distinguished corn-

36 . DEBATE ON
mentators, as Gill, Scott, Henry, Pool, Guyse, Calvin,
Clarke; Campbell, Luther,: Locke, Lowth, Lightfoot, Wes
ley, Wolfius, Waple, Whitby, Bui'kett, Beza,. Brown,,
Bloomfield, Barnes, By field, Bright tman, ^engel, Dod
dridge, Davenport, Danbury, Atkinson, Aiqsworth, Adams,
Albertus, Fuller, Ferguson, Hammond, Hardy; Jermyn,
Jones, Johnson, Goodwin, Good, Geier, McKnight; Mode,
Newton, Stuart, Ripley,' Owens, Horne, Chalmers, and a
host of others, too tedious to rnention, who have written
commentaries upon the Whole or a part of the Bible — in a
word, all critics and commentators of any note, are unani
mously of opinion that the Scriptures teach a state of
future rewards and punishments; and the overwhelming
majority of them teach that these estates are eternal.
7. It is a fact, that every man of the , very few ma
king pretension? to scholarship who deny the' eternal pun-.
ishment of the wicked, concede that the doctrine, in the
Scriptures, is taught in the same terms and in the same
connections as those whieh teach the eternal happiness of
the righteous.
8. It is a fact, that infidels have charged the Bible with
inculcating this sentiment, and Christians, in answer, have
never been wont to deny the charge; but they admit and
justify the doctririe. This was the course of Origen with
CelsuS. And I refer to this case, to show that Origen did
not profess to get his Restorationism from the teachings
of Jesus and his Apostles. I will quote Leland's account
of the matter:
"Celsus, in a passage cited before,, pretends that the-
doctrine of future punishments was equally taught among
the Pagans as among the Christians, especially by those
who were the interpreters of the sacred rites and the mys-
lagogues, who initiated persons into fhe mysteries, or pre
sided in them. Bu,t then, in what follows, he supposes,
that though both the mystagogues and the Christians
taught future punishments, yet they differed in their
accounts of them; and the question was, which of their
accounts was the truest. Origen, in his reflections on this
passage, observes, that it is reasonable to think that they
had truth on their side, whose doctrine on this head had
such an influence on their hearers, that they lived as if
they were persuaded of the truth pf it: that the Jews and
Christians are mightily affected with the persuasion they

UNIVERSALISM. 37
have of the future rewards of* good men, and punishment
of. the wicked. But, says he, ,'let Celsus, or any other
man that pleases, show any ' persons who hath bepn
wrought upon by the terrors of the eternal punishments;
as represented by the mystagogues;' where he intimates
that the ^mysteries had very little effect, and made small
impressions on the minds of men." Leland on Revelation,
vol. 2, p. 390. : ¦ , >:
The work of Celsus was written against the doctrine
and practice of the Christians, as inculcated in the New
Testament. He was a Greek, as well as Origen.; He
alleges that the Scriptures teach eternal punishment, and
insists that in that they are no better- than the heathen
mysteries- Origen, iri reply, admits the Scriptures teach
the doctrine, and shows that as taught there it has, a more
pre-eminent influence on men's mirids than as taught in
the mysteries. Would Origen have made this admission
if it was susceptible of a denial? If the language of the
New Testament admitted, of a different interpretation,
who more competent to show it? And if disposition was
requisite to the attempt, being a Restorationist, who likely
to be more willing?
9. It is a fact, that, of all Christians — martyrs and
confessors, learned and. unlearned, orthodox and hetrodox,
churchmen and schismafics-^pf all who ever professed the
name of Jesus Christ, not one is known^ until the nine
teenth century, to have disputed that the Bible taught the
reward of the righteous and the punishment ofthe wicked,
in the world to come. The gentleman told us, that the
Universalists have a book written some two or three cen
turies ago, denying future punishment, and he has prom
ised to produce it, if he can. Will his friends remember
this, and help him. to find it?
10. It is a fact,, that, since the filial amen was affixed
to the Word of God, no one is known to have disputed
future retribution, but visionary pagan philosophers^ hea
thens of the worst sort, atheistSj and some infidels, until
the commencement ofthe career of. the -remarkable Hosea
Ballou! ./.,.'
11. It is a fact, that the large and overwhelming
mass of all the most pious and learned^ the most self-de
nying disciples and most laborious students of the Bible,
now, as in all ages of the church,,, believe that the Scrip
tures teach the eternal pufaishment of the enemies of God.

38 DEBATE ON
12. It is a fact, that the large and overwhelming
mass of professed Christians, now, and ever since the
apostolic age, whatever may be now, or may have been
formerly their differences of opinion touching other
points, -are, and have been- perfectly; united on the senti
ment that the righteous will be eternally happy, and the
wicked eternally miserable. ...
I have but few comments to make. Here are twelve
facts, bearing upon the history of this question. 1 wish
you to take them home with you and ponder them well.
'They will not be disputed; or if they should be, I am am
ply provided with the proofs. I do not claim them as
infallible proofs of the truth of my position, nor of the
falsity of that, of my opponent Only God, Can furnish
such proofs: But I do claim them to be the strongest
proofs possible for the humgn min4 to furnish in favor .of
future eternal punishment. My friend may say it is not
Scriptural evidence, and in that way attempt to escape the
force of these facts. It is his only wayv But how is it
possible for men to understand the Scriptures, if such
means as these be discarded? Only an infallible church
can understand them. The human mind is wholly inade
quate to the task. Can the human mirid do more than I
have shown it has done-on this subject? And if it is mis
taken, we must forever abandon -its guidance. Look at it
again. All men, for seventeen centuries, with the whole
subject before them, arrive at the . same conclusion, that
there is a future state of rewards and punishments; and no
one disputes it Until Hosea Ballou. His advent is an
epoch. He, in our own day and generation, proclaims the
whole Christian world wrong, and assumes to be a bright,
peculiar star in the moral heavens, destined to outshine
and eclipse all the lesser lights of learning, philosophy,
piety and criticism, which have shed on man their feeble
rays for upwards of seventeen centuries! And who is
this Hosea Ballou? Has he proved his title to this assump
tion by an exhibitioh of such learning, and talents, and
piety, as were never witnessed before? If men can inter
pret the Bible at all, why must we believe that he only has
interpreted it aright? .Must we believe that'all the Chris
tian world, of every sect and denomination, in all ages
and all countries of the Christian religion, with all the
aids that learning, application, and mental vigor could
afford, were unanimously wrong in opinion and belief on

UNIVERSALISM. 39
this all-absofbing point, until, this- individual arose to set
them right? -' , , .-- .-'
Universalism may be right! Aye, it may be right, when
there is no such thing as wrong! If true, it would 'be
unique — the most wonderful prodigy the world ever saw!
It Wquld be a mental phenomenon that has never 'had its
parallel.- The gentleman may claim to" .know more than
all others. It is not impossible for one man, on a particu
lar subject or subjects, to know more than those who have
not had those subjects'called to their especial consideration:
A lawyer or a doctor may be more learned in hisprbfession
than all persons who have not made law and ^medicine their
Studies. But suppose there was iri the law an important
principle, well Settled by-the voice of the profession for
ages; suppose it to be a principle frequently applied to
important cases of adjudication; and yet that no. one, 'how
ever deeply interested, had ever presumed to question it;
and suppose that all the learned' jurists and writers whose
opinion's are recorded had agreed, unanimously in their
construction of it; and that with them had concurred all
who had been in any way interested or informed on the
subject. And then, suppose a solitary individual should
arise, and he far from being the most learned in" his pro
fession, arid announce for the fii-st time, that all were
wrong, and that he alone understood the true import and
meaning of that principle of law! — think you he' could
proselyte many of that profession to his opinion? Would
they not be apt to inquire how it happened that his one
head should contain more knowledge of law than the
heads of all the profession that had preceded him? Doubt
less they would. Let us- make the same demand ofthe
Universalists. Let them make good their information on
this point, as superior to the united wisdom of Christendom
in all past time. Without this, we cannot ibow to their
opinions. ,
If this question had always been esteemed one of: but
little consequence, it might not have received that atten
tion it has from the religious World; and in that case, I
might be willing to grant all that is claimed for the inven
tor and' patentee ofUniversalism. But it is a question of
most thrilling' interest. ¦ The eternal- destiny of the soul
is a subject of immense magnitude^ forcing itself uponthe
consideration of every mind, arid filling it -with anxious

40 DEBATE 0|t
sohcitude. It could not have. been overlooked by men;
That a doctrine should be plainly recorded in the Bible,
so important and so interesting to man, as that of Univer
salism, viz: There is No punishment, To the sinner after
DEATH— that ALL MEN SHALL BE HOLY AND HAPPY IN A FU
TURE state, and yet that it should escape the, most vigilant
research so long, is most incomprehensible. Aye,' that
this doctrine should be , spread out on the pages- of the
Bible, as they say it is, and as from its importance it ought
tp be, in lines as distinct and legible as if written in sun
beams on heaven's- blue archway, and yet that all eyes, fpr
seventeen ' centuries, should be anxiously turned towards
it, without one being able to perceive it, until the more
than eagle optics of Hosea Ballou were providentially
turned in that direction — rto ask us to believe all this> is de
manding as much faith as would remote and cast a syca
mine tree into the depths ofocean! Yet we cannot get,along
with Universalism without subscribing to all this,: and it
presents to my mind an, insuperable barrier to its recep
tion. If the doctrine be true, it is the most important of
all others. Time is fast carrying us all to the tomb.
[Adjourned until 3 o'clock, P, M.]
Mr.Pingree rose here and requestedall thOse then pres
ent to attend and hear his. reply at 3 o'clock. It was due
to the doctrine he advocated, that they should be in pos
session of his rejoinder to Mr. Waller.
[¦MR. PINGREE'S THIRD SPEECH.]
Respected Friends: — I shall devote my time this after
noon, as far as may be necessary, to replying to the last
speech from Mr. Waller, this forenoon.
The proof text, now to be especially examined, is the
8th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, beginning, at
the 18th verse. This embraced my second argument, and
presented definitely the doctrine of universal salvation.
My first argument, as you may recollect, was drawn
from the nature of God, and" his relations to all men: that
he is " our Father;'' that his nature fa love, and that he
is good to all; kind even tp the evil and the unthankful,
and unchangeably,- forever so; and cannot inflict ultimate,
endless evil on his creatures, whOm he loves*
My second argument was from the eighth chapter of
Romans ; which Mr. Waller; in his reply, neglected to

UNIVERSALISM. 41
notice,' because I had not said all that could be said on
the subject of the word " creature." - That I had not done
tliat to the fullest, extent, was no excuse for his not exam
ining the passage. But I will read the passage again, and
again call his attention to it. "For the earnest ex
pectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation
of the sons' of God. For the creature was made sub
ject to vanity, not willingly, but . by reason of him who
hath subjected, the same in hope. Because the crea
ture itself also shall be delivered from .the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons. of God," etc.
1 will read and comment again upon the whole passage,
in order that no further excuse may remain for Mr. Walj
ley's not examining it. I now state what T stated before,
that the 20th and 21st verses above quoted, are those that
are relied On by Universalists as distinctly supporting the
doctrine of universal salvation. I said that the word
"creature," in, the 20fh verse, is the same word in the
original, as the word* translated "creation," in the 22d
verse; and that it therefore may read, " the whole crea
tion shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption,
etc.; meaning, of course, all the creation here spoken of,
which " was made subject to' vanity;" i. e. the human race.
Now the inquiry comes from my friend, why does not
the word "creation" here refer to the brutes, and the an
gels, etc., as well as to man? And this being answered,
he says will present the passage in .such a light that- he,
can look at it. Let us see therefore, if wecari answer-his
question, and if there be really any. difficulty in the way
of its proper interpretation.. We will take the passage
and see, in the first place,- in what manner it will, apply to
the brute creation. How would it read when thus applied?
Let us read it so: "For the earnest expectation of the
(brute) creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons
of God! Fpr the (brute) creation was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath sub
jected the same (i. e. the brute Creation) in hope. , [This
hardly corresponds with our view of brute intellect* Do
brutes "hope?"'] Because the (brute) creation itself shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the- glo
rious liberty of the sons of God." ' ,
What then is to become of the human creation? Where
can be the spirit of . a Father in this? Men are sent

42 debate on
to the world of woi to suffer the pains of eternal perdition^
and to writhe forever iri the agonies of Hell; but the brutes
are they to whom the glorious promises of the Gospel
apply, and who are'to be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into theglorious liberty of the sons of God! !
The passage cannot by any possibility be construed to
apply to the brute creation. ~, \ cannot pretend to say, be
cause nothing is revealed upon the question, what is to
become of brutes hereafter, if there lie any hereafter for
them. But that this passage does not apply to them, is
very certain; and it cannot be possible that my friend so
thinks of applying it.
Again, the inquiry is made, Why does not the passage
apply to -angelic Creatures? ¦ Let us again make the pas
sage, thus applied, answer for itself: "For the earnest
expectation of the {angelic) creation waiteth for the man
ifestation of the sons of God. For the (angelic) creation
was made subject to vanity, (!) not willingly, but, by rea1
son of him who hath subjedtc'd the same (angelic creation)
in hope." Is it so?> Is this the fact?; Is the angelic crea
tion made subject to vanity ? Let us read on. " Because
the (angelic) creation," that love and adore around the
throne of God, "shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of
God!" Is that their condition?' Do the angels of God
stand in need of that kind of deliverance? If so, the lan
guage may apply to- them; otherwise, not
But I once heard one say, in speaking of this passage,
that the word creation ¦' applies to ihe fatten angels. Let
us see how. the passage will read when thus applied: " For
the earnest expectation of the fallen angelic creation*
(that is, of the devils, so called,) waiteth for the manifesta
tion of the sons of God! For the fallen angels, or devils,
were made subject to vanity — -not willingly, but by reason
of him-who hath subjected the same iri hope! For the
fallen angels, devils; themselves shall be delivered from
the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
sons of God"! According to the last reading, what does
the theory involve? That a man must believe in the sal
vation of devils, but that the human race are doomed to
eternal perdition! We see, thenvoii the very face of the
passage, that it cannot refer to brutes, or angels, or devils.
Then, to what does the word "creature," or creation,

universalism. 43
refer? There are some who say it refers to the saints.
The' passage is plain" in itself, and on its very face; and
the more we examine it, the more evident it is that it must
necessarily be explained in only one way. Let. us now see
how the verses read, when applied to the saints: "For
the earnest expectation of the saints waiteth for the man
ifestation of the sons • of God. For the saints were' made
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of 'him who
hath subjected the same in, hope." Is this '^the condition
of the Saints alone? The passage relates to the period
before they were saints. "For the saints shall be "deliv
ered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious lib
erty of the sons of GOd." Have not the saints already
the liberty of the sons of God? Were they made subject
to vanity, as saints? does it, or can it apply to them exclu
sively? It certainly cannot. If it does hot apply to
saints, therefore, to whom does it. apply? To men, in gen
eral. What can we think it applies to, except the human
creation; men that have sinned ; that were made subject
to vanity — that are in the bondage of corruption, and who
hope for a deliverance into the glorious liberty ofthe soris
of God?
Let us look at an example or two where the same word,
"creature," is used. Colossians i. 15. "Christ the first
born of every "Creature." Of what- " creatures "' is Christ
here spokeri of as being the first-born? I presume not
of angels, or brutes; but of men. Again, "the Gospel
should be preached unto every creature." What crea
tures does this refer to? Brute creatures? ! or angelic
Creatures? Are these the creatures' to whom the Gospel
is preached? No. To whom, then, does the word "crea
ture " apply? I press the question. Ans. To human, sin
ful men; does h not? -The Savior commanded his disci
ples to go throughout the world, and "preach the- Gospel
to every creature." What is the meaning of the word
"creature," here? To whom was the Gospel to be
preached, but to sinful man? who needed it, andwfao was to
be delivered by it? and to whose nature and condition
alone was it adapted? Mr. Waller tells us he may drive
me to embrace more in the word, " creature," by my
interpretation, than would suit my argument; arid then that
it embracesJ less than the whole human creation. Well,
let us hear what kind of creatureis it can embrace, beyond

44 DEBATE ON
human beings. My reading of the passage is,, that it em
braces just the whole human race, and rio more, and no
less; because the creation that shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption jnto the glorious liberty of the
sons of God,, is the '-' Creation " that was " made subject to
vanity;" the creation that is in "the bondage of corrup
tion," the "creation" that hasan "earnest expectation of
the manifestation of the feons of God, " and the . creation
to whom the preaching ofthe Gospel was exclusively adap
ted;: — in a word, sinful, human beings. The word cannot
hp'made to seem to mean anything else. Then I say that
the passage does not apply tp the brute creation, or the
angelic creation, or the fallen angels or deyils, or to the
florified saints; but to sinful human beings; and if this
e the fact, it is conclusive evidence, so far as the plain
declaration of 'Scripture can go, in favor of the doctrine
of final universal salvation.
I think I have now- said enough upon, the plain language
of. the passage itself, to entitle my argument tp Et little of
the attention of Mr. Waller upon the present occasion.
We shall anxiously look' for his reply.
I wonder if the audipnce recollect the proposition? , I
will repeat it:, "Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holi
ness and salvation of all men?" That is the proposition.
What was the object of the last speech of Mr. Waller,
during the morning's discussion? Was it to show frorri
Scripture that the proposition was untrue? No; but to
overthrow the doctrine of universal salvation, by vote —
by the opinions of men, by the' authority of uninspired,
fallible men. I appeal not to them; my appeal is from
them, to the sacred Scriptures* to the Word of God. It
is a strange affair, he says, an unparalleled phenomenon
in the history ofthe world, that Universalists should dis
cover the doctrine Pf universal salvation in,the Scriptures,
when so many commentators, and all tlie learned and pious
men of the world, for so long a time knew nothing about
it. His argument is this: that the existing Church beljeves
in the endless punishment of all the wicked; therefore it-
must be true.
Mr. Waller professes to be a Protestant. I ask, is he
Protestant in that? If he means tp argue this question in
that manner, I say to him, let him go back into the bosom
of the Mother Church, and .remain there ! Let him listen

universalism. 45
to, and be bound by it, as he seeks to bind me by the vpice
of the Universal Church. There would theh have been
no Reformation, had such arguments prevailed ; but it was
this very idea; this mode of reasoning, that the Reforma
tion overthrew. (I speak of the Reformation of Luiher;
not that of Alexander Campbell.)
Mr- Waller represents me as taking the position that I
am equal to Elijah, and to Jesus Christ,1 and to Luther;
nay, as if I presumed to place mysplf above them all.
Was that the point of. my remarks? Did I make any suc^i
assertion? Did I say anything in disparagement of those
great, high, and holy names? or elevate .myself to their
height? What then was my argument? It was simply
this, -as you know; that according to Ml". Waller's argu
ment,— that what the mass of the world believe must be ,
true, — if he had lived in the days of those men, he would
have been on the side of the majority, and wOultl, have
been opposed to receiving anything from these reformers,
believing that because they stood single and alone against
the mass,, they must, be false; and- that, upon his principle
of deciding questions, he wpuld have been an opponent -of
all reformations that have ever been commenced in the,
world. My remarks did not go to convey any such idea
as that I considered myself equal to Luther, etc., but sim
ply to show, from referring to those cases,, that the mass of
minds were not necessarily, nor always right; and that
eyen things which the world had unanimously rejected,
might be true ; aye, things universally rejected, have been
demonstrated to be true, notwithstanding that the " mass
of well regulated minds" was in opppsition to them.
Why, Sir,; " he is a setter forth of strange gods," was
the language of the polished Pagans to the Apostle Paul.
So Mr. Waller says; that it is a " strange and unheard of
thing" that the doctrine of universal salvation taught iri
the Bible should not have been discovered before the time
of Ballou ! Just so the Greeks thought of the Gospel
preached by Paul! They believed in the infallibility 'of
the majority ; arid would not my friend have done the
same thing, had he been there ? acting, I mean, upon the
same principles he. has- advocated here to-day.
So far from such principles being applicable to the ques
tion, I believe — and has not Jesus Christ himself said it?-^-
that the majority dre generally in the wrong. Christ han.

46 DEBATE ON v
said, ," Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and
many there be that find it. But strait is the gate and nar
row is the path that- leadeth unto life; and few there be
that find it.V:- Watts has expressed it thus — ..
" Broad is the way that leads to death,
And thousands walk together, there .'
But wisdom show a narrow path.
With here^-and there — a traveler !"
Arid the history of mankind shows this to be a general
truth. I repeat it, it is generally the few who are correct,
and not the many. It has been so in all ages- Mr. Waller
talks about the mass. If left to the mass of minds, I ask
what would have become of triith in past ages ?' Did not
the mass of minds, from the earliest times, depart from the.
one true God, and give themselves overto many gpds? Are
not the mass continually tending to forget the true God>
and to believe in many and false gods? There was a time
when the truth that there was but one God began to be
pi'eached, in opposition to the unanimous opinion pf the
whole massof human minds. My friend, if he had acted upon
the principle that the opinions of men of wisdom and learn-'
ing must decide questions of this sort — which is his princi
ple to-day — would have said, Away with it! it is a new and
strange phenomenon, unheard of before; and the whole
world has always been the other way; — away with this
new doctrine of one God! There are many gods — see
them all around— upon the hights of Olympus, iri the tem
ples of religion, in the groves,' and in the riverS: The
great and learned of all ages have so thought. " These be
thy gods! O people!" Thus he would have been a'poly-
theist iri the days of polytheism, upon the principle that
the majority — "the mass" — are right. -
Did not the Universal Church believe, for a time, in the;
doctrine of the " Real Presence ?'' Had not ' the great
body of the^ learned and pious1 and distinguished— the
"mass of well regulated minds" who professed Christianity
throughout the world for ages, been unanimous in this
belief I Even Luther himself admitted it, when he com
menced the Reformation. If my friend had lived at that
time, he would have held to the doctrine Of transubstantia
tion', if he had been consistent with his present principles.
My friends, we did not come here to ask what" TheChurch"
has taught on the subject before us. If that were the rule

UNIVERSALISM. 4|7
of faith, . I would go at once to Rome, and ask the Cardin
als and Pope to instruct me; fpr upon that principle, Pro
testantism and thp Reformation are a nullity. Wo profess,
however, to be governed by a different! principle,,,; '.W'0
come here tp ask what the Word of GoD-teacb.es, and to
abide by its decision; and no such question as this can be
decided by the authority of the Church* or by the mass of
men's opinions. ,.-,.' " - ¦ <.
I am obliged to be' somewhat desultory , in my remarks,
in consequence of the different points which Mr. Wilier
has brought up. I come now fo another ef his .remarks,
made this, morning.. My friend, it seems, is determined to
have some in Hell; and'he says, if he getg them there owe
hour, he will keep, them there eternally. , . . - , • i
Mr.- W a, lee, explained. = I said if you put them there,
for one hour, I would keep them-there. ,. . ,
Mr. Pingree^ I will .neither put them nor keep them
there. I do riot wish to be " the turn-key of Hell." But
I will show where men have gone to Hell, and have come
out again, if be likes. Aad 1 may refer.tp David, whp says,
"The sorrows ,of death. compassed, me about apd the, pains
of Hell got hold upon me,;1', and he also says, "Great, is
thy mercy to me,' 0 Lord! for thou hast delivered my soul
from /Ae lowest Hell!" Mark! eV,en,,"Me .lowest^' jl
may refer- also to the prophet Jonah.' You, all recollect his
fate. He refused, when commanded by Gpd, to go and
preach at Nineveh;, and according to Scripture he went
to Hell, as his p.unishment;-.for he says, "Out of the belly
of Hell cried I, and thou heardst my voice." He also
speaks of hi3 having been there "forever;" thpugh: he
was really there only, three- days and night?. Peter;
speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, says, "Thou
wjll not leave his.soul in Hell." Thus, our Savior went to
Hell; but he did not remain there'; he was delivered from
it. , These instances are enough for the- present. Men.do
go to, HeU,_and then corns out ag.iin — Mr. Waller's; asser
tion to the contrary notwithstanding^ ./ < .
Mr. Waller began to talk about rny being hard pressed,
in his first speech, before he had begun to produce his ar
guments. I wonder if there is to be much of .this? If
there is, why, I must wait and endure.it. It is one. of the
ways of some men in discussion, to speak of their oppo:.
nents being " hard pressed," etc. What is the object pf

48 DEB A'TEi' ON
this? ItisforyOuto decide whether I am "hard pressed,"
and'whether there is weight in the consideration^ which -I
bring forward. I shall riot devote much time to srich re
marks. I hope they will not Often be i'fepeated. I think
they will not. But if they are, I shall not pay much at
tention to them.
We come now tp the subject of the forgiveness of sin,
I shall here make a few remarks on his reply to the views
I have expressed.
It seems a strange thing to Mr. Waller., that sin should
be punished under the government of God, and yet that
there -should be forgiveness of sin; and so he illustrates it
by comparison- with courts of justice; and asks if a court
of justice should compel a man to pay a fine of one thou
sand dollars, and after it was all paid, forgive thei crime for
which the punishment was inflicted, etc. I propose to ap
peal-to Scripture, and riot to, human governments, in this
•question. The forgiveness of God, as the Bible uses the
word, differs from the forgiveness of man, in the legal
sense, in this1: It-implies a cleansing; of the sinner from' sin;
a making of him pure and holy. He is said to be " washed
from his sins.'" Itdoes not apply to the puriishmW of sin ;
but the sin itself. Sin is sometimes represented as a disease;
and forgiveness then is the cure. Suppose a man is sick'-;
he suffers the pain' of that sickness. Will you say that
because he is cured of his disease,- therefore he has riot
suffered all its pain? His pain lasted as long as his disease;
So it is with sin. , When we sin, we suffer for'it; and not
until we cease to sin; do we Cease to suffer.
To 'illustrate this by Scripture. In the first Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians. 5th chapter and 3rd verse, it is
said by the Apostle, "For ,1 verily, as absent in the body
but present in the spirit, have judged already,, as though I
were present, concerning him that hath done this deed.'?
[You will recollect that Jesus Christ received a kingdom;
and therefore he judged mankind-. He also appointed' his
Apostles judges in his kingdom. Now Paul in the exercise
of this authority exercised judgment upon this man.]
"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our
Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the
.day of the Lord Jesus."

universalism. 49
Here- is an instance pf punishment} then, and of, its
coming to an end* as tyell as being remedial; Turn now
to 2 Cor. ii. 6. The Apostle Paul says, "Sufficient unto
such a man is the punishment which was inflicted of many ;"
—[here it is stated thai this punishment was suffijekemk,
there was enough of it;] verse 7, " So that, contrariwise,
ye ought rather to forgive him and, comfort him, lpst
perhaps, such a one should ie swallowed up with over
much sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would
confirm your love toward him '? r
" Here, then, is an instance of a man delivered over to
Satan for punishment. Here is an instanqe pf the pun
ishment ¦ being sufficient, and here the '.sufficient punish
ment was followed by forgiveness. If Mr. Waller
wishes, to ridicule the idea, let him turn his ridicule upon
the- language, of Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ,, and not
upon the Universalists. .
We turn now to- Isaiah,.;xl. 1, 2, for an illustration of
the same doctrine. "Comfort ye, comfort ye. my people,
saith your God- .Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem,
and say unto , her that her warfare is accomplished, that
her. iniquity is pardoned" — why?— ,u for she hath receiv
ed, of the Lord's hands double for all her sins." Here the
sense of " double" is, fidl, entirely; as where we read of
" double destruction," The punishment, then, was entire
and complete; and yet the sinners were "pardoned" — in
the scriptural use of that word; Mr., Waller's sneers to the
contrary, notwithstanding. These examples are enough
to show that sin, may. be punished fully, and yet the
sinner be pardoned,
I-,dp not propose to go through the column of ¦" facts,"
presented by Mr. Waller, this morning. He says that the
Greek church and Greek writers believed, that the Bible
taught the doctrine^ of the eternal punishment of the
wicked. * Be it sp. It is generally dmitted ; and so are .all
his facts generally.. If this were to decide the question, it
is very easily decided. Admitting that almost the entire
church has believed in the doctrine of endless punishment,
that is not the matter before us; the, question is, "What
do the ¦ Scriptures tpach, us?" The Church ibecame
corrupt? aftpr the Scriptures were given. , ,
¦ There are , one ; or two points remaining to be noticed.
The Greeks, he said, have always used the same words

50 debate on
that are applicable to the futui'e punishment of sinners in
the New Testament, in their ordinary language, and, of
course know the meaning of those words better than any one
else. But it must be remembered that the Greek language
now is not the same language as was used at that time, and in
which the Greek Testament was written. Then the argu
ment derived from the sentiment of the Greek Church has
no bearing upon the point. If it were identically the same,
and used in the same sense then attached to it, it might
apply. But it has essentially changed in its meanings
and the fact of the Greeks using the word aioniosj for
instance, in the sense of endless, does not prove anything
as to its precise meaning in the Bible. Because all lan
guages charige from age to age. I have here two writers,
whom I will refer to — both Orthodox, and distinguished
for learning.' Ope is Difi Adam Clarke, and the other is
Professor Stuart, of Andover. Both these writers are
considered good authority; and they both say that the
English word " Hell " has itself changed its signification,
and that two or three hundred years ago, it did not ex
clusively signify Hell, in the sense in which it is now
used ; i.i e. to mean the- world of damnation in a future
life. But it now means that, beoause the language is
changed. Sb in all spoken languages; they all change
their signification in the lapse Of time.
A remark as to Origen. If I mistake not, Mr. Waller
appeared to be in error in referring to the reply of
Origen to Celsus, and saying that Origen. did not deny
that the Scriptures taught the doctrine of endless damna
tion. Mr. Waller admitted that Origen believed in universal
salvation. It Would be very strange, indeed, if he should
have admitted a contrary doctrine to be the doctririe of
Scripture, professing to be a believer in the Bible, as he
was! I suppose Mr. Waller was led astray by this fact :—
that Origen used the words " Everlasting," and " Eternal,"
in a limited sense. How else could h& have used them?
Not, certainly, in an unlimited sense; for he is admitted not
to have believed in endless punishment. What, then, is the
true! inference ? That he used those words in the same sense
in which, being a Gl'eek, he understood them to be frequent
ly used by the sacred writers; i. e. in a limited Sense, espe
cially when applied to punishment. The inference is that
¦that was their signification at the time the New Testa-

UNIVERSALISM. 51
merit was written. Soon after the time of Origens the
words acquired in the language an unlimited sense; just
as the word "Hell" has acquired a new exclusive mean1
ing in the English language within the last two centuries.
My friend disputes the early corruption of the Church.
What does Paul say? That " the mystery of iniquity
had already begun to wOrk," in his lifetime ; and the etid
was to come when it had done Working. Some taught
that the •'« resurrection1 had passed already.-" The church
went astray very soon in theological arid religious truth.
It is of no use to appeal to the chtirch after the days of
the Apostles. One of the Apostolic Fathers themselves, so
called, is said to have written a book called the Gospel of
the Infancy of Jesus Christ, (or of Mary)^an absurd
book* in which, among Other stories, he has it that the
swaddling clothes of th* infant were' taken to cover over
the eyes of the blind, and that they cured the blindness!
Great authority on the true .teaching of Scripture! Can
we imagine more absurd nonsense? Arid yet these are
among the men who are appealed to, to establish the
doctrine of endless misery! Permit -me to say that, they
are not sufficient. • Let my friend show what the Bible
teaches. That is the proposition here, and that should
he his inquiry.
All this talk about the smallness of my body, sneers
about my -mind, etc., are not.entitled to attention. " Great
men are not always wise," and less- wise men frequently
arrive at the Truth. Do you suppose that Luther' and
Calvin were the greatest and wisest men in their age?
No; there were men greater than they; and if -we read
d-f some of their conduct, there i were better men'thari
they. But they conceived and executed a great work;
the establishment of the Bible as the ground of' faith-^
not " the church." My friend could not have learned
that from them. If it had' depended upon the great and
learned' of that day, we should have had no Reformation'.
My friend had better go back to the bOsom of the Mother
Church! What said Luther? Carlisle represents him as saying,
" I stand solitary* friendless, one man, on, God's* Truth; you-,
with your tiaras, triple, hats, and' your treasuries arid
armories, thunders spiritual and temporal, stand on the
Devil's lie, and are not so strong!" Myfriend Waller; as a

52 DEBATE ON
Reformer and a Protestant, ought to accede- to this, instead
of going for the authority of the Church, in the- face of
the few who hold the truth. But enough on the subject
1 of human authority, for the present.
Arg. 3^. I npw present another distinct: argument from
Scriptuje, in favor of the doctrine of universal salvation. It
is found in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. I drew my last
argument from the eighth chapter of Romans ; and will now
take the fifth chapter for my next. I do not wait, to, see
whether my previous argument will be set aside; because
if 1 should, I-shall have no opportunity to present all the
arguments I wish to bring before you on the present oocar
sion. I proposed in my first speech to present a few pas-.
.sages in each speech, for Mi\ Waller's attention. But
whether he potices them or not, I want all to understand
the grounds of our Faith, as; found in the Divine Word.
Romans v., commencing with verse1 12 : " Wherefore, as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and 'so death passed, upon all men, for that all have
sinned;" [observe such is the condition of all men,- espe
cially sinful, suffering, dying men, as I said at first.]
5' For until the law sin was in the world; but. sin-is not
imputed where there, is no law: nevertheless-death reigned
from Adam to Moses, even over thine that, had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who- is the
figure of him that was to Come. But , not as the offence
so also is the free gift.. For if through the offence x)f one
many be dead: — [here is a. new term, "many,'?' intro
duced. What does it mean? How " many " are, dead ? —
Turn back to the twelfth verse, and you will see. " So
death, passed, upon all men." All, therefore, die. "Many"1?
here means all .men; here, and throughout the. Apostle's
argument I wish you to remember this, for Lshall depend
upon it;] " much, more (fifteenth verse) the grace, of God,
and the gift by grace, whieh is by one man, Jesus Christ,
hath abounded unto many;" — [how many? why, as many
as, were dead; that is,. all men, as said 'before, and as we
know to be the fact.] " And not as it was by one that sinned,
so is the gift : for the judgment was by one to condemna
tion, but the free gift, is of many.offences unto, justifies
Jion. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one,
much more they which receive abundance of grace and of
the gift of -righteousness shall reign i-n life by one Jesus

UNSVEIRSAL-ISM. 53
t3hrist."-»^[Haw 'many were to " receive" this grace? The
next verSe'will answer— ~all men.] "Therefore as by the
©ffence of one judgment came upon a<ll men, to condem
nation; [here the Apostle uses the word all;, because
all sinners are damned -or condemned while unbelievers
and sinners ;] " even so by the righteousness of one the free
gift came upon all men =unto justification of life."
Mark one thing ; all those are tp receive justification
who were adjudged to condemnation — whether more or
less. If 'all are condemned, then all are to be justified.
If any are excluded, they are those that never sinned —
that never die*-— that were never condemned, ol- damned.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many-: be
made righteous." [This is the way in which-they are to be
justified j^net in "ihtir sins, as our enemies slanderously
affirm.'] '" Moreover the law entered that the offence
might -abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much
more abound:'.' [Not true, if Divine grace never over
comes or destroys all sin; if sin shall prevail forever {]
"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might
grace reign through righebusnessuntoeternal life by Jesus
Christ our Lord." I i'epeat the declaration, and wish it to
be remembered; that if any do riot receive the gift of
righteousness "and . eternal life, they are. those who have
not been judged, or condemned, or have riot sinned, or
died. But all riien 'are sinners — -all "die, all • are judged;
all are damned or condemned; arid the same all shall have
the free gift, according to Paul's argument. So if there
are any who will never be saved, it is those who>have
never sinned, and never die; — remember this.
With - this doctrine, corresponds the teaching of the
Word of God elsewhere. J^sus Christ himself, says, -P I
Game not to call the righteous^ but sinners to repentance.''
Matt. ix. 13. Paul says? 1. Tim. i. 15, "This is a faithful
saying and worthy of all acceptation;" [and. I wish my
friend Mr. Waller Would accept it;] "that Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners." If there are any,
therefore, who shall never Be. saved, they- are 'those who
are not sinners,, and those who have not diedi I wish you to
remember that, until this declaration of the Bible is set aside,
Bpt it is asked, •How are sinners justified? How are
they received into-heaveh? DO they go to heaven in their
sins? That is the charge made against 'Pur doctrine. I

54 D E B A T E 0 N
pronounce this charge a. slander — a false and wicked slarir
der. Universalists never uttered the thpught that men
were justified in that way — never! - They have never
preached, and never said, that the wicked and polluted go
to heavpn as such, or in their sin and pollution. How then
are sinners justified and saved?, The next verse (Romans
v. 19,) answers that question, as already shown: "For as
by one man's disobedience many— tlie many, as Dr. Adam
Clarke, and- others say,— were made sinners," [how many?
all— see verse 12;] so by the obedience of one shall
many — the many, or the mass — be made righteous."
That's the way .sinners are justified. When righteous,
they need no salvation ; but they are saved by being made
righteous. Perhaps my friend will say that the word
many refers only to "the Elect." It refers to as " many"
as Jiave sinned: This is apparent on the face of the pas
sage; and he. must acknowledge it-. It, is those that have
sinned, and that die, who shall be blessed in this manner ;
and if there are any who are not saved, let me emphatical
ly repeat, once more, it is those who have not sinned, and
do not die. All that sin; all that die, all the Condemned,
pr damned, shall certainly be saved.
!¦ Such is the next passage I now present for Mr.' Wal
ler's examination. I have given. and sustained my views
of it; and Mr. Waller is under, obligations to take it up
and examine it, and endeavor- to set it aside. But we will
show its application to the question, whether he does or
not. I do not know what his views of it may be. What
ever explanation he may give of the passage favorable to
his own position, we shall endeavor' to set aside his objec
tions when we hear them.
-Arg. 4th. In the meantime, I shall present still another
argument from Scripture, before I sit down. . It is derived
from Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, chapter i., from the
1,2th to the 20th verse. • I will read the whole. It is a
plain, unfigurative, irrefutable passage in favor of the doc
trine of universal salvation; for it teaches final univer
sal ' reconciliation. "Giving thanks unto the Father,
which hath made us meet to be partakers of the saints in
light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us, into the kingdom of his dear SOn :
in whom we have redemption through his blood, eVen
the forgiveness of sins : who is the image of the invisi
ble God, the first-boin of every creature : for by him

universalism. 55
were all things.created, that are in heaven, and that are in
eartlj, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 'pr do
minions;, or principalities, ©r powers:, all things rwere crea
ted by him and, for him. A«d he is before all things, and
by him all things consist And he is the h-pad of the body,
the church: who is the beginnifig, the first-born from the
dead; thai in all things he might have the pre-eminence.
For it pleased the Father that- in him should all fullness
dwell; «md, having made peace through the blo^d of his
cross, by him to reconcile all things untp himself; by him,
I say,, whether they be things in earth,, or things in heaven."
The Apostle- here teachps the universal reconciliation
of the unreconciled to Gpd, through Jesus -Christ. The
shiner is now unreconpiled, is in rebellion against God.
The objeet fpr which Christ came Was to reconcile the
whole world to. God. So Paul says, "God, was is, Christ
reconciling, the world to himself." The whole world .will
be saved,, therefore, if reconciled with God. ' All shall be
finally reconciled,. and "if reconciled, saved.;" as Paul af
firms in Romans v. , , ~ .
The question may arise whether Jesus Christ wilfiBc-
eeed. It is. admitted what he has undertaken to dd — -tp. re
concile all. Hp will- either succeed, or fail! Has he
undertaken too great a work?. Will the Devil :and his
angels' finally and forever prevent him from doing what
hehas undertaken to do? Some say so. But I. say No :' he
shall not fail.. In the language of the prophet Isaiah,
" The. pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his, hand,''
(Isaiah liii. 10:) "my, counsel shalt stand; I will do all my
pleasure, saith the Lord." Permit me to/introduce an illus
tration, in the .Savior's parable of , the foolish tower-
builder. He asks, " For whieh of you intending to build
a tower, sitteth not down. first, and counteth the cost,
whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply after
he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all
,that behold it begin to mock him, saying; This man be
gan to build, and was not able to finish;'? Luke xiv.
28 — 30. The question is whether Jesus Christ is to fail,
or succeed; whether he "counted the eest," arid can
", finish" the work, or not. ,¦•
I request all those who now he®r Mi\ Waller's conclu
ding speech for the day, to be present .and hear my reply,
J&- morrow morning. ~.j,-

56 DEBATE ON
MR. WALLER'S THIRD RliPLY.
I find my task uriexpectedly easy'; for really I had a
right to anticipate a very different state of things. Those
of you who have been favored with the light of that most
brilliant luminary, yclepedthe "The Star of^the West,"
may recollect that it was; recorded in the columns of that
most Veracious hebdomadal, -that the reason I failed to
meet Mr. Pingree here last fall; was a defect in my organ
of Courage. And ought I not to tremble? For, -according
to the same authority, I find myself in the presence of one
before whom the orlhohodox clergy of Louisville quailed!
whom the redoubtable. Hodgman would not venture to
meet: and one, the fame of whose prowess in. full many
a bloody and bloodless field, afflicted me for months with
¦fever and rheumatism, and brought me near the brink of
the grave !¦ and before him too, in this town, the theatre
of his most Valorous achievements ! But whatever of tre
pidation I may formerly have felt, it has all vanished now;
and I really feel equal to the task of 'deriiolishing his last
speech in a quarter of an hour.
Respecting the passage he has quoted from Romans 8th,
which he has adduced in proof- of his doctrine, it is not
neeessary at this time that I should go into an exposition
of it only so far as to show that his exposition will riot do—x
will not serve his purposes,. He. quoted at first, with great
emphasis, the words "creature" and "whole creation;"
and then told us, almost in the same breath,'that the terms
did not include angels, or inanimate creation. He- has
also exposed, with great 'satisfaction to' himself, the senti
ment which he is pleased to ascribe to Mr. Wesley, that it
means the brute Creation: I predicted he would have to
limit those terms — that the :neeessity of his affairs Would
force him to reduce the whole creation to a very inconsider
able part. My anticipations have been more .than realiz
ed. For he now says • that " creature," the " whole crea
ture," means the human family, but that it does not mean
the saints, or the new creation! They are excluded £
They make no part of the human family! They do not
wait for the manifestation of the sons of God — the redemp
tion of the body! But sinners do;' and therefore the un
godly and the sinner, but riot the saint, are to be ultimate
ly holy and happy! This is limiting the text with, a . wit
ness! Can this intelligent audience receive such an ex
position?

universalism. 57
To sustain the interpretation that creature meant the
human family* he quoted Colossians i.45, where Jesus is
said to be " the first born of every creature" to show that
the word creature in the original. (Mm) meant the human
family. If an appeal is made to the Original word, every
tyro in Greek canitell you that it just as properly means
stoeks and stones, the earth and stars, as the human family.
It is the word universally employed- ha the New Testa
ment to> represent that stupendous transaction, when Gpd,
in the beginning, Called all things into being. This word,
therefore,' can prove nothing for him; and only forces
him to a limitation. .1 neecf not then pay further atten
tion to it.
- But once more to the magnificent assumptions of Mr.
Ballou and his followers. . You have read that among the
seven wonders of the world was a brazen statue at Rhodes,
one hundred and five feet in heighth, striding, across the
entrance of the harbor, and yet vessels could sail under it.
But a greater wonder and .equally brazen is modern Uni
versalism. The mighty Colossus dwindles to a pigmy be
fore it. It assumes, and Mr. Pingree vindicates the as-
sumptionythat all the Christian world, from the Apostolic
age to the nineteenth century, were incapable 'of under
standing one of the most vitally important and plainly re
vealed doctrines of the Bible; and that Hosea Ballou was
the first man who did understand it! and Mr. Pingree him
self is at the head of the giant handful in Kentucky who
can rightly divide the word of truth!! Well, I, know my
friend is small in stature, but his soul, no donbt, is large;
and possibly he says to himself, (and perhaps with great
propriety too) —
" Were I so tall to reach the pole,
Or grasp the ocean with my span, —
I must be measured by my soul:
The mjnd's the standard of the man!"
What more than a Colossus mind he must possess so easily
to bestride all the tallest intellects of earth !
I do not propose to settle this question-by vote. I have
intimated nothing of the kind. But I do say, it is a
strange affair; one wholly inexplicable, that -this doctrine,
so clear to Universalists, so self-evident from the plain
declarations of Holy writ, as they assert should not
have occurred to any one, notwithstanding the intense

58 DEBATE 0-N
thought and application bestowed upon its investigation;
but should have remained beyond the reach of all human
research until a quarter of a century ago! That it was so
plainly written upon the broad-pages of the moral heavens
that all eyes might have seen it; and that all- eyes should
be anxiously turned towards it, and yet that no individual
from the foundation of the world ever suspected its exist
ence, uritit it* was discovered by Hosea Ballou in 1818 —
this, this is the miracle of Universalism, and the one to
which I have called your attention! I hope the gentleman
will now be able to see my position on this subject.
He need not try to class me with the adherants of the
papal church. Indeed, I should think he has great cause
to study church history. And what has my argument to
do with the Church, or with the pope of Rome? Did I' not
go back to'the days of the Apostolic fathers, and of their
teachers, ' the Apostles— long before the papal church
began' to tower in her iniquity and to tread upon the necks
of meii? But he argues as if all professed Christians
were papists from the ApOstolic age until thp Reforrna-
tion ! Does riot the gentleman know that the Greek church,
comprising a full moity of professing Christians, had ah
along repudiated the supremacy and the infallibility of the
papal church? That there were numerous denominations
of Christians, scattered all over' the world, that from its
beginning, loathed the papal church as the mother of
abominations, the "AvhOre of Babylpri?" If he does not,
he ought uot to refer to church history until he has studied
it more attentively. " A little learning is a dangerous thing:
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
I marvel, that any orie making pretensions to having
read, should not know that long before Luther the majo
rity of professed Christians were opposed to the papal
Church ! This is almost as marvelous as that all Christians
should have conspired in concealing this most cardinal
doctrine of the Bible — man's future destiny — and should
have actually kept it buried until Mr. Ballou -disinterred
it ! Really, it is an honor to our country, to the age we live
in, that it should have given birth, to a mind cast in such a
wonderful mould; and that the world will now jog on right
after having gone wrong for si* thousand years.

UNIVERSALISM. 59
Mr. Pingree says heidid not intend to put himself on a
level with-Elijah, the Savior, Luther, etc., and complains
thatrl should throw out such an intimation. Well, he cer
tainly reckoned me with Baal's prophets, the pharisees, the
papists, etc. And I supposed, that inasmuch as he and my
self were in controversy, that if I was On oneside, he was
on the other. 1, certainly put him in better company than
he put me. Do you complain of the company 1 have
assigned you? [Turning to Mr. Pingree: — A laugh.]
But he says that he merely meant that this doctrine
might be true although new, and although the great
majority might be opposed to it. This is most true. I
have not disputed it.' He seems- not to understand my
ground. I say it would be a. very strange affair that Uni
versalism should be true — -v\ery ; still 1 grant that its nov
elty of itself is no argument against it; but that it should,
under all the circumstances, be a novelty! The fact that
only a little handful advocate it, of itself proves nothing:
but under the circumstances, a doctrine SO important, and
in which all are deeply interested, to which so many hon
est and candid minds have given the scrutiny of their in
vestigation,- it is a marvel, I say, that 'it has so. few advo
cates! When Elijah stood alone > against <the prophets of
Baal, he did not vindicate himself by the assumption that
he was more, wise than they: that he was, in possession of
a secret hidden from the foundation of the world. No:
fire from heaven attested; the truth of his doctrine. - And
^hen Jesus and his Apostles', proclaimed to the world a
doctrine which the wisdom of this world had not known,
they were armed with miracle and the might of the Holy
Ghost! Jesus knew that only proof of this sort.was ade
quate to make men receive what none of the wise of earth
had ever known- But Mr. Ballou arrays himself against
the wisdom, the learning, and. the piety, of the. world, and
introduces a doctrine in opposition to it all, and without
miracle, without fire from heaven, and without any pre
tensions to the extraordinary influences of the spirit; aye,
without any pretensions to extraordinary intellect,' or in
formation even, demands our implicit faith to his doctrine,
which foi" six thousand years was indeed above the wisdom
of this world,; and which rhe, by some means or other, has
been so fortunate as to pluck down! This is the marvel
with me. And! insist that the gentleman mustput himself

60 DEBATE "ON
on a level with Elijah arid Jesus Christ, before he can rea
sonably demand our -subscription to his creed. They
never would have insulted the common sense of mankind
with a demand like his.
As to what he said respecting my being in sentiment
with the philosophers of Greece,' instead of Paul, and
about the majority's always being in the wrong, as well as
the quotation, " Broad is the road that leadsto death," etc.,
they are already answered. They are "as the idle
wind." I cannot see for what purpose they are intro
duced, except to evade the very plain proposition that I
have again and again pressed On his consideration. It is
politic, I suppose, when one cannot withstand the force of
a blow, to dfidge it, 'it he can.
We have not been talking about majorities; for ori this
question Christians have all been on one. side. - It so hap
pens, unfortunately for the gentleman's- theory of majori
ties, that until 1818, the whole human family, except' a
few atheists, infidels, and the lowest order of heathens,
existing now and then during the lapse of ages since the
creation of the world, have been unanimously opposed to
his doctrine. Let him produce another instance, parallel
to this, when all, for so long a time, were gone out of the
way, and there was not °oe that- could understand. HiS
Illustrations, until he does this, do not apply; indeed, are
" bolts of nothing shot at nothing."
His effort to put people in hell* and take them out, was
a signal failure. He told us that David was in hell, and
was delivered from it; that Jonah was in hell; and, by -the-
way, gave us the startling intelligence that forever was
three days and nights ! Npw, I used the term hell in the
common received sense ; I spoke Of it, you remember, in
connection . with the view' of the Restorationists. ~ Does
Mr. Pingree know anything of the original language of
the Scriptures? If so, he knows that the word used in the
passages he quoted, — which I will not comment on at. pre
sent, but will in due time,- — is not the word which we
claim as necessarily meaning a place of torment in a fur
ture World. And he very correctly said, . too, that when
our version was made, the word hell in English was not
always used in the sense it is now. He must then have
presumed very much upon my ignorance, in quoting pas
sages that had no bearing upon what J said. '¦ Yes, I re-

UNI-VERSALISM. 61
Eeat; I dare him to take the ground of the Restorationist.
iet him once put' a person iri hell, and I will attend, to
him when he is getting him put- Was David-dead-, orhad"
he been dead, when he penned the? Psalm from> which he
quoted? Or was Jonah dead when he* used the- language
that you heard hientionedfr You- see then that this was a
miserable effort to evade the ground of the Restorationists ;
to seem to vindicate them, while he. was opposing theim
He was stabbing thern under the fifth rib, while he, was
saluting them with a kiss. But all this by the way. I
really suppose that Mr. Pingree. intended np harm, for I
seriously doubt if, he knew what the original word w?is.
I wish you to remember one important admission : 'he
concedes that the Greeks have always held thedoctrine of
eternal punishment. True, he makes; a feeble- effortrat
retreat from the consequences of this concession, by say
ing that he had supposed the mpdern Greeks dids not use
the precise language of the New Testament. This is
true of the- modern Greeks;. theiHanguage has- changed';
although it retains much of the ancient language. But
mark; my position was- this* and he does not, and he dares
not dispute -it: That the Christian Greeks, have always
held that Jesus; Christ and his Apostles taught the doctrine
of eternal punishment? But 1 rieed not say mere on this
matter now;
The gentleman insists— and I am glad that he had the
nerve to stand up to one position of his-brethren— that a
man, "though fully punished for his sins, is nevertheless
forgiven!' True, he esteemed it due to the common sense
of the audience to apologize for the declaration, by. assu
ring them that the- forgiveness 'spoken of in the Bibledift
fers from that spoken of among men.. That • in the two
bases they are not to>beunderstood at all alike/ That in the-
Bible it means to ifl'eanse^ to purify, to1 wash, etc. This
is something I had not learned; before, that forgiveness in
the Bible was not a human word. I should like, to Jaiow
how he found it out. I grant that in no human language
was it ever' said, after a man had suffered the full penalty
of his ¦ crime, that he was pardoned; and, indeed, I had
supposed that the Bible made a vast distinction between
forgiveness and purification. But enough ; I am conscious
he has taken me in water beyond my depth. I have all
my life long supposed the Bible was written in the Ian-

62 DEBATE ON
guage of men. If the word forgiveness is not to be un
derstood as a word belonging to the language of men, I
have no clue to its signification. I do not profess to un
derstand any language that is superhuman!
The gentleman asserted that, the Christian church very
early went astray— that " the mystery of iniquity worked
in the days of Paul;" and as a most convincing proof of
the early aberrations of the church, he alleged that one
of the Apostolic fathers .wrote a -book called the Infancy
of Jesus. Now I happen to have, that book with me; arid
I am just now informed by my. friend for the first time as
to its authorship! But I believe he did not name which of
those fathers wrote it. I think I can promise him a pre
mium if he will prove by whom it was written. Indeed,
what he said on that point, was the latest intelligence I
have heard\ — the very latest! Nor did I know either that
all the early, Christians apostatized ; and I am yet to learn
that the Bible teaches that all Christians were ever to do
so. It teaches no such thing. Nothing can be more un
true than .-' such a charge against the , early Christians.
Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that all Christians were
to go astray so, sopn as the last Apostle died, and should
remain so until the nineteenth century, in the night of
ignorance and error, and then that a monstrous flood of
light was to deluge the earth, in the person of Hosea
Ballou. But the Scriptures do teach that extraordinary
events shall characterize the latter days. " This know
also," says the Apostle, " that in the last days , perilous
times shall come. -For men shall be lovers of their own
selves, - boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to pa
rents, unthankful, unholy ^without natural affection, truce-
breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce,) despisers of
those that are good,, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers
of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of
godliness but denying the power thereof: from such
turn away. , For of this sort- are they which creep into
houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led
away with divers lusts, ever learning find never able to
come to a knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and
Jambres withstood Moses, so do these men also resist the
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the
faith. But they shall proceed no further; .for their -folly
shall be .manifest unto all men, as .theirs also was,"

UNIVERSALISM. 63
?!T.im. iii. 1—9. Such is, the character of some ofthe pro
jectors bf new things in the last days,.W,t there is, no inti
mation, of ¦ such a personage1 as the gentleman, wpuld
have Mr. Ballou to be — No, not an intimation!
His argument based on the 5th of Rpnrans is sopn dis
posed of. He omitted to read a very important part of
the cotinection, and. one that thjows a flood of light on
the whole passage; it is the twenty-first verse: "That as
sin hatht reigned unto death; even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus, Christ our
Lord." The Apostle knows of no " eternal life" by Jesus
Christ, except that which is ,'," through righteousness."
This dpes not suit the necessities of our friend, for he is
contending, for an eternal life not, "^through righteous
ness." Now why did he omit to read this^ the conclusion
of the Apostle upon his foregoing premises. Indeed, Mr.
Pingree is proving the "ultimate holiness an(J solvation of
all men;" where? in this life?- No, he will not dare affirm
it. But Paul is talking about this life — a righteousness
" unto justification." Now he proves that we are justified
by. faith only; and moreover, he declares that "faith
comes by hearing* and hearing by thevword of God;''' and
ashs, " how can they hear without a . preacher." Now*
mark Mr. Pingree's dilemma: The passage, he quotes to
prove his doctrine promises no salvation 'to any. except
" through righteousness^" except upon "justification:" to •
avail him anything then; he, must assert that all men are
justified by faith in this life^-and the Bible teaches no
other way of justification, — or else they are justified by
faith in the life to coipe! To say that all men have faith
in this life is to contradict, all experience and to give, the
lie to the word of God: and to say they. obtain it in the
next life, is. to assume they hear the gospel, and that they
have preachers there; for "how Can they believe, in hini
of whom they have not heard, and, how can they .hear
without a preacher?" And who is it that preaches to the
tenants of the charnel house ? He assumed from, this
passage the holiness and salvation- of all, but it w^s all
assumption. For Paul promised salvation only \tp the
righteous; and he recognized npne righteous or justified
without faith. But even the, gentleman admits that all are
not saved in this Hfe; and as there is,, no punishment in
the new life, there can be no sin there", for all sin is afar

64 debat"e on
qualely punished; then there is nothing to be saved' from
in the next life; arid his whole cause vanishes like "the
baseless fabric of a vision !" He cannot eseape this con
clusion: For you observe, while he asserts that it does not
pertain to the question whether there is future punish
ment or not; yet all his argument shpws that he believes
there is none. He has not dared to take' the Restorationist
ground. Besides he is an avowed Universalist. I was
challenged to meet him as such. And in spite of his ef
forts to the contrary, I mean to argue with him as such.
1 He says that Jesus came to "reconcile all" to God, and
that he is able to accomplish his purpose, and will do it.
Without wasting your time in pointing out how the text
¦referred to is garbled and misinterpreted ; let us- grant that
it is stated in so many words that Jesus came that all men
.might be reconciled to God, which it is not; and the ques
tion arises, was he to reconcile them vi' elarmis, whether
they were willing or not? Was he violently to' force thein
to reconciliation? And besides many, alas! very many pf
thehi die unreconciled; and are they reconciled in the
grave? Do the coffin, and the winding-sheet, the Worm
and the rottenness of the grave bring about this reconcili
ation, which the preaching -of the cross of Christ could
not do in this wOrld? The gentleman says, he is not bound
to respond to such inquiries. This is a convenient way to
escape what he cannot do. But how not bound to answer?
Does he want you to embrace his system, no matter how
numerous the absurdities it involves? It is an insult to
common sense.
I now proceedVith my argument. I did intend to read
from Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas,
Tertullian, and some other of the fathers, but the conces
sions of Mr. Pingree render it unnecessary, and I will not
consume time. I will now call your ¦ attention to-the
twelve- following Assumptions of-Universalism :
1. Univ,ersalism'assumes the charge Of falsehood against
the Apostolic fathers, and the whole Christian community
immediately succeeding the Apostolic age, who all affirmed
that the Apostles taught in their sermons and writings the
eternal punishment of the wicked. Could -it not* just as
well, join with some of the infidels, and charge these same
men with testifying falsely in relation to the authority of
the New Testarnenf; I must press thesematters upon your

ON UNIVERSALISM. 65
attention., notwithstanding the paih it evidently gives my
friend. ! He won't let his Gpd be merciful, he' must not*
therefore, Complain if I should be found unmerciful too.
2. It assumes that the whole Church in the second' and
third centuries were grossly in error on what the Apostles
taught respecting this most fundamental and important
doctrine. 3. It assumes? that the Greeks were not so capable of
understanding ahd rightly interpreting plain and common
Greek words, and which they were in the constant habit of
using, as Hosea Ballou1.
'4. It claims for Hosea Ballou and his followers a better
knowledge, and a more critical acquaintance, with the word
of God, than that possessed by all the- most eminently
learned commentators that ever flourished.
' 5, It assumes that all Christians for seventeen centuries
were too blinded by prejudice, or ignorance, to see one of
the most plainly revealed and most thrillingly interesting
doctrines in the word Of Godi
¦ 6.- It asserts that- Hosea Ballou was the 'first man sinCe '
"the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy" over new-born creation, who had the ca
pacity to perceive and the boldness to declare the truth in
relation to the final destiny of mankind.
7. It claims that the sentiment peculiar to atheists; the
meanest infidels, and Pagan philosophers of the lowest
sort — that there is no retribution hereafter — is the true
doctrine of the Bible. - i ¦
8. It asserts that, of the millions now living'who profess
the name Of Jesus Christ* only the little handful of Bal
lou's followers have a true knowledge ' of the Scrip
tures ^that only they walk in the light ofGod's coun
tenance! — that only they possess the right paths! — in a
word, that "they are the people, and wisdom will die with
them!" 9. Iri asserting that all who professed to be guided by
the Bible were misled for seventeen Centuries, and thatthe
millions who now take it as the man Of their council, are
in error on one of its most fundamental doctrines, Univer
salism assumes that the word of God cannot be understood'
by the mass of mankind ; that it is a sealed-book to ordinal
ry and extraordinary intellects; and, without the special.
illumination of Hosea Ballou and followers, that all way--
5

66 debate on \
faring men, whether foolish or -wise, will err in the high
way of holiness,, . ...
10. In, .declaring that Hosea Ballou was the first man
since the Apostolic age, who,_right|y underftood and inter
preted the Bible, they assume that he knew better, how to
proclaim the truth to man — what language to employ and
what illustrations to use, to prevent misrepresentations-
than Jesus Christ,, who knew all things. For all men, aye
a child,, can easily. understand Ballou's, books, while no
man for. seventeen., hundred, years w,as found capable pf
understanding God's book, on the subject of the future
destiny of mankind.,
11. It assumes, in effect, that the Scriptures were not
written in the language of men, nor for men, or else surely
some man would have understood them on this vital point,
in the lapse, of centuries he tween -their -beipg written and
the rising of the star B.allou.
12. It asserts and claims your assent to a-mbst astound
ing impeachment of God's wisdom and benevolence — that
God gave the world a -book containing his will to man;, a
book revealing his, character. and his, laws, and to teach us
every good, word and work; and yet on the ftjost material
points, involving the greatest concerns. of the soul, it was
expressed in language so obscure — words so ambiguous'
and deceptious were used, that for, seventeen hundred years
there was not found a man who.could interpret them ! Or if,
as Universalists contend, his will on this point was so.plainly
revealed that he that runs may read, then surely the Al
mighty, smote all his professed .worshippers who flourished
in past ages, and the overwhelming majority who flourish-
now, with judicial blindness, so they could not see this im
portant truth. Viewing it in either aspect, and- this is a
most marvelous, affair!
But -the assumptions of Universalism do not end here:
it assumes to save unbelievers, though our Savior says
they shall not be saved. , He declares, Mark xvi. 16, "He
that believeth not shall be damned." The word damned is,
opposed to saved. The meaning is, the unbeliever shall not
be saved. The Universalist says he shall be saved ! Again,
we^read, John iii. 36, "He that believeth not the Son shall
not see life." But the Universalist says,! He shall see life !
The Bible says, 2 Thessaloniansii. 11 and 12, " For this
cause God,., shall send tljem strong delusion, that they

UNIVERSAL S-M. 67
should believe a lie: that they all might be damned; who
believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness:"
The Universalist, on the contrary says, "God shall send
them strong delusion, that they should believe, a lie, that
they all might behaved, who believe not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness!" The Bible. declares, 1 John
iii. 15, " Ye know that no murderer hath eternal-life abi
ding in him:" The Universalist tells us thatevery murderer
shall be holy and happy.!"— that all the rnurderers that ever
lived are now holy and happy!!
The Bible- declares, Jude xiii. "These are raging waves
of the sea, foaming out their own shame; Wandering stars;
to whorii is reserved the .blackness of darkness forever:"1
the Universalist declares, that thess aje -raging waves of
the sea; foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to
whom is reserved the. brightness of glory forever1'!!: - ¦ ; j
-In short, Universalism assumes by the force of logic, to
forgive the sin that " hath' never' forgiveness," to p'ut an
end to that punishment which is ¦" everlasting" or :"eter-'
nal," -to give life to those who "shall never see life," to
bestow the light of^heaven upon those to whom is reserved
"the blackness of darkness' forever," to quench the fire
that is "unquenchable," to kill the- worm that "dieth not;"'
and to save those who shall not he. saved!!! Oh; how om-J
nipotent is the might of Universalism ! And oh, how terrir
bly it desolates the Word of God!
.1 will' now introduce another point, as 1 have nothing
else to do, and to fill up the time. I can easily fill up my;
tme. 1 affirm, in opposition to Universalism, ' that the'
Scriptures teach that there is not a "perfect retribution in
this life; , Ths doctrine of Universalism is, that sin receives
its full rewardin this world, and also righteousness: This
is ccn-trary 40 experience and fact. But 1 must, before I
proceed, read a passage inthe " Pro and Con of Universal
ism.'" My friend -complains- of my -reading from the wrij
tings of Universalists. ' But he ought not. He specially
refcomirierided this book to my perusal, as a fair-expose of
his doctrine. I am sorry to afflict»him, but hope it will re
sult in his good. I hope they will hereafter write better
books. .Our author says:
"Thus it is seen, that such is the order of things in the
economy of Providence, that "each sin necessarily entails
its own penal consequences; that escape from theie, other-

68 DEBATE ON
wise than by an avoidance of the causes which produce
them, is ' absolutely impossible, ***** Suppose he
were equally sure that sin will produce suffering, would he
not have equal reason for avoiding it also? He would un
doubtedly:! and hence is proven the importance of convin
cing men that misery is an absolutely certain result of
wickedness ; and in order to their being so convinced, they
must be shown that the two things are naturally and neces
sarily connected together." pp. 259--60.
1 need not quote more. The result of the matter is,
that Universalism teaches that sin necessarily and of itself
inflicts full and adequate punishment — that God has so or
dered it, that sin carries with it adequate misery. To this
I object, first, because God, in the law he gave to the
Jews, required the infliction of punishment for certain
crimes beyond what sin inflicts upon itself. For proof of
this, I, refer you, without stopping to quote, to Leviticus
xx. 14, and xxiv. 16, 17; Numbers xv. 32, etc., etc.
These passages show, that the Almighty, under the Mosaic
dispensation, instituted divers severe punishments, as death
upon the murderer, above what sin bririgs upon itself. If
" each sin necessarily entails its own penal consequences,"
why did God ordain "penal consequences" beyond these?
Is God unjust? If sin "necessarily entails its own penal
consequences," then to put the murderer to death is unjust,
because undeserved and superfluous!
Secondly. In opposition to the assumption of Universal
ism, that there is a perfect retribution in this life, I affirm
that the prophets and other writers of the Old Testament,
assert just the reverse. I need refer but to a few pas
sages. Psalms ciii. 10, " He hath not dealt with us after
our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities."
Now, if God did not deal with the sinners mentioned, and
all other sinners, precisely after their sins, and reward, them
precisely according to their iniquities, then there is not a
perfect retribution. Then Universalism is false, or the
Psalmist was mistaken. Again: Ecclesiastes viii. 14,
"There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that
there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to
the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men to
whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous."
If the wise man tells the truth, Universalism asserts a doc
trine that is false. Both statements, the one contrary to

t/N-ivebsalism. 69
the other, cannot be true. Again:. Ezra ix. 13, " And after
all this is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for pur
great trespass, seeing that our God has punished us less
than our iniquities deserve, and hath given us such deliver
ance as this." Universalism Says that we are never pun
ished less. than our iniquities deserve; Ezra says', we are.
Now, which will you believe? Again: Nehemiah-ix. 30,31,
" Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst
against them by thy spirit' in thy prophets, yet would they
non give ear. Therefore gavest thou, them into the hands
of the people of the land; Nevertheless for thy great
mercy's sake, thou didst not utterly condemn them, nor
forsake them,' for thou art 'a gracious and merciful God."
So they were spared in mercy? and if this' be in the lan
guage of men, it necessarily mean's, that there Was punish
ment withheld, and a punishment ¦. that might justly and
righteously have been inflicted. Indeed, Universalism in
asserting that- eyefry sinner is fully and adequately punish
ed, denies the Scriptures, that Say, 'fliy his-mdrcy he saved
us" — " by grace are ye saved;", because, whenever grace
or mercy is extended, it implies that'the man is released from
a punishment that might justly be inflicted; Once more:
Lamentations iii. 22, "It is of 'the Lord's Mercies that we
are not consumed, beca/use his cpmpassioris fail not." Here
again we arC taught, that sihners are spared in mercy, and
of course a perfect retribution did not take-place. ' Finally,
Ezekiel xx, 44, "And ye shall know that 1 am the Lord
when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not ac
cording to your wicked ways, nor according to your cor
rupt doings, Oh ye house -pf, Israel, saith the Lord." But
the Universalists say, that God wrought with them accord
ing to their wicked ways and according to their' corrupt
doings. Thus flatly contradicting the Most High; for he
says, he does not!
Thirdly. The various cruelties inflicted on the ancient
worthies prove inpontestibly that 'there is not a, perfect
retribution in this world. Speaking of all the Itoly men
of old who suffered persecution for their faith, the Apos
tle says, "Ahd others had trial of Cfuel mockhigs and
scourgings; yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment.
They were stoned,- they were sawn asunder, were tempted,
were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheep
skins and Jjoat skins, being destitute^ afflicted, tormented;

70 , deb.ate on
(of whom the world was not worthy;)' they wandered-, in
deserts, and in the mountains, and.in the dens and caves of
the earth. And these ail having obtained a good report
through faith, received not the promise, God -having provi
ded some better thing for us, that: they, without us, should
not be made perfect." Hebrews xi. 36-^40.- Here holy
,men. are stpnedjsawn asunder, driven outcasts from life and
.all its- comforts, -persecuted in every way that ingenuity
could, invent or malice inflict, and it follows, according to
Universalism, that they received nothing but justice- — that
this was all the recompense these holy men were ever to
receive, for their devotion to God!!
Behold the doctrine! — Universalism comes like an angel
of mercy, to-the proud and haughty sinner — -who despises
God's law and -regards not mau-^who, like the rich man in
tho parable.,->farps sumptuously every day, who is clothed
iri purpleand fine linen, and enjoys his good things; sur
rounded, by friends, honored,, admired, flattered — to such >a
man it comes- and says,-:— "Sir, you are now suffering the
torments of hell; you -are now in the, agonies of the sec
ond death, in tho flames of that fire which is never
quenched; . on you now gnaws the, worm that never dies;
and -this is,' all the pain you will ever suffer. You have
blasphemed God's name, and persecuted his saints* and
you are now reaping the fruits of your doings to the ut
most extent, and you now suffer all that you ever will for
your sins!!!" Oh just and righteous Father!- have they
not cried peace to the sinner, when thou hast said there
is no peace?
But if it 'is an angel of mercy to the ungodly and the
sinner, Universalism comes like a " goblin ¦ damned" to
the persecuted children of God- — to the stake of the
martyr,, to those- perseputed for righteousness' sake, to
the sick chamber of the ppor, the pious and the. bereaved.
It^says to:the faithful,, but suffering Christian, writhing in
the agonies of a martyr's death — [Moderators: Time
expired,] , ' , • ,-
[mr.. pingree's fourth speech.]'
Respected Friends: — Before^entering upon my reply to
the last speech of Mr, Waller, dt may be as well briefly to
notice the progress of the discussion so far. In .the first
place,. I will, again name the proposition for debate; it is,

UNIVERSALISM. 71
" Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salva
tion of all mankind*" The terms involved in this propo
sition were defined by me in my opening' address: that
is, what I proposed to defend, and not what other meri have
advanced on' kindred and -minor subjects. I shall not be
expected to defend Other propositions; arid leave this; I
have not sufficient time to defend them, nor any Sufficient
motive at this time to do so.
Do the Scriptures, then, teach the ultimate holiness and
salvation of all mankind? - This being the proposition, my
first argument was drawn frOm the nature and character pf
God, and his relationship to man; — that his riatui'e is love
— that this is his essence arid name ; — that he is good to
all; the Father of pur spirits; kind even to the evil" and
unthankful, and unchangeably the same, now and forever :
so that, if he is good to- his creatures now, and to the evil
and unthankful, he will continue so- forever and forever.
If he inflicts endless misery upon any of his creatures, it
will be1 done from a spirit of goodness and love', and for
their benefit. But this strikes us as absurd ; therefore he will
not inflict' such' misery. We are led rather to believe, —
and this is' our faith and hope, — that he will purify and
make holy all those whom his power and goodness have
for benevolent designs' brought into being.
My 'second "algumerit was from the 8th chapter of Re
mans; where the Apostle declares that the "creature shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption-' into' the glo
rious liberty of the children of God." I showed that the
word "creature" meant creation, arid that if could apply
to nothing but hu'man creatures, whose was "the earnest
expectation, waiting for the manifestation of fhe sons of
God," who were " made subject to vanity," and who were in
"the bondage of corruption;" and that therefore they are
the ones who " shall bede-livered,"_/ma%. I stated rio time
for the accomplishment of this. - The Bible state's none.
No day is fixed in Revelation; for this to take-place; But
all shall be delivered; no matter when, oi'-where^ or
how. The only reply Mr. Waller has made to this is, that 1
excluded " the ''saints", from the deliverance.'.,/ did not
exclude the saints. I said it could not apply to the brute
creation, nor the angelic creation, nor to the glorified
saints who are already delivered. I did- toot exclude the

72 debate on
saints — they were once sinful, once in," the bondage oi
corruption,", from which they are delivered. The promise
reaches farther back than the time of their becoming
saints. Sothe Bible- throughout teaches , us. Though
they are now saints, they were noXahoays saints, but were
ante sinful, arid from tliab condition have been delivered
as all mankind— rthe whole human creation--— are ultimate
ly to.be; and more perfectly. -I hope this will be under
stood. I was talking about the condition of sinful man that
was subject to vanity, and in "the bondage of ceri'uption.?'
The passage of course, applies to all men while sinful. But
it does not embrace , the saints alone, after -they are made
saints, and are already delivered. I also quoted Hebrews
ij. 15; "and deliver them who through fear of death were
all their life-time subject to bondage;" after the i destruc
tion of whatever- has " the power of death."
, My third argument was from Romans v, ; where Paul
himself urges the truth, that all have sinned; but whereas
they have been subject to, sin, they shall be made pure
by the grace of God: And as a condition following the
condemnation of all men for sin through Adam, is the
reception of the free gift of righteousness through Christ.
Verse 19. "For as by one man's- disobedience many [i. e.
all- — see verse 12,] were made sinners, so by the obedi
ence . of one,; shall many [the same many] be made right
eous." It is because they are to be made righteous, that
they are to be- saved; not in their unrighteousness. To
this argument there was no reply from. Mr. Waller. He
entered into, no examinaiion of the passage, and made no
attempt to set it aside. It stands as a firm and unshaken
pillar of the doctrine of the final righteousness apd salva
tion of all mankind, through the gift and grace of God.
It makes men righteous. It goes farther back than sin.
It makes them righteous, and thus-saves them. .
My next and fourth argument was from Colossians and
Romans, where it is declared to be Christ's design to .re
concile all the world to Gpd. That, this being his design,
he is able to accomplish what he intends, and will do it,
sooner or later: and to this argument I have heard no
reply from Mr. Waller, but the questions, "Where, and
when, and how? where, and when, and how?"— To this
I will -only say, that the proposition before me does not
require me to tell where, and when, and how, .Christ will

universalism. 73
ultimately accomplish his purposes: and having made this
remark, I shall pay no more attention al present to these
questions of Mr. Waller. The time may come when I
shall do it, if I think proper. But this is not the time for
it. The passages themselves teach no. time or -place; nor
shall I now. They only say that it shall be accomplished.
When passages are brought forward which show the time,
I will speak of it. I establish. the proposition as it stands.
L care not when, or where, or , how, in the Providence of
God, these things are brought about. I Care not, so far as
the prpposilion and argument are concerned, if it be after
a, thousand millions, of ages, if it is done ultimately; and
all the Creatures who were made subject to vanity be
delivered from the bondage of corruption, become right
eous, and reconciled to God. He Wants, prpof, and^ is- wait-
<ing- for it. What 1 Ttaw.proved is.enpugh; is it not?
. The gentleman wants- to introduce new points into this
discussion. The doctrine of no future punishment is one.
We may speak of that bye-arid bye. He defines thai to
be Universalism- It is not Universalism* exclusively-
Many hold it. I 'do. not myself believe in future misery.
Of that we shall speak bye and bye^ but, not yet. We
want first to show .that great and glorious and Central
truth of the Bible, the ultimate holiness and salvation of
all men. Whether punishment, is confined to. this, or
extends into the future world, is not the question. I shall
not be drawn away from the true question by all Mr. -Wal
ler's efforts in that direction, He'w. welcorne to all the
advantage he can gain by discussing such questions now;
and- may, have all the .impression, and make all the use, he
pleases of them. He may have what triumph he imagines
himself to have gained, arid may keep it for the rest of
his, life-. , We shall see.
-What has Mr. Waller done- to set aside .my first argu
ment? my second? third? and fourth arguments and
proofs from Scripture? What has he- done? He has
only appealed to the ma§s of mankind, and the learned
and distinguished in all. ages! He has not, advanced a
Scripture argument, nor attempted to explain the Scrip
tures I have adduced. I have not heard. a. word of it.
But he has .appealed to. the "mass of- well , -regulated
minds," and the opinions of other fallible and uninspired
men, and says that all men beheve, as. he do.es, except

74 D E E A T E 0 N
UriivCrsalists — a principle at war with allhumanprogress,
as I have shown ; and when the occasion demanded argu
ment, what have we had? Argument? No;'tl:e most we
have bad. has been witticism of various sorts; such as
commenting on my size, that I was a small man; arid
quoting verses about " a little, learning being a dangerous
thing1," etc., etc., and "small boats keeping near shore in
deep Water;" intimating, of -course, his ability to navi
gate - safely and far in deep waters. Perhaps the lan
guage of Solomon might not be unappropriate hero :
'•'Seest thou a man wise iflhis own conceit ? there is more
hope of a pool than of him'!"- I did not make pretensioris
to superior learning: Have I expressed any such thought?
Have I claimed to be any wiser than others? Have I used
any such language? Not at all. I have attempted to read
the Bible and to, explain it, according to the Protestant
principle. That is proper, and right; is it not? If we are
to appeal to tradition, 1 repeat once again, let us go back
to the Mother Church I - I profess to have but little learn
ing. Why, then, am I taunted here before all thisintel-
ligent audience, with- my wantbf it, as though I had made
assumptions'! Is it not .-enough to have " little learning,"
but Irmist be ridiculed;' as if I had made some great pre
tensions? I hope we shall hear no more of it.
1 am sorry that my friend is disajfpointed in the -present
rencounter; that he expected to m'eet a great man, a
mighty champion, etc. But how am i" to help his chagrin
arid disappointment?*'' what can I do, in view of not being
so great a man as he expected to meet? I- must endure his
witticisms in silence, and be as patient and quiet as possible.
¦ It seems a monstrous thing to my friend, that, the world
should be in blindness so long' on this subject; that- all the
learned and pious should be in the dark, and that now a
light, should appeal-, rising like a "bright peculiar star," to
clear up this darkness. Yet it -is not strange, when we
know that this 'has been the way from fhe creation of the
world; that when ariy new truth 'has been discovered,: and
promulgated, men have said, Away with it! away with it !
The whole world thinks the other way. It" is a new thing,
and therefore can- not be true. According to the gentle
man's reasoning, when Universalism becomes popular, then
it will be true; wont it? When it is a new thing, and but
few men advocate it, it is-' false and 'heierodoie; but when

UNIVERSALISM. «i 75
all men .begin to believe it, then it is true; and -the signs
of the times are, that it will be generally received. Uni
versalism, seventyrfive years ago, had but one Preacher
in this country. Now. it has more than six' hundred.
Then it had but here and there a believer; — now it num
bers seven hundred thousand,- not including Unitarians
and othej-s. Well now,- bye and bye,- we may be in the
majority at that -rate-; then Mr. Waller will perhaps come
over to us, when he finds himself, in a minority, and -think
we are right, because in the majority.
I wish you, my friends, to call to mind- his concession
that there arc but two words in tbe Bible signifying a
world of wo .in the future life. I do not intend to argue
that point, now, but drily to call your attention tb this
admission. He said thai the Greek Church held,' from first to last,
that Jesus Christ and his Apostles taught the doctrine of
eternal punishment. That is not the question. ¦ But.. Ori
gen himself, it is admitted; did not believe the doctrine
taught by Mr. Waller- to-be a. doctrine of Christianity.
How then could he-have attached my friend's meaning to
the language. of Christ and'his Apostles?' On the contrary,
the fact is evidence that the words ~in the Greek did- .not
convey to his mind, being a Greek, that meaning, in his
day. He took- them and believed in them as the teaching
of the Bible; but not in the modern sense of those words.
So did Clement of Alexandria, who lived- before. Origen's
time. So did Didymus, if I am not mistaken, and Greg
ory Nazianzen;- and so I maintain the Christian f world
took them, till the Catholic church condemned the doctrine
of final salvation, and established that of endless, damna
tion, about- five hundred years after Christ. - No, the
Church -never held this .latter doctrine, till -the time of
Tertu'tlian., so far as history informs us. I know of not a
single man who advocated it till his.-time, who- said that the
misery of the- wicked- was equal in duration to the happi
ness of the righteous. He is the first man of distinction
in the Christian church, that I am aware of,- who ever
distinctly taught it. And' how? What was his spirit? - It.
was the spirit oongenial to the doctrine -itself. For Ter
tullian, in speaking of the persecutions of the Christians,
and relating how they suffered at the hands of their ene
mies, exclaims, in view of- their enduring '.', all Hell-hor-

76 » DEBATE OK
rorS" hereafter,. "How I shall laugh! and how exult!
how rejoice! when seated in heaven, and our enemies in
Hell, lo see them writhing in the tortures of. Hell fire!
To see them - spitted, and roasting upon gridirons, or
dancing iri the flames of eternal, fire!" This would fill
his soul With delight and exultation! This would sweeten
to him the joys of heaven! a worthy man to say that the
punishment of the wicked must equal in duration the hap
piness of the righteous! But let that pass. . v
Mr. Waller said that the forgiveness of God was accord
ing to the meaning of the human language; because that
is the language in which the Bible is written; He said
that therefore the sinner could not be fully punished, and
yet the sin forgiven $, beeause the same could1 not happen
in human eourts of law; and therefore forgiveness means
the same in God's law as in man's language. Has he at
tempted to set aside the Word of God which I-quote'd, where
the, penally was all suffered, yet the sinner forgiven? No.
But he has applied himself to ridicule. That was the
amount of his argument. Let him set aside the passages
I have quoted: unless he chooses to rest upon ridicule in
such matters; ridicule, too, not of us-merelyj. but of the
Bible. Let us have the Word of God. Did not David, the
anointed king of God's people, commit murdei" and adul
tery? and what was the sentence of the .Prophet of God
upon him? Nathan told him, "your. crimeis pardoned, or
forgiven. But nevertheless, yo>Ur child shall die, and the
sword shall not depart- from- your house." Now did not
David endure the penalty of his offence; yet was he not
pardoned? When he sets this aside, not by ridicule, but
by Scripture, .1 shall find more to the same effect.
His- quotation from Origen iri reference to his being
mistaken, onty confirms what I said as to his use of the
word, " everlasting," as applied to punishment. The use
of this word he did -not understand as a proof that it, was
endless. JeSus and the Apostles applied the Greek word
which is translated "everlasting]," to the punishment of
the wicked. So Origen naturally ''used it in a similar
sense; that is, in a limited sense.. But let us pass on.
We hear the inquiry, " saved from what?" 1 -answer,
saved from sin and death, tp holiness and immortality.
I ask him now, if he says it is from an endless Hell, to
show the place where it is taught? As to us, we find the

UNIVERSALISM. 77
place where our doctrine is distinctly expressed : " For he
shall save his people from their .$ins"< — not from endless
damnation. If he thinks the latter, we ask, Where is it
taught? I challenge the producing of such a passage in
the Oracles of Truth.
As to his twelve assumptions of Universalism, I pass
them all by. Let them have all the weight they are enti
tled to. They all relate to the great sagacity and wonder
ful and marvelous doings and character- of Hosea Ballou.
His last speech -was filled f. almost, with ironical praise of
the greatness and sagacity of Hosea Ballou. " He was
the man; and wisdom was to die with him:" and what a
wonderful thing it was, that he should be the one to make
these strange discoveries in Scripture, etc. But 1 pass it
all. If- Father Ballou were here, he could look after ¦
these things for himself; but he is not. One other
thought Mr. Waller had, — that the Bible did not teach
any thing about the coming of Hosea Ballou in these
latter days; not in 1818, at least; or any other such perr
son in any other year, though a good many other men
were to appear, as " deceivers," etc. He will recollect
probably that in Revelation, an "angel" was to appear
" having the Everlasting Gospel to preach to men." I do not
know but that was Hosea Ballou. We can say,, at least,
that this may be a prophecy of his coming, and of the
present revival of original Christianity; and' I also main
tain, that' Hosea Ballou's is a greater Reformation than
Luther's itself, or Calvin's, or those others which are con
sidered so great in these days; and will work greater
things in the purification of men's hearts, and in turning
their minds to God.
" But Universalism saves unbelievers." Who but they
should be saved ? Why save believers only? Salvation
goes farther back than belief, and makes them believers
and righteous. In Romans xi., it is said, "For God hath
concluded them all in unbelief" — what for? tp damn them
endlessly? Then it is universal damnation! none are
saved; but what -follows? "that he might have mercy upon
all." To the same effect are the proofs which I have
presented on this occasion. The Bible just states how
many of mankind have sinned and gone out of the way,
and.then by that we are told how many will be made holy
andjsaved. Sinners and unbelievers are the only ones to

78 DEBATE ON
be saved — saved from , sin '-and. unbelief. "The whole
need. not a physician,'-' says the Savior; " but- they that
are sick."
Mr. Waller brings up a number of passages relating to
the. punishment of sinners, and then contrasts the Univer
salist doctrine with the doctrine claimed by him, by way
ot opposite readings; namely, such passages as. say, that
the drunkard,, the liar; etc., "shall not see life,"' and that
the Universalists say they " shall see . life," etc., etc.
What does1 Mr. Waller preach for? Is it not. to bring men
to believe on the Son of God? Is not that his mission on
theearth^-whereby.the unrighteous may ',' see life?'-' How
can the unrighteous see life'.' Can they See-. it while they
remain in darkness and Unbelief? No; they -see it in the
light of faith and righteousness.- The. Bible says that
while men remain sinners they are in condemnation, and
the wrath of'-God abideth on them. How long does it
abide? While they continue sinful.- But they arpmade to
see the light, and become righteous; 'and then tbe wrath of
God is removed.. '/¦
So with the passage quoted by him, — "no murderer,"
etc., '.' hath eternal life." What have we to do with, that?
Who disputes it?. Did he ever know a Universalist deny
it? .Never, never? What is"it quoted for? Is it-to prove that
murderers never can be saved? If that is not the object,
the text has no place in this discussion. But I ask my
friend if he does 'not believe murderers may be saved ?¦, I
should like an explicit -and direct answer to this in his
next speech. I insist on this from him in reference to the
passage quoted. My friend,, allow me to say, does believe
that some murderers are saved. But he will say, not as
murderers. Neither do we. 1 have hinted no such ¦ doc
trine as that. We say they are saved from thekr revenge
ful dispositions. That is what constitutes them murderers.
" He that hutelh his brother is a murderer." Does the pas
sage sweep all Such into damnation, and is that damnation
endless. What then are we to do with it? Is it quoted
to bear -on.- this- discussion! Can noi murderer ever be
saved? ' Yes, all. If the gentlemen dare deny that some
murderers are saved, I want to know why he preaches to
the sinner? If he admits that some are savedy why quote
this passage as bearing on this discussion? We admit the
passages as applied to the punishment of sin, in this life.-'

i univer.salism. 79
But if -he denies , that any murderers are saved, 1 shall
lmve something more to say. I add nothing more ; at pre
sent. . I hope; he will not pass over these remarks; be
cause he .quotes a great many such passages; such as
that ""all liars shall have. their portion in the lake that
burns with fire," etc. He will find that he must believe
that all men must be damned eternally-; because all men
Bin while they live. '-'No man 'liveth and sinneth not."
But if he wishes- us to uhderstand that these passages
apply to a future state, lie himself does not 'believe the de
claration. I clia-rge it upon Mm : He don't believe the.
declaration. Not an orthodox man- in the world believes it.
They are continually talking upon .the eternity of future
punishment, and quoting such passages, and I, now charge
it on Mr. Waller that he dori't believe t-he passages, if.
taken to mean punishment in a future life, and that the
second death is in a future state. • He don't believe the pas
sages. I repeat-' this, and insist upon' it; because of the fre
quency of such quotations, and the importance attached to
them in tlik discussion. I admit all the passages to be
true.i I admit, that all murderers, liars, etc, ^hav-e not
eternal life, but are- condemned to Hell, etc. - We shall
have this. word, Hell, in d«bate bye and. bye. If the words
rendered Hell, are brought to bear on" the doctrine of end
less punishment, 1 shall have something else to.say about
them. .If these remarks are turned aside . in the next
speech of Mr. Waller, I shall set it right when I make my
next reply.
The punishment denounced- in such passages" is in the
present life ; because -denounced against aU — and all-are
not punished hereafter, as is admitted.. He- insists u-pon
rny arguing the question whether all punishment is in the
present life," orwhether there is any .future retribution
for sin. I shall not go aside from the main proposition.
I have too;frequently noticed small matters,. as we go along,
however.; and I will here notice a remark .he made about-
the sufficiency of retribution in this life. He quoted a
passage where God authorized the punishment of imurder
by the Mosaic law. The murderer was to be. stoned to
death; and that was a proof that sin did not adequately
punish itself. I ask who punishes sin?' or. when or where
shall we say it is punished? Does he want to take a
cudgel. to knock his own brains' Out? The very. facts quoted,

80 DEBATE ON
show that the punishment brought on by the sin was in
flicted in this life, on his^own admission; and that, while
he is contending that men are not rewarded according to
their deeds in this life. He should refer to cases in Scrip
ture, where men are not rewarded, and where all the pun
ishment denounced by God is not inflicted, in this life.
In Proverbs xi. 31, it is declared that "the righteous are
recompensed in the earth; much more [or assuredly}'
the 'wicked arid the sinner."' Is there a solitary passage
where the Bible has said the contrary? There may be
passages where; it is told that the wicked had not been
adequately punished at some one point of time in their
lives; and yet there may have been still a point of time
when they were to be fully punished, though that time
was not then. It does not follow that they are never fully
punished in this life,, because at any particular point of
time, it has not been all endured.
There is one passage from Hebrews ii. 2, which settles
the question conclusively, as to whether men may be fully
, punished in the present slate of existence. " For if the
word spoken by angels ; was steadfast, and every trans
gression and disobedience received a just- recompense of
reward; how shall we escape," etc.? Mark !— " Received
a just recompense of reward." Is it not a strange thing
under the Divine government, that they should be deolared-
to have already received their punishment — a just punish
ment; and that God should damn them endlessly — punish
them over again 1 ? Every transgression and disobedience
had received its reward, and yetthosemenare to be taken
hereafter, and judged, and' sent to Hell forever! But let
that pass, for the present.
The next point is the present misery, of the righteous,
and the happiness of the wicked. Mr. Waller teaches
that; he says the righteous are not rewarded, nor the
wicked punished, in this life. Hear what the wise man
says on. this point: "He that justifieth the wioked, and he
that condemneth the righteous, both are an abomination to
the Lord." Mark you : "He that justifieth the wicked,
and he that condemneth the righteous, both are an abomin
ation to the Lord." Now Mr. Waller makes God commit
this "abomination." The wicked are happy and the
righteous miserable under God's government: Oh! but
they are to be recompensed hereafter : justice is not done

UNIVERSALISM. 81
them in this world, to be sure;, but will be in the nejct.
Well, if God is not, just here, there is no evidence that he
ever mil, be: If he is unjust here, he will be unjust forever,
urilesshe changes. If he is unjust to the wicked man, arid
to the good man, in this life, he must be. so to all eternity.
For he is unchangeably the same, now and forever.
People are accustomed to argue that because the good
man is not rewarded and the wicked punished in this life,
they ,will he in the next. This would 'be the very reason
why they will not; for the Supreme Ruler changes- not.
But it is asked, Is not immortal life the reward of the
righteous? No., It. is simply the. gift of- God; as' is the
present life. If, there are sinners hereafter, and if any
suffer temptation, and yield to it, in the next world-, I ad
mit they will be punished hereafter. If sin is to be end
less, punishment will be. endless.; because where there is
sin, there must be punishment, whether in time, or in
eternity. - .<¦
Arg. 5. One other argument I will now advance ; and
will quote a passage or twpcontaining the word " salvation."
I am. aware there is a debate as to the meaning of this
term. ¦ But as we are so far advanced, I shall take the
liberty to refer to it. I shall claim, it in the sense assnm-r
ed in the proposition. However many other meamngsrit
may have elsewhere, I shall claim this meaning for , it, in
the following passages; and, defend it.
1 Tim. ii. 4: " Who (God) will have all men tp he^saved,
and to come unto the knowledge ;of .the truth." Here the
Apostle does not say when or where men are to be saved..
That he does not tell us; nor do I, now. He states only
the great central truth, that God will have all men' to he
saved. One word as to the certainty of the accomplishment. of
all that God wills.. See Isaiah xliii. 13: *.' I will work, and
who shall let it?" Daniel iv. 35: "He doeth according
to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabit
ants of tlie earth; and none can stay his hand, or s£(y unto
him, What doest thou?" The will of God will, certainly
be done. The question now is, does the phrase " all men"
here, mean all men ? I shall pot touch that question, until
Mr- Waller denies that position.
1 Tim. iv, 9,f 10: " This is a faithful saying and worthy of
all acceptation ; for therefore we both labor and suffer
6

82 DEBATE ON/
reprpach, because we. trust in the living God who' is the
Savior of all men, especially of those that believe." —
Here is a plain declaration of the salvation of all men,
and especially of those that believe. We admit that there
is a present, special salvation to the righteous;: but insist
that the salvation of all men is the ultimate salvation. In:
what sense is God called the " Savior of all men" in the
present lifeJ! as some assert. ¦ •
I will resume this subject, iri my next speech^ nothing
preventing. [mr. waller's fourth reply.]
Mr. Bruce, one of the Moderators, here said that he
wished to read one of the Rules of Discussion, viz. " 5..
The dispu tail ts are not to indulge in any personal reflec
tions towards each other, but shall treat each other with
respect arid courtesy."
Mr. Waller. The reading of that rule after Mr.' Pin
gree had set down, and since I have arisen to speak,
authorizes the conclusion that the reader of it designed
somehow to apply it to me; either that I had violated it,
or that unless I was careful I would do- so in responding to.
the last speech. He need have no fears of my response.
I- feel no disposition even to come as near violating it as.
Mr. Pingree thought proper to do. And if it was designed.
to apply, to any thing past, I am sure this audience will
vindicate me from the implied imputation. I am sure I
have intended no personal reflections upon my opponent,
Hone whatever; nor do I believe 1 have used any. True,
Mr. Pingree has complained. because I quoted Pope in refer
ence to "a little learning;" but I made no application of
the passage. If it suited him to apply the quotation to-
himself, arid as suitable to his circumstances, am I to be
held responsible? I have a right to quote the poets, nor
will I yield that right : and 1 am not at all disposed to
question the gentleman's right of making any application
of them that suits his con-venieneie. '
It will be proper, this morning, to spend a little time iri
recapitulation. You will bear in mind the question, " Do
tlie Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all
mankind ?" It is the business of Mr. Pingree to establish
this proposition ; . and I have done all that the conditions of
the, question require when I simply show that he ha? not

TTNlVER'SAtrSM-. 83
proved it.. ' I am not bound to' do rnore, although I intend
to dd much more.
Now how does my friend prove this proposition? By di
rect proof ?'' No, but by the most tortuous ratiocination,
Iri the first place, he infers from the character of God, his'
goodness and his love, that all men. will ultimately be holy
and saved; and yet the plenitude of that g6bdnessand loVe
is made appear by asserting that' God metes out to every'
transgressor a full and adequate punishment for every sin!
and consequently, in denying his mercy, his grace, and his
forgiving love!! Our heavenly Father, according to him,
forgives no debt, but in marvelous goodness, exacts the
uttermost farthing! And in this way, without grace or
mercy, makes holy and saves all!!
But be gOes further; and in connection with this point,
draws another inference in favor of his doctrines, from the
unchangeable goodness and love of God'. God'loves his
creatures now, even sinners, and is good towards them;
and as he is unchangeable, this goodness and love must
continue forever, and hence follows the ultimate holiness
and salvation of all mankind! But this argument is two-
edged : it cuts both ways; and if it establishes Universal
ism orie moment, it' decapitates it the next. Thus : God's
goodness and love to his creatures are mariifested in the
sin and misery of his creatures in this world, and since his
loving kindness changes not, they rriust remain in sin and
misery through1 eternity! Now this, so far from proving
universal Salvation, squints awfully towards universal dam
nation! But let us extend this argument : We were told
that God is good to all in this life, even to the evil and un
thankful; but why infer hence that he will make all holy
and happy in heaven? Is not the legitimate inference from
the premises, that he will make all holy and happy in this ¦
world? Why does his goodness not operate to their holi
ness and salvation here,; seeing that Universalism asserts'.
that all salvation is confined to this world? It is a mon
strous deduction to conclude from a gopdness and' love
which permit sin arid misery in this world, that there will
be, none in the next. The premises 'and the conclusions
are wide as the poles asunder. Or is it contended' that God,
on account of his cruelty iri permitting sin- and sorrow
here, will change and not permit them to exist hereafter?
Oh no! for it is asserted that he is 'unchangeable! Very

84 DEBATE ON
well ; the goodness that permits sin arid misery iri time, be
ing unchangeable, must permit it through -eterriityl The
gentleman is buried in the ruins. of his own castle, ,,And
yet you are boastingly told by the gentleman that he esta
blished this position by arguments that had, not and could
not.be met!
His second^ argument,, founded upon Romans viii. .19 — 23,
is of a piece with the last; it proves too much for him, as
we shall see. I need not recapitulate what I have already
said. Permit me, however, to pause a moment, to remark,
that I suspect Mr. .Pingree. has misrepresented Mr'. W,esley.
Here are Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, and he-
does not say that the word " creature" or " creation"
means fhe brutes. I suppose Mr. Pingree never saw this-
wprk. Mr. Wesley, in his comment upon this passage,
makes no such application pf the word as the gentleriian
has imputed to him.
Mr. Pingree. He says it elsewhere.
Mr. Waller. I have no other ,of Wesley's wprks at
hand. He does not say it in this work; and if he says it'
in any work, the gentleman certainly owes it to hiriiself to
make it appear, . I hope he will relieve himself from the
suspicion of misrepresenting a man,, because he. has not
read his writings. But to proceed.
Now the argument on this passage in Romans turns
upon the meaning as here used of the word " creature,"
or " creation." The word itself and alone may just as well
mean brutes as men, and frogs as angels. The word, then,
must be limited to suit the context. The gentleman hini-
self has limited it, as I showed on yesterday; and- limited
it just to suit his purposes. He is, anxipu? to include in it
all' mankind, and especially the ungodly apd the sinners.
Let us then examine the Context. The Apostle commences
the chapter by telling us, that there is "now no condem
nation to them which are in Christ Jesus, whp walk not
after the flesh, but after the spirit." He does not riiean
that there is now no condemnation to any. For he says,,
verse viii., etc. " So then they that are in the flesh cannot
plpase God : but ye [believers, not all mankind] are not in
the flesh, but in the spirit,, if so be the spirit of Gpd dwelt
in you. Now, if any man have hot the spirit of Christ,.
he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is
dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of

universalism. 85
¦*
righteousness. * * . * ' * * The' spirit itself beareth wit
ness with our spirit, that we [believers} are the Children
of God; and 'if children, then heii-s, heirs of God and
joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we, may be also glorified together. For ,1 reckon
that the sufferings' of this" present tiriie are not worthy to
"be compared, with the, glory- which shall be revealed in
us," [believers.} And then foUows the passage in contro
versy. Now who; was the' Apostle talking about? Not
angels, nor. brutes, nor'stocks, nor stories-; not, drunkards,
nor liars, nor murderers, nor thieves, rior robbers;' but
believers, who walked pot after the flesh, -hut after the
'spirit. If Mr. Pingree must include 'the murderer, the
drunkard, and all liars, I, shall insist too 'that he take with
his cargo, the. brutes,' and all things else" that have been
made. The Apostle, .and not Mr. Pingree, the context and
not Universalism, must make, the limitatiori. "Iri the imme
diate context we find nothing, more said of the unbeliev'ers
and the ungodly, than we do ofthe beasts of the field and
the fowls of the air : arid if One' must be included, so'must
the other.
But how can he'possibly include' all mankind in this term
as if stands corinected? Will he affirm that infarits,' and
idiots are earnestly expecting and waiting for ' the ' mani
festation of the sons of" God? Dare he affirm that this is
true rif the 'heathen, who kri'pw nothing of the matter?
That it is'true of the atheist who denies- the existence of
God; and affirms that death is an eternal sleep? Or will, he
even say that this is true of unconverted men? I de
mand an answer vto these questions. I invite him to haz
ard, if he dares, his reputation for' critical .acumen, I
almost said, for common sense, by assiiiriing such positions
before this audience. He will ript do it. M(ark the pre
diction. His third argument was derived froni Romans the 5th.
Now, read that' chapter. The Apostle, is pro virig that "the
righteous shall be saved through' Jesus Christ/ That
" they which receive abundance of grace, apd of the gift qf
righteousness, shall reign in life by one,' Jesus Christ"—
that "even so might gi'a'ce reign through ' righteousness
unto eternal life." Now in, "the face of these plain declar
ations, Mr. .Pingree affirms the 'salvatipri of the unright
eous? Dees the Apostle here, Pr anywhere 'else say, that

86 DEBATE ON
the unrighteous shall have eternal life? What man has ever
lasting life? Let the Bible answer: '". He that believeth on
the son hath everlasting life?" Aye, more ,*- we are told, also,
" He that believeth riot the son, shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him." But Mr. Pingree coritra-
dicts this, and proves the salvation pf unbelievers and the
, unrighteous, by a passage which affirms the salvation of the
righteous!! He next attempted to derive an argument from Colos-
siaps i. 20. I will read the passage in its connection :
" For it pleaseth the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell; and having made peace, through the blood of his
cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him,
I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
And you, that were some time alienated, and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he recbftciled,
in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy
and unblameable , in his sight, if you continue in the faith
grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the
hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard," etc. Now the
only possible , reason why this passage should haVe been
quoted, was in Consequence of its using the phrase " all
things;" or rather, simply because the word "all" ^occurs
in it as well as in, the question in .debate. I can conceive
of no other reason., The Colossians were .reconciled in
this life— <all the reconciliation, that takes place between
man- and God, that the Scriptures know anything about,
takes place in this life. Perhaps Mr. Pingree is rpady to
take the ground, that unbelievers, arid drunkards, arid
atheists; in a word,, all mankind, in this life, are in a state
of reconciliation with Gpd! If so, why does he minCe the
matter? Why does he not speak out? JJf-he will riot
speak out, or if he does no(t believe this, but holds that
such persons dying, leave the, world in a state of irrecon-
ciliation, then let him point to the passage which mentions
the reconciliation that takes place in' hades, .' — of the
u work arid the device", by which it is brought about in the
grave. If he will not condescend to tell us how men are
reconciled after they die, (and I suppose of course he will
not,) surely he will so far stoop from his lofty elevation
as to tell us, at least, where Jhe obtained his information
that any were reconciled after death. Such knowledge
cannot be derived frpm the word pf God.. The. Nauypo

UNIVERSALISM. 87 i
prophet professes to believe such a doctrine; but as im
pudent as he is, he has not tthe effrontery to profess to
derive it from the Bible. No; he claims to have learned
it by special revelation ! Has Mvl Pingree had a vision ?
Has he been caught up to the third heavens ? Has he
¦been sent to utter oracles ? Unless he has, he cannot per
suade us to believe that those who die impenitent and in
their sins, are reconciled, Without faith, or repentance, or
even hearing- the Gospel, in the grave.
Thus far the gentleman has progressed. Upon such
^pillars"be proposes to rear his systeml He has as yet
quoted np passage in which he professes to find his doc
trine, except by inference; and I have shown you it is not
to be found even then.
In his last speech, Mr. Pingree told us that he did not
believe that salvation was confined to this life, and also
that there was no punishment in. the next life. He has,
hitherto, time and again, endorsed the position that every
sin meets a full and adequate punishment Now here is
his dilemma : He has to contradict his standard writers
and say that all salvation is not in this life, because he
wants to save those who ,die iri their siris : but now he says
there is no future punishment, -and consequently men are
not punished at all for those sins in which they die, al
though he has contended, with the zeal of martyrdom,
that evpry sin is fully and -adequately punished ! Really,
he can run across his' own track with a facility perfectly
astounding. But if there is no punishment after death,
there can be no sin after death, Mr. Pingree and Univer
salism being witnesses, for punishment necessarily follows
sin;, and if- there is neither sin nor punishment after
death, in the name of common sense, how can there he
any salvation?. Did he not tell us, that salvation was from
sin: It is astonishing that a" disputant so ad«>it, should
run intoso many absurdities and contradictions. It is the
cause and not the advocate which is at fault.
But he told you with as much coolness as if he supposed
you, could believe him, that I -had made no appeal to the
Scripturef but only to the opinions of men-*— to the mass
of mankind ! Now, I have quoted at least two passages of
Scriptures to his one, as you all know; andrif time will al
low, I shall quote one hundred to his one. The fact that he
made such a declaration shows- that' he is, -reduced to great

88 DEBATE ON
extremities, iand does not know what tosay or do. But this
is merely by the way, and as another proof of the desper
ate condition of- my friend's affairs.
,But the gentleman:still- insists that. Ballou and his fol
lowers 'are endowed with capacities to- perceive the truth,
beyond all the wise, and learned, and plows' men, that ever
existed before them! That with- no more evidence than
others- possessed, with no greater amount of mental cul
ture, with no greater stimulus to investigation, they nev
ertheless have mounted immeasurably higher in the
regions of light and truth than ever did the boldest ad
venturer in all past ages! And-it would seem that he sets
up these, high claims too' with the- greatest modesty, and
in the utmost abhorrence of the folly of one's being
"Wise in his own conceit-', !" .But 1 will not trespass again
upon- your'patience to explain my position in reference to
the decision of the learned and pious of past ages,- against
Universalism. Mr. Pingree either finds it convenient not
to understand me, or else he cannot. He has not met my
argument ori that point. ' It would be folly for me -to press
it further -on him. 1 grant that Christians professedly
have been and are divided in sentiment, and -that too on
some important points; but, now nor never were theydi-
vided on so important and vital a question- as this. The
reason of the division has-been that lack of information
requisite to comprehend the matter, and the prevalence of
a spirit hostile to free and dispassionate investigation.
Bat nothing of the kind ever pertained in relation to this
subject. The only way we- can account for their unani
mous rejection of it, is to be .ascribed to a deliberate con
spiracy against the truth ! No- other explanation can be
given, But I have hithertoisaid enough on this question.
But my friend seems to think he will/.not always be in
the minority. That wonderful sagacity of intellect, which
he has in common with his " father Ballou," has. aM of a
sudden imparted to him a Seer's Optics ; . and he has cast his
eyes through, the darkness of the future, and has descried
the brightness of the. day whan Universalism shall possess
the earth, and shed its mellow influences in all hearts ! I
am sorry he got off the tripod before, he uttered all his
oracle ! He ought to have told us the times and the sea
sons,; aye, "the day and the hour;" for surely that was
no prdinary revelation- he. had- — the oracular inflatus was

universalism. 89
very great! ¦¦ But, indeed, that glorious event, he intimated,
was close at hand; for he dropt the hint that I might live
to see it. Udo not suppose that he thought me likely to
be blessed with antideluvian longevity. 'My impaired
health arid shattered constitution would forbid "such a sup
position. No, the time is at hand surely. It will doubt
less be coeval with Miller's conflagration, and the" Mor
mon millennium. Oh, how the world- will be amazed,
when such a trio of glorious events Shall burst at once
upOn its vision! , - .. ¦ -
'¦'•By 'the same gift of second sight — that gift of the re
doubtable McEingal, which enabled* him- to see what- cbuld
not be seen, — 1 say, I presume it was by some , such aid,
that Mr. Pingree was enabled to see seven- hundred thous
and Universalists in the United -States ! But he must par
don me if I am less credulous in relation to- this part of
his oracle, -than the rest-.' I am willing to grant that,
should my Hfe be spared to see the Universalist millenium,
that it is highly probable I will.be a Universalist; but
really I cannot believe this seven hundred thousand story,
until I. see it made out by figui'es. I demand the statistics^
He ought not to settle such a' matter by oracle. No,- we
must have the figu-res-r-'-f/ies/ cannot lie. •
- In due time, 1 "will attend to the words in the' original"
language, translated hell, in the common version. I pass
them and what the gentlemen said in relation' to them, for
the present.
He says, that Origen, and before him-, Clement, Grego
ry Nazianzen, etc., used the word aionios, in reference to
punishment, in a limited sense; not as meaning endless.
I will give him a premium to make that statement good by
quotations from those authors. They do no such thing.
All the writings of the "'fathers-" maybe- seen in the- li
brary of Lane Seminary, Cincinnati; and 1 defy him to
prove that this word was so used by any of them ; or that
Origen ever attempted to prove his peculiar notions from
the Bible.
Nor is it true, that no -one until Tertullian asserted end
less punishment, The Apostolic fathers, asserted it. Ire-
nseus says, the whole church ofthe second centu-ry assert
ed it. These works are here; and the gentleman is wel
come to consult them. But I do not believe he will ven
ture to dispute what I say; Indeed, the passage' he pro-

90 DEBATE ON
fessed to quote from Tertullian, to say the least, if in the
writings of that father at all,- has been very freely trans
lated for the gentleman's use. I haVe read the works of
Tertullian, .but I do not recollect the passage as it was
quoted. But admitting it, it proves nothing whatever,
further than that Tertullian, as was his custom, carried a
doctrine universally received, to an unnecessary extent.
The gentleman has the most fruitful of fancies.. Its
creations are most marvelous,-—I had almost said most
ridiculous ! He was almost ready to assert that Jhis "fa
ther Ballou" was the apocalyptic angel, flying through the
midst pf heaven, haying the everlasting gospel to preach!
And indeed, he did affirm,' that Ballou's reformation was
greater than, that of Luther's ! ! No marvel that you
smile. For myself I am firmly persuaded that if any
"thing prophetic was ever recorded of Mr. Ballou, it was- a
prediction of one of the Mahometan seers, to the effect
that antichrist was a huge donkey, which should appear in
the latter days, and attract millions to perdition by the
music of his braying! But notwithstanding he one minute
thus clothes his spiritual father in robes of glory, he the
next minute, with paracidal ferocity, would tear them from
him: for he asserts that Universalism didexist prior to 1818,
when it came forth from the prolific sconce of Mr. Ballou,
as erst of old did the goddess of wisdom from the brains.of
Jupiter! But Mr. Pingree should not do so. The disci
ple is not above his. master, nor the servant above his
lord. He is wrong in spirit and in fact. In spirit, because
heis' wholly indebted for his present commanding position
iri the religious world to that man whom he would thus
rpb of his honor- — he is a consequence ot Mr. Ballou. Iri
fact, because he has been wholly unable, although chal
lenged to do so, to adduce a solitary individual who tra
versed the road of Tjni.versalism before the said Hosea
Ballou. But to come to more grave matters. -
He charges that I hold that' unbelievers will be saved —
that I preach to them for that purpose, — that I hold that
murderers will be saved, etc. Now to all this I give a
most emphatic denial. I do riot teach that an unbeliever
will be saved; nor would I tell one so for my right arm.
Nor am I wont to contradict the Bible, and tell a murderer
that he hath eternal life abiding. in him, when God declares
he has not, I am not wont to cry, " peace, peace,", to the

UNIVERSALISM. 91
wicked, when the Almighty has declared there is no peace
to the wicked, . I will not, as do Universalist ministers,
hold out the prospect of eternal felicity to the .drunkard,
the liar, the swearer; the man polluted with every vice
and stained with every, crime, when the voice of heaven
declares that such " shall not inherit the kingdom pf God."
No, I teach that the believer, and not the unbeliever
"hath: everlasting life." I say to the poor in, spirit, that
"theirs is, the kingdom of heaven:" tp mourners, that
"they shall be comforted;" to the meek, that " they shall
inherit the- earth;" to those that hunger, and thirst after
righteousness, that" they shall bp filled;" to the merciful,
that " they shall obtain mercy;" to the purp in heart, that
"they shall see God." I say to those who are led by the
spirit of , God, that "they .are the sons of God." And in
so doing I speak as He, by whose authority I profess' to
preach, authorizes me to spe^tk. But never, no never, will
I proclaim peace and safety to the sinner. I tell the un
believers that " the wrath of God abideth on them" — that
'i without faith it is impossible to please God," That they
must repent or perish— turn or burn. That to be car-
pally minded is- death — -that' they that are in the flesh can
not please God-— that " the fearful, and. unbelieving, and
the abominable, and. murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all-liars^shall have their part in
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the
second death." No> I do not preach, peace to the ungodly
and the sinner, Mr. Pingree wholly misunderstands-me,.
But I dp hold to the transforming influences of the Gos
pel. I do teach that by the grace and spirit of God, men
are S'born again"— that they .become new "creatures;"
that " old things pass away, and all things' become new."
That, by this npw creating process, Iteaeh that unbelievers
become believers, shiners -become saints, that children.pf
the devil become^ children of God, slaves of the wicked
one become. Christ's freemen, drunkards become temperate ¦
in all things, etc. But my Bible teaches that these oppo
site characters are different moral beings — that they are
not the same, not what they once were : thai -they are new
creatures- — that they have passed from death unto life
-r— that they are, born again. This is the genius of the
Christian religipn — it changes, remodels men, creates
them anewiri Christ— they are -washed -and justified: but

92 DEBATE ON
it take§ no murderers, or liars, or drunkards, etc. into hea
ven. None'but the spirits bf the just are in heaven;' no
thing unclean ,cari enter there. But why enlarge on a
point so plain. I hardly think it possible that Universal
ism itself can blind' the eyes Of any tb this subject." \
But Mt. Pingree' will tell you that he subscribes to this
doctrine— that he holds that rio riian is saved in unbelief —
that he must become a believer first — that the murderer,
etc., must be- changed. But when is the change effected?
Iri many instances, "he will tell you, not in this life— con
sequently not by the- Gospel; not by the spirit of God.
The man dying in unbelief, according to his theory, be
comes, a believer in the grave! He believes without hear
ing ! ! The murderer's heart is transformed, without the
influence of .the spirit of grace', in the' grave! Let us
trace this absurdity further. The Gospel is preached to
men, and they reject it'. God calls, but they refuse. He
stretches out his hand all the day long, arid no man re
gards it. They die impenitent, unbelievers, atheists, in
fidels, blasphemers, foul with gveiy sin: and yet in the
grave, without hearing, they believe: - the atheist gives
his heart to God, ¦ the infidel embraces the Gospel, the
blasphemer chants the praises of Jesus, and -every sin is
washed from the 'soul without the blood of Christ; without
the spirit- of God ! ! HowJ Mr.Tirigree says he cannot tell !
that he is not bound to tell! But who informed him it was
so at all? He has quoted nothing from the Scriptures to
prove'it. Common sense startles at it. 1 again call tor
the proof to authorize the supposition of the existence of
absurdities 'so monstrous and nonsensical. Let him make
good 'Ms' implied superiority in' knowledge respecting the
affairs of the spirit-land.
There was a passage quoted' by the gentleman in his last
speech, and it is quite a favorite among Universalists,
which demands a passing notice, if for no other reason, to
show the' sandy foundation upon which this system rests.
The passage alluded to is Proverbs xi. 31:. "Behold the
righteous man, shall he not be recornperised in the earth?
much more the wicked and the sinrier." So it was quoted
by Mr. Pingree; arid so it. reads in the common 'version.
It is- in the mouth of every Universalist, to" prove that
there is not a state of rewards and punishments in another
life. But this is a wrong translation'. It is rendered in

UNI VEESA'tlSM. 93
the Septuagint, "If the righteous scarcely be. saved, where
sh^ll, the ungodly and the sinner appear." That this is a
correct rendering,. is, evident from the fact, that the Apbs-
tle Peter, by inspiration, quotes it, 1 Peter- iv. 18. , This
quotation, , by Peter, gives divine sanction to the rendering
of this passage in the Septuagint,- and dashes this delicious
cup forever from the lips of Universalists. <
Mr. Pingree, in order to show that sin was fully punish
ed in this life, quotes Hebrews ii. 2, 3: " For if thi word
spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression
and . disobedience received a ju,st Trecompence of reward,
how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" etc.,
Now this was quoted to. show that when a murderer and
other criminals were punished under the Mosaic, law, it was
a "just recompence of reward," and, therefore, all, the
punishment they would receive, , Now a thing is just which
is done according to an equitable law. Hence, the mur
derer was justly punishable with death; that is, suffered
according to, law. .This is all the passage means. But
this was a law, of human- society; it .could neither annul
or supercede a divine law, under which, he might also
justly suffer. The parallel passage .ought to have been
taken in .connection with this.: Hebrews x. 28, 29, "He
that despised Moses' law, died without, mercy, under two or
three witnesses.: of how much Sorer punishnhent, suppose
ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden undpr
foot the- Son of God, and, hath c.dunted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing,
and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" , Here
then is ,a punishment much sorer than to die without mercy,
threatened those who despise the Gospel— much sorer than
the worst; punishment inflicted by the Mosaic law; can
such a punishment be inflicted in this life? If sp, what can
it be? flow can it be inflicted?
There was another singular position assumed by my
opponent, which. I will just state. It is one of those, ar
guments with which his speeches abound,, that cannot be
answered. If I understood him, he contended that the suf
ferings experienced by the righteous here were somehow
or. other conducive to their happiness in this. life!. And
that the happiness of the wicked in this life, was no happi
ness at all, but punishment! I merely state the matter as
I understood him, and frankly confess I have no answer to
give to such argumentation.

94 DEBATE ON
1 come now to' notice his fifth argument. This was
founded ori 1 Tim. iii 4, (if I did not mistake his reference,)
" Whp will have all men to be saved, and come to the
knowledge of the truth." , Well, Universalism asserts
that " the evils from'which Christ came to save men are iri
this world ;" and Mi- . Pingree tells us that salvation is from
sin. Then this passage mCans, that God "would have all
men to be'saved"' from Sin. in this world, " and come to the
knowledge of the truth." And Mr. Pingree says that
God's will cannot be frustrated, arid, therefore, we must
conclude, although every thing gives the lie to the cPncluj
sion, that all men are saved from sin in this life, and come
to the knowledge of the'truth 1 ! Universalism must be one
of the " lying wonders," mentioned in prophecy.
But he quoted iri confirmation of this positio'n, 1 Tim. iv.:
10 : " We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all
men, especially of those that believe." Here is a book'
called " Exposztidn of Universalism," by "Rev. I. D. Wil
liamson;" and in it is a sermon on this very text, p. 155.,
In this sermon, he proves, in strict accordance with his '
system, as I have already shown, that this special salvation
takes' place in- this life. He sa'ys, "1. The believer is'
saved frbfn sin, the direst foe of man. 2. The believer is
saved from ignorance of God and ' his character. And
3rd. The believer is saved from the bondage of the fear Of
death." The especial' salvation is in this -world, where
then must the common salvation be ? The great salvation
of the text, the Universalists tell us, is in this life; and
then leave us to irifer, and marvel that we do not infer,
that the less salvation is in the life to come! The believer
is saved in this world, and the unbeliever in the world to*
come! Such an exposition is worthy only of the lunatic
asylum. But So Universalism expounds the word of God.
[mr. pingree's fifth SPEECH, j
Respected Friends: — You will permit me to make-one
remark, — and I am grateful" to the Moderators fpr calling
attention to it, — respecting the gentleman's quotations frofh
the poets — " a little learning is a dangerous thing," etc.,
which he says he had no intention to" apply to me. If he
did not intend'them to apply to me,' I should like to know.
their relevancy to the present discussion. What have
such quotations to do with the question, " Do the Scriptures
each the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men?" —

UNIVERSALISM. 95
whether all men sh'al! be holy and happy; or some- howl in
endless despair?
Mr, Wallpr says that according to Universalism, there is
no goodness in God, because he punishes the sinner accord
ing to what he deserves. Parents! is there no goodness" in
you, if you punish your children according to what they
deserve? Wherein is there a want of goodness in a parent
who punishes children as they deserve, and for their "own
fo benefit? That God punishes sinners as they deserve, is not
denied;- but it is denied that he punishes them endlessly
hereafter, for the transgressions pf this life. That is Mr.
Waller's doctrine; not mine." I say there is goodness in
punishing the sinner, to reform and benefit 'him. But
where is the goodness of God upon the theory of the gen
tleman? Is there goodness exhibited- in torturing men to-
all' eternity, and in incapacitating them from ajl repent
ance hereafter! There is -goodness' in a parent who pun
ishes his child to improve his^charaoterT It may be done
with all the kindness of a father, 'in a spirit of love, for the
good of the child. But if he should torture him in a
cruel manner, and tp gratify a malignant hature, we may-
say he is not 'good. By adopting the- latter as the conduct
of God, we impeach him with an act which We would riot
permit a man to doi We cannot believe-it is consistent with
the nafure of God to do an act we should attribute to- the
gratification, of a revengeful spirit. But as to limited pun
ishment, for the benefit and improvement and ultimate hap-'
piness of the sufferer; this we say is good; and We see
in it the work of a Heavenly Father. This is all ,we Say ;
and all it is necessary -to say as to that argument. Espe- ,
cially with reference to the idea of the gentleman, that for
the sins committed in this life the, punishment is unlimited,
endless, not for, the reformation of sinners, but toi-ven--
geance only, arid that consequently God's creatures are
delivered at once and finally to the power Of the Devil, to
be -tortured in etertaal fire, with thi power of repentance
taken from them by their Creator; and this I suppose the
gentleman claims to be the height of goodness! This is the
perfection qf Benevolence in the Heavenly Father of our
Spirits, and the God of all grace and mercy ! ! whose very
nature and essence is Love! !¦ That is logic; is it?: That
is logic worthy of a man Who appeals to majorities in such
discussions, and to the '¦' mass of -well regulated minds ! "

96 debate on-
. Let us pass on.. We hear next the inquiry, if ,God;is so
good as to save all, Why does he npt save them now ? God
knowe; I do- not, There is sufficient testimony that' we
were made and. are now", subject to vanity," in this world.
If the gentleman wants to know, why, Ire must ask not men,
nor angels; he must ask the Being that made us so. I
have' shown Ji-orn ,tjhe, Bible that we " shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption." All I can say as-to,the
rest, is that God sp designed, it, that we should, -be subject
to vanity; for .what object, He only knows. We must not
" be wise above what is written." The declaration is 'as
plain as the Word of God can make it, and as. written in
human language. »,
The geptlemau says that the works of Wesley do not
contain tkjs statement that the word -"creature," (Romans
8th.) is applied to the brute creation.5' The declaration -was
taken;fi'om a; sermon of Wesley, and not from his Notes.
If any individual here has.Wesley's Sermons,! should-like,
to (See them. Tbe sermCn I think was.on that text.
Let us read what he says here, in his Notes. He quotes
the passage: ", For the earnest expectation of the creature
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." It in
cludes all the yisihle creation. Believers, are expressly
spoken of apart, (and "not they only but ourselves also,")
yet embraced- in it. It is like a passage in John (1 John ii.
2.) " And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Here
" the world" is distinguished from "ourselves," and sepa
rated, yet, though a special notice is taken of "ourselves,"
the whole world, is embraced afterwards in the propitiation.
Should we believe that because believers are -specially no
ticed, that thej'e is any exception meant either- in favor of
or. against them ? I now read from Wesley: ^
"19. For the, earnest, expectation— The word denotes a
lively hope of something -drawing near, and a vehement
longing after it; of the creation — Of; all visible creatures,
(believers excepted, who are spoken of apart.) Each kind,
according as it is capable. All these have been sufferers
through sin. And to all these (the finally impenitent ex
cepted" —
Dp we find that exception inthe Bible? the passage it-.
self (1.5th Corinthians,) makes no such exception; and none
can be allowed. But let us. read on: — "shall refreshment

UNIVERSALISM.

97

redound from the glory of the children of God. Upright
heathens are by no means to be excluded from this earnest
expectation. Nay, perhaps something of it may at some
times be found even in the vainest of men; who (although
in the hurry "of life they mistake vanity for liberty, and
partly stifle, partly dissemble their groans, yet) in their
sober, quiet, sleepless, afflicted hours, pour forth many sighs
in the ear of God.".
"20. Tlie creation was made subject to vanity — Abuse,
misery, and corruption,- by him who subjected il — Namely,
God, Gen. iii. 17; v. 29. Adam only made it liable to the
sentence which God pronounced; yet not without hope."
'f 21. The creation itself shall be delivered — Destruction
is not deliverance. Therefore whatsoever is destroyed, or
ceases to be, is not delivered at all. Will then any part 6f
the creation be destroyed? Into the glorious liberty — The
^excellent state wherein they were created."
Thus we see he embraces all creation in a strict sense.
I spoke of the word "creation," as meaning the human
creiti'n. But if my friend includes stocks arid stones, I
have no objection. But I do not ask it. I ask only so
much of creation as is properly "subject to vanity, and to
be delivered from the bondage of corruption," etc. )
He attempted to show that Christians alone are spoken
of in Romans viii. He read the preceding context, where
the Apostle speaks of "you," and "we," addressing the
Roman Christians who were then living, and actually enjoy
ing, in part, that -condition of salvation which is afterwards
spoken of as fhe promised gift to the whole creation. Mr.
Waller wishes to make it appear that the whole chapter
relates to the Roman Christians, to whom he was writing.
If this were so, literally, what would become of my friend,
or any of us living now, and in this place? Why, no man
now living has any thing to do with this promise of Scrip
ture, if it was meant to be confined to Roman Christians
then living, whom he addressed. The true explanation is,
that in one part, he is addressing ihein, and in another
part he is speaking of tlie whole human creation, as destin
ed to be "delivered." The righteous are spoken of in a
peculiar manner, as worthy of notice ; but all are embraced,
as experiencing the ultimate deliverance.
He says 1 made an argument in favor of universal sal
vation from a passage which expressly states that men are
7

98 , , debate -pn
only saved "through righteousness" — and that we say
therefore that men are saved while unrighteous. — Not so,
I said on Paul's authority that men will "be made right
eous," and, thus saved.. That they will, is proved by the
passage I- relied on; for it says, as I showed before, that all
will become righteous, through the obedience of Jesus
- Christ. I do not believe I made any such argument ashe
attributes to me. I certainly did not use the passage in the
sense he-now charges. ,Hc foists a passage and argument
upon me, which I never used, and thus attempts to lead you
astray. I did not. found, any argument on that verse.
He, asks whether all men are saved in this life? No;, all
¦know they are not,; nor have 1 argued thus.
With, respect to, the passage I read, (Colossians, i. 20,)
"by him to reconcile all things to 'himself," he says this
was addressed to the Colossians; and they were reconciled
already. Now if this be the case literally, no man can
claim this promise as applying to himself. Where is his
reconciliation, .(pointing to Mr, Waller;) and where is, the
reconciliation of all the Baptists now living, if the" recon-
.ciliation" concerned the Colossian Christians alone? And
if not thein exclusively, Mr. Waller's objection is force
less. The Colossians were reconciled, it, is true; but the
promise of reconciliation applies to us too, and to all men.
Does hp not see tbat.all these, things are done, now, as well
as then; and that this, according to his argument in reply
to mine, .is a direct contradiction of the , promises of Al
mighty God? -The language and expression of the promises
forbid their exclusive application to the individual Christians
thenliving, to whom they were addressed; and show them
to apply, to the ultimate condition of all' mankind. . The
.Cplossians. were reponeiled already-r-hut all men were to be
reconciled,, finally. Christ is tp reconcile the whole world
to God.
, He says if God is good enough to make all righteous
and happy in a future world, he" would do it now,. I deny
:it. Now, we are !¦' subject to vanity." That is God's will
¦nop. That is our present condition. The righteous suffer
jriow in consequence of the violation of his laws. No man
would violate them, er suffer from their violation by oth-
ers,except by the peculiar social condition ofthe human rape
and being " made, subject to vanity." Jf there is "vanity"
hereafter, tlien there will be suffering. Man is made sub-

universalism. 99
ject to vanity here. It is so arranged under thp Divine
Government, for great and glorious ends to human beings.
Why and how it occurred, we are entirely ignorant. None
" can find out God to perfection."
My friend asks, if there is no punishment after death,
what are men saved from? They are saved from "vanity,"
and " the bondage of corruption," and sin, ahd death.
He says he can boast of having quoted six more texts
than I have. He may easily read a string of six or eight
passages, or sixty even, as he does, without showing how
they bear on the discussion! as he required me to do, I
quote a few passages at a time, and show their bearing
upon the subject.
. He says that Hosea Ballou was " wise in his own conceit;"
and talks about the great wonder and marvelous thing,
that he. should have been the first to discover what is so
plainly revealed in Scripture, etc. The time will come
when justice, will be done to that great and good man. If
he were here, doubtless he could speak for himself; — but
he is not here, and Mr. Waller shows himself a brave war
rior by contending with an absent combatant! Perhaps he
had better attend to my arguriients, in this discussion, and
save Father Ballou\ until another time. This course
would be more satisfactory to me, and to this audience.
I did not bring a load of bqoks here to refer to, because
I thought the appeal was not to " authority," but the words
of Scripture. I may have "little learning," jt is true ; but.
I have enough to read the Divine Word, arid attempt to
present its teachings to men.
The Apostolic fathers did not all use the word " eternal,"
to signify endless, in our sense of that word. Clement
did not use it so; and the farther back we go towards the
sacred writers, we find less use made of it in that sense;
till we come to the Apostles, and find that none of them
used it so. But as we come down in the history ofthe cliur.ch
to the more corrupt times of Christianity, we find reli
gion filled with absurd, monkish, and false ideas; and so
down to modern Partialism, as it prevails in the present
day. -
I gave you an example of some of the writings attribu
ted to the fathers. Mosheim says that "many absurd wri
tings were attributed to the fathers; but there isno absolute
proof that they were written by them.
That, however, is not the question. It has nothing to do

100 DEBATE ON
with the question, " Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate
holiness and salvation of all men?" If we were to appeal to
human authority, we should go to the Mother Church, and
obey her, and die in her communion. 1 have read Euse
bius' history of the Church in the first three centuries;
and this ancient Christian, in speaking of the persecution
of the saints and of the punishment of those who persecu
ted them, does not once speak of misery and torment in the
life to come: and Eusebius lived back near to the time of
the Apostolic fathers.
" I affirm that no murderer and no liar can be saved," says
Mr. Waller. W'as not David a murderer? and was he nOt
saved? Peter lied, denying his Lord and Master, with
cursing and swearing: was Peter not saved? "Oh! but
those who die unbelievers cannot be saved." Where does
the Bible say that those who die murderers, liars, etc., can
not be saved? "But the Bible says no murderer hath
eternal life." It does not say that after death the murderer
mat/ not have eternal life.
There is one thought which I wish to express here. It
is the common belief among the Orthodox, that the eternal
condition of men depends upon the state of mind and heart
when I hep die. Yet they are always quoting the Bible to
prove that men are recompensed ' according to their works."
They themselves do not believe it; 1 charge them with not be
lieving that men are recompensed "according to their works."
They believe that a man may be wicked, and do all the
works of the devil, during life, and until the hour of death,
and then repent, and go to heaven. Is there any recom
pense to this man according to his works? And on the
other hand, they believe that a man may be good, and do
the works of godliness during' his whole life, almost, and
then die in sin, and go to an everlasting Hell, without hope
of lepentance or salvation. Is this man recompensed "ac
cording to his works?" I repeat, then, that they do not be
lieve that men are rewarded and punished " according to
their works."
What does salvation depend upon? The state of the mind
at death? The Scriptures do not teach that. They teach that
our reward depends on our Works; and that for every siri
done we are punished. But' we deny that.this punishment
s for all eternity. We believe men are punished accordi
ng to their works, and that salvation is the gift of God,
n another life. They affirm that it depends upon the

UNIVERSALISM. 101
state of the mind and heart at death. The word of God
does no! affirm this.
To affirm that unbelievers can never be saved, would be
to sweep the whole entire race of man with the besom of
eternal destruction into the pit of Hell! The mass of men
die unbelievers ; and allmenwere nnce unbelievers. There
is but a small company of believers in the Christian Reli
gion, compared to the whole human race. The whole Pa
gan world who have lived in all time, must be sent to eter
nal, perdition! Do you believe that? Not only the whole
Pagan world; but I should like to know what is to be the
fate of idioU, infants, etc.? Will the gentleman set this
argument aside, by saying that we have nothing tp do w,ith
the fate of such persons? Nothing to do with it!? No con
cern of ours?! 1 do not profess to be guided by such views
and feelings, I am interested in the whole human family,
as a common brotherhood of the children of God; and if
they are unbelievers here, in that they are ''made subject
tp vanity," I belieye that God has better things in store for
them at the resurrection hereafter. I believe the Scrip
tures to teach that there is deliverance for them hereafter
from the " bondage of corruption."
He says it does not follow that a man once a liar is al
ways a liar; once a murderer always a murderer, etc.
That's what we claim. We say they will be changed.- They
will become not liars — not murderers; and will be saved.
That is the. promise. He has admitted the very point. The
passages he quoted to show they could not be saved, have
no bearing at all. Because he admits that some murderers,
liars, etc., (ndt those-who d\e so.) can be saved. And we
say all can be, hy the same grace, and by being changed.
He says I must tell where the salvation takes effect, etc.
He is troubled about where men are saved. Are they saved
in Hell? he asks. Where are they saved? etc. Does not
the gentlemen believe in a judgment in the life to come?
When is that to be? at the Resurrection? When is that to
be? When the gentleman tells me, then 1 will tell him
where and when all men are to be reconciled and saved.
But this is a question not in the proposition before us. The
Bible does not tell us when or where men are to be recon
ciled and saved: though we may yet, when we come to the
proper passage, see some signs there of the time.
My friend, Mr. Waller, has explained himself on the sub-

102 ' DEBATE ON
ject of sin not punishing itself. He does not contend so.'
Their " own wickedness sometimes does correct them."
The cases he referred to are, punishments in this life. As
to the expression 1 quoted from Proverbs, and its affirriied
parallel in Peter; take the passage as quoted in Peter:
will the gentlemen explain where it is that " the righteous
are scarcely saved?*' Is that in a future life? Dr. Adam
Clarke says it relates to temporal matters. Thus, "where
shall the ungodly be if the righteous are scarcely saved?"
refers to another kind of salvation, than the final salva
tion. Either passage is sufficiently to the point, iii proving
.present punishment;
The passage in 2d Hebrews, he says, referred to the
Mosaic dispensation. It is granted a " just recompense"
was received then. I wonder if Mr. Waller believes that '
under the Mosaic dispensation no man expected to be ame
nable to endless future punishment? This seems to be the
admission. I should like tb know. ' If it were so, and they
endured it, what shall we do with this passage, "received a
just recompense," as1 applied to the Mosaic dispensation?
and if they did not expect to endure endless future pun-
ishmentj what did men gain by Christianity?' The knowl
edge and expectation of being consigned to " all hell-hor
rors" in, a future life forever?! Glorious Gospel this!.' a
glorious "life and immortality" it has brought to light;
has it not?! •' Life and immortality are brought to light by
the Gospel," say the Scriptures. "Life and endless damna
tion," say the modern theologists.
The gentleman quotes, "how much sorer punishment
shall they endure," etc.? Yes, if they were to suffer
through life and death, and after death hell-horrors to all
eternity, for the sins con'imitted in life! Christianity was a
curse, an everlasting curse to the human race, if such be
Christianity, and' if men did not expect endless suffering
under the Mosaic dispensation, but expected it under' the
Christian. I say if this be the change effected by Christi
anity — to expose mankind to endless suffering in Hell fire,
(and the mass of men will certainly go thither, upon the
doctrine as now advocated) it is a horrible curse to human
souls! But perhaps he may think it is no sorer here
than was endured under the Mosaic dispensation. Let us see.
In the 24th chapter of Matthew, Jesus Christ, speaking ofthe
tribulation that should come upon Jerusalem, says, (verse

UNI VERSALTSM. 103
21,) "For' there shall be great tribulation-, srieh as was
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor
•ever shall be! Now here are tribulations to happen in this
world, greater than ever were, or shall -be hereafter. Does
he deny this? Is it not proved? How' emphatic* clear, and
explicit is the language of our Savior! Then there shall
be great tribulation, such as never was. This embraces
those who had died before, and been punished. " No, nor
ever shall be." This embraces alfthat is to happen hero-
after. Such was the tribulation he speaks of to occur in
tliat generation. Jesus Christ knew no greater punishment
than this, which is to be endured in this life. • Enough on the
point of the "sorer" punishment spoken of by my friend.
Men may be' more guilty under Christianity than under the
Mosoic law; but not infinitely more so. There is riot that
difference between men then 'and now, that they should be
puriished only in this life, but we tp all eternity ! ' Yet therev-
elation of Christianity is called a revelation of life arid
peace arid joy secured to all men!
The gentleman insists that if God wants all men to be
made holy and saved, he would do it in this life;- and asks,
Is it not his will that all. should be saved in this life? No. It
has not been God's will. Had it been, he would have sent
the Truth to the millions of ' men in darkness; but they
have been left without the Truth for near six thousand years.
Would he not have sent it -to them, if this had been his
will? " The Lord doeth his will in the army of heaven',
and among -the inhabitants of the earth." Does my friend
deity' the final accomplishment of his will, ri-s declared in
this passage? Then he says that God wants to save all men,
but Is disappointed, and will be eternally disappointed of his
pleasure. He will possess an "ungratified desire — he will
be tormented by an unfulfilled desire, -to all eternity!' -
If Mr. Waller is a Galvinisl, he believes" in the accom
plishment of the will of God. - If not, if he is an Arminian,
he takes the position that Jesus Christ cannot accomplish
the object of his mission; but is like a man who undertook
"to build a tower without counting the cost, and could not
finish it :" he was mocked ! because . not able to finish his
undertaking: — that's Arminianism. God has declared his
Will and purpose that all men should be saved, and has
promised it; and Said he was able to accomplish it. But
Arminians say he can't' bo it!! The Devil is stronger than

204 DEBATE ON
the Almighty, and will prevent him! If my friend isa
Calvinist, therefore, he is right, in believing that God will-
and can do his pleasure. But he asks me why God does
not do it in this world? why are we not all saved in this
life? I cannot tell him. We are told in the Bible that God
has made us " subject to vanity, here, not willingly, but by
reason pf him who hath subjected the same in hope." But
beyond that he says — " Moreover the law entered, that tlie
offence might abound." Who brought the law? • what was
the will of God in reference to the law? was it that
sin should have power to all eternity? "But where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound." That was the
result. That follows after. We do not see it yet. Does
he argue therefore that it will never be done at all? That
would be directly against the positive word of God. It -is
not God's will that all should be saved in this life; because
he does not give all any opportunity of being saved, possi
bly. Oh! the work of salvation is left for Christians now to
effect by sending and preaching the Gospel! What! man's
immortal doom depend on the conduct of Christians now?
Are men to suffer endlessly, for the neglect of Christians
now? All those who are in darkness in the Pagan world
are to be punished in eternal Hell-fire, for this! Is this
ihe goodness of God! and this his justice, too? to damn the,
Pagans because Christians neglect them, and then save
those very Christians! >
It may be a strange thing to Mr; Waller that the dpc-
trine of universal salvation should not be known till .the
appearance of Hosea Ballou in 1818 — though it was known
to the Apostles and the fathers, and from their day unto the
present. But grant all he says, it is far stranger that the
Pagan world should be doomed to endless misery from the
neglect of Christians, than that Father Ballou should have
bpen the first man to discover the Bible doctrine of sal
vation. A few words more in relation to 1 Timothy iv. 10. "We,
trust in the living God who, is Savior of all men, specially
of those that believe." There is a special salvation in this
life, to those that believe. But God is to save all men, fit
nally. There is no propriety in confining this to the pre-
, sent life. It refers to their immortal state; because in no
sense is God the Savior of all men now. The gentleman

universalism. 105
dares not deny the declaration of Paul, that God is the Sa
vior of all men: he says he saves all men here; but cannot,
see hffw he saves them in another state. 1 ask him, from
what are all men saved in this world? From death? Then
there is no death. From sin? Then there are no sinners,
and no suffering. From temporal evils? Then there are
no temporal evils; no trials; nor temptations, etc. 1 ask
again, what are all men then saved from iu.this life' When.
he shows in what sense all are saved in this life, I will then
have something more to say on that subject.
I now proceed to advance another argument, which is
my sjxth, to wit; The destruction of all man's enemies.
I have quoted a passage already which states that Christ
Was to destroy the Devil., I will now read 1 Corinthians
xv. 25 and 26 ; " For he must reign till he hath put all
enemies under his feet- The last enemy that shall be de
stroyed is Death." This is the last enemy. There is no
death beyond that. Again; " Behold the Lamb of God who
taketh away the sin of the world."
But as my time is expired, I will resume this subject
hereafter. [Mr. waller's fifth reply.]
. If I should not now reply to all the positions and asser
tions in Mr. Pingree's last speech, it is not because they
have escaped my notice, (.for perhaps* if time allows, they
will receive due attention,) but because I want to bring
before ypu the main points of this subject. Our time is
limited, and if we suffer ourselves to be diverted after
every little issue that may be started up, the merits of the
subject under discussion will.be lost sight of. I wish to
give the chief place to those arguments that are consider
ed fundamental; and then bestow the spg,re time, if any,
upon subjects of incidental pr minor importance.
There is one position off the ^Universalists which, by
the consent of Mr-. Pingree and all his brethren, if stricken
down, their whole system- falls to nought. It is vital to,
their capse, and as such I claim your attention tp it. The
position is this : That all punishment of sin is disciplinary
— inflicted for the good of those punished. Now I grant it
is a Bible doctrine, that " the light afflictions of the right
eous, which are for^ a moment, work for them a far more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory." But is it true

106 debate on
that the punishment of the wicked is always inflicted for
their good? If not, then Universalism, by its own friends,
is conceded to be false.' On this' point, they willingly
stake their whole cause. If punishment be for the sin
ner's good, then it, is a mercy iri some sense. Whatever is
for the good of man is a grace — a mercy. This is self-
evident. This being the case, I remark, it will introduce
some most unique readings into the Bible: indeed, make it
a book of absurdities. Let us see. Gal. iii. 10: " Cursed
is, every one that continueth not in all things written in
the book of 'the law to do them." This mearis, according
to Universalists, that the more a person neglects to do the
things of the law, the more blessings from God in the
shape of cursesAie will receive! Of course their version
of the matter would be this: " Blessed is every one that
continueth not in all things written in the book of the law
to do them !" ,
Again; 1 Cor. xvi. 22; "If any man love not the Lord
Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatba" — let him
be accursed, our Lord cometh. ' If the punishment, here
threatened be for good and be inflicted in mercy ; in a
word, if Universalism be true, the meaning of the text is,
"If any man love riot the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be
blessed; the Lord cometh!" Matthew xxvi. 4.6: "And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment" that is,
into the reception of everlasting blessings : " but the right
eous into life eternal;" that is, since " life eternal" is the
antithesis of "everlasting punishment," it means, of course,
that the righteous shall go into punishment eternal!!
Indeed, according to this view of the subject,, to be cast
into hell-fire is to be cast into a blessed place. Thp lake
that burneth with fire and bririistone, the unquenchable
fire, the worm that never dies, the fire that is never quench
ed, etc., etc., 'are so many phrases expressiveof the means
employed in- the laboratory of heaven for making men holy
—for purifying the soul of its dross! The hell of the Bi:
ble is a divine hospital, where those who cannot be cured
by the mercy of, God through the blood of his Son, may
be made spotless and pure by damnation!!! Hence thfere
is no need to fear hell, nor to indulge a mistaken wish to
escape it; it is a place of mercy arid manifold blessings!
The sooner the incorrigible experience its purifying flames,
the sooner they will have paid the wages of sin, and be

ON UNIVERSALISM. 107
cleansed for the joys of heaven! " Hell is the gate of end-
le'ss joys; why should we dread tb enter there?!" Nor is
this all: for, according to this doctrine, God's raining upon
thp, wicked "snares, fire and brimstone" is synonimous
with sending upori them sanctifying mercies! And the
threat against the ungodly, of " indignation, and wrath*
tribulation and anguish," refers to the distribution of the
different sorts of blessings! The Scripture expression,
" fierce wrath of God," means simply,' fierce goodness of
God! and " the fiery indignation which shall devour the
adversaries," means fiery mercy which shall save the adver
saries!! And " the smoke of their torment which ascend-
eth'rip forever and ever," must be understood to refer to
the smoke of the salvation of the damned ! !
The Universalists are wont to ascribe all the passages in
the New Testament which speak of gehenna fire, to the de
struction of Jerusalem, and in strains most melting and
horrific to descant of that event: but really, they weep
when they should rejoice; for according to their own show
ing, what they would persuade you to believe was the
greatest wo ever inflicted on mankind, was no wo at all;
but one of the richest displays of divine goodness, ever-
witnessed! And what a' rich display Of mercy was that
experienced by the antideluvians! And how gloriously was
divine goodness poured out upon Sodom' and Gomorrah!
And Pharoah and his hosts were destroyed for their good !
Again, in Matthew xi. '21-24, we read^=*' Wo unto
thee, [but, as amended by Universalism, — blessed art thou,]
"'Chorazin! wo unto thee, [blessed art thou,] Bethsaida!
It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of
judgment than for thee," [for thou shalt experience a
more abundant outpouring of God's mercy in the shape of
punishment than they V[ " And thOu Capernaum! it shall be
more tolerable for the land of Sodom- in the day of judg
ment than for thee," for I will pour out upon you of bless
ed and purifying punishments, more abundantly than ever
I did upon them!!
But the doctrine bears another absurdity -upon its face.
How can punishment be disciplinary, or for the good of
men, when in a great many cases its very infliction pre
cludes the possibility of reformation? The antideluvians,
the inhabitants of Sodom and GoiriPi'rah, and the untold
millions who have been cut off in their sins and for their

108 debate on
sins, could not reform after their punishment — could not
experience the benefits, to bring about which Universalists
argue, the punishment was inflicted upon them. Again:
If disciplinary, the salutary results of it were to be expe
rienced in this life. Universalism teaches that nothing in
th,is life makes an impress on character in the life to come.
That death is an act of oblivion in regard to the actions of
all men, whether righteous or wicked. It follows then,
that punishment was instituted to prevent the individual
from the commission of sin in this life. It has no other
end. Taking this view of the subject, and heaven's is the
most inefficient government ever established. It never
has, in ope solitary instance, with all its disciplinary pun
ishment, succeeded in keeping one solitary individual from
the commission of sin. Seeing then that the law is inade
quate to produce the ends designed by its enactment, wisdom
and humanity would long since have dictated its repeal!
, So much for this point at present. Universalism has
staked its existence on its truth. I have shown, I trusj, to
your entire satisfaction, that the doctrine that all punish
ment for sin is disciplinary, is alike abhorrent to reason
and to revelation. I will now proceed.
I did not come here to defend Mr. Wesley. But I am
not disposed, nevertheless, that the gentleman shall change
the issue, and thus evade the consequences to himself of
misrepresenting Mr. Wesley in his former speeches. You
remember that he said, time and again, with great vocifer
ation, that Mr. Wesley said, that the word " creature" or
"creation," in the 8th of Romans, meant specifically apd only
the brutes. This I questioned, and adduced Mr. W.'s Notes
on the passage to the contrary. Now the gentleman, see
ing that he is in a corner, that there is no way to rid him
self of the charge of misrepresentation, with great cool
ness undertakes, to excuse himself by showing that instead
of saying the brutes alone, he says, all "visible creation!"
This is an admission of all that 1 charged. He did misrep
resent Mr. Wesley, grossly and palpably, as he himself is
compelled to ^acknowledge. I repeat, it is no part of my
business to defend Mr. Wesley's exposition. I call no man
my master. No one claims that Mr. Wesley was an infal
lible interpreter of the Bible. He may have erred on this
passage. I believe he did. Hpmer, it is said, was wont to
nod; and Mr. Wesley sometimes gave his opinion hastily.

UNIVERSALISM. 109
It is enough for me to show that this passage does not
prove Mr. Pirigree's doctrine. He seems to be laboring
Under the sophistical delusion, that if he shows that his
doctrine may be taught iiva passage, that therefore it is
taught! But this is not enough. He is bound to show that
it contains his doctrine beyond alt reasonable cavil or
doubt. Admit that a doctrine is legitimately established by
showing it may be, and no error, however monstrous, and
no heresy, however destructive, but can be sustained.
Now I assert, and have shown, that this passage cannot af
ford positive proof for Mr. Pingree, (and that is what his
cause demands,) nay, I have gone further, and demonstra
ted that it does not furnish a hook to hang a reasonable
inference urion Mr. Pingree will not insult your common
sense by telling you, that infants and idiots who are ignoT-
ant of every thing: that infidels and atheists, who do not
believe in a hereafter, and that the heathen who know
nothing of the matter, earnestly expect " the manifesta
tion of the sons of God;" and yet, unless he will venture
this declaration, which would blister the tongue of false
hood itself, be can ne«er claim this passage as affording
the slightest proof of his doctrine.
And I beg you to observe, that not a passage quoted by
Mr. Pingree, from his own showing, clearly asserts his
doctrine. Strange to Say, that he thinks- it is enough to
rest a doctrine involving the eternal interests of the untold
millions of the human family, upon the shadowy and in
substantial foundation of it may be so! Yes, he asks you
to freight your hopes for eternity and the tremendous con
cerns of your immortal souls, upon a bark of fancy,
launched upon the ocean of conjecture! Yes, he asks you
to mount to the skies, on a ladder, " placed on the brink of
an abyss, and leaned against a cloud!!" Dying men ! I
warn you against the fearful hazard of such an adventure.
Mr. Pingree complains that I misrepresented him, in say
ing that he argued in favor of the salvation of unbelievers
from a passage which says we are saved only through
righteousness. He says, his argument was from another
text, and was, that all were to be made righteous. Admit
the explanation; and will he affirm that the righteousness
of Christ is imparted to unbelievers, in face ofthe positive
declaration, that it is " unto all and upon all them that be
lieve?" But he misunderstood me. I dM not say, that 'he

110 DEBATE ON.
argued from the passage that I read. No: but that he per
verted the reasoning of the Apostle by not reading that
passage. He stopped too suddenly in his quotation. The
Apostle was proving the. salvation of the righteous, and Mr.
Pingree quoted him as if he were proving the salvation of
the unrighteous! That was the charge 1 preferred against
him. And I cannot see what his explanation amounts to,
unless it is the admission that he argues. one way and the
ApPstle another; and that I ought not to have charged
them with reasoning alike! If I made such a charge, I
was very wrong, and I now, without the slightest reserva
tion, retract it, as alike grossly unjust both to Mr. Pingree
and the Apostle.
The gentleman now says, that he does not believe that
all are saved in this life! This shows that he is reduced to
¦great extremity; or why. would he thus confront and
beard the lions of his own party? But grant that he
does not believe it, "and he subverts his own causae;
for he, in effect, asserts that all are not saved! For hetefls
you that salvation is from sin — that that is the Bible mean
ing, and consequently the only true meaning of the tewm
He tells us moreover, that there is no punishment after
death,, consequently no sin; for he is equally positive in
the assumption that punishment necessarily follows sin.
Then there is no sin after death; consequently no one carl
be saved after death, for the term saved necessarily implies
sin. It follows then, if all are not saved in this life, theri
they are not saved at all, seeing they cannot be saved in
the next life, for there is no sin there, and where there is
no sin, there is no salvation! Thus in avoiding Scylla, he
,has plunged into Charybdis — in shunning the rock he has
foundered in the whirlpool!
He says that I quoted Origen as teaching eternal pun
ishment, and yet admitted he did not believe the doctrine;
Of course Mr. Pingree did not understand me, and for his
benefit I feel bound to re-state the facts in relation to Ori
gen; although I suppose this will be a work of superero
gation, so far as this entire audience is concerned, for I
doubt not that you all understood me: I stated that Origen
believed and taught, that eternal punishment was the doc
trine of the Bible; but that he held that the Scriptures
were not to be followed according to the letter. Indeed,
that his mode of spiritualizing set aside the Bible, and

UNIVERSALIS!

lit

enabled him to weave a system under the name of Chris
tianity, that had full as much of the dreams of Pagan phi
losophers as of the doctrines of Jesus and his Apostles.-
That he taught punishment was not eternal, but professed
to derive no support from the Bible. His doctrine on this
subject, was purely heathenish;,, it did not profess to be
any thing else. But in defending the Scriptures from the
attacks of Celsus, he admitted that the Scriptures taught
the eternal punishment of the wicked, and defended the
doctrine by showing that as presented in the Bible, it was
better calculated to reform and restrain mankind, than the
same doctrine, as presented by the Mystagogues. I re
peat, then, that neither Origen nor any other Greek writer
ever uses the. term aionios as applied to the punishment of
sinners, in a limited sense. Origen, as I have shown,
taught the very reverse* We cannot take -Mr. Pingree's
assertions for proofs. I now repeat my challenge, to make
good what he has said of Origen by one solitary quotation
from his writings; aye, I will be content with a solitary
¦quotation from any Greek writer.
Novv 1 will show you that he makes such statements, not
because he is informed on the subject — -for he is not*-\>ut
because the dire necessities of his cause .requires it. You
remember he said, that Clement did not use the word eter
nal in the sense of endless.. Let us hear from Clement
himself: "Jesus said, — And ye also, fear not those that kill you,
tod after that have no more that they can do unto you ;
but fear him who after you are dead, has power to cast both
soul and body into hell-fire. * * * * For, if we do the
will, of Christ, we shall find rest; but if -not, nothing shall
deliver us from eternal punishment, if we shall disobey
his command. * * * * - Thus, sneaks, the prophet -con
cerning those who keep not their seal; Their worm sh^ll
not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall
be for a, spectacle unto aU. flesh. Let us therefore repent,
whilst we are, yet upon the earth: for we are as clay in the
, hand of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a ves
sel, and it he turned amiss in his hands, or broken, again
forms it anew: but if he has gone so far as to throw it into
the furnace of fi.re, he can no more bring any remedy to
it; so we, whilst we are in this wprld, should repent with
pur whole heart for whatsoever evil we have done in the

112 debate on
flesh, while we haVe yet the time of repentance, that we
may be saved by the Lord. For after we shall have de
parted out of this world, we shall no longer be able to con
fess our sins, or repent in the other." 2d Epistle to Co
rinthians. I1 mean no disrepect; but I think my friend, Mr. Pingree,
ought not to use edge tools; he may cut his, fingers. He
ought not to venture in water beyond his depth. He re
members the homely proverb, "little boats should keep
near the shore." This instance of Clement shows that he
has been talking on a subject he never investigated, and of
which he is as profoundly ignorant, as he is of the geogra
phy of the moon. On a subject so important as thi;, he
ought to hazard no statement at random. The destiny of
souls is at stake-.
In answelr to my statement, that no murderer, Or liar,
could be ''saved; Mr. Pingree refers to the cases of David,
and Peter, etc. Their examples do not touch my position.
David, the murderer, was not saved; it was David, the new
creature, not David born of the flesh, but David born of tite
spirit. David, the murderer, was killed ; the David of whose
salvation the Bible mentions, had passed from death unto
life, was quickened and made alive by the Spirit of God.
He was altogether another man, in a moral sense, from
David, the murderer. The David of whom we speak, was
just, because justified by faith: he was innocent and pure,
through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. The
same remarks apply to Peter, and every similar case. No:
I believe God when he says that no murderer, nor liar,
can inherit his kingdom. 1 protest against Mr. Filigree's
efforts to place me alongside of himself in relation to this
matter. But my opponent, still insists that he contends for just
what 1 do, except that I urge that the Bible teaches that
man must believe — must be changed in this life; and that
he insists that this may take place in the life to come- —
(hat unbelievers, the drunkard, etc., are changed and saved
after death, in another world. And this is a very great
difference; they are as opposite as light and darkness. On
my part, I have the plain declarations of Scripture for
such a change in this life— can tell hoio it is done, and
wh'n it is done. It is a plain, common sense subject. But
he ha& nothing but the wildest conjecture to support his

tJNIVERSALISM. 113
position. He teaches that men in the grave believe with
out hearing the Gospel ^that a moral change is effepted
in them without thp presentation of motive 1!. Now, if Mr.
Pingree's fancy is to be your guide— if thp ignis fatui of his
imagination are to be ypur leaders on this great subject,
why not substitute them for the Bible altogether, and "dis
card the " book of God's inspiration," as worse ihan " old
wives' fables'?"
If such a change as he contends for takes place in the
grave — if men become entirely changed in their feelings
and Sentiments^ without motive, arid reason, and conscious
ness— if It is effected instantaneously, and by miraple—
withoui repentance or a knowledge of the Gospel ; but sud
denly, in a moment, he becomes a.new Creature^ with, new
principles and "new affections, then all identity is destroyed;
the man does not know hirhsplf, and will be uhcpngcious that
he ever existed before. Shakspeare relates, that anobleman
finding a drunken tinker asleep in a gutter, had him taken
arid placed in an elegant bed, in a fine room, and clothed.in
costly apparel : servants were placed around him, and, when
he awokd they addressed him by the title of „" lord," and
induced the poor fellow to think, that be had been deranged
for some fourteen years — that he was indeed a lord, and
never Christopher Slie at all! A similar experiment was
tried ori another drunken .man, by' one oftthe emperors of
Germany, and the man on coming to himself supposed that
he had never been any thing else than a courtier and a
prince, arid that all that thing about his being a beggar
and a drunkard was the result pf a '.disagreeable dream!
Now apply this. If experiment has proven that by armere
change of external circumstances, men can.be led to reject
their former existence and treat jt as a dream, what must
be the effect when an external change far transcending
those alluded to, accompanied by a change equally as radi
cal and as thorough in all the sentiments and feelings, of
the soul? Why,, such, a change would destroy the possi
bility of their ever supposing they had even dreamed.
They would be, to all intents and purposes, other persons.
Suppose that some of us, to-night, should lie down, firm
believers in Christianity, and one of the genii of eas
tern fable, were to convey us away while asleep; and in
the morning we should awake, arid find, ourselves dressed
in Arabian costumes, in the great mosque of Mecca, Sur-

114 debate on
rounded with all the para'phernalia. peculiar,, to Mohamme-
dari' worship; the memory of our country blqtted from the
recollection, arid all traces of our holyreligiori erased from
the mind, and our mouths ready tp utter from the abund
ance of our hearts, " Allah is great, and MahOmet is his
prophet!" Who, I say5, supposirig such a change ' possible,
could" recall the past? — would dream that lip ever was
other than a worshipper lof '.the prophet?-- -whowpuld not
date his existenpe from that morning?
'Much more unlikely would a matt remember, the past,
sifter the change Mr: Pingree ^contends will take -place in
tKe ungodly and the sinners aft^r death. Take, for exam
ple, an atheist pf the last century, who" believed there was
no' God and fib hereafter. Who wished 'ad' his epitaph — >
" Death is'an Eternal Sleep 1" Who derided [the Savior as
an impostor and a "Wretch," arid pronounced the Bible a
book of fables arid of lies! Such a' man dies, and hyliCaven lifts
Up 'his eyes, being in glory ! The wprld has faded froth his
senses and memory. His heart burns" with love to Gpd. His'
tongue charits rapturous hpzaiinahs to the King of kings
and Lord of lords. His5, ears drink iri the melody of angels.
His eyps dilate upon the beauty and the splendors of the
celestial city*. He himself is.clad ip the robes of righteous-'
riess. Palms of victory are in his hands, arid a drown of
glory sparkles on- his brow. Every feeling and sentiment
that once animated his bosom arid controlled his actions,
have been obliterated, and their places siipplied'by those of
the very opposite, nature. 'With such a change, how.
would it be possible fo/ hini to identify himself with the
atheist and blasphemer of the moment before? There is
no identity. Every ti'aee of what may be termed the
individual-sentiment," feeling,- circumstances, internal and
external' — all destroyed, and others the very opposite, put^
in their stead. He has nothing of his former self; and is,
indeed, wholly another being ! '
Ton remember that I showed that the' famous passage so
much relied upon by Universalists, arid quoted by Mr. Pitas
gree with a great flourish — " The righteous are recompensed
in the earth, much more the wicked," had been rendered by an
inspired translator, " If the righteous scarcely be saved,
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." I offered,
no explanation of the translation ; and only quoted it as
one of many evidences, that Universalism is; indebted tp

UNIVERSAL-ISM.

115

ignorance for its support. Now, how does Mr. Pingree get
ottt of this matter? Does he dispute what I have said-? Not
at all;, that he dares notdo. What then? Why, hp labors
toshow .that the passage as quoted by Peter does nptprpye
future eternal punishment!,, Had not the gentleman bettei:
have Waited until ,1 said It did? Why did he not- meet the
issue that I made? Does he think' to esoape-the charge of;.
ignorance of the Scriptures, which I madp arid proved, by ,
diverting attention to a new ppint? He will find himself
most pgregiously mistaken,. if he. does. Wheni feel it 'at
all. necessary to use, the passage, in Peter for other pur-;
poses than to- prove that the foundation of Universalism is'.
laid in ignorance, I shall do so. But I. shall be governed
by my own judgment in relation to that necessity.
But w,e are noW coming to , spipething tangible. My
friend -feels now the.necessity of doing, what I have told
him all along he must; but which he .stoutly declared: he
would. not do; that is, tell us when and how the wicked -were,
made meet for heaven.. • He-now^answers by-saying, it is
at, apd- by means of the resurrection. ¦ He. bases 'his ;argur-'
ment onl Corinthians xv., and calls, this, the main pillar- ot
his system. Before I proceed .to examine analytically „
this chapter, I beg leave to present' in connection -with it,
and, as fatally subversive of the gentleman's exposition. of .,
it, other passages, p£ Holy Writ, bearing on-the -.great sub- ,
ject of the resurrection of the dead. ; It is a rule of in
terpretation never to be departed from, that the Bible must; <
explain itself;T,and that it does not contradict itself- ' , If I
produce then other passages palpably and unequivocally
contradicting Mr. Pingree's exposition of this, then I have *,
prpved-him to be wrpng.- Bear this ia mind, whilst I read:
Daniel xii. %:¦ "And many [more literally— the multitude] of
them that sleep in the dust, of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and. everlasting contempt."
Now Daniel asserts with Paul in relation to; the righteous
(and Paul in 1 Corinthians xv. was speaking, only pf the re
surrection of the righteous) that they, shall awake to -ever-,
lasting life ; apd adds in relation, to th'e.wipked* of Ttfhpm Paul
does not particularly speak in this chapter, that they 'should
awake to shame and everlasting contempt. Of course then, .
in the resurrections all are notjsayed and made holy. .,
Jphnv. 28, 29: Jesus himself settles-this matter: "Mar-;/
vel not at this ; for thehour is.,cqming, in the which all that

118 DEBUTE -0&
are in their graves shall hear his itoice, and shall come"
forth; they that have done gpod unto the' resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
damnation" WHI Mr, Pingree contradict the Son of God,
and say those Whs have done evi-1 shall come forth to the
resurrpctroh' of holiness and salvation, when he declares
they shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation?
But I need not ask the question: ftiy opponent has already-
uttered the awful contradiction X
But let us hear, the Apostle himself on this matter?
1 Thessalonians iv. Jl4— 18? arid v. 1-4. "For if we believe
that Jesus died arid rose again, even so thern also which
feleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say
unto you by the word of the Lord; that- we which are alive
arid remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent
them which are aslefep. For the Loi-d himself shall de
scend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in
Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain
shall be caught up together with them in- the clouds, tor
meet the Lord in the air; and so' shall we ever be with
the Lord; Wherefore, comfort one another with these
words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye
have no need that I write unto you: for yourselves know
perfectly, that the day of; the' Lord so cometh as' the thief
in the night. For when they shall say, peace and safety ;¦
then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon'
a woman with child; and they shall net escape. But yef
brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should over--
take you as a thief."
That the Apostle was talking about the consummation
of all things, and not abont the destruction of Jerusalem,
as the Universalists argue, is evident from his next epistle. '
It seems that the Thessalonians Were alarmed as if ther
day of the Lord was at hand, (arid if the destruction of Je
rusalem had been that day, it was at Hand,) and the Apps--
tle wrote them this 2nd' Epistle in part to disabuse their
minds on that Very point. We Will read what he says on
the subject, in its connection: 2nd Thessalonians i. 4-10
and ii. 1-4. " For your patience and faith in all your-'
persecutions and tribulations that ye endure [are] a mani
fest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may
be counted worthy of the -kingdom of' God, for which ye

UNIVERSALISM. S17
•also suffer; seeing it. is a righteous thing with God to re
compense tribulation to them that trouble you: And to you,
who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming
fire, taking vengeance anthem that know riot God, and that
obey not the Gospel af 'our Lord Jesus Christ.; who shall
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he
shall come to be glorified in, his saints, and to be admired
in all them that believe .(because our testimony among
you was believed) in that day ***** ^ Now, we be
seech you, brethren, by the coming of oaar Lord, Jesus
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that you
be not soon shaken in mind,, or be troubled, neither by
spirit, Bor by word, nor by letter as from .its, as that, the
day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any
means; for that day shall not come* except thefe come a fall
ing away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the Son of
perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above, all that
is called God, or that is worshipped ,,v else. Now here Paul
teaches the very reverse ^>f what Mr. Pingree says he
teaches in his first Epistle to the Cprihthians! Yen must
-believe then, that Paul contradicts himself, or else, that Mr.
Pingree has misrepresented -him.
But let us hear him again, Acts xxiv, 15: i' And h|jve
hope toward God> whieh they themselves -also allow, that
there shall be a resurrection of die, dead, both, of the just
and the unjust." Here he declares his views to corres
pond with those of the Pharisees on the subject of the'
resurrection; and they, it will not be disputed, held that
the unjust should be raised, to everlasting punishment.
This settles the question beyond controversy, that Paul
has been misrepresented by Mr. Pingree.
Let us hear from another Apostle, Eevelations xx.
11-15 and xxL 8: "And I saw a geeat white fhrone,. and
him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the
beayen fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Arid I saw the dead, small aad great, stand before God;
and the booke were opened: and another book was opened,
whiph is the, book of life: and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books, according to
their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it ;
and death and hell [hades], delivered up the dead which

118 debate: on
were inthem; arid they were judged every mail according
to their wo|ks-. Arid death arid hell [hades, -or those who
had been in hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This
is the.second death. And whosoever was not found written
iri the book of life was cast into the lake-of fire. *****
' The' fearful and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and 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."
I repeat, the Scriptures' do not contradict themselves: but
they do most emphatically and unequivocally contradict
Mi". Pingree's assumption, that the wicked receive holiness
and'salvatiori in the resurrection. The passages already
quoted as plainly contradict him as it is possible for lan
guage to do it. And you- will see in the sequel; when the
subject of a judgment and Mildred matters are introduced,
that thtese are but a very few Of the multitude of' passages,
directly against his, position. Let these, however, suffice
.for the present. ' - . ,-•• ',
1 wish you to observe his assertion, 'that all those'who die
unbelievers, murderers, liars, idolaters, atheists, deists, etc.,
are chariged in the resurrection. ' He has toldus that there is
rib sin and no misery after death. Now he. must affirm
that those persons are changed the moment they die; Or
else that they remain in a state of sin and misery from
their death until the resurrection! Or will he take the
semi-infidel ground of ' the materialist — that the soul does
not exist without the body?'. That the soul with the body
rots and mingles with the dust until the resurrection
morn i
A As I have a little more time, there is one-other import
ant point to which 1 will direct your attention: it is re
specting what has been said," relative to the will of God.
Now, Universalists teach, (and 'Mr. Pingree) if he has not
directly affirmed, has nevertheless countenanced the doc
trine,) that sin— every thing that transpires; is by the. will of
God; and inasmuch' as he wills sin for man's good, that
therefore he will not punish it in the life to come. The
same reasoning- would prove that- he would not punish it in
this life. But! deny the. position, as nothing short of
downright blasphemy! It is to assert that God is the author
of all the sin committed in this world. Aye, it makes hira
the violator of his- own law! He' has -commanded, "Thou

UNIVERSALISM. 119
f -'
shalt have no other gods before me:" arid, caii he then be
the cause of all the idolatry upon earth? He says,, " Thou
shalt not take the name ofthe Lord thy Gpd in vain:" and
is he the author of all the blasphemy jipon eartht Again :
"Remember the Sabbatfi day, to keep, it, holy:" and then
does he cause it to be violated? " Thou shalt not kill:" and
has he caused all the blood to be, spilled which has defiled
the earth? In .a word, he has ^required that we should
love him supremely and one another *is ourselves: apd
can we believe' that he wills at the same that we should not
love him at all, <ind that we should hate our neighbors?
This doctrine degrades Jehovah, froiu the. high and holy
habitation that he occupies dowri to thp level of the divin
ities of paganism! The heatheiis wpr§hip
"JGqds partial, changeful, .passionate, unjust,"
Whose attributes are rage, revenge,, or' lust." , ;
To be a Universalist, a man riiust divest himself of aU
those notions of God, which make him a being worthy of
reverence and veneration.
[ME- PINGKEfi's StXTH SPEECH.] , .
Respected Friends:; — Mr. Waller, in the opening of his
last speech, remarking upon the disdplijidry liatm-e.gt pun
ishment, made this declaration: that if the punishment in
flicted by God for tran sgressiori, was not disciplinary and
" for the, reformation of the'sinner, Universalism was false;
and vice versa. His. language was, "The whole, doctrine
turns upon this point." He admitted that^ if punishment
w^S disciplinary, .and for the reformation of sinners, Uni-
versalisiri was 'true. Now,, though vie hold that purijshinent
is disciplinary arid' for reformation; yet we deny that the
doctrine of universal salvation depends and turns upon
that. Even though that doctrine should not be trite, Uni
versalism wpuld BQt.constJqu.eat.ly be false. But if Mr. Wal
ler does riot admit it to be true, it follows that punishjnent
must be' vindictive, and inflicted, purely and only in a re
vengeful arid malicious spirit, which measures to the siflner
"according to. his sins, withput reference to, h'is being made
better, arid for the purpose qf retaliation/ only.' We be
lieve that the object of all. God's, punishments-, is tp bring
all mpn togootjness, and. purify, and happiness.
. We have following, this declaration a, riunjber of pas
sages quoted; and Mr. Waller ridiculed' the idea of pun-

120 debate ok
ishment being intended for reformation. We have been
referred to all that class of passages containing thp words,
"cursed," "wo," " anathema," fire, Hell, snares, sorrows,
indignation, wrath, terror, torment, etc., and then the same
passage with the word "blessings*" substituted; etc.; such
as, " blessed is he that continueth not in all things of the
law to do them." ,.
Now you know that punishment is frequently spoken' of
as a "curse," a wo inflicted by "fury" and "wrath" even;
especially in the Old 'Testament; but that notwithstanding
this* language is so often seen in the Old' Testament, yet
the Old Testament itself expresses that it was inflicted for
the benefit of sinners, and was followed by happiness, I
refer for example, to Jeremiah xxxiii. I would quote a
number of other passages, but have not time. It is enough
to notice this now ._ Jeremiah xxxiii. 5-8. "They come
tp fight with the Chaldeans; but it is to fill them with the
dead bodies of men whom 1 have slain in mine anger, and
in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my
face from this city. Behold I will bring it health and cure,
and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the
abundance of peace and truth. And I will cause the cap
tivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and
will build them, as at the first. And I will cleanse, them
from all their ihiquity, whereby they have sinned against
me: and I will pardon all the iniquities, whereby they havp
sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me."
Here is1 an instance of God's inflicting punishment, but
followed by future peace, and holiness,, and joy. But as
Mr, Waller attempted so seriously to ridicule the idea of
punishment being inflicted in order that a blessing might
follow, I will quote some passages bearing directly upon
that point, to show that God's punishments are inflicted
generally for the benefit of the sufferer.
Hebrews xii. 9-11. " Furthermore we have had fathers
of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them rever
ence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the
Father of spirits and live? For they verily for a few days
chastened us after their own pleasure; but ke for our profit,
that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chas
tening for the present seemeth to; bp joyous, but grievous;
nevertheless afterwards il yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

UNIVERSALISM.

121

Does not this again prove that the, very object pf Divine
punishment and chastisement is the benefit of the sinner?
My friend has challenged me to produce a single individual
case where punishment has effected the object of disci
pline and reform. Did not Nebuchadnezzar psoudly exalt
himself against Gpd, arid was he not for this changed into
a beast, as it were, and driven out for seven years from
the society of man? And did not Nebuchadnezzar after
wards acknowledge that the punishment wasrfor his benefit,
and praise and worship God? David speaks of being
put into the "lowest Hell;" and he thanked God for deliv-^
erance from it; and said he was rnade better by it ; " Be
fore I was afflicted I went astray — but now have I kept thy
law." So with, Jonah. God told him to go and preach to, the
Ninevites. He disobeyed, and God sent him to Hell, where
he was punished "forever" — that word, being used in a
limited sense* as always when applied to punishment. Jo
nah after he was sent to "Heli," was. again ordered to go
and preach, at Nineveh, arid he went; though he refused
before. He was no more disposed todisobey the command
of God, because the punishment had reformed, him. S6
with the incestuous Corinthian. No doubt he was made
a better man after his punishment. It is said his punish
ment was "sufficient;" and the brethren were requested
to "comfort" him, lest he suffer "over much." Thte
would npf have been said unless his punishment had
made him better. Now here are cases where the Di:
vine chastisements were for the benefit of those who en
dured them.
Mr. Waller refers to many cases of punishment; but
not one of the passages expresses suffering in a future
life. They all rather establish punishment in the present
life. Even concerning the Sodomites, about whom Mr.
Waller inquires, the sapred writers represent God as say
ing, "I took therii away as I saw good." It was not from
vindictiveness; but for their benefit. If my friend ridicules
the idea that punishment is, for the benefit of the sufferer,
he ridicules the plainest declarations of God's Word, such
as those already qupted.
Mr. Waller spoke pf the language of Jesus, apd stated
that the Universalists applied it all to the destruction of
Jerusalem. I ask the favor. of him not torpfersuch words
to the destruction of Jerusalem, as the opinion of Univer-

122 "debate on
salisis, till I do, in this placeand on this.occasion. As yet,
I have not done' it. ,
'"Mr. Waller remfirks that "creature"- in' 8th Romans,
means', the intelligent creation. He orice before applied it
to the stocks apd stories. He says noty it' refers to the in
telligent creation. This isajl I ask;' and my argument is
established on his Own admissiori.
Ori the passage from the 5th Romans, he says the salva-
tiori'is " through righteousness?' and not in Knrighteousriess.
Thp' pi'ecediri'g vprsefe Embrace the doctrine, and express
the' fact, that all men are1 to "become righteous." The
Concluding verses then express the truth that men are
saved' "through 'righteousness." The fact that righteous
men are saved, does riot exclude others; because it is de
clared that all are to be " mjide. righteous." The promise
of salvation reaches back to their Condition as sinners, and
denotes the purpose of God to bring them into a statp of
holiness and happiriess- — thus saving them. The 5th chap
ter of Romans can rioi'he taken put of our hands, as a
prOof of final universal salvation.
He states that my Universalist brethren affirm that all men
are saved .in this life. I have not heard of it, nor have 1
read it; 'nor do I believe it.
. He quotes from Clement; and I confess I was so'mewhat
surprised after the remarks I had. made, by his quotation
On that subject. Since .then I have looked over Clement's
remarks to the Corinthians.- I . find that iri his first Epis
tle to the Corinthians, there is no allusion made to misery
in a future life; and if was in reference to the impression
made oh my mind by that circumstance, that I made the
assertions I did. The quotation is from his remarks in the
second Epistle. The heading to this Epistle says that this
treatise is not of equal authority as first Corinthians; that
it appears to be written in a different style, etc. The
¦first Epistle to the Corinthians is more lengthy; the other
is evidently not by the same author; arid the opiriiofls the
second expresses would have , been called out in first
Corinthians, if anywhere. The mistake was that the gen
eral remark 1 made about Clements' opinion, derived from
my impression from reading that first and most authentic
Epistle, was made tb apply to the other; which we do not
belipve to:have'-beeri written by him at a]l!
It does' riot follow' that because drunkards are to be

UNIVERSALISM. 123
savedjlfhey sive saved ds drunkards. Universalism does not
teach that men are saved in sin ; — for that would be a con
tradiction in terms ;— but from sin.
The cpmmon doctrine is,' as before stated', that a man's
everlasting condition hereafter, depends on the state, of
mind arid heart in which he dies. Suppose there Cannot
be a -change '-after death, as Partialism ¦ v asserts : — a man
;dying drunk, must go the .'Judgment, drunk ! remaining
forever drunk! to haunt the grog-shops of Hell to all eter
nity — drunk!! 'So with all classes of sinners : they must
continue in active commission Of those .particular vices to
all eternity. So Pagans, idiots, etc.; infidels, all -who die
¦morally depraved beings, must remain so to all eternity.
The idea is, that dying corrupt, physically arid morally,
they gp to- judgment thus, and thence to Hell; and thus
remain corrupt beings to all eternity." Pagans die idola-
'¦ters. They riiust go idolaters to the judgment seat, from
there, they go as idolaters to Hell, and there remain such
to all eternity! All this,? if there be no change > after
-death." ' r ' --'• " -\ ". ¦" '" : ':
"; But Mr. Waller, himself believes in a change afterdeath.
Whether the doctrine be true or not, will appear by and
bye. Does' he not believe" that even the saints die sinful,
to some extent? Are they perfectly fitted for Heaven, in
this life? Theri if not perfectly cleansed from all sin, be
fore" death; they remain' sinful forever; — unless "after
death they have an opportunity to change? Must-' a riiah
who curses God orice, and now, curse him to all eternity?
Is there no chance of ever ceasing from doing evil, when
once beyond death?' Must a bad man, who up to death
could repent, lose that power forever,- and retain that Of
doing, evil only? This would be a change of Constitution
and character, the greatest that could happen to a moral
¦being— and will not occur under the government of a holy
God. -, , •
If it were so that the dOctririe was that they who suffer
riiost here generally, will enjoy most hereafter, to pay
them for all that was- endured here,' as in 'Mr. Waller's
appeal to the case of the wickted xti&nvtho' oppressed the
widow and fatherless, I could not so much object to it.
But it is not so, according t'd- Mr. Waller's theory. The
oppressed may go to Hell, and fhe oppressor to -glory ! Such
generally have an opportunity fef '(repenting, before death,

124 DEBATE ON
as they intend to;, but the oppressed and suffering, left
in ignorance and. moral darkness; die and go to perdition!
Those sons of perdition who have abandoned themselves
to wickedness, for .ninety. years, may go to heaven, if they
repent the last moment of their lives; and those good
men who have done their duty all through an equal num
ber of years, may go tp Hell eternally, if they happen to
commit one sin, and then die suddenly. The bestiyen may
be lost, arid the worst saved, by conceding this.
Take an illustration of the doctrine: We may imagine
an individual of good moral 'character, and one who has
been generally a virtuous man. He offends a .scoundrel-r
an infamous wretch- — who suddenly, and without notice,
Cuts him off, and dying unregenerate, tye goes to Hell;
while his murderer is tried, and convipted, and sentenced
to be hung. While in jail, a minister of the Gospel visits
him, and exhorts him to repent. He repents and is con
verted, and from the gallows he swings into everlasting life
and glory! The generally virtuous, good citizen, whom he
cruelly murdered, is suffering the torture of an immortal
Hell, while the murderer is shouting in glory! Such
things may and do occur, jf the doctrine of endless dam
nation is true, — the current doctrine which is believed and
acted on by the Orthodox.
An anecdote is told( — I cannot vouch for its truth, as I
was not there, — :of a Moor who had been offended by a
Christian. He swore revenge; and meeting the Christian
alone one day, he required him to abjure Christianity;
and holding a poignard at his breast, told him if he did not,
hp would kill him. The man, to save his life, abjured his
Master. The moment he did this, the wretch plunged the
dagger to his breast, exclaiming with the exulting laughter
of a fiend, "Now I have. taken double vengeance! I have
taken his life in this world, and have damned his soul in
the next!" That man, if converted afterwards, went tp
glory, and enjoyed from his seat of happiness, and gloated
over the sufferings of the victim of his, demoniacal, re
venge in Hell!, He had indeed taken ja double vengeance!
Such effects may he produced, according to this doctrine.
Mr. Waller quoted a passage in Peter, which h,e said
was parallel to the passage I quoted from the Wise
Man in Proverbs: "If the righteous be scarcely saved,
where shall the ungodly; and the, wicked appear?" Does

UNIVERSALIS*. 12S
this refer to thes final salvation? Are the righteous
" sarcely saved" there? Is it the view taken by his Or
thodox brethren? No. Dr. Whitby, Dr. 'Lightfoot, Mr.
Gilpin, Mr. Macknight, and Calmet, do not say this. I
have a compilatiori of their opinions, written by Rev*
L.. R.Paige. What do they say? Listen:
Dr. Whitby says : " For the time is come, that judgment
rnust, according to our Lord's prediction— Matt, xxiv. 21,
22, Mark xiii. 13; Luke xxi. IS, 17— begin' at the house of
God; and if it firstbegin at us — believing Jews, what will
be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And
if some of the righteous scarcely be saved, i. e.., preserv
ed from this burning, ver. 12, being saved, yet so as by
fire, 1 Cor. iii. 15 — where shall the ungodly and the sinner
appear in safety from these dreadful judgments Which are
coming on the Jewish nation1?" Prov. xi. 31.
Lightfoot says : '"The time is come that judgment
must begin at the. house of God;' that is, the time foretold
by our Savior is ribw at hand, in which we are' to be' deliv
ered up to persecution', etc. These words denote that per
secution which the Jews, fiow near their ruin, stirred up,
almost every where, against the professors of the Gos-r
pel." Matt. xxiy. &. ,
' Gilpin says:- " Thus, amidst the general ruin which is
coming upon these wicked times, the Christian Shall have
his share. But his afflictions will be light, in comparison1
of ihat great overthrow which shall destroy the Jewish
nation." '
. Macknight says: "That the Apostle *9 not speaking
here of the difficulty of the salvation of the righteous at
the- day of judgment, will be evident ,td any one who
considers, 2 Pet. i. 11 — "Thus there shall be richly minis
tered to you an entrance into the everlasting kingdom." -
What he speaks of, is the difficulty of the preservation of
the Christians, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Yet they were preserved ; for so Christ promised, Matt.
xxiv. 13. But the ungodly arid wicked Jews were saved
neither in Judea, nor any where else."
Calmet says: "If the righteous be scarcely able to
escape, in these days of wrath,- What shall be the fate of
the' ungodly? When God began to exercise vengeance
upon the Jews, he first permitted the Christians to suffer
many afflictions and'persecutions; but after he had purified'

126 .DEBATE .ON
his church, and proved the, wii'fup of his elect, he ad mon?
ished them to depart, from Jerusalem, and its borders, and
to remove beyond Jordan. Ecclesiastical historians relate
that they retired to Pella, under the protection of King
Agrippa, a friend and, an ally of the Romans, to which
place the violence of the war did not extend. But the
remaining Jews experienced the fury and the power of
their conquerors, who leveled the tepiple, and Jerusalem
itself, with the ground, even ploughing the earth on which
it stood, and slew eleven hundred thousand of , the. Jews.
St Peter alludes to Prov, xi. 31, "If the righteous shall
h_e recompensed in tlie earth,, how much more the wicked
and the sinner?", The Apostle follows the version of the
LXX," r .- "\ ..„<
These are admissions from Orthodox writers of dis
tinction arid authority in the Church, They are, compelled
to concede that this salvation was in the present life; .con
sequently the punishment was in the present , life. Thus
it corresponds tp the declaration of the Wise Man : "The,
righteous are recompensed in the earth." , Either ren
dering bears alike upon the doctrine as held by me ; and
does not teach the doctrine of future endless misery.
We will now go back, for a moment, to another point —
the punishment by "fire."- He quotes passages where men
have suffered punishment by ".fire" and, ridicules the i(iea
that such a punishment could be for their benefit. Now I
will read a passage from 1 Corinthians iii. 13, 14,^15.
"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day
shall declare it, because it shall be revealed , by fire; and
the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If
any man's work abide whjch he bath built thereupon, he-
shall receive a reward, if any man's work shall be burned,
he shall suffer foss : but he himself shall be saved : yet
so as by, fire." Now let him ridicule God's Word, if he
wishes. But let us change the figure. Suppose a man to be
suffering under a disease. He suffers a painful operation,
or he takes an offensive riiedicine. Is it not for his benefjt?.
But will he therefore desire the operation, or the medicine?
Will he bring on the disease again, in order to be benefited
by them? None are so foolish. It is absurd to say that
punishment is of itself and for itself a benefit or blessing.
It is only so, because it removes the ,sins, and, purges thp

UNIVER.SALISM. 127.
moral nature of ijs diseases. This is one of God's means
of saving "men. ' '
This leads us to Malachi iii. The prophecy refers" to
Jesus Christ, and speaks of the influence, of fire. My
friend ridicules the idea of purification by fire. Now let
us see. Malachi iii. 2, 3, TBut who may abide the day of
his coining? and who shal} stand when he appeareth? for
he [Christ] is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap :
and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, a'nkj he
shall ?urify the soris of Levi, and purge 'theni, as gold and
Silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an, offering in
righteousness." And John the Baptist says, referring to
that prophecy, (Matthew hi. 4,) " I indeed' baptise^ you with.
water unto, repentance; but he that cometh after me is,
mightier than I: whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.
He shall baptise (or purify) you with the Holy Ghost and
with fire." '[My friend admits, I presume,, that baptism
purifies.] Here, John the Baptist speaks of, purification
by the Holy Spirit and by fire. This is the fulfillment of
that prophecy of Malachi. Both Malachi and John, the
Baptist speak ot purification by fire. If rny friend ridicules,
the doctrine of purification by fire, he must ridicule the
plain declarations of the holy men of God, as recorded in'
the Sacred Writings.
Mr. Wallet5 says there are two oi- three "wills" of
God. 1 should like him to say what will it is where it is
said, " Who will have all men to be saved." • Is it a " will
of purpose," or ;some other will? Let him tell us, fhis.
Till then, I will not add anything concerning it,
I wiU now proceed to my affirmative argument. Tou
will recollect that my last argument was the destruction of
a}l man's enemies, even to the last, which is death. I first
quoted Hebrews ii. 14. "Forasmuch then as the chih
dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like
wise took pdrt of the same: that through death he might
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the
Devil." Keep this in mind. You have had quoted the
passage, " Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil arid his angels." The passage in Hebrews
shows that not to refer to endless punishment; because the:
Devil will' be "destroyed."
I next showed the destruction pf sin, the great enemy of
man ; sirij through which he endures, so much wretched-

128 DEBATE ON
ness here on earth. John the Baptist says of Jesus, "Be
hold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin ofthe world."
Also, it is said that Jesus Christ came " to destroy the
works ot the Devil," Here We have the destruction of the,
Devil and all his works, including sin.
I now refer to 1 Cbrinthiaus 15th chapter. " The last en
emy that shall be destroyed is death." Man has a great
many enemies : that is thei last, arid it is here declared that
Death shall be "destroyed;" is to be " swallowed up in victo
ry." Now if every enemy of man is destroyed ; if the Devil,
Sin, and Death are all destroyed, where is there an enemy to
fear that can make mari miserable in the future life? If there
be an enemy beyond the last> then I give up the question.
I know not of any; I cannot imagine any : I know of no
evil that is to follow death.
But as we are now in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, I
shall say more ori the subject of the resurrection of tjie
dead; Mr. Waller has quoted from Daniel, John, Thessa
lonians, Hebrews, Revelation, Coririthians, in reference
to the "resurrection," " judgment," " damnation," and
punishment, without any remarks to shpw their bearing
upon the question., For the present, therefore, I shall not
say anything about them. I admit the correctness and
truth of all the passages,, and believe them fully and sub
scribe to them. If he wishes for other passages to illus
trate and explain these, it will be time to produce and
comment upon them, after he has shown their bearing
upon the alteration of our condition hereafter. In Corith-
ians xv., cited by Universalists, there is a passage rela
ting to the resurrection of the literally dead. The Apos
tle discusses, at large, the subject of the resurrection of
the dead. I deny that the passage in John v., or Daniel
xii., quoted by Mr. Waller before, refers to the resurrec-'
tiori of the literally dead, to a state of immortality.
They do not refer to .eternity. But this in 1 Corinthians
xv. is admitted by all to refer to it.
Look at the argument of the Apostle. He founds, the
doctrine of the resurrection upon the fact that Jesus
Christ was raised frOm the dead. I need not read that;
I will begin at the 20th verse : " But now is Christ risen
from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that
slept. For since by mari pame death, by man came also
the resurrectibn of the dead." [The Apostle now proceeds

universalism. 129
to show yho .are to be raised' — all that die in Adam, he
they more or less.] "For as In Adarii all die, eicn $o in
Christ shall all be mfide alive. But every man in his own
order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are
Christ's, at his coming. Then icometh the end, when he
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father : when he shall have put down all rule and afl
authority and all power. , For he must reign till he hath
put all enemies, under his. feet." [He is now reigning,
therefore, in his kingdom, as King and Judge,] "The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Fpr he hath
put all things under his feet. But when he saith all thihgs
aye. put underhim,'itis manifest that he is excepted, which,
did 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 under him, that ;God
may be all in all." Mark the fact, "thaf God is to be all
in all." If the resurrection to shame and contetript, and
to everlasting fire, refer to the literal resurrection of the
dead fo an immortal state, how can this passage be.'believed?
Will God be "all in all" to them who are in shame and
contempt? If so, he is all hi all to those who are in the
wprld of wo! j
Let us prpceed further; Mr. Waller holds that there is
no change after death, — that as we ,die,-so we remain for
ever. , So if a man dies drunk,h]e is, raised drunk — remains
drunk forever'.,' Look at' this matter. What says Paul?
Ver.' 35. "But some man will. say, How are the dead
raised ur? a^d .with what body dp they come?'' [The
ipquiry is not, how do then die? but how a,te they raised?
The inquiry in these days is, " How'do men die ? " , Paul
asks, '• How are they raised ?'' He Soesrkrfc concern him
self to ask how they die ;~ but ",how are they raised up?"
He did riot' say they, were raised up drunkards, idolaters,.
in dishonor? He taught exactly the contrary.} "Thou
fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it
die;, and that, which thoii' sowest, thou sowest not, the. body
that shall be," '..-'.'
In reference to, the doctrine' that we are raised as we
die, see the 20th and 22nd chapters of Luke and Matthew,
which bear on the doctrine pf the literal resurrection of
the naturally dead.,' See Jfatt. 22, 23. Thp Sadducees'
•came to our Lord and put the question to him as to ths

130 DEBATE 0»
/ : - ,- '
woman who had had seven husbands. , They thought to
puzzle hinrby the question, "Whose wife shall she be iri
the resurrection?" They took it for granted that the
future life was like this: Hence the difficulty, to them, of
this question. The seven husbands might all claim her.
But the Savior says to them, (verse 29,) " Ye do err [and
I, say the'sarrie to ourfriendsnow;] not knowing the Scrip
tures, nor the power of God," [arid what then follows !]
" For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given
in marriage,' but are as the Angels of Gori' in Heaven."
That is the. condition of those who shall experience the
resurrection to a 'future life. Here,, they are " subject to
vanity," temptation, sin, and suffering. But in the future
state they are " as the angels of Gcd." They shall not
die any more. They become "the children of God." If
stress be laid on the, expression, " They which shall be ac
counted worthy tp obtain that wprld," (Luke xx. 35,) " and
the resurrection of the dead," I will notice them hereafter.
Mark now the language of tbe Savior. In the resur
rection, men" are as the angels pf God in heaven." None
are so now. The highest saints, the holiest men, are riot
equal to " the angels of God iri heaven." Now introduce
Paul. ' "How are the dead raised lip?" Are they raised
as they die? Is theircondition in a future life- similar to the
present? We, shall see! Jesus Christ says, " Ye do err,
not knoiiig the Scriptures, nor the power of' God. For in
the resurrection they neither marry riOr are given in mar
riage, but are as the angels of Gpd in heaven." Paul
says, (verse 37,) " 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 : it may
chance of wheat, or 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 one1
kind of flesh of riieri, another flesh of beasts, another, of
fishes, and another of birds. ' There are also celestial bodiesy
and bodies terrestrial :' but the glory of the celestial is
one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is.
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 resurrection of the
dead." [How? Here is the point:] "It is sown in cor
ruption; it is raised in' meoRRUPTibN. It is sown in dis--

UNIVERSALISM.

131

fwnor,'[the opinion of mpn now is that theyMse thus, and*
\\Ye forever thus: — not so says Paul.;] "it is raised in glory :
it is sown in weakness ; it is. raised in power :" [Here is
¦a change after death, — agreat, a wonderful change ! great
er than any ever experienced before death — a change''
from dishonor to glpryl Let us go on again:] — "It is
sown a natural body: it is raised a spiritual body. There
is a natural body and there is a spiritual body: aridvso it is
written, The, first man Adam was, made a -living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." [So it was
God's purpose that we should be "subject to vanity'" here;
but.that we should be delivered, from that "into the glori
ous liberty of the sons of God.''} " 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, sueh'are they-also that- are earthy; and as
is. the heavenly, such are' they also which are heavenlyf:'
and as we have borne the image of the earthy, -we' shall
¦also bear the image of the heavenly," [This is the change
after death, in the resurrection, effected by the power of
God. And so on. afterwards^] " Now this I say brethren:
that flesh and blood- cannot inherit the kingdom of God ;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold,- 1'
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 tria trip .: for the trumpet 'shall sound, arid the
dead shall be raised incorruptible,' and we shall be chang
ed — [that word so abhorrent to the mirids of some ; we
shall be changed.] For this corruptible must put on- in
corruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So
when this, corruption shall have put on incorruption, and'
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swal
lowed up in victory. Oh death! where is thy sting? Oh
grave! [Hades,, ov Hell, if you, please,] where is thy
victory?"- All are destroyed by, the resurrection to glory.
There shall be- no more sin, misery, et death, after wear©'
i-aised. from , the dead. We shall rise in glory and honor, '
in incori-uption and immortality : and this declaration of
St, Paul corresponds to the declaration of Jesus "Christ :—'
-*' they shall be as the angels, o? God in heaven."
I shall insist upon this argument, until it is fairly take'ai

13-2 debate on
out of' my hands. If Mr. Waller sets it.aside, or takes it
out of my hands,! shall yield the point. But unless.be
does sO, 1. shall rest much of my hope of a future state of
happiness, upon this language. J It is the most lengthy,
explicit, and elaborate statement of the doctrine of the
resu rrectiori to be found in all the Word of God.
Why have men been raised to wretchedness, and. sin, and
shame forever? We don't here find expressed the doctrine
of misery and torture. What a vast between difference St.
Paul's: account of the resurrection, and the modern popu
lar one! I will add no more at present, but wait for my
friend to notice and set aside. the passage, if he can. This
is not the last I shall have to say upon this subject.
I cannot tell what course Mi\ Waller will pursue upont
this passage. There, are three different opinions among
the Orthodox as to the meaning of this chapter. 1 wait
for Mr. Wal\erV views, so as to, see what bearing fhey
have upon this controversy. I hope you will all be here
to-morrow, to hear my reply to his next speech. It is due
to yourselves,, and' to me, and to the truth.
, [ME. WAIiER's StXTH REPLY.)
It is' written, that the first shall be last, and thelaSt, first: ,
and my noticeof Mr. P.'s last speech shall be in this order.
The- connection of our argument requires it. The doc
trine ofthe resurrection then demands a'gain, our primary
attention. My .opponent seems to think it is very plainly
taught in 1 Coi\ 15, that all men are to be made holy and
happy in the resurrection. This is his grand argument^—
his main point. . v
In my last I showed that God, in the resurrection, would
make an everlasting distinction between those that served
him, arid those that served him not. But 1 expected the
gentleman would make the effort, as all his brethren do;-
to show that the passages quoted by me, had reference to
a moral arid not to a literal resurrection. But he assumes
this ground without any warrant in criticism; and without
the slightest countenance from' the context. The only
reason, he possibly can give for such an interpretation is,
that his cause demands it! Admit such a rule of interpre
tation, and the whole. Bible must fall without a struggle-
before the vain conceits of dreamers and errorisls. It
will be' impossible to prove that it teaches, any thing. Tlie

ON UNIVER-SALISM.

133

passages I read, assert, the resurrection, in the same terms
as in 1 Cor. 15. If the latter proves that eVent, so do the
former. And by the same rules of criticism that it can be
shown that the term resurrection, in the passages which I
read, does not literally mean a' resurrection, I will show
that the same is true of the term in 1 Cor. 15. Or, am I
to be told, that because the passages which I adduced spoke
of the sinner's being raised and of his punishment, that
therefore '"it, cannot mean the literal resurrection?- -It
would seem that such is the reasoning of Universalists;
and -without this, they feel that their whole system van
ishes inlp air! But they cannot be permitted thus to beg
the question. If they must insist that the. portions of (he
Scripture which mention, the resurrection' of the wicked,
are poetical, and to be interpreted in a figurative sense';
then they must reap the consequences of their folly,- arid
admit this "main pillar" of Universalism, as Mr'.T-irrgree
is pleased to-- call it, is a pillar, of vapor- — as impalpable ... to ,
the touch as the ghost of Fingal! — that Paul in this place,
as in those places of his that I read, and like Daniel, arid
our Savior, was giving loose rein to a very vivid imagina
tion; and I hat this -whole 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians
is but a glowing fancy sketch of a moral resurrection !
The gentleman will thus see, that'what he sows he must
reap; that if he sows the wind, he shall reap the whirl
wind.. What then is the doctrine of the Bible on thjs'subject?
Why., that there -shall be a- resu rrection of the just-and of
¦fits1, unjust-- — that the dead'in Christ shall rise -first. The
main. intention of thPjAppstleyin 1 Cor. 'IS, was to comfort
Christians by. showing that they should- be raised to happi
ness. He made -it no part of his business to establish
especially the resurrection of ,;the unjust. \ This -the whole
chapter proves. His whole reasoning is Subversive of
Universalism; for his first and main position is, that if.
there is no resurrection-, it'is all folly to be religious. Now.
Universalism teaches that- religion has uo connection with
the next Life—that it benefits man only in this world : and
of course, with or without a resurrection, it is equally ben
eficial. , But the Apostle, argues just the reverse of this,
and shows that if there be no hereafter, religion is the
very ^summit of absurdity. Hear his language — -.'*But if
there be rip resurrection of the dpad, then is Christ not

134 DEBATE PN
risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also.
vain." And further he says: "For if the, dead, rise not,
then is not Christ raised;. and if Christ be not raised; your
faith is vain;, ye, are yet in your sins. Then they also
which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If- in this
life only we have hope iN Christ; we >are of all men
most miserable." Now, this could not be so, if Uuniver-
salism be, true; for according to that system, the Christian
religion make? people happy here, and has nothing what
ever to do with their happiness hereafter. But, 1 repeat,.
thp Apostle argues 'that the profession of religion would
be ridiculous folly — sheer madness, if tl ere were no here
after and.no resurrection of the dead. Let us hear him
further to this point: '*Why stand we in jeopardy every
hour?"-; — "What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not."
The meaning, is, that if there be .no resurrection of the
righteous, then they, act a very simple part in suffer
ing persecution for the cause of Christ. Let them take-
theix pleasure, for their is no advantage- in ' religion'.
Now, bear in mind, that the Apostle's great position is,,
that the whofe of • Christianity -is- a most miserable farce
if there be no resurrection of the dead — that the cruel
persecutions endured by himself and his fellow Chris
tians would indicate madness , except for the rich re
ward they Were to reap in the resurrection, and then you
will see the force of his reasoning : "And as we [Chris
tians] have borne the im&ge of the earthly, we shall' also
bear the image ofthe heavenly. Now this I say, brethren,
[Christians,] that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king-
dorh of, God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I show you a, mystery: We shall not all sleep, but
we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
•changed: for this corruptible must put on incorruption
and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this-
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mor
tal-shall have put ori immortality, then, shall be, -brought
to pa~s the saying that is written, -Death is swallowed in
victory; 0 death, where is thy sting? O glwe where is-
thy victory? 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., Therefore,
my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always

universalism. 135
abounding iri the work of the Lord, Forasmuch as ye know
THA/T YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORp." Thus he
predicates his argument in favor of a resurrection, on the
folly of religion without it. His reasoning is what logi
cians denominate the argumentum ad liominem. And he
concludes by an exhortation to them,. to persevere in good
works and to ^endure with patience all persecution, inas
much as they were promised a glorious resurrection- . ,
It is obvious then, that- Mr, Pingree has takeri a passage
written for the comfort of saints to effcpurage thejn under
trials by the hope. of their resurrection, and has applied it
tp. sinners!. He has, in effect, , said .unto them, "Eat and
drink, fpr to-morrow you shall be raised to inherit the
kingdom of God! Do not be-like the foolish Christians,
who rire enduring, persecution for a faith that will make
them no better than you in a world to come! Continue in
your sins : avoid the frown of men : shun the company of
the despised ;Nazarenps : gri on in your unrighteousness:
-and you shall be just as happy arid, as holy as the Chris
tians in the world to come!", This is the ;syren song of
Universalism! Thus.it lulls the ungodly to sleep. But
the Apostle did not tell them so. Compare this chapter,
with what I have already quoted from his Epistle to.the
Thessalonians, and you will see he is writing of the same
event, only in the latter, he mentions, the resurrection of
the wicked.,. In both he speaks ofthe Savior's corning
"with the trump of God", and, raising the dead (compare
1 Cor. xv, 52, with 1 Thess. iv, 16,) but in the latter hp tells
us, that "the dead in Christ shall rise first ;", that when the
wicked shall say : "Peace and .safety, then sudden destruc
tion Cometh upon them, as travail p upon, a wpman ' with
child, and they shaU not escape." In. reference to the
righteous he says: "Behold 1 show you a mystery; we
shall not all sleep, but wp shah all be changed, in a mo
ment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump : for
the trumpet shall sound, and the. dead shall be raised in
corruptible, and we shall be changed," (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52)
In relation to the wicjced he says : "The Lord JeSus shall
be revealed, from heaven with his mighty .angels, in flaming
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey .not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall be punished with everlasting, destruction from, the
presence of fhe Lord' and from the glory of his power."

336 DEBATE ON
How different is the condition of tbe wicked, in the morn
ing ofthe resurrection, as given by Paul and Mr, Pingree by
the pen of inspiration and by the dreams of Universalism?
But I must proceed. The argument of Mr. P. from the
resurrection fails in another point : the change effected in
that great event is physical, riot moral — is of the body and
riot of the soul. Unless I have been wholly deceived in
the terms of our proposition, Mr. Pingree is here to prove
amoral change, and 'not a physical pne:^that he asserts the
ultimate holiness and salvation pt ail men. Or are we tp
understand him to assert that the moral diseases of the
soul are to be remedied by medicines which heal the body?
That the u-iore. vigorous arid healthy the body, fhe more
pure and hallowed the emotions of the soul? If so, let
him speak" out. He must prove that a change of body
effects a change of soul, or this vaunted passage proves
nothing for him. Now, I affirm, that he has- not quoted
the first passage of Scripture which remotely alludes toj[a
moral change after, death. I deny that there' is such a
passage between the lids of the Bible. I' admit a moral
growth, bu.t 1 deny a moral change after death. Mr. P. must
attend to this point. He shall not evade it. It is what he
came here to establish. And I am not to be put off, by
passages which, to admit all that he 'has claimed for them,
only prove a change of body, as sufficient tp show that the
man dies a sinner and rises a saint; dies an infidel and rises
a believei-; dies an'atheist arid rises singing the praises of
God ! This is the change he asserts; and it is to this I call
his attention. Every pne'seps that. Paul urgps no such
doctrine to the Corinthians., He is talking of the body,
and not of the soul : "It is sown a natural body", it is
raised 'a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there-
is a spiritual body."
Mr. Pingree told you he would follow my example, and
not notice any passage I might adduce until I commented on
it. I do not remember, that I. refused to notice ariy passage
of his until he commented on it. True, he'adduced, in his
second1 speech, a passage which he said proved his doc
trine, and asked me for an explanation of it; this I declined
giving/which drew forth a complaint from my friend. He
thought I did wrong: but now, forsodth,~he plumes himself
in doing the vei-y thing he condemned in me! "The c'aSe
being altered, alters thp case!"' He also' condemned my

UNIVERSALISM. 1.37
quoting from Universalist authors; but he finds it necessary
to himself, and, without a sCruplp or a blush, quotes ortho
dox writers by the half dozen f Very well.— He will find
that I am not tp be outdone. I will give him book-for
book. And as he has become conviriced that it is npt
wrong to' read from books, I will invite your attention to
wh^it Universalists have said. "He that hath ears to hear
let- him hear" how those whom, BIr. Pingree claims as breth
ren, talk tp him : I will Tead frprin Smith on the Divinp
Gov- ernment, a work that Mr. Pingree's paper has highly
commended :
" To the impeniterit and obdurate sinner, who in the
rnldst of light and knowledge, with clear conceptions of
hjs. duty, and strong convictions of his obligations to obey
it, has lived without God iri the world, violated the laws of
morality and religion, outraged the best affections, of the
heart, and trampled on the dearest interest of mankind,
there must be a day of awful retribution. Though we
cannot conceive mpre nobly of the Deity, than to suppose
that benignity constitutes the essence pf his nature, yet,
from this very circumstance, he must, punish the wicked
with a necessary degree of severity. They carry in their
own breasts the sentence of condemnation : they feel with
in themselves a terrible consciousness, that they must suf
fer the just judgment of their crimes, -and the dictate of
their' heart is the Voice of" Gpd, annou-nping to them their
future destiny.' They Cannot be hkppy; Were a . spat
prepared for them at the, right hand of God* were arigels
and archangels, .arid the spirits of the just made perfect, to
encircle them, ahd were the rnost rapturous joys of heaven>
offered tb their acceptance, they would still be wretched.
The very bosom of erijoyrnerit would be to them a thorny
pillow : for the , turbulence of malignant passions would
even there disturb their repose. Like those miserable
pageants pf grandeur, who live in gorgeous palaces, and
whom earthly joys encircle, while some foul cririie weighs
heavy on 'their conscience) the paleness t of who$p cheek
•the surrounding splendor does but deepen, andwliose quiv
ering lip moves but the more tremulously for the pleasure^
which" invites, their participation — anguish and'.,d(ispair are
in their hearts."
Really this brother of my opponent woujd seem tp ad
vocate the necessity of mpre than a. bare physical, changp

138 / DE B AXE ON
after death. But let us hear him discourse on the solemn
(natters of the resurrection and the judgment to come :
" With an evidence which rio reasonable-mind can resist"
|will Mr. Pingree please hearken?] "and with deep and im
pressive solemnity, the Scriptures assure us, that after death
cometh the' judgment^that all mankind must appear before
the tribunal of Jesus Christ— that they must be judged
according to the deeds done in the "body, whether they
have been good or evil — that the virtuous of^very nation,
kindred, people, and religion; shall be admitted to1 a state
of pure and exalted happiness, where all their faculties
shall be enlarged, where every object calculated to exer
cise and satisfy them, shall abound, where every natural
ahd'moral imperfection, -and. therefore every painful sen
sation, shall be forever -excluded, and Where, exising in
immp-rtal vigour, they shall be continually rising higher
arid higher in the scale of excellence arid' enjoyment, till
they attain a measure of both, which at present we pari
neither calculate nor comprehend. But they assure us,
too," [once again I invile my opponent's attention] "that
the wicked shall be doomed tp. a state of suffering, awful
in its nature, and lasting in its duration — that they shall
be excluded from Ihe habitations of the just — that "between
them and the virtuous a great gulf shall be fixed — -that rio
song of joy shall be heard in these regions of remorse —
that weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth shall be there,
and that the recollections of the sins they have committed,
the mercies they have abused, and, the privileges they have
lost, shall fill them with intolerable anguish," page 68.
'; Let us hear another of those whom Mr. Pingree calls his
brethren, or Universalists. I. will quote from Petitpierre
on "Divine Goodness :"
"St. Peter remarks, [and 1 let Mr. Ping.ree's brother in
the cause of Universalism, as he says, refute Mr. Pipgree's
exposifion'of this passage] — " St. Peter remarks, that 'if the
righteous, scarcely are saved, where shall the ungodly and
the sinner appear?' as if he had. said, if so many trials and
afflictions are necessary for the salvation of the just, of
-those who have, acquired the habits of virtue, and are sin
cerely attached to their" duty; how great arid terrible both
in degree and duration will the sufferings be," which are
reserved for those, whom long habits of sin have corrupted
and hardened? With what just abhorrence should it fill

UNIVERSALISM. 139
us for sin, that fatal enemy of our peace, that tyrant of
the soul, from whom it will require such dreadful suffer;
ings to free us! The Gospel, that dispensation of mercy,
which -was given that we might flee from the wraith to
come; that ineffable gift bf the only begotten son of God,
whereby whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life, however compassionate to the
penitent offender,/ speaks nothing but terror and alarm to
the guilty and hardened sinner. How striking, how awful,
and at the same lime how merciful, are the representations
of- future torments,! Let us collect the leading features of
the striking picture, and we shall see that it is indeed 'a
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.' It
is represented, under the figure of perishing, of being cast
into outer darkness, of a worm that nevei'^dies, of a 'fire
that is never quenched, of a lake which burneth with.fire
and brimstone, into which the wicked shaft 'be cast; and
where they shati perish eternally. And though neither the
word perish is here to be understood as a total extinction
of being; nor can that of eternal imply endless duration;
nevertheless they are undoubtedly employed to signify
bitter anguish, deep and durable distress, which,can be
only terminated by a total change in the disposition' of the
sufferer." Page 26.
- And let' us hear once more from another of his brethren:.
I now, quote from White ori "Universal Restoratiori."
"Let him that denies hell take heed lest it be verified
upon himself; we have as much for hell as we have for
heaven," etc. Page 27,. '-
I hope you will duly heed [turning to Mr. Pingree]' this
affectionate warning of your brother White'. It may be that
he speaks an awful truth to you\
Mr. Pingree is certainly no ordinary disputant. -When he
does not find it convenient to reply to my arguments, he
fancies such as I ought to use, and ', replies, to them. He
is quite an adept in such fancy warfare. I certainty did
not once intimate that fire always meant punishment.
Hence all he Said about fires denoting purification some
times was sheer extra work. It had nothing whatever
to do with any thing that I said; unless he meant that you
should infer, that because it sometimes meanf purification,
that therefore it always had that meaning! With the same
propriety, he might ask you to believe, that because the

140 DE.BATE O'N
old world was destroyed by water, that therefore men are
drowned in baptism ! I took no such position as that fire
was never used in the sense of purify. The gentleman
seems to desire to be rid of my argument by dodging thP
passages I. read. He seems afraid lest their fire should
burn his fingers if he' touches them. ,.;
'Mr. P. -tried to amuse you with the anecdoteof the Moor
and Christian, and discanted at some length on those who
had, lived mere moral lives, arid yet died ,and were lost ;
while others who had lived immoral lives were, converted
arid saved, etc. Suoh reasoning is but the ad captandum
vulgus., I might retort: I .could/ easily turn, such guns
against his, system. I might show how his doctrine took
Judas Iscariot to heaven before, his Master whom1 he be
trayed ! That according to it, pious Noah was left here
many years in .sorrow, w,hile the antideluvians .for their
wickedness were wafted ,pn the waves of the deluge to the
bpatitudes of heaven ! That Lot, for his piety, was re
tained in this world of misery, while the inhabitants of
Sodom and Gomorrah, for their, beastly iniquities, were
tak.entei heaven in a shower of brimstone and fire ! L . Aye,
this doctrine congregates the most opposite characters in
heaveri I , There will be, some curious meetings there !
There the jean who has made gold,-his.(3dd ; who has
ground the face of the poor ; who has coined the tears of
wretchedness, ; taken the widow's mite and the orphan's
pittance ; whose swindling under the color of law has rob
bed poverty of its last resource,. arid brought misery and
starvation upon innocent and unsuspecting hundreds: — such
a man, will, perhaps, be the first to greet the victims of
his merciless rapacity in the climes of bliss ! ! But I for-
bear-for'the preseut. 1 chopse to meet his argument, if it
deserves to be so called, in another way. .
The wise inan has said, that," fools make a mock at
sin." What is sin? and what -has it done ? It is a viola
tion of, God's law... It is the, cause of all the evils, moral
and physical, which afflict the worjd ; arid we stop too
short in, .our estimate of the sinper's, character, when we
judge of it simply by what he does. Heis.under restraint.
Providence,, society, the laws of- thp . land put a rein upon
his. disposition, .tp carry put the fiendish purposes of his
soul.; No sinner doe,s jail the evil -he would like to do and
which his heart prompts hjm tp dp. In the, estimate of

UNIVERSALISM. 141 '
his character- then, We ought to take into account his dis
position to do— what he would accomplish if all restraints
were, removed, and he left free and unfettered to act out
the promptings of his nature, Thus we act in every thing.'
Maj. Andre, was executed by the patriots of our revolu
tion, not sb rnuch for the injury which he actually inflicted
on our country, as for what he would have done ; and '
what, if unpunished*-his example would have led Others
to do. The farmer, does not wait until his'corn is destroy
ed by the weeds, before he kills them. No'; but believing
that they would do it, he destroys them before they can
accomplish it. It is not because the young1 snake has
stung any. pne, to death, that, we crush its head beneath
our heel ; but because we know its poisonous nature, and
that it may and can' kill and destroy. Now apply this test'
to the sinner :— one pf Mr. P.'s honorable arid moral irien,
if you please : bjut yet who is In love with sin ; whose
heart is under its influences. True, lie may not have
cpmiriitted any outrages upon society, but God sees the
heart— it is prone to evil and that continually ; and from
that, he estimates the character. • I£° he-covets- an3r thing
belonging to his neighbor, he'is a thief; and but "for the
restraints thrown around him, he would take it. If he hate
his brother or neighbor, he is a murderer ; and if un
checked,: he wouldput him to death. God sees not as riian
seeth. We are deceived by external appearance — a fair:
show in thp flesh imposes upon our judgment. God's all-
searching eye penetrates the flimsy exterior of. the painted-
hypocrite,- and the deep and dark places of every heart is
open and plain before him
¦The sinner- hates the law of God- — he would destroy it :-
and the violations of it have caused all thp woe and-misery
under wliich the earth has groaned from the fall of Adam
to the present hour. It- has 'loaded every breeze with the
sighs and made every hill echo the groans of suffering
mankind. "The sweetest and the strongest ties' of life
have been rudely and ruthlessly torn assundcr. Lewdness
has changed the world into a lazarhouse of cprruptiori ;
and anticipated the work of death and. the grave. Deceit
and fraud, have mocked humari expectation, tortured con- '
fidence, and- hurried their miserable victims to beggaryr'-«
despair, and death. Rage and revenge have plunged the
midnight dagger in fhe unsuspecting bosom of the neigh-

142 .DEBATE ON
bor and the friend ;. and in their sanguinary progress have
multiplied widows and orphans, childless parents and help
less mourners, without number arid- without end. Ambition
has turned the earth into a stall of butchery and of blood,
and covered its surface with the bones, of men: while ty
ranny, like the Nubian blast, has spread decay and death
in the ranks of the unhappy millions found in its course — ¦
withering thp last remains of comfort and- hope, find con-
Verting provinces and kingdoms into scenes of desolation
and woe."* Sin which has brought all this misery
upon the world is the controlling principle in the breasts
of those whom Mr. P. has presented to you fpr sympathy
and esteem. But we riiust not stop here. , Let us ask what
would be the ravages of the same spirit, goaded on by the
same passions, unrestrained in its desires, arid unfettered
in its powers, and turned loose upon other worlds than
this ? The law of Gpd, that golden chain wliich binds all
created intelligences to the throne of God and to one an
other, would be sundered forever ; and hatred and malice,.
instead, pf love, would be the controlling principles, in al-U
minds ! Those blight and holy orders, angels and arch
angpls, cherubim and seraphim, that now "adore, and burn "
in the presence . of the eteraaL/would,.be, hurled out of
hpav'en ! Every celestial harp would be silenced, the song
of the redeemed would be rudely hushed, and moral deso*
lation, disease, and death would prevail* where now all is
happiness', holiness and life ! Instead of the 'harmony
which now marks the course, of Suns and systems wheeling
on "adamantine spheres through the void/immense^" cho-
atic, frenzied, reckless confusion, " the wreck of matter
and the crush of worlds, " would break with " horrible dis
cord" -upon every ear! In a word, God would be de->
throned, and the universe in ruins? Such would be the
career of every sinner, if empowered and permitted to
carry out the unhallowed promptings of a heart hostile to
God. It is the right — it is -the duty of every govern
ment to punish, those who are at open war with it; and
who propose to subvert its principles. and its laws, and to
introduce anarchy and misrule in its stead. And this, is
what sin proposes todo in the government of God. It will
not.do then to moCk at jt — to speak of it as a light and
*Dr. Dwight.

UNIVERSALISM. , 143
trivial matter. The sinner of every gr^tde is a .traitor to
all that is holy, just and good. He is iri arms against the
government of the Most High. He feels uncompromising
hostility towards, and is waging an exterminating, warfare
not only upon the principles, but upon the good andppgal
subjects of the. Divine, administration. His then is. the
traitor's cause, and his, in right arid, justice, must b,e the
traitor's doom ! So much for little sinnefs, ,
Mr. Pingree attempted to be faceliousat the position, that
the man retained after, the moral character he had in, death ;
and says, he supposes then if a man dies drunk, he will
l'emain dilink through all, eternity ! Jieally I had suppo
sed that the appetite for strong drink was animal and not
moral ; and I beg leave to insist that I am right, in this
supposition, the ponderous authority of the, gentleman ,fo
the contrary notwithstanding. And all that ,1 ' contended.
for, and which I hope he, will sqQarely meet (fpr he mani-.
fests a disposition to dodge it) was, that if the man died
with his moral faculties so corrupt as to lead him, in con
tempt of Gpd's law, to gratify, the beastly appetite of
•drunkeniie'ss, I was bound to believe ihai these faculties
would remain unchanged through eternity — that I knew of,
no passage of Scripture teaching their change after death,
arid demanded of Mr- Pingree, if such a passage existed*
to produce it: or if he had.no scriptural atj-thority for his,
position, to explain on reasonable arid philosophical prin
ciples how this, moral change was to be effected without,
moral means; and if the Gospel had been inadequate to
the change ofthe man in this life, what more powerful
mearis had been provided to effect his change in the life to ,
come,. All of this Mr- .Pingree has declined to do, and we
are bound to infer that he had the best reasons for it — he
Could not respond. I bpg he will not forget again, that my
position is,, that the moral disposition which prompts to-the.
violation of God's. law, ill the indulgence of the animal ap-*
petite of drunkenness, if, predominant in death, will remain.
unchanged 'in eternity.
, But my opponent 'told you, that Univeasalists do not-say
that salvation is confined to this life. Here is a book which
hp told me contained a fair representation of,, their doctrine.
it is called "Plain Guide to , Universalism." Jftrvv hear.
what this. writer says:—,.
"Now the. truth is, we. do not read, one word in the,

144 -d-ebat'e on
Bible about saving ;wen erom euNIsh'mJnt in the" future
state. Jesus was ahxious to save people from their sins,;
and their errors, andto bring; them' to, a, knowledge of the
truth.' He was anxious to save the; Jews from the awful
judg-ments which were impending 'ovpr them, and all the
Apostles pajftPok of the same solicitude, Paul says, (Gal.
i. '4,) that Jesus' gave "himself for our'sins, that he might
deliver us from "this present evil wprld." The evils
from which Jesus came to save' men are in this world,
AND FOR THIS REASON HE CAME INTO' THIS WORLD TO SAVE
THEM." . pp. 253.-4.
This is, too plain to need comment ;- arid -shows that Uni
versalism teaches just what I said it did.. And I think the
gentleman will generally find that I know what 1 am talking
about. Besides, I have shown already- that he himself
holds, and teaches this' Very doctrine/ But enough: he
must be strangely bewildered in the mazes of his system,
to lose sight of his "Plain Guide."
Mi-. P. insists that the doctrine that punishment is solely
inflicted for the" good of the sinner, is,Pne of the plainest
doctrines, of the Bible. 1 feel that it will be waste of time
to; notice this mat'ei' further. The .arguments w.hich I
have hitherto adduced' remain untouched. And to show
you. how deceitfully the'.wofd of Glad has been handled ;
you remember Mr. P,' quoted' Heb.' xii. B — 11, " For. whom
the Lord lOveth he chasteneth, and scourget.h every son
whom he reCeiveth," etc. Now this passage is applicable
to the Saints alone— to those who " are the children of
God 'by faith," and yct-Mf. P.- quoted it as applicable to the
wicked, with whom God is "angry -eVery day ! ?" This is
a fair specimen of his manner of dealing. With the Scrip
tures Pri this point. I carihot then waste time hi making
an exposure of such trifling. But if he is disposed to try
his hand in proving that all punishment is for the reforma
tion ofthe sinner, and will not, because he Cannot, answer
what ihave already adduced on this point,'! will give him
another passage or two: Eev. xvi. 10, 11 — "And the fifth
angel pou-red'e-yit his'vial on the seat of the beast ; Mid his
kingdom was full of' darkness ; and they gnawed their
tongues for' pain, dndblasphemed'theGod of Heaven, because
qf their' pains and their sores, and repented not of rifEiR
deeds !'' Now, if God intended this punishment for their
reformation, and Mr." P.' affirms that he did, then' the At-

UNIVERSAL ISM- 1,46
mighty failed in his purpose. He intended ,to^ prodpce one
result, and produced the very reverse of jt ! The Scrip
tures abound in similar instances, and we see correspond
ing examples in the conduct of sinners in pur every day's
observation, and Universalism, says, that God is. inflicting
this punishment for men's reformation,, when it produces
the very opposite effect ! — the Almighty "cannot do the
things that he would.?' ,,
You were told that the -Lord sent Jonah to hell. Now
Mr. P. either knew or he did not, that the word in the orig
inal there employed, was not claimed by any man of in
formation as necessarily iftiplying a state of future pun
ishment. If he knew this* what shall we think of his
morality in quoting it as if it was so claimed ? , And if , he
.did not know.it, then he pughtnpt to engage iii;, controver
sies, of this kind,. When the common, version of the
Scriptures was rnade, the English word heli didhnot^«a
commonly ntean a place of future torments as it does now.
In the Greek of the New Testament, there are three words
corresponding to the -term hell in, our. English, Bibles, viz:
hades, Gehenna, and tartarus, The .word sheol in the QJ'd
Testament corresponds' to hades in the New, and is not
claimed as necessarily implying torments in a future state.
Among Jews and Pagans it meant that state into which the
soul entered when it left the body. It was often used. ?|s
we sometimes use the. Word grave — meaning the state of
the dead. In Pagan mythology, hades had two apartments;
— the Elysii Campi or Fields of the. Blessed, where the
souls of the virtuous dead enjoyed happiness; and Tartarus,
surrounded by impenetrable walls and by the impettiaps
and buring streams of the river Phlegethon, .where the
impious and the guilty among mankind were punished,.
Among the Jews too, apcording to. Josephus, a similar doc
trine prevailed in relation, to hades. ,, They supposed it, was
the place into which the soul enters when separated from
the. body. They supposed too that it contained, two a-
partmerits ; the one above, called " Abraham's bosom," a
place of happiness and light, into which the souls of the
righteous entered,: the other beneath, a place of darkness
.and, anguish, into which the souls pf the wicked entered.
In the general sense of [the.state of the spu'ls of the dead,
it is sometimes used i in the New Testament. Hence it is
said,. that the soul of Jesus was not left in Hades; that is,
10

14,0 debate on
it would riot remain in a state separate from the body:
And understood in this sense it is represented as destroyed.
That is, tlie souls of the dead, at the last day, will be uni
ted with bodies again. , All that we contend for is, that it
generally means the state of the soul after death, and that
there may be punishment in thai state. This is clearly
'.aught in Luke xvi. 1 9-3 1 ; " There was a certain rich man
who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sump
tuously every day : arid there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus who was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desir
ing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich
man's table : moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried
hy the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also
died and was buried* and in hell [hades] 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, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he
may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue:
for I am tormented in tliis flame. But Abraham said,-son,
ireinember that thou in thy life time receivedst thy good
things-, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is
comforted and thou art tormented. And besides all this,
between us and you there is a i great gulf fixed; so that
they which wOuld pass from us to you, cannot; neither
can they pass to us, that would come from thencei Then
he said, I pray thee therefore,' father, that thou wouldst
send him to my father's house,' for I have five brethren;
that he may testify unto them, lest they come into this
place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have
Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he
said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from
the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they
hear not Moses and theprophets, neither will they be per
suaded though one rose from the dead;"
Universalists are reduced to great straits by this passage,
and have agonized much Over it! All their attempts at
explanation fail. They give most contradictory and curi
ous interpretations of it! Mr. Ballou (who if he had not
•come, my friend Mr. P. would riot have been — what he now
is) tells us that it is a sheer fable! That there is no place
of torment after death ! That the idea of a dead man's
being tormented was but the frlonstrous abortion of Jewish

universalism. 147;
superstition ! That- Jesus Christ used this pernicious false
hood ot the Jews to inculcate the truth! Another Univer
salist writer, whose conscience seemS riot at all eased of
the burden of this passage by Mr. Ballou's explanation of
it, has made an effort of his own to roll this weight off his
mind. He tells us, with great gravity, that Lazarus was
the Gentiles, who some how or- other were full of sores and
were licked by dogs, and who all died and were carried by
<angels to Abraham's bosom; and Abraham, he tells us, was
the high priest : and it was in the high priest's bosom that
all the dead Gentiles were stored away! The1 rich man
was the Jews who also died in some way, and aTter death
were tormented in some inexplicable way !. The fivp-SrrfA-
ren are the five foolish virgins', mentioned by the Savior
elsewhere; but how those' brethren became virgins he does
not explain! [A laugh.] The great gulf, he says, was
the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, which,
he says, is impassible and unalterable, although Paul says
it has been broken down! I plight adduce many other
specimens of the absurd and ridiculous nonsense uttered
by- Universalists, in their efforts to^ispose of this, very
^troublesome passage. But let these suffice.
, Now what are' the facts upon which thisparable is
based? — 1st. That thepiousiiwho are often poor and ne
glected here iri this world, die, and are conveyed by an
gels to happiness and heaven. 2nd. That the wicked, who
are often wealthy and surrounded with the good things of
this life,, die also, and go to a place of torment. And 3rd,
That the righteous and the wicked are forever separated
in the next estate. But weiare told, that this is a parable:
Grant that it is; it nevertheless is no fable. A-U the Sa
vior's parables are based upon facts that do, or may exist.
They are never based upon mere dreams or falsehoods.
For example; the'parable of the lost sheep — It is a fad
that there are such animals as sheep : there may be one
hundred in a flock; it is not impossible for one to go astray;
it is entirely probable that in such a case, the owner would
leave the ninety-nine, and go in search Of the one lost,
and when he had found it wpuld rejoice more over it than
over the ninety and nine that had not1' been lost. This is
true of all the parables— they are all based on what may
occur; not one of them is based upon -what is impossible to
be true. The Universalists in this parable will grant that

1*48 DEBATE ON
it is a fact- that some rich men are wicked, and that some
poor men are pious. They will admit also that the rich
and poor, the wicked and the righteous, all die. Thus far
they must admit the Savior hasbased his parable on truth.
Nay, they will not deny but that the righteous are " com
forted" after death; that they are admitted into the asso
ciation of the just, with AbrahaVn etc. Thus far too, they will
grant the parable has truth' for its basis. But here they
pause. They say it is wholly false that a wicked man dies
and in hades " lifts up his eyes being in torments," that it
is false that he is " tormented" or is in a " place of tor
ments" after death!! So they reason, and so they charge
falsehood' upon the Son of God! But more of this, when
we shall hear from Mr. P. Indue time you shall hearour
views on the words Gehenna and Tartarus.
Mr. P. argues,, if I understand him, that under the Mo
saic economy, the Jews -who "died without mercy under
two or three witnesPs" in that way received "a just re
compense of reward" for their worst transgressions; and
that for " every transgression and disobedience" they re
ceived a just recompense of reward" in this life; that it
consequently would be unjust to punish them in the life
to come; and he argued that if the Gospel brought in as a
" sorer punishment,"' eternal torments, then the Gospel
was a curse and not a blessing. Now all this is easilynjet
and exposed. The Mosaic law had the promise ofthe life
that now is; not of that which is to come. Its rewards
and punishments were proportioned to this life. A law
that takes cognizance only of this life, if violated is justly
satisfied by a temporal punishment; if observed, can only
give temporal rewards. This was true of the law of Moses ;
the ceremonial economy under which the Jews lived. But
the moral law, which belongs to all nations, arid to all
worlds, iri its principles demanding not only an external but
an internal observance of its precepts, must be fulfilled in
every jot and tittle, arid until this is done, the violator is
under its curse. Now God proposes through the mediation
of his Son, who magnified the law and made it honorable,
to save men from the cOrse of the law. If they reject
this proposition, they aggravate their guilt, and pull down
additional wrath upon their heads. Such is the reasoning
of Paul to the Hebrews. In other words : — A temporal
government can inflict only corporal punishments; a moral
government can inflict only spiritual punishments. If Mr.

UNIVERSALISM. 149
P.,rvvill onlykpep this, distinction in view, the mists and -
darkness that now envelope, his understandings will j.disap-
pear, as the morning vapor and -the early dew melt away
before the sun in his strength. ,;¦.,., . ,, ,
In relation, to Mr. P's. inquiry respecting the- salvation
of, infants and idiots,. I hesitate not to avpw'niy .belief that
they are all saved through jestis Christ. .There is but.one
opinion on this subject iu the Orthodox , wprld. /But he
asks, are the 'heathen .saved?, .1 will too ask him one ques
tion, Does he believe that the heathen are saved,. in this,,
world?-, Are they saved, from sin in, this life? If not,
where and when does Universalism propose to, save thptn? ;
If, they are not saved fromsin. before death, I frankly Con
fess, that I know not when or how.- they are.j saved-; and
Mr, P. positively refuses,,, tp throw -any light' upon the- sub
ject. I dp notassert that they.r all die iri their, sins;- but I .
do assert most emphatically, that if they do thus die, Mr-
P. has not shown how they get ou,tof.lheii\sins,afterdeath;
and until he does this, I am bound to. believe .they will-ybe
punished, for he says.that pj/nishmant necessarily follows,,
siri, and if sin goes, into the next world, .according to his
own showing, punishment -must go with jt. He .has found ,
no authority for arresting it, and keeping, it in the prison
ofthis would, unless he detains'sin, hpi'e too. So" after all,
this case of the heathens is a- very ugly matter for the
Uniyersalists. ,The, Scriptures speaking pf thpm^ay, they
are " filled with all unrighteousness* fornication, wicked
ness, covetousness,. maliciousness ; full of, envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity ;, whisperers,, backbiters, haters of
Gpd, -despiteful, prpud, boasters, inventors Of evil things, -
disobedient to parents, without understanding, .. covenant, ,
breakers, without natual affection,, implacable, unmerci
ful ;" and, Universalism asserts, that dying in this state they
are. saved, it does Hot profess to tell or know how! Tijat-
they die ignorant of Gpd,, in,,love, with idolatry, and foul,
with ev-pry sin.?' and that, in- a mpmept, in the tw.inkling. pf
an eye, without the imparlation.of'.an idea, without the
spirit of God, without the hath of 'regeneration,' they rise,
knowing and loving Gpd, hating idojs ;: — washed from every
sin and as pure as the, angels:pf. light! Now I cannot. be
lieve all .this without some better testimpn}' than mere
round assertion. I cannot venture so far into the dark,
unexplored territories of the spirit lapd without «some, lamp

¦150 D,EBATE ON
to riiy feet, some light to my path. And mere earthly
light will not do, -of I might take the brilliant' coruscations
of Mr. P's. fancy. But I want the light of heaven — ofthe
Scriptures. I wi|l notgo one step without it. If then Mr.
P. says that none of the heathen are saved from their sins
on earth — that they all dip wicked and polluted and im
penitent, then I adopt the Consequences of the Bible; they
cannot see life, but the wrath of God abideth on iliem. Here
the Bible leaves all such, and hear I leave them. I will
not — Idare not go further.
Mr. P. has several times quoted such-passages as these; "as
by one man's transgression many were made sinners," "as
in Adam all die." Now I respectfully ask, and I wish a
categorical answeiv— DoEs he believe In. the fall^of man
AT ALL? ARE NOT ALL MEN IN THE SAME MORAL C0ND1T0N,
that Adam was when created? But I must close.
[mr. pingree's seventh speech.}
'Respected Auditors: My first duty, this morning, is
to refer to the arguments already adduced to establish the
proposition, that the Scriptures do "teach the ultimate
holiness and happiness of all men."
The first argument' >Vas derived from the nature and
character of God and his relationship to man. The argu
ment from this character of God, is, that he will not in
flict endless torture upon his children, to whpm his infinite
benevolence and love extend.
The second a'rgum6nt was from the declaration in the 8th
of Eomans, that " the creature" there spoken of, which is
the whole human creation, "shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons
of God," Mr. Waller's first remark on this was that the
Word "creature" included ware than man, viz: stocks and
stones, and all the visble creation. He afterwards thought
it meant " the intelligent creation." I will read tbe opin
ion of Dr. Lightfoot, etc:, as found in the commentary of
Dr. Clarke on thp passage, " There is," says he, "a1 two
fold key hanging at this place, which may unlock the
whole, and make the sense plain and easy. 1. The first
is the phrase, pasa he l.tisis, which we render the whole
creation, ver. 22, and with which we meet twice elsewhere
in the New Testament, Mark xvi. 15: Preach the Gospel,
pase- te ktisei, to ei-ery creature ; and Col', i. 23 : The Gospel
was preaclied, en pase te ktisei, to every creature. Now it is

universalism. 151
suffiiciently apparent what, is meant, by pqsa klisis,m both
these places, viz. all nations, or the hcatlten world.' . * ¦..
And this very phrase in this place lays claim to that very
interpretation," etc. — Dr. Clarke on Rom. viii. 19.
I need not read the whole. He says the " creature"
embraces all nations. That is enough. "^ But it does not
depend on, authority. The passage itself — its language —
is'explicit and clear, and requires- this interpretation, and
no-other. The same "creature" whether piore or less^
that "was made subject to vanity," etc., "shall be deliver
ed." If any therefore are not delivered,, they are those
who werenot ¦". made subject to. vanity." I know Paul after
wards says, as distinct from, the "whole creation,,?' "and
not they only but we our selves," etc,; but this dpes not ex
clude the " creation."
Again,, the- third argument was from, the 5th of Bomans,
Where we learn fhafaZZ have sinned; as "there is none tha,t
doeth good, no not one," and that by sin " death has passec?
upon all men.;" and that as through, one many are dead,
(0iat is all are_dpad;) so t'b rough one. all shall be saved— -as
many shall bp saved as die; that is, "all men." — Nothing
has been said to set aside this argument. ,
My fourth argurrient was founded on ,the promises of
Scripture, that Christ will "reconcile all things to Gpd."
The whole world will finally be reconciled; arid if recon
ciled, then saved. This is the, declared purpose of God. I
then argued that what God designs, will be accomplished;
and that Christ is not like the man that began to build ti
towerrand could not finish it. . Reading passages pot con
taining the word salvation, or saved, about which terms Mr,
W. might start a question, I simply put the inquiry, Do you
believe God will damn eternally those of whom he says>
they " shall bp delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the sons of God?" If delivered,
are they not saved? Will he endlessly damn rneii after
they are reconciled to him? Certainly he will nqt. If re
compiled, they are saved. A
My fifth argument was founded on the fact that Gop
wills the salvation, of all men. In connection with this,
was the declaration, full and explicit, that "God is, the
Savior of all men." He wills the salvation of all mankind}
and he .." doeth his will :". none can resist him. fie dpes
his pleasure : none can withstand^ his power. If it is de
nied that the terms " all men" embrace all men, really, I

152 DEBATE ' ON
will prove it by Other means. If it-is denied that this will
of God is a will of purpose, I will also prove that it is. ' If
i't be only-,'a desire; according to Mr. Waller's doctrine j
then, if all men shall never be saved, God must possess abi
eternally urigratified desire ! !
In "relatioH; .to the other passage, declaring God to>bp
"the. Savior of aHmen," I have called for dne thing,
from which God saves all men in the present life. Does
any ohe say he is now the Savior, of all? Where is the
thing in this life, from which all are saved? Nothing, ab
solutely nothing. It must then be a final salvation; and
that to be enjoyed by " all men." -'
; My sixth argument, was fouiidpd ori( the' declaration, of
Christ, that iri the resurrection, men \' shall be as the an
gels of God in heaven;" and the declaration of St. Paul,
in 1 Corinthian's' xvi, that all who die in Adam shall be made
gtiive in Christ. All men shall be raised to incorruption,
immortality, and glory v
My seventh argument is' founded on the prospective fact
Of the destruction Of allthe enemies of man, by Christ;—
the DevU and his works; sin, and the grave ; with death
'Hhe last enemy:" all shall be destroyed, This last will'
be destroyed, by '-raising' all men to an immortal life of
happiness. ' , ' ¦'
Do we need more? Must I qudtp more texts of Sprip-
ture? I might quote others; but are not these enough, if
sustained? I shallriot, at, present, occupy time further in
quoting passages and commenting on them. .
I shall now grvp the rest of my time entirely to an ex
amination of Mr. Waller's passages. 1 am not bound, log
ically, to do this, until he' has set aside mine; but for the
¦benefit Of those who riiay not understand them, it may be
proper for me to dd sp.
I here pause to ask a favor. I do riot mean to "dictate,"
but to ask it as a favor, that Mr. Waller do not introduce a
great many passages at- once. I have not time to examine
a great many. He read in half an hour as piariy as would
take ten hours to examine. Let him pick-out the best, and
strongest, and most- explicit, arid take, his position as to the
question; and if I do not set them aside, 1 will give up the
point; or at least, acknowledge my ignorance of their
'meaning- I know I may be ignorant of somP'Ofthem. I do
not Profess to "understand all mysteries;" but I shall endea-

universalism. 153
vor to explain them; and if'I fail, the fault will be — some
where; besides in my doctrine.
I shall ribw pass briefly over the last speech of Mr. Wal
ler, and notice the points he made, establishing the. Scrip
ture doctrine of a judgment, the two kinds of resurrection,
and then notice the passages he introduced. His first
remark was that the whole of 1 Corinthians xv. refers only
to the resurrection of the just; while P appeal to any one
who read the passage, whether it is so. Where is the evi
dence of it ? He might perhaps tell us it is because the
Epistle was written to the Church, and the saints. This
is, I know, a common cavil — a common ouibble'upon such
subjects. Try it : says Paul to the Corinthians, in the
second Epistle, chap, v., "We must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ" — a, passage quoted to prove a
general judgment for all men.. If stress is laid1 on the
word," we," mark you, whether good or bad, fhe meaning
must be carried out; and none areconcexned in the judg
ment, but the saints! So also in relation to the resurrec
tion, in 1 Cor. xv. What will hp do with me, or, you,
or any man living, unless the term embraces all men?
Away with such narrow interpretations of Scripture! It
applies to all men, Another passage — Heb. ii. 3 — "How
shall we escape," etc. ? Will Mr. Waller confine. this to
the saints alone, because addressed to them? Are the
plainest declarations of general doctrines, in the Word of
God, all to be confined to the church at Corinth? What
will Mr. Waller do ? He calls himself a saint, I suppose;
but he was not one of the saints of Corinth. The prom
ises were addressed to them— not to the saints in Warsaw.
They have rio part nor lot m, it, if that is the way the lan
guage is to be restricted;
'What does the passage say itself 1 — "As in Adam all
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This is the
key to the whole passage: If, there are any that shall not
be saved, they are those that do not die in Adam: ^ What
is, meant by " all" ? Oh! it means the saints that die in
Adam ! Does Paul say so? He says " all." Do only the
saints die?
True, we have, a "resurrection of the just, and of the
unjust," from Acts x;xiv. 15. Ibelieye ina, resurreetion of
the just and of the unjust., Paul says' he had hope of this:
He hoped for the resurrection of the just and the unjust.
Suppose the consequences to beas Mr. Waller says ; would

154 debate on
Paul "hope" for it? Would he wish the resurrection of
those who are doomed to future and endless perdition ?
This would be as bad as Tertullian; who said how he
woidd exult, how laugh, when he found himself with the
righteous in heaven, and witnessed the sufferings of his
enemies in Hell! Tertullian was the first known in the
Christian church to preach the doctrine. He hoped for the
resurrection of the unjust, to continue unjust, that he might
enjoy their sufferings!' Was this the benevolent Paul's
"hope",? It is afterwards taught in the 15th of Corin
thians, how and with what body we are raised; spiritual,
incorruptible, immortal, glorious. But I have said enough
on this point.
He quotes the phrase, " resurrection of damnation," etc. ;
and says that "resurrection" means, resurrection. He is
cautious, certainly. There is" no' dispute as to what the
word is. But it does not always mean the same thing. It
is admitted by all that in 15 Cor. it is a resurrection to
immortal life. Jesus Christ used the same word, rendered
" resurrection." That is admitted. But about the passage
Mr. Waller refers to, there is a dispute,. I will give an
example of the figurative use of the word. In Luke ii.,
it, is said by Simeon, of Christ. " Behold this child is set
for the falling and rising again of many in Israel." This
does not mean the '.rising of the literally dead. Thpugh
the same word (anastasis) is used in the original, that is
translated "resurrection" elsewhere. I suppose Mr. Wal
ler will not say this is the resurrection to immortality, that
Simeon speaks of.
If Mr. Waller says the righteous only have the resur-i
redtion spoken of in 15 Cor., because the, Epistle was ad
dressed to the church, it cannot apply to any saint being
in Warsaw, in the 19fh Century. He says moreover that
the chapter relates. not to any change of soul, but a mere
change pf body. Says Paul; " corruption shall not inherit
incorruption." If there be a corrupt soul, therefore, ,it
shall not inherit an incorruptible body; The language
relates to the whole man, as such. How are the dead
raised up, and with what body shall we. rise ? is the ques
tion. , Paul does not speak of the body merely, or the soul,
as suph. He does not write metaphysically; but speaks of
irien— all mpn, as mortal, dying creatures, to enjoy a re
surrection to immortal life.
Amoral change after death is denied by Mr. Waller;

universalism. 155
but he admits a physical change. He says the drunkard
will not have that bodily appetite to drink, but that the
disposition to be a drunkard remains, although the appetite
to drink is gone! He has got an incorruptible body, as
proved from 15 Corinthians: If he retains however the
disposition to get drunk, the Devil who is his keeper will
certainly accommodate him in that respect, and furnish
him with the liquor! So he may remain drunk to all-eter
nity; because the evil appetite with which- a man dies will
remain to all eternity; and men will carry out their evil ,
dispositions forever, according to the doctrine referred to.
So it will be with all other sins.
I say there is an absolute necessity of a, great moral
change after death. I urge it upon you -^-if all are gone
out of the way; there is rione that. doeth good";— "no man
liveth and sinneth not," says the Bible. If the Pagans are
all sinners, they are all lost : they die idolaters, and must
remain idolaters forever, in Hell ! So with all infants and
idiots. They die ignorant, imperfect, impure — not fit for
heaven: they have indeed no real moral character ; riot fit
for the abode and purity and bliss, nor deserving of Hell :
What wilt be their destiny? They will remain hung up
forever, between Hell and Heaven! will they not, on this
principle? Carry out the principle of this doctrine. Where is there
a man who dies fit for heayen? — I mean in moral charac
ter, eritirelyfitfor a world of bliss and glory, without a
change in death, or after? > Look at the strife between
Christian sects^-between pious, learned, and , great men-
Do the mass of professed Christians agree one with/anoth
er ? are they morally in- a suitable state for heaven ? Is
this strife suitable? I presume they are good men;1 or at
least, it is so believed, by themselves, and by the world;
but look at the strife between the best Christians, one with
another. Can they dwell in peace and harmony in heaven,
unless they ave morally- changed after death ? Look: a-t the
Methodists for example; how they are divided into; oppos
ing ranks. Will they not need a moral change; before
they can dwell together in heaven? Look at the Baptists.
The close communion Baptists cannot commune at the
-table of their Lord with other sects of Baptists. They
unchurch arid exclude from this rite, all not immersed.
Now suppose the Sprinklers should go to heaven. Neither
of the antagonists; we will' suppose, is changed. They

1 56 DEBATE ON
have carried to heaven the same moral tempers they had
here: how can they agree- together!?' Heaven is not par-.
titioned off, for all the, sects; some Roman Catholics, and
some Protestants, etc.; and this strife has continued for-300
years., Sincere professors Of religion are involved in.
dissension one with ariotherj What 'will they do. in heaven,
unless changed? There is an absolute necessity for a
change after death. Nota Soul lives that can be the same .
ia, heaveri.: no mandies entirely fit for theperfect purity
of the life tp cpme. , ,
Mr. Waller referred to Thessalonians, where it is said;
" the dead in Christ sha]l rise first." In reference to what,
and ,to whom is this, said ?, Is it said in reference to the
just, as distinguished from the unjust? Is that.it? No,. we
that are alive shall, not " prevent".,or go before them that
are dead:-. That is, the- dead- slia.ll rise first, "iri Christ,"
and then those who; are alive areto' be changed.,- It is .not
that the righteous shall "rise first,": and then the-.wipked.
So the forcp of the passage, as he applied it; is lost. There,
is. not a1 word about the' resurrection of, the unjust, as a
distinct resurrection. from that pf the just. Men are not
divided in this manner; — all will rise at once,, and all in
one state.
I do not find fault wifh Mr. Waller for reading Univer
salist authors.' 'He may read as many/as he pleases. , But
1 refuse to be responsible for all the sentiments, all the
thingsand all the doctrines, that. he may bring. up'.here from.
other sources,; whiph have, nothing todo with .the question
we proposed to discuss. . But so far- as the doctrine of ; uni
versal salvation is concerned, he may .show any thing which
has a bearing .on it. They all agree,, upon that, 'doctrine,
though they, may differ about minor matters, that are riot
before us. I admit Dr. Sputhwood Smith believed in future
punishment. Many Univeisalists in times past believed in
future punishment: Their opinipns- have been read. 1
have no objection.., , You ; may make the most you, can of
them, and he may dothe same. But, let it be remembered,
that is' not -the question -hef 'ore us. .. ': ~> ' .
•He attempted to retort to. my -referring to the doctrine
he advocates, as having the pffect of sending some . of the
worst men to heaven, and, the best to Hell, by saying that
Universalism would keep Noah here in, Hell while the
Antediluvians went to heaven/ i Who said that Noah Was
in Hell here? 'Nobody, except Partialists. ,„• ., -• .<-'

universalism. 1'57
It shocks him much that wicked men should get to heav
en. Is there any thing in this so very shocking? What
. does Mr. Waller preach for ? What, but to'make the wick
ed repent, that they may go to heaven — to make the man
who hates his brother, love him?, If not, his preaching is
not worthy of the Gospel;, for' it is the object of the Gos
pel to bring those who are far apart, near together; — and
so we teach. Yet the promise of the accomplishment of
the thing for which all the Orthodox pray and labor, shocks
him! He thinks it a shocking • idea that Judas should go
to heaven before his Master whom he betrayed, even if
he did, which is not asserted; -that is, that Judas should be
morally changed, and.be fit for heaveh. We teach that it
shall be finally accomplished. . By the blessing of God it
will come to pass, through his goodness and grace. And
this is better than to take a man whose days have been
spent in righteousness, and for one sin, hurl him with the
besom of destruction into endless Hell-horrors, as the
doctrine of Mr. Waller does. That is not what we believe
is the purpose of God; but to bring all men together-t-
the oppresser and the- oppressed, and cause them ^11 to
love God and one another. That is the glory of our Holy
Religion. But my friend is shocked at this!
All that talkabout making a mock, at sin — What is'it in
troduced for? Nobody here is making a mock at sin. Sin
is a disease; and God will purge it out, and make sinners
holyarid pure. We all agree about the evil of sin. ' Hence
all that disquisition on sin is not necessary to be noticed in
this argument: it has no place in this discussion.,
He referred to some place where thepuriishment inflict
ed for sin did not have the effect to .reform the sinner. I
have a passage in my mind, Levit. xxvi. I will read it. And
upon this point," the people who were said to be -afflicted in
Revelation, and who blasphemed, were not at that time re
formed. Hence he argues that they never were, reformed
at any subsequent time. This Is the whole argument, and
it amounts to nothing; for the conclusion does not follow.
What is not accomplished at acettain period, may be after
wards. Levit. xxvi. 18. "And if ye will not yet for all this
hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more
for your sins." It then goes on detailing the punishments
to be inflicted; and again, v, 21, " and if ye walk contrary
to me, and will not hearken unta me, Lwill bring seven
times more plagues upon you, according to your sins."

158 DEBATE ON
These plagues are there detailed; and it is again repeated)
if the punishment does not produce reform, if the people
are still disobedient, still further and worse punishments
are threatened; and this is' several tifnes repeated. But
when they are finally reformed by these sufferings, the
punishment ceases, arid they are to be blessed and happy.
In the latter portion of the chapter it reads, " If they shall
confess their iniquity, and they then accept of the punish'
ment of their iniquity, then will I remember my covnant
with Jacob; and also my covnant with Isaac, and, also my
covenant with Abraham will I remember: and I will re
member the land." So it goes, On; and so throughout the
Scriptures, wherein punishment for the time does not. ef
fect the reform intended. But if he finds where punish
ment is exterided to eternity, it might have some bearing
on the point. These do not, because where punishment. is
inflicted in this life, it cannot be said at any one point of
lime that it will never have the desired effect.
He says the chastening for the soul's, profit, declared in
Hebrews, which I referred to, applies only to the saints.
Then it was to make the holy partakers of God's holiness;
and yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness to the
righteous ! Why wish saints punished for their good,
when they sin, more than common sinners? For what pur
pose could that be done, except to gratify the malice of
him who inflicted punishment? But I have not time to ex
amine that passage iri this speech.
One fact is worthy to be remembered; that Sheol in the
Old Testament, and Hades in the New, are synonymous
words. This is nothing new to Mr. Waller; but may be
so to some ; and moreover does not mean efidless damna
tion in the future life. So in the Bible, the passage "the
wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that
forget God," does not mean, as Mr. Waller says, endless
damnation. Mr. Waller — I did not say so.
Mr. Pingree — I understood that the wicked entered into
Hades at death, and were afterwards taken out of Hades,
and sent to Hell. So the good were taken out. of Hades,
and sent to heaven. If Hades is the place of damnation,
" Abraham's bosom" is there, and Lazarus in Abraham's
bosom — then Abraham is there in Abraham's bosom! I'll
prove that Hades is not a place of endless damnation, if it
nbe ot'conceded. /

universalism. 159
Mr. Waller — I said nothing about it.
Mr. Pingree — We will pass on. It seems, then, accord
ing. to Mr. Waller's previous remarks, that Jesus Christ
adopted the Pagan notion ot Hades. I ask what did the
Pagafts know about Abraham's bosom ? The other de
partment* however, was Tartarus. The wicked went
there ; but both the good and wicked were to go to Hades.
Now I ask what neu: doctrine did Christianity give us,
if the Pagans had their Tartarus and their Abraham's bo
som, and Jesus Christ acknowledged the correctness of
their notions ? Why send Missionaries to the Pagans?
The Pagans had their Styx and Tartarus. What was the
difficulty? Better to be a Pagan, and not have this new
thing, which after all gives no new idea.
Mr. Waller — Did.l admit it was a Pagan notion ?
Mr. Pingree — Yes; for where do you find such notions,
except among the Pagans ? Says Hosea, " O Death ! I will
be tby plagues: O! Grave, I will be thy destruction;"
that is, Hades, or Sheol, (the same word with the Hades
where the rich man went,) O Hades! Twill be thy de
struction. It is not therefore the place of endless punish
ment; for it shall be destroyed.
Paul says, "0 grave! where is thy victory?" (the
grave^Hades, where the rich man went.) If Hades be a
place of endless misery, it has a great " victory" Over God,
and Christ, and holiness, forever! If it were the place of
endless damnation for the souls of men, Jesus gained no
victory over it. But it is not the place of endless damna
tion : you see it is. not, in the light of these psssages.
"Death and Hell (Hades) shall give up their dead," says
John in the Revelation : they shall be destroyed, and shall
deliver up what is in them. Whatever Hades is, therefore,
whether with its literal or figurative signification, it is at
last tobe' destroyed, and deliver up all that is in it. Wheth
er he admits it is not eternal, Or not, we prove by Scripture,
that it has no victory over the souls of men.
He tadmitted as to the Mosaic dispensation, that men un
der that had no promise except of theTife that- now is.
Where then was there endless purtishment? In Rom. ii.
12, it is declared that " as many as have sinned under the
law, shall be judged by the law." Admitting that the law
had only to do with this life,: in the Mosaic dispensation,
where is the endless punishment threatened in any law of
God? They were judged ." by the law." If the law does

160 DEBATE ON
not deal with the immortal, life, it is certain they would not
by that law suffer endless punishment.
He said the Gospel was delivered to Abraham, and to
Adam and Eve' in Paradise. Was it a Gospel of endless
damnation? Let us see. "The-seed of the woman shall
bruise tlie serpent's head." "In the seed of Abraham, all
THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH shall be BLESSED." That Was
the Gospel preached to Adam and to Abraham. The de
struction of the serpent, and the blessing of all the nations
of the earth. Men were to be punished by the law, but
after that, there is a blessing for all. <
[j«E. WALLER'S SEVENTH REPLY.]
It appears that the long agony of Universalism- is Over!
My friend has finished'his argurhent! He has said all that
he can say for his cause! Five or six of what he calls
arguments, based upon sheer inference, have been adduced,
and upon,' these he would have ungodly men' build their
hopes for heaven, although they should never repent and
believe the Gcspel! , You have heard my answers. He
has done a great deal of recapitulation. His last speech
was scarcely any thing else but what he has. hitherto said
again and again. I shall not trouble myself to notice what
I have already answered. Phrenologists, s&y that the de
velopments of my head show that 1 have a good deal of
combativeness and no small share of dislructiveness about
me. That may be; still I have very Httle of the .old hero,
who, as Dryden sings,
, " Thrice fought his battles o'er again,
And thrice he slew the slain."
I have no disposition fo prey upon the dead. Mr. Pin-
gree's arguments which I have hitherto answered, and rfor
which he has such an affection that it seems Tie will never
tire in repeating them, I will, therefore, leave without fur
ther remark. 1 am aware that my friend has taken some
exceptions to my quoting poetry; but really when he an
nounced in his last speech that he was through, and I called
to mind his gieat solicitude for this discussion, and the
great ado made here and elsewhere by his friends because
1 was providentially prevented from meeting him last Fall,
there was a line in an old Latin poet that seemed so perti
nent and appropos, that I must quote it: —
" Parturient montes; el nasccfur ridrculus mus." /
But I 'Will not translate it; of cc urate Mr; Pingree will take

UNIVERSALISM. l6l
no exceptions, since. those in the. audience who do not un
derstand Latin, do no know its meaning.
My drincipal bus'iness to-day, since all fhe arguments pf
Universalism have been (adduced, and answered, will be to
lead on the phalanx of truth, and bear down with all its
crushing weight upon the enemy's entrenchments.. And I
will try to he as benevolent, and indulgent, to the feelings
of Mr. Pingree, as the nature, of the case will adnjit. But
I find it extreriiely difficult to accommodate myself to his
taste. You remernbOr, that on the first day he complained
of my not using the Scriptures; but now he complains that
I use them too much ! He wants me to select a few of
what I esteem strong texts ! He asks me to do what I
eannot. The Bible abounds with passages in our favor,
and none of them are weak— not one. _ But 1 should be
pleased to hear from him inrelatipp to those already quot
ed. If hp would bestow ' a little attention upon I hem, he
Would not be under the necessity of recapitulatingsomtich,
in order to fill out his time..
Sometime ago in this discussion, I forget when, I warn
ed the gentleman of deep water. I tell him again.he
should exercise great caution in his approaches to it. With
most astonishing recklessness, hp has plunged into Hades,
Sheol, Abraham's bosom, Pagan notions, pto- I admire his
daring, but I fear he will drown" himself. Hp is already
so near suffocation, that hte brain reels under its influence,
as I shall show. ¦ , , ,
I never- said or insinuated, that anasid'sis always meant
the resurrection pf the apad,.and yet Mr: Pingree reasoned
as if I did, and really almost ran himself iiito the absurdi
ty, that it never was used in. reference to the .dead at all!
Now all I said was this, That certain passages quoted by
me meant the resurrection of, the dead, just as much as
the passages quoted by Mr. Pingree, seeing that the lan
guage, in the original and English, was the same "in all.
I argired that if the resurrection of ihe dead did not mean
the resurrection .of. the dead, in the passages I quoted, then
it could not mean it in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians,
seeing that the same language, Was used. And how does
Mr. Pingree meet this position? Why, forsooth, that the
word anastasis or anistemei is not always used with refer
ence to, the dead! And who, ever thought it was? But
not content with announcing a proposition which he seem-
11

162 DEBATE ON
ed to suppose was original, he took the pains to. prove it
for our edification; arid quoted the passage where Jesus is
said to be set " for thp rising and fallmg again of many iri
Israel!" And he might have quoted many, very many
others, more to his purpose,, viz: "Mary arose and went
into the hill country," " Paul arose and was baptized," etc.
But for the life of me, I Could not see 'hoW such learned
criticism proved that the resurrection of the dead did not
mean the resurrection of the dead in one place as well as
another. And yet it was to elucidate this veiy point that
helauric'hed put', into this niighty sea of Greek criticism!!
I, repeat, this is deep water; and little boats ought not to
venture too far into' it.
Since it is confessed that Universalism mainly rest upon
1 Cor. 15, vhere the resurrection is spoken of, and since
it is also confessed that if men dying in their sins are not
changed iri the resurrection, they are not changed at afl>
you will pardon me fpr calling your' attention to these mat
ters again.' And let us see what has been' done ? I have
shown from the Scriptures that- there will be a " resurrec
tion of the just and of the unjust." That they are not all
made' righteous then, as Mr. Pingree affirms; but that they
" shall awake, some to everlasting life, arid some to shame
and everlasting contempt;" — " they that have done gpod
[shall come forth] unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil unto the resurrection of dariinatiori."
These arid kindred- passages I have adduced to show that
all do not rise alike — that they are not all made holy ahd
saved iri the resurrection; that "the dead in Christ shall
rise first." I have shown that the chapter in Corinthians,
relied upon by the Universalists, does not conflict with my
views' : that chapter refers main-ly to the " resurrection of
the just,1' to those " who come forth to the resurrection of
everlasting life," The Apostle is speaking of those who
"have fallen asleep in Christ,", (verse 18.,) not in drunk-
en'ess, in murder, idolatry, etc, He is speaking of those
" that are Christ's," and not those who are sold under sin,
and belong to the devil. Now we believe as the Apostle
elsewhere tells us, (1 Thess. iv. 14-17) that " them which
sleep in. Jpsus [not iri sin] will Gpd bring with him" — that
" the dead in Christ [not the dead in drunkeness and de
bauchery] shall rise first;" and shall be caught up "to
meet the Lord in the air, and so shall ever be with the

UNIVERSALISM. 163
Lor.d.1' And that the wicked "shg.ll not escape,," (see next
chapter, verse 3rd,) for "then sudden. destruction coirieth
upon them." This makes the Scriptures harmonize; and
the whole subject appear. plain and easy.
, But 1 Cor. 15 is wholly unsuited to the necessities of
Universalism. The Universalists hold that all. the resur
rection which takes place is immediately. upon death. I
charge Mr, Pingree with not believing in the resurrection
as one event. He holds that it is a w6rk which has been
going on since the creation — a work that is, now goirig on
in the world. Of course then this chapter is wholly un
suited to his purposes. The- resurrection here spoken of
is one which takes place at Christ's coming — " at the last
trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible," This" accounts to you for, Mr. Pin-
gree's insisting that the resurrection effects amor&l change:
the truth is he does not hold to a literal resurrection of the
body. Then, I say, this .chapter is wholly, u-nsuited to his
purposes; for the Apostle does not allude hy the remotest
intimations, to a change of any thing else ,but the body.
The soul is not corruptible — neither can you bury it s it
would be nonsense, then,, to talk about raising a soul incor
ruptible. It is not mortal : and therefore it -yvould be the
grossest absurdity to say, in relation to the soul, that '.'this
mortal shall put on immortality." Besides the body is ex
pressly named : "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body." So this chapter .cannot be, tortured to
speak in favor of Universalism. I will not pause to repel
the misrepresentation; that I said the language of. the
Apostle was applicable only to the Christians in ..Corinth,
and not to saints every where and in every age. That
and many other such misrepresentations only prove that
Mr. Pingree feels that h"b- is in great , tribulation. Paul
wrote to Christains and of Christians', and not to dinners
nor of sinners. His language applies to acltiss no matter
whether in Corinth or where— -then living, or living
since. ,
He told us that the Baptist at least would need a nroral
change after death, because they now unchristianized all
other denominations, This is notoriously untrue. I do not
suppose that he wilfully misrepresented us : J mention this
as another instance in proof, that he does not understand
the subject he came here to discuss. He further argued

164 DEBATE ON
\
that no man would be fit for heaVen, unless a moi'al change
takes place' after death. This I deny. The mind must be
conformed to the law of God, or no man can be saved;
and every mind conformed to the law of God npeds no
further moral change — is. fit for heaven; for "the law is
holy, just, arid good." The question then is, can this con
formity take place in this life? If so, Mr. Pingree's posi
tion falls fo the ground. That.it cari and does, let Paul
testify. He 'says,1 "' With the ^mirid I myself serve the law
of God." Again;' " I delight in ihe law 'of' God After the
inward man." Now I appeal to every Christian Who hears
trie; if he would riot be holy ? if he does not ardently de
sire it? If he does riot wish he might never sin again, but
be as free from its' influences as the angels iri'hpaven?
What then says the'Apostle on such cases? — " If theh I do
that which I would not, I Consent unto the- law that it is
good; ; Now it is pomore I that do it, but sin that dweiieth
in, rile : For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dweiieth
no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to
perform that which is gOod I find riot. For the good that
I would, Ido not ¦ but the evil which I would, hot, that I
dp. Now if I do that I would not, it is rio more I that dp
it, but sin that dwplleth" in me. ' I find then, a law, that
when I would do good evil is present with me : for I de
light in the ' law- cf God after the inward man. But I see
another law in my members warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who
shall deliver me from the body of this death? P thank
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the
mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the
law of sin." I ask, what change did Paul need ? Not of
mind ; for that was conformed to the law of God — that de
lighted in the law of God. But of what did he complain?
Why of the law in his members that warred against the
law of his mind : He found that in his flesh was no good
thing; and he prayed to be delivered from the body of this
death. ' So all that he needed was a physical change. Had
the emotions of his body accorded with those Of his mind
he would have been free from sin. It was then a change
of body and not a change of mind, or moral change, which
he sought. Paul speaks the experience of every Chris
tian upon earth. So then Christians need only a physical
and not a moral change after death.

universalism. 165
Mr. Pingree admitted that Judas Isoaript wentl in ad
vance of the Savior to heaven: or rather he concluded
that his doctrine, inculcated that sentiment, and he justified
the doctrine. , , ;
Mit. Pingree. , I do not know where Judas went.,
Mr. Waller., He does not know where Judas went!
His mind has suddenly become foggy !' He is in perplexity
about Judas, and does not wish to speak his sentiments- de
finitely. But the Savior called Judas a thief, the' son of
perdition, etc., and said it were better for him, had he never
beep born. It is reporded of him that he hanged himself,
and went to his own place. Beally it, speaks, in my esti
mation, rather to the praise of Mr. Pingree, that he shrinks
to declare in so many .words, that the ahandoned wretch
who betrayed the Lord of, life and glory, and who misera
bly, perished, by his own traitorpus hands, went directly to
heaven ! This sense of ^shame manifested for a proposition
so monstrous, is at least an ^indication- that his mind is not
so easy in. fhe reception pf the system which necessarily
brings forth such frightful abortions.
He says that , according to pur doctrine a man may be
righteous a\\ his life, and then be lost,, for. one sin. We
teach nothing of the sort. And he seems to think too that
if a roan h?is been wicked all his life, abominably w.ieked,
that we teach he is pardoned, by one emotion of the niind
— by an empty wish. But we do no such thing. Our doc
trine bearing upon each of those points may be seen in
the following language ofthe prophet; — Eze. xviii. 2,1-22,
'; But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall surely live:, HE SHALL NOT
DIE. All his transgressions that he hath ' committed shall
not be mentioned unto him- In his righteousness that he
hath done he shall live." The Almighty. hath no. pleasure
in. the death of the wicked; and Jesus is able to save tp
the uttermost all that come unto God by him.
The geritl,eman in his last,speech again alluded, rather
tremblingly I thought, to the subject that a punishment
was for the reformation of the. individual punished; and to
this end quoted a passage in Leviticus xxvi, tbe purport of
which in its connexion was, that if the Israelites, after be
ing repeatedly punished, should reform,, then God would
spare them for the sake of his covenant with their fathers-

166 DEBATE ON
All of this does not meet what I have Said iri objection to
the 'doctrine* so essential to his system, that all punishment
is inflicted for the good of the individual. I 'grant that
punishment is for the good of society — to prevent the com
mission of crime; and' to that end it is inflicted: andi
supposed that this was the very doctrine the Universalists
opposed; and certainly the very one against which my opL
ponent professed to be reasoning. His proofHhen did
not apply to his case. It was rather in support of what I
affirmed. < - ' • , ¦
But I mu.st pass to weightier matters, alluding to such
things as Mr. Pingree has recapitulated as I may find
leisure. Universalism assumes, and makes the assumption' a vital
principle, that the term pardon or forgiveness, in the Bible,
is not to be understood in the ordinary acceptation of lan
guage :' that it does not mean what it means every where
else ; but that it means to hake holy — to take away Sin.
Well, taking that for granted; or taking the word in either
sense, that is, in the true,' or in the Universalian sense, and
I'pro'pqse to show that some are never 'pardoned. To the
law then ahd to the testimony; for I speak according to
these: — Heb. vi. 4-6 '. — "For it is iiripossible for those
who were once enlightened, and have tasted ofthe heaven
ly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and
the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away,
to renew them again to repentance, seeing" they crucify
the Son of God afresh, and put him to fin open shrimp:"
Unless Universalism has the effrontery to declare that to
be done which inspiration affirms to be " impossible" then
we must-believe there are some who cannot be renewed
unto repentance.
Again: Heb. x. 26^27 — "For if we sin wilfully after
that' we have received a knowledge of the truth, tliere re
maineth no moresacrificefor sins :, but a certain fearful look
ing for of judgment arid fiery indignation which shall devour
the adversaries." Mark iii. 29 — "But he that shall blas
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but
is in danger of eternal damnation-" James ij. 13— "For
he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no
mercy." 2 Kings xxiv. 4 — "And also fert' the Innocent
blood that he shed, [for he filled Jerusalem with innocent
blood,]' which the Lord would not pdrdom" Isaiah xxvii.

universalism. 167
IT — '• When the. boughs thereof are withered, they shall
be broken off; the, women came and set them op fire: for
it is a people of no consideration; therefore,, he 'that made
them will not have mercy On them, and he that formed
them will show them no favor," There' are other, passages
of similar tenor which I will not detain to quote. Here
then it is declared by tfiie God of truth, that to certain
persons there is "never forgiveness"— fhiit it is "impossi
ble" to renew therii fo, repentance— that there, remaineth
for them " no mere sacrifice foi-sin;" that the Lord "would
not pardon" them— that " he that formed, will not. have
mercy on theni," and will " show them no favor." .Uni
versalism flatly contradicts all this, an.d says they all' will
be pardoned! thatis, made holy and Happy!]'! "Let God be
true, but' every man a liar."
But I, will press this assumption of Universalism, still
more closely: for if pardon of sin is equivalent to making
holyand taking away sin, then Iaffirm, if the Scriptures
be true, no one was ever pardoned in tltis life! The pas
sage adduced from Paul, (Roth, vir.) awhile' ago, proves, this,
matter beyond doubt. He says, that 'iti our flesh dweiieth
no good thing'- — that 'with the flesh we serve, the" law of
sin.' It is written (1 Kings viii. 46.,) "."There/is, no man
that sinrieth' not" Again: says Solomon, (Eccl. xyi. 12,)
¦" No riian liveth and sinneth, hot." Again : says an Apos
tle (1 John.i- 8,,) " If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is hot in us." And again-:.' James
iii. 2 — il For in many things we offend all." And Mr. Pin
gree adriiits that bo man, is free" from sip. If therefore,
there is -any truth in. Universalism, no man is eyerpardpn-
•ed in this, life : that is, made Iwly ov free from sin, for sp
they define pardon., Bii't.in opposition to thip, we have the
most plain and positive declarations of the, Scriptu'res, .that
men are pardoned in this life! So if you receive Univer
salism you must reject the Bible for its numerous contra
dictions! Now ma,rk oitr position :' We have spen t^at according
to the Universalist definition of pardon, no one was or can
ever be pardoned in this life : I now propose toshoiv that
the Bible teaches that sins are pardoned in this life.
To this point, I Wih let a few quotations suffice. Doubt
less a number .of others will suggest themselves tp your
mirids, for the Bib'e is full of them. Iridesd, I have already

1S8, debate on.,
quoted many of that class — Matt. ix. 2— "Son, be Of good
cheer ;" tjiy sins be forgiven thee." ' Luke vii. 47,,48 — ;
'¦ Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins which are many are
forgiven. And he said unto her, Thy sirls are forgiven."
1 John ii. 12 — -"I write unto you, little children, because,
your -sins ate forgiven you." So then Universalism makes
the Bible contradict itself, by asserting in one breath that
no- man can be forgiven iri this life, and in the next, that
men, are forgiven ! and because of these contradictions, the
system which makes them, mdst be false.
Nor does the matter stop here. The gentleman must
persist in riiaking 'the Bible thus contradict itself; for if he
grants that meri are .forgiven or made' holy in this life,
then he must surrender the position so vital to his cause,
that all men must experience arhoral change in the resur
rection! So Mr. Pingree is reduced to'tfie" dreadful alter
native of giving up h'is system; or else, in maintaining it,
to insist that the Bible contradicts, itself ! ! Yes,' he makes
the Bible destroy itself I — to: assert, one moment, that ho
man can be wiihou,t.sin; and the, next moment to declare,
that all Christians are forgiven — are free from' sin!!— and
in another moment still,; that no irian is forgiven or made
free from sin until raised from the grave!!! Such is the
preposterous nonsense ofthe Universalian system.
But I have sonfe criticisms to make on some passages
relating to the resurrection of the dead. , Paul says, Acts
xxiv. ] 5 — "I have hope toward God, which they them
selves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of
the. dead, both of the just and- unjust." But ^sked Mr.
Pingree vvith great emphasis, Would ' Paul hope for the
resurrection of the unjust if they are punished? Paul had
hope or expectation [tov so the original, elpis, means], of a
resurrection of all the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Now cannot 'a pious man hope for such a .resurrection,
when himself and all saints will be happy? Or is it true
that he cannot even desire such a resurrection because
some will justly be punished for their sips? With the
same propriety, we must not desire good laws arid a good
administration of government, because if so, all the poor
thieves arid murderers will certainly be punished! The
passage shows, that Paul held the sentiment, of the PhariJ
sees, and expected a resurrection of the, just and unjust ;
the former, to everlasting life; and, the Iatter'to,shamQ and

universalism. 169
everlasting contempt. I have hope of a resurrection; ^11
Christians have that hope. And they look forward with
pleasing anticipations to the time when ' these bodies pf
theirs shall be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the
sori of Gpd— -rwhen free frpm sickness, sorrow, pain and
death,, tbey shall bp kings and priests unto God forever.
Nor do t^iey suppose they will love God the less or that it
will mar in the least their happiness, to find, in the morn
ing of the resurrection, that the Almighty is holy, and
just, and good, punishing ifaiquity, transgression, and sin.
They loved him in this World because such was his, char
acter; nor will they love him the less because that charac
ter displays itself through tlie ages of eternity. As no
virtuous mind can respect that government which permits
every transgressor to go free; neither could it contribute
to raise the divine government in the esteem of the right1-
eous, if the unclean, and, the abominable, murderers, and
fornicators, and drunkards, and all liars should have their
portion with the saints in glory- They would not associate
with such here in this world; surely then they would es
teem it hard ta be compelled to do so in the world to come!
But Mr. Pingree says they are changed after death and
made holy; and then of course there is no hardship iri the
case. Very well; let him prove this. This he has not
done : and until he does this; he Ought not to tbink it
strange that Paul desired (if he must have that meaning)
to be forever free from such companion's in the glorious
abode of the just.
Thei-p is a passage much relied, upon by Universalists
aucl has been referred to by Mr. Pringree to prpve a moral
renovation after death. It is found in Malt. xxii. 30-^-*' In
the resurrection they neither marry, nor are. given in
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven", The
same incident is recorded in, Mark xii. 25f 26, and Luke
xx. 35-38. Now these passages are said to teach that all
men in the resurrection will be made holy as the angels of
God in heaven. But I object tp this view of the subject :
1st, Because admitting it to refer to all men, it'a$ser,ts that
tliey shall be like the angels in referenced marriage, arid
no farther. This is the fair construction of the language
in Matthew and Mark. But 2nd, The language asrin Luke
shows that all men were not intended. If reads: "But
they which .shall be accounted woRTHif to attain that world

170 DEBATE ON
and the resurrection from tlie dead, neither marry nor are
given in marriage; neither can they die any more: for
they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of
God,being the children of the resurrection." Thus teads the
passage commented upon by Mr. Pingree. You will per
ceive that he is not speaking of all, if so why mention
those " who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that
World?" Why this qualification mentioned, and why this
discrimination made, if he were speaking of all and if all
were equally worthy ? And why, in further elucidations
of his subject, did he mention only pious individuals, as
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not as well Balaam and
the prophets of Baal, if he intended to teach that the
wicked and the righteous were both to be" equal unto the
angels" and "the children of God" in the resurrection?
But he is speakirig of a " resurrection from [ek nekron,
Out of] the 'dead." Arid so in Mark: — "For when fhpy
shall rise from [ek — out of] the dead." Now I lay this
down as true; throughout the New Testament,where it is
said there is a resurrection out of or from among the dead,
^partial and not a universal' resurrection is mdant, unless
this is an exception. This language is no where else
APFLEID TO THE' RISING OF ALL THE DEAD. I. challenge the
denial of this. Let us then examine some examples of
this usage.
It is used in reference to the resurrection ofthe Savior.
All the dead did not rise with him. Hence hp is said to
rise out of [ek] ov from among the dead. Mark ix. 9, 10
— " He chaiged them that they should tell no man what
things they had seen, till the son of man be risen from
[ek] the dead. And they kept that saying with themselves,
questioning one with another what the rising from [ek] the
dead should mean." This criticism, permit me to remark,
serves to render easy of explanation, this passage which
has greatly perplexed many expositors. The disciples
were in no doubt about the resurrection of the bodies of
men; but' they believed like Martha, that there would be
no resurrection until the last day, and theh all would be
raised. Said this sister of Lazarus, and she spoke the sen
timents of all the disciples, "I know that he shall rise
agairi in the resurrection at the last day." The" disciples
were in no perplexity about ageneral resurrection. They
did hot question tliat all should arise at the last day. But

UNIVERSALfSM. 171
they' did not understand this* rising out of the dead-*-this
rising before all the dead' men were raised — -before the' last
day. This was'new doctrine to them. Hence they ques
tioned "one with another "what the rising from among the
dead should mean." But to proceed : Acts iii. 15 — i( Ye
killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from.[ek —
out of, or from among] the dead." Acts iv. 10 — "Jesus
Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised
from [ek-^-outpf, or from among] the. dead." Arid so, I
believe in every case where his rising from the dead is
mentioried, the same word in the original [ek] obtains; as
Acts xiii. 30 and 34; — xvii. 3; Both. i. 4; — vi. 4;— vii.4; —
viii. 11;— 1 Cor. xv. 12 add 20;— Eph. i. 20;— Col. ii. 12;
—1 Thess. i. 10;— 2 Tim. ii. Y; — 1 Peter, i. 21;— Kpv. i.
5. Now in all these passages the expression raised from
[ek, out of, or from among] th,e dead is used, and with re
ference to the resurrection of the Savior. It dfd, nOt mean
a general resurreetion in his case, for all did not rise with
him. He arose alone. But yet he rose from among the
dead, as it isSaidof those in thp passages, now Under con
sideration, in Mark and Luke. If in the forrher case the
expression .caWnot mean a gpneral resurreolion; shall we,
for the special accommodation pf Universalism in the lattpr
case, force that meaning upon it? '-
But the same usage occurs with reference to the resur
rection of Lazarus: John xii. 1 — " Where Lazarus was
which had be'en dead, whom he raised from [ek- — out of, or
from among] the dead." And verse 17 — " When he called
Lazarus out of his grave, and raised 'him from [ek — out
of] "the dead." Now unless we believe' that all the dead
were raised with Lazarus, we cannot believe that,, when
the Savior said, " they shall rise from [ek—out of] the
dead," he taught a resurrection of all the dead? And if
we believe that Lazarus rose front among the dead; leaving
dead behind him; then we must also believe that those of
whom the Savior spoke arose from among the dead, leav
ing dead behind them. The cases are 'precisely/analog
ous; and we cannot seperate them in our conclusions upon
the language employed.'
Again : a similar Usage occurs in Hob. xi. 19, where it'
is said that Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac,
" accounting that God was 'able foiaise'him up, even from
the dead;" ek — out of the dead.

172 deb Ate q.n
These passages show, thpt when a resurrection from [ek
— out of] the dead is spoken of, a general resurrection is
not meant, In the numerous examples adduced we see it has
no such meaning — but means a partial resurrection. Ek
is never used in reference to a general resurrection. It
follows then, that Jesus only spoke of a part ,of the dead
— of the righteous — who should -be "accounted worthy to
obtain that .world," and who should rise out of the dead,
who should be equal to the angels and be' the children, of
God. This corresponds to the position I have all along
assumed, that the dead in Christ should rise before the
wicked — they shall arise from among the wicked. And sp
the Apostles " taught the people, and preached through-
Jesus the resurrection out of thedead," (Acts iv. 2;) that
is, that through Jesus alone could they.be "accounted
worthy to obtain, thai world, and the resurrection out of
the dead: "—that glorious resurrection which takes place,
before those out. of Christ are l'aised to shame and ever
lasting contempt-
I defy the ingenuity of Satan to escape this criticism;
and being admitted, this vaunted fortress of Universalism
which Mr. Pingree seemed. to, think impregnable, turns out
to be. as insubstantial as a castle of gossamer." Indeed, so
far from aiding the cause it is brought by Universalists to
support, if t.urns out, to be a magazine capable of blowing
it irito nonentity.
I wish to present another criticism before I conclude
this speech. The Greak Word, taionies, is used with re
ference to punishment; as, "These shall go away into
everlasting punishment ;"- — "Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devjl and, his angels;"
— " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the preserice of the Lord;" " But he that shall blas
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but
is in danger pf eternal damnation;" — "Suffering the ven
geance of eternal fire," etc. This word, according to my
counting, occurs, 66 times in the New Testament. It is
used 51 tithes in reference to the happiness of the right
eous in the undoubted sense of endless; 2 times it is used
in reference to God and his glory, and means the same
thing; 6 times in reference to miscellaneous matters in.the
same undoubted sehse; and 7 times in relation. to the pun-
ishmerit of the wicked. So that if in thpse seven cases it

UN TVERSALISM. 173
does not riiean endless, it has departed from its meaning
every where else in the New Testament, for the especial
accommodation of Universalism!! If the divirie writers,
by prophetic spirit, had intended to condemn Universalism,
they could have found no stronger word for the purpose
in the Greek language than -the one they have employed.
Mr. Pingree will not, I am sure, venture to deny this.
Here then I rest? :' The prevailing' usage of aionies, used
7 times in reference to the punishment ofthe Wicked,
shows that its common meaning in the New Testament is
everlasting or endless. Now remember 1 say, that this is
its Common meaning in the New Testament. • Again : it is
a rule of interpretation never to be departed from: Tliat
the common meaning of a word is never to be deserted,
unless from absolute necessity. *ThCn the punishment of
the wicked is everlasting or endless, unless Mr. Pihgree
can show the necessity for departing from the Common
meaning of aionios in "the New Testament for the benefit
of his system ! Unless he Can do; this, lie must give up
his doctrine, or else dispute the eternity of God and the
endless happiness pf the rightepus; for "these are not as
serted in terms more strong in the New Testament, than
the endless punishmeni of the wicked. But I need not
say more upon this point, until, I hear from Mr. Pingree.
It subverts his whole system. ,
As I have 'but little more time to speak, I will employ it
ip expressing a few more thoughts on Mr. Pingree s posi
tion, respecting a moral change after death.
David says, Psalms vi. 4 and 5, "Be,tui'n> O Lord, deliv
er my soul: Oh save me for thy mercy's sake:: for in
death there is no remembrance of thee; iri the grave; who
shaU give thee' thanks?" Why did the Psalmist aSk for
deliverance, and why did he cry for salvation in this life ?
Because in death there is no remembrance of God, and in
Hades it was too late to give thanks. That was no place,
according to David for deliverance ahd salvation :' hence
he wanted to secure them in this world, before he went
there. David had not heard Mr. Ballou : — lie was no Uni
versalist. Once more: Psalm lxxxviii. 11, 12 — " Shall thy
loving kindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithful
ness in destruction ? Shall thy wonders be, known in the
dark? and thy righteousness in the land pf forgetfulness?"
These questions which David seemed1 to think no one could

1,74 DEB ATE, ON
perpetrate the absurdity of answering affirmatively, Uni
versalism- not only so answers, but predicates' its vpry ex
istence upon that response !, ,
[mr. pingree's eighth speech.1]
Respected, Friends: — Under the shadow of the quota
tions from the poet, -that " a little learning is1 a dangerous
thing;" apd in view of the consequences, of small boats
not keeping near shore, in deep waters; and as we are
jus.t now told we were in, deep waters, it behoves me, I sup^
pose, to be carefulas tp my posifiorts,„and not go' very far
from shore; particularly, , eis sundry defiances havp bepn
thrown tint on Greek words, etc. As I make no preten
tions of being a scholar, I shall not refer to original lan
guages, further than seeihs absolutely hecessary. With
regard to some words, it is necessary. I ..shall not notice
ail the defiances and challenges, Of the gentleman as to the
Greek particle ek, which he referred to,, and laid so. much
stress upon. You will, recollect my argument from xv. of
Corinthians, in favor of the salvation pf all men, frpm the
resurrection of all. That inasmuch as all, die! in Adam,
a)l shall be made alive in Christ. The reply -he makes is
that xv, of Corinthians relates only to the resurreetion ofthe
saints. That it is the resurrection of the just, and not of
sinners. Because the 15th of Corinthians was addressed to
the Christians in Cprinth,. and relates to a change imthe
body alone !
The partiqle e&is applied tp the word resurrection, he
says, wherever the resurrection of the jtist alone is spoken
pf — ek : " out of ;— -from among" — the unjust.
Mr. Waller.— 1 did not say so. I said it was never
used ofthe general resurrection, ¦ To. relieve his difficulty
I will state' it is not in xv. Corinthians— -for the context
s.hows what is, there spoken of.
Mr. Pin&ree.— -If it be not. a general principle, (and I unr
derstood him' to challenge a single case to the contrary,), his
argument alt goes for .nothing. It is not worth a straw, if
it be not universally true; an(l it is not true}jx 15th of Corin
thians, nor in the passage , in Acts. In the former, as. iri
the latter, the particle, e& is not used. So if given up as a
matter, of universal application, it. has no bearing af all
upon the question. I leave that, then, for the present.
He npw appeals to thp Pontpxt in xv, Cprinthians. The

TTNIVE.RSALISM. 17,5
context shows, he says, what is there spoken of. What is
the Context ? Does the word all mean only the- Christ
ians? Does " how shall we escape?" (Heb. ii. 3,) mean
the saints alone shall not escape? The- chapter positively
declares that all shall be made alive in Christ, who die in
Adam. If there be any who do not die in Adam, then
there are some who are pot raised, from the dead and made
alive in Christ — not otherwise.
I shall npt now, however, review the last speech. I
shall proceed to show the doctrine of the Judgment, as we
hold it.
But first a word in relation to Mr. Waller's mode of
quoting Scripture; — first giving only a few and afterwards
spores of passages together, without comment. Is that the
way to manage a discussion on Scriptural questions ? to
speak for two or three days, and quote but one or two pas-
sagest and now, at the conclusion of the discussion, to
string together one, after another, expressed in terras about
Whicn. people have preconceived notions, hoping that all
will apply to them the rrieaning they have always been
accustomed to apply, when there is not. time left to. exam
ine and discuss them fully?
But let line state my position in reference to the Judg
ment. The Judgment under Jesus. Christ, we believe to
be progressive, iri this world, during the reign and rule of
Jesus Christ, which commenced 1800 years ago, and will
continue till, the resurrection of the dead, when the king
dom of Jesus Christ will be'deliverpdup, to God.
There are various judgments mentioned in the Biblp.
Some sire limited, judgments, for particular things, upon
particular men, at particular times. This doctrine does not
apply fo them; nor to the destruction of Jerusalem. This
is what I say: That the Judgment under Jesus Christ
embraces the dissolution of the, Jewish polity, to be follow
ed by the reign of the Gospel.- But that that.was all, I
do not say; but the Judgment embraced that. Yet there
are passages relating to that particular event. The great
doctrine is, that the Judgment of Jesus Christ continues
from the beginning, of his reign to the delivering up of his
kingdpm to God the Father.
Before I go further to establish this doctrine, I will no
tice another point of Mr. Waller. Admitting the faet to
be that the wicked are punished immediately after dearth,

176 debate on
as Partiahsts believe, and admitting the passage quoted, to
mean what Mr. Waller says, then Tratarus and Hades are
places of punishment before the Judgment! If this senti
ment, be correct, the Antediluvians, Sodomites, and Egypt
ians, who lived -thousands of years ago, have been suffering
a punishment inflicted by God ever since their destruction.
The Judgment is put off, according to the popular belief;
then here are millions suffering in Hell before they have
been judged!! Suppose a governor or other civil ruler
should do this; that an accused person should be first hung,
and afterwards tried ? Who ever heard of such mon
strous injustice ? Does God govern mankind in this way?
punish men for thousands, perhaps millions of years, and
then judge them? It is so, if men suffer in ' Tartarus, and
are afterwards judged, as Mr. Waller seems to bslieve.
Hang a man, then try him!!
Psalms 1 viii. 11 : "Verily he is a God that judgeth in
the earth." Psalms ix. 16: "The Lord is known by the
judgrnent Which he Executeth," [in the. present tense.]
Psalms xcvi. ,10-13: "SayamOng the heathen that the
Lord reigneth : the world also shall be established that it
shall not be moved : he shall judge the people righteously.
Let the heavens rejoice, and' let the earth be glad :' let the
sea roar and the fulness thereof. Let the field be joyful,
and all that is therein : then shall all the trees ofthe wood
rejoice before the Lord : for he cometh, for he cometh to
judge the earth : he shall judge the world with righteous
ness, and the people with his truth,:" — the Psalmist calls for
rejoicing, because of the judgment, It was hot so dread
ful' and horrible a thing as to terminate in endless perdi
tion! It was one which all things could rejoice at, ahd as
David did, when he said, "Before 1 was afflicted, I went
astray — but now have I kept thy law."
Isaiah xiii. 4 : ," He shall not foil nor be discouraged
till he has set judgment in the earth." In Revelation xx.
" the earth" and the heaven had fled away; and yet Isaiah
prophesied the judgment to be "in the earth." In Ga. ii. 2-
5: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that is, of the
Mosaic despensation,] that the mountain of tlie Lord's
house shall be established on the top of the mountains,
and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall
flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, come ye
and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the

universalism. 177
house' of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his
ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall
go forth the law; and' the word of tite Lord from "Jerusa
lem. And he shall judge among the nations; and shall re
buke many people; and they shaRbeat their swords into
plough shares arid their spears into pruning hooks : nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
leave war any more." "
Micahi v. 1 tp 4, Jeremiah xxiii. 5 and 6, Psalms ex. all
prophesy that the coming of Jesus' Christ is for Judging
arid ruling men; and when we come to the New Testa
ment, we see where, the prophecies were accomplished. :
John v. 22- — "For the Fathei" judgeth no inan— that is,
riou^— but hath committed all judgment .unto the Son.1' It
Was done then according to the prophecies before given
and quoted. John ix'. 39, Jesus said, " For judgment,
I am come into this world."
I will notice another passage in the 7th of Daniel,, which
presents the whole matter as we hold it, in reference to
tlie' Judgment. 9,th verse : " I beheld till the thrones were
cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garments
where white 'as snow, and the hair of his head like purp
wool : his throne -was like the fieryj flame, arid his wheels
as burning fire. A fiery stream issued arid came forth
from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand sfopd before, him : the
judgment was set, arid the books "were opeped;'r [Corres
ponding with, the language iii Revelation.] " I saw in the
night visions and behold,' onp; like the Son pf ,man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of
days and they brought him ne^ii' before him. And then
was given him dominion arid glory arid a kingdom, that all
people, nations and languages, shoujd serve him: his do
minion is an everlasting dominion, which, shall pot pass
away, and his kingdorii that which shalt not be destroyed."
Now this is the prophecy of the receiving of the king
dom by Christ, and the judgment as exercised by him.
You see the correspondence with 20th Revelations. It
differs from Cor. 15th, in that the latter states that the
Kingdom will then be delivered up. to the Father. You
see the difference. Men now place the judgment at the
resurrection'; while" the Sacred Writer places it all along
during Jesus Christ's reign, commencing with the establish-
12

178 DEBATE 0,N
ment of his kingdom. I, wish this to be remembered — -that
at the "delivering up of his kingdoiri to the Father," arid
the .resurrection of the literally dead, not a wotd'is said as
to there being (hen ariy judgment or punishment : -all are-
" in Christ," immortal, in glory. ,
He quoted Peter : " For if the righteous scarcely be
saved, where shall the Ungodly and sinner appear ? " I
asked if this' meant that the righteous were to be "scarcely
saved" in the life to come? By no means. Mr. Waller
will ?' scarcely" venture to assert this. I, presume the de
claration relates to salvation here. What does it say of
judgment? Re^.d the proceeding verse : 17th verse 4th ch.
1 Pet. "For the time is cpME, that judgment mnstliegin at
the house of God, and if it first begin at us, what jhall the
end be of them that obey not the Gospel- of God?" And
so Revelation , vi. 17 : " For, the great day of his wrath, is
come — who shall -be able' to stand?" After that, the Gos
pel was, to be preached, as.sppken of in Revelation, Does-
he say the judgment is in the future life f after " the day
of judgment"'? That, would be a ridiculous idea. I knew
John's Revelation is a difficult book to understand; yet this
passage may be brought against M'rr Waller's .exposition of
those quoted by him, so far as relates to the prophecies, of
the Old Testariient, . and in, the New Testament, ef their
fulfilment. ' . .
Ezekiel xxxvi. ,19 : f' According to- their doings I judged
them." Here judgment;. is spoken of as having occurred
in, time past ; not to 'be hi the future life. He had dpne it.
So in Lamentations: "The punishment of thirie iniquity-
is accomplished." Yet we hear now that punishment.,, is
never, never, never to cease! while Jeremiah said, iri this
case, that it had been accomplished.
I Cor. v. Paul takes upon himself the authority (is.it
a usurped authority ?) te "judge" the incestuous man to be"
"delivered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that
his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
Arid in 2 Cor. ii. &, he says, " Sufficient unto such, a man
is this punishment, which wees inflicted ot, many." ," Suffir
cient?" It would.be nonsense to say it was sufficient, if
punishment is endless, and never to cease. Yet so it says
here : " Sp that contrariwise ye , Ought rather, to forgive
him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should, be
swallowed up with over much sorrow." People are not trou-

UNIVER.SALI SM, 179
bled now about " over much sorrow," in the life ta come.
They cry out, with Tertullian, ")How I shall rejoice', how
exult! in those torments." Here the sinner was punished
and then 'forgiven^ arid this is the doctrine' of Scripture,
—'Mr. Waller's ridicule to the contrary notwithstanding.
So much for our doctrine xif the Judgment. Ihavesws-
tainei it by the Old and 'New Testament, and by factsj I
will now notice those passages which he quoted, relating
to a resurrection in connection with those that speak of
judgment. And first, of the resurrection in Daniel xju— a passage
of great importance, and one, if the interpretation com
monly given of it be correct, that will prove the doctrine
of universal, salvation to be false: "And many of them
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con
tempt." This is quoted in connection with John v : "Mar
vel not at this," says' Christ; "for the' hour is coming in
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth; they, that have done good unto the re
surrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the
resurrection of damnatiori';" which is parallel with Dam
xii., by the admission of him who quotes it. If they prove
the time to relate to, the future life, in the first instance, it
shows the same of the last; and so vice versa-, if shown to
be confined to this life. They stand together, as -to their
bearing on the general resurrection.
Now there are some marks about this chapter, ('12th
Daniel,) which show the time at which that resurrection
was to be. Now it is urged that John v. and Dan. xiii re-f
for to a resurrection of the naturally dead to immortality:
I deny it? and I will endeavor, to^establish the correctness
of my denial. Before that is fully done, however, I will '
give an ill<u stratum ofthe word "graves," iri '5th John. .
That it is not Hade*', "where the dead in general are,! wijl
prove at another time.
In this case, "graves" is not applied literally — to the
literally dead.; Those that believe in Jesus Christ have ,
now eternal' life;, as seen by the context. They "have
passed from death to life." For a similar, though not the'
same use of "graves," see Ezekiel xxxvii. 12: Therefore
prophesy and Say unto : them, Thus saith the Lord' God:
Behold 0 fny people! I will open your graves, arid cause

180 DEBATE ON
you- to come^up out of your graves, and bring you unto
the land of Israel. And.ye shall know that Iam the Lord,
when I have opened your graves, ¦ O my people, and
brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my spirit
in you," etc. :'¦
This shows that the word "graves" sometimes applies to
those who are not literally dead, and that the expression
"come up out. of your graves," does not mean come up
from natural death, to a state of immortality.
It is the vision of the valley of dry bones, that is de
scribed in this 37th chapter of Ezekiel: "And he said
unto me, Son of man, Pari these bories live ? and I answer
ed, '0. Lord God, thou knowest." And after the Lord had
clothed the bones with living flesh, and put breath into
them, so that they "stood up on their feet, an exceeding
great army;" " then he said unto me, Son of man, these
bones, are tlie whole house of Israel; behold, they say our
bories are dried,'' &c. The house of Israel, the prophe
sy goes^on to say, so degraded, and withered, and scatter
ed, was to be restored to its privileges and enjoy its dominion)
of territory. "Vitality was to be restored to those who
were in the "graves." They should come forth from their
low estate. I do riot say it refers to the same thing, as John
v.; but there is a similar Use of the word, "graves;" and
it shows it is not always applied to literal death; but used
figuratively, as in John v.
Now for the "marks" in the 12th of Daniel, as to the
time when the resurrection there spoken of was to be ac
complished. The 1st verse says, "Andai that time shall
Michael stand up : the grpat prince which standeth for the
children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trou-,
ble, such as never was since there was a nation even to
that same time,: and at that time thy people shall be de
livered, every one that shall be found written in the book."
This verse contains a mark. It speaks of " a time of
trouble such as never was since there was a nation," etc.
Now if you turn tp the 24th of Matthew, you will find
that Jesus Christ alludes tp it, and the time will be shown
by that context. Matthew xxiv. 21,: " For then shall be
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of
the world to this time, nor nor ever shall be." The Savior
evidently referrs to Daniel's language. When was-
the " tribulation" to come 1 See the preoeeding verses -r

universalism. 181
verse 16. "Then fet them which be in Judea flee tbyhe
mountains: let him which is on the house top not come
down to take any thing put ef his house : neiiher let him
which is in thp field return back to take his ctothes." And
wo unto them which are with child and to them which give
suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be riot
in the winter, neither on thp Sabbath day. For then, then
— at itatime— shall be great tribulation." etc. Does this
refer to the resurrectioh of the literally dead to immortal
ity? On such an occasion would he tell them to " pray
that their flight should not be in the winter, nor on the SabT
bath day" ? ! Yet so you must '"hold, if you say the '.time
referred to is in the future life. ,
There is another mark in the same chapter, (12th Dan
iel,) verse 6 : " And orie said to the man clothed in lmeri,
which was upon the waters of the river, HoW.long shall it
be to the end pf these wonders f" [Hp desires to know the
time when. Hear what the man answered :] "And I heard
the man Clothed in linen which was upon the wafers of the
river, when > he held up his right hand and, his left hand
unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it
¦shall be for a time," times, and a half; arid when [here is
the new mark,] he shall have accomplished to scatter the
power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
This last Sign is fulfilled in tiie scattering of the Jews---
¦" the holy people," as spoken of by the Prophets. That is
enough of itself. The time was when the scattering of the
holy people should be. The" Israelites were' the chosen
people of God, that were scattered at the establishment of
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ* and the resurrection pflhose
who were in darkness and ignorance — some to life, sprite to
condemnation. , I shall not dwell longer upori this, at present I merely
throw these remarks out as marks of the time when this
resurrection should occur — and did occur; and to show
that the passages had no reference to the literally dead
rising to immortality.
We come now to 2 Cor. v. 10* " For we must ail ap
pear before the judgment seat pf Christ : that rivery one
may receive the thing's in body, according to that he hath
done, whether it be good oi* bad." (L leave out the words
in Italics, "done," and " his," which are put in by •the' trans
lators, and are not in the original language— as acknowl-

182 DEBATE,. ON
edged bytjiem in the use of Italic letters.) Look at that.
Wherp is the judgment seat of Christ ?,. Where his King
dom is — here : where it has gtood for 1800 years, unless
he has had np Kingdom. It exists now, and has stood for
.1800 years. When are courts of justice established in
all correct civil governments? At the establishment of the
government .and legislature. Who ever knew of a court
being established at the winding up of the affairs of a na
tion?. They are established at the establishment of the
Kingdom, or State. You see the application of that pass
age to it. There is no variation in the Bible. It is while
we are " in ihe body ;" and not after we leave the body.
It is said we are punishpd " according to our deeds, good
or evil." I have ,saidl already that, Mr- Waller does not be
lieve this, as it is written. He does not believe the very
passages, he has quoted. Are we punished "according to
our works,". if his doctrine' be true?' Suppose a'person
.h^s lived a good life. , According to Mr: Waller, he may
be unhappy. while he lives. Is he, rewarded .after death?
No; because he happened to commit one sin before he
died; and therefore went to Hell! — and receives no re
ward-, A bad man, who has led a wicked life, is converted
just at death, and goes to heaven; and receives wo punish
ment, fet* Ms sins. Are these persons judged " according to
their worlis^ -good and evil? " No!' According to'the doc
trine of endless punishment, No man is punished according
tp his works^-not one, living cr dying., Fpr the time will
never come, when it can be .said he has been so punished-
If that tinne should come, the punishment would cease.
So of reward, if endless happiness, is his merited reward.
If his happiness goes on millions of agfes, is he rewarded?
No, he has not yet been rewarded; nor will that time ever
arrive; for if if should come, in the' progress of eternity,,
the reward would cease. Let that fact be avoided and
set aside, if possible.
But do yon believe it? some one may ask. Certainly.
while men are good, they are rewarded. They ",have
great peace," says the Psalmist. This is their reward.
f'The ways of wisdom are pleasant," says Solomon. Paul
says, " For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,
but righteousness arid peace find joy in the Holy Spirit."
So the wjeked are punished while, wicked : afterwards made
hply,„and saved, , , , ,( ,, .--¦¦•¦¦,,,:
But according to Orthodoxy, if a man has lived like an

tfNIVEft.SALIS'M. 183
angel, and sins at his death, hejhust'be serif to Hell forev
er: Arid vice versa. Ifa mah^has lived a bad life, and is
converted at death, he Mil be forever happy, according to
th'e common doctrine. According to the Bible, " every man
isto be punished according to his works." But if judg
ment is fo 'be fplldwed by endless evil, the doctrine of puri-
ishjrnent according to works as declared in the Bible, cannot
be true-: the immortal destiny then. depends on the state
of the mind and heart at death. ';.'•'
We have had Universalist writers read with regard to
several things* Let us now , hear the testimony of Ortho
dox writers with' regard to the meaning of this passage.
It is a fact "of importance, tliat people cpmmooly think of
the' doctrine of endless punishment as settled. They thirik
it strange' we dp not believe it. They' think that heretics
and heterodox people "ought to be' damned," as 1 have
heard Orthodox preachers say. Now it is a fact that al
most every- passage in the New Testament, commonly
quoted to prove the doctrine of "endless misery^' has been
explained, by one. or another eminent Orthodox writer to
relate to- misery in this life. There are a few exception's,
perhaps; but almost all are explained by one or another of
them in this; way. Among these writers, . are': Whitby,
Lightfoot, M'Knight, Hamihond. Dr. A. Clarke and Dodd
ridge — worthy, wise, learned, and- pious men. They do not
all say the same things in reference to any one passage ; but
ariiong them almost all the passages commonly quoted are
admitted to refer to punishment iri this life. I quote Light
foot on the 5th of John, merely to show ai& insfanpe of this
fact. The admissions pf men of the truth of any point,
against themselves, pf their own theories, are at great cori-
^equence. If therefore they admit the fact, in this in
stance," it shows that they have beeri compelled to do so, 111
spite art their creeds.' Says' Lightfoot on John v. ''These
words might also be applied tp a spiritual resurrectipn, as
were the former, (and so, comin"g out of graves meaneth,
Ezek. xxxvii. 12-,) the words of the verse foljowirig 'being
©nly' 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; aNB they' that do
evil, after t'hey hear the' Gospel", untO the .'Ae'surre-ctI'on
of damnation.. But they are" more generally understood
of the general 'resurrection," etc' Harm. Evang. Part.
iii. John v. 28.

184 DEBATE ON
Here, is an admission that the passage may relate to J'
punishment in this life — that it is not the literal resurrec- '
tion. I read from Paige's Selections— a selection by RevT
Lucius E. Paige, of passages from Orthodox writers1, from
books .contained in the libraries in arid near Boston, which'
are thp largest in the -'country. 1 vouch for the correct-'
ness of the passages quoted in this, bpp'k which I read. If
I read one which shall be found not correctly quoted, it
shall be published to the world- ,
; [mr. waller's eighth reply.]
It seems my misfortune in this discussion to have .an op
ponent who will not take time tp give full attention to my
arguments. The consequence is that he often misappre
hends them, and especially the main points, so that 1 am
under the necessity of-. wasting much time in explanation
for his benefit. He wholly mistook my criticism, or at
least failed. to see the, point of it, on the usage of .the par
ticle ek in connection with the resurrection. I did not
say, that it was always used when a partial resurrection!
was spoken of, but that it never, was, used with reference to
a general resurrection. Mr. Pingree had quoted Luke xx.
35, 36, to prpve that all men, in the resurrection, would be
equal unto the angels and the childrenof God. I rejoined
by, showirig that he. was mistaken in- supposing that our
Savior spoke of all men, because his language clearly
proved he did not; for he was speaking of a resurrection
from [ek — out of] the dead, which pever was applied tp the
resurrection of, all men. In proof Of this, I showed that
it was the language used with reference to the raising of
Lazarus and of our Savior; so that if it proved the resur
rection of all men, then all were raised with Lazarus and
all were raised with our Savior!-— two general resurrec
tions, the one immediately succeeding the other, which is
absurd, to suppose. Tpthiswe have had no reply — it ad
mits of no reply. It subvests forever the last hope of
Dniversalism from the language of our Savior in refuta
tion of the Sadducees. It proves that the resurrection of
the righteous is distinct from the resurrection ofthe wick
ed, and consequently nullifies the inferences of Universal
ism from the Apostle's language to.the Corinthians. It
was not at. all. necessary to show that ek was always used
when a partial resurrection was meant; it was enough

universalis. m. 185i-
that it was never^ used in any other sense. I trust I am
now understood; andJet it bpfdistinctly remembered, that
I dpfy him to shake this position.
Mr. Pingree still complains of my course: He says that.
hev called upon me in the commencement of this discussion
to, bring forward passages of Scripture, and that I would
not, but now, at the end of the discussion I pour them out
like water upon him! -Indeed, I supposed we were only
about the middle of the discussion. I did net know that
we had arrived af the end so soon!., But any way, I fhirik
the audience will be^r witness that I have kept my friend
fully as mueb employed as was consistent with his comfort.
The fact. is, he has been dealing in lamentations about my
hard usage of him all the.time. In his sepond speech he
wailed a little, and he has been quite lachrymal ever since.
I cannot please him, it seems.
• There were some things in..the gentleman's last speech
that struck my ear as familiar. I had heard them before.
ft was what he said against our views of a judgment day
• — his attempt to. ridicule it as contrary to justice tp punish
a. man before his trial. I That wit was not original — those
bright scintillations, like the Promethean fire, were stolen,
not like it, however, from heaven, but from — infidelity. I
remember to have seen this sarcasm long since in the
writings' of Tom Paine! ' -.
Mr. Pingree asserts most emphatically that all judgment
is in this life;, and- that' too, right In the face of the.Apos-
tfe's declaration, "It is appointed .unto men. once to' die,
but AFTER THIS the judgment. !" But I ani not disposed
to get round this objection against a judgment day; .but
will meet it fairly, althpugh it, originated among infidels
and is brought against the Bible. When young, this ob
jection weighed with much force Pri my own mind, and
caused me great anxiety. I knew the doctrine of a judg
ment day was taught in the Bible, asrthe infidels said; and
the question with me was, must I believe the.dpCtrine or
reject the Bible. It struck me as a most wretched system
of Jurisprudence ,to" punish a man,, and then mock him
with a trial!— to hang him first, and then try him! But
since I have become a man I have, upon looking more
closely into the subject,, put away these childish things;
and I am Vain enough to believe that I can reriiove^ this
frivolous objectipn to the .satisfaction of ah whp hear me.

186 de'bate on
The whole is founded upon the mistake, that wg hold
that no judgment is passed upon sinners until the' last day.
The truth is, we teach that the sinner " is condemned al
ready" — that "judgment has come upon, all men tp con
demnation" — that the seriteriee of the law is passed forth
with and without delay upon every transgressor; for it is
written, "Cursed is eyery "one that continueth not in all
things written in the book of the law to do them." Arid
we teach too that every believer receives his acquital in
this life; for he is justified by faith in pur Lord Jesus
Christ, arid " shallnot come into condemnation, but is pass
ed from death upto life." So then every man who dies
leaves thp world in a condemned or in a justified state-^
condemned for his sins, or justified by his faith. He has
had a trial, and the court of heaven has- passed sentence
upon his case. • ' <
But men's aptiOns do'not cease" with their lives. "It is
not, all of life to live." Tom Paine still acts in, his writ
ings. They are still exerting a most pernicious influence
upon the minds of others. We have witnessed an instance
of it this. day, iri Mr. Pirigree's sarcasms against the judg
ment. The life of every man will make an impress upon
others until the end, of time;, and with a continually en
larging influence. A pebble dtopt into a smooth lake pro
duces a rippte that enlarges, and spreads to-the shore. So
every mari, no matter how inconsiderable,' thrown into the
ocean of time, creates a wave that must roll and spread
until it breaks upon the. shores of eternity at the last day.
The orators of Greece and Rome have long been dead;
and their poets centuries agb were laid' in the grave ;> yet
how many heart* are now kindled by the glow of their
eloquence and waked to estac)' by the music of their song?
Every man has his influence on some other, either cbm-
panion'or relative; and this influence is imparted through
him toothers;, and thus like the subtle influences ofthe
electric shock extends around the entire circle of time.
The' good man ceases from his labors, but his works do
follow him— they continue to have their influerice upon
others.' It is a wise and righteous regulation then; the
appointment of a judgment day, when, after the consum
mation of time, after the actions of men can no longer
influence, for weal or. for wo, the characters of their fel
low men, they should all 'stand before the same Tribunal,

UNIVERSALISM. 187
where each could be met by all those whom his influerice
and example had benefitted or injured, and the state of
probation be thus' closed, and rewards and punishments,
meted to' each according to his deserts, be administered by
an irrevocable and eternal, sentence.
But ' as' the heavens are high above the earth, so are
God's ways above our ways,' and the question of a Judg
ment day must be settled in the light of the Bible, and not
by the Jack-o-lantern light' of human philosophy. But
before I proceed to demonstrate this doctrine by , the Bible,
Iheg leave to pay attention, briefly, to Mr. Pingree's man-
mer of disposing of certain passages which I adduced
against, his doctrine. It is wholly unnecessary to review
'all that he said on Daniel xii. 2. If I show that his con
clusions are preposterous, in the extreme, of course his
premises pass for nothing. He contended that the " sleep
in the dust of the. earth," spoken of by the prophet, had
reference to the moral degradation of the Jews in, our
Savior's time; and was nothing more than moral sleep;
and that the awaking also meant to be aroused from this
moral slumber. Every one must perceive that if. such
poetical license be allowed in interpretation, the plain letter
of thp Bible may be set aside in every case, and the whole
of it shown to be unmeaning jargon. But let us see how
his reading will appear :. " And'teany of them that moral
ly sleep in the:mdral dust of the moral earth shall morally
awake ; some to everlasting life; and some to shame and
everlasting contempt." Now the -force of this interpreta
tion may be perceived, when you remember, that the
wicked are to awake, out of their moral sleep to be, put
back into their repose again forever! They are to awake
from moral degradation in the dust of the earth, to ever
lasting moral degradation in the dust of the earth!! In
other' words, they are not aroused from their moral slum
ber at all!!! This needs no refutation. It destroys it
self. , ¦-:.'''
His comments on John v. 28, 29, were of a kindred na
ture. The " graves" spoken of were moral graves! Aye,
moral,graves!l I would be happy -to hear a description Of
the length, and breadth, and depth of these, to me, novel
tenements. I am persuaded that only, a veiy vivid imagi
nation would be adequate to do justice to these fancy
abodes. I shrewdly suspect they have " a local habitation

188 debate on
and a name" only in the very fruitful fancy of my oppo
nent, and that he only cari give a drawing of them. But
admit the explanation, and then the 'passage reads thus:
"The hour' is coming; in the whieh all that are iri their
moral graves shall hear his voice, and shall cofne forth ;
they that have done good in their moral graves (!!!) unto
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil in
their moral graves, unto the resurrection of damnation!"
Oh, the beauties of Universalism! Here we have men
doing good when morally dead and buried! and men taken
out of their moral graves where they were doing evil arid
raised to damnation ! ! I will take it as a particular favor,
if Mr. Pingree will honor me with the precise distinc/ion
he makes in the condition of those in their moral graves,
and -those in a state of damnation. No doubt too it will be
a great satisfaction to the audience. But enough upon
this most unique exposition. I need not make its absurdi
ty more-apparent.
You were told, that almost every passage adduced to
prove-endless punishment, had been explained away, by
one or another ofthe Orthodox writers. Were this even
so, I am prepared to show that they havcall been explain
ed back again by Mr. Pingree's very dear brethren and
fellow laborers. I can, if necessary, give him concession
for concession. I am prepared for all such weapons. But
he has, a most unfair way of making men speak in his fa
vor. For instance: I' observed that in the extract from
Dr. Lightfoot, which he read at second-hand, the Doctor
said the passage might refer to punishment in- this life;
and this is produced as a concession that it did refer to
punishment in this life! This is the worst of' garbling.
The distance between what may and what does exist is
what Dr. Lightfoot lacked of making the concession as
cribed to -him. And if the other concessions alluded to
are of a piece with this, and I apprehend they are, then
have these Orthodox writers been most shamefully gar
bled. I do not charge this upon my opponent. I believe
him incapable of such conduct. He never saw the au
thors, I suppose; whom he has quoted. He is dependent
for what he knows of them on the little book he has in his
hand. But concessions, no matter from what quarter they
come, can never make, good sense pf nonsense ; or make
any one receive his notions of moral graves and moral
dust of the earth.

UNIVERSALISM. 189''„
But I have been detained.top long from another matter of
more importance :— Does the Bible teach that a day shall
come when all must appear before the Son of God, and be
judged for their sins? Will Jesus come again to judge the
quick and the dead ? We propose now to examine this
matter in the light of- the Bible.
The Universalists are much divided in their views of
this subject. Scarcely any two haye written alike. God
has-confounded the language of the builders of this Babel.
Mr. Pingree, I suppose from the hints he has let fall; be
lieves that there is no such coming of our Lord— -that his
second coming was to destroy Jerusalem. That the judg
ment is in this life, and has been going on since the Intro-.
duction of the Gospel dispensation. I admit, as I have
already said, that there is a judgment passed on the actions
of men in this world; but I expect to show that there is a
day of general judgment which is yet future; and that
Christ will then appear in person to judge the quick and
the dead. The passages are sO numerous to these points,
that I shall have but little time to comment : indeed they
are so plain as to need no comment :
Matt. x. 15 — "^Verily I say unto, you, it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom arid Gomorrah, in the, day
of ~ Judgment, than for that Gity-.V So it appears that our
Savior declared that there was a day of future reckoning
for Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities were destroyed
by fire from heaven long before the advent of Jesus in the
flesh; but still he says. they are to be judged in a future
day also. I have seen a foolish, criticism in a Universalist
book to this effect. ' That our Savior said the land and
not the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah!' So it- was
Jerusalem, and Judea, and the region round about the Jor'
don, and not the inhabitants of those places, Who were
baptized of John in the river of Jordon confessing their
sins!!! See Mat. iii. 5. When such criticisms are in
dulged in, it is a proof, that the authors feel the weak
ness of their cause.
Matt, xi. 22 and 24 — "But I say unto you [Chorazin arid
Bethsaida,] it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon
at the day of Judgment than for you. * * * But I say
unto you, [Capernaum] That it shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom in the day of Judgment than for
thee." These correspond to the passage first quoted.,

190 . DEBATE' ON
Here then it is declared, that there is a future trial -— " at
the day of Judgment,, — in reserve for Tyre, Sidon, and
Sodom, who shall be judged, but- their cause will not be
so desperate, as that of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Caper
naum. Matt. xii. 36—" But I say unto you, That every idle
word that men shall speak, they shall give account-thereof
in the day of Judgment." Here, in language as specific
as it is possible to be uttered, it is said that all men, for all
their idle wprds shall give an account on a particular day
— the day of Judgment: It is not possible' for our doctrine
to be asserted in plainer terms.
Same chap. 41 and 42 — " The men of Ninevah shall
rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn
it; because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and
behold, a greater than Jonas is ,here. The Queen of the
South shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation;
for she came from the uttermost part of the earth to hear
the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solo
mon is here." Here is a judgment after death ot the gen
eration to which the Savior was speaking. Yes,- the Nin
ivites and the Queen of the South long before dead and
the generation then living were to rise together "in the
judgment." The blind can see that here is asserted a judg'
ment after death.
Matt. xxv. 31-44. also 41 arid 46 — "When the son of
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with
him, then shall he sit upori the throne of his glory; and
before him shall be gathered all natipns; and he shall sep
arate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his
sheep from the goats : and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand and the goats on his left. Then shall the King
say unto them on his right hand, Comes ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world. * * * ' * Then shall he say
unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angel's.
* * * * And these shall go away into everlasting pun
ishment, but the righteous unto life eternal." I am aware
that, Universalists apply all this to the destruction of Jeru- '
salem. But there is nothing recorded in the history of
that event at all corresponding to this description. But I
will await the advance of Mr. Pingree on this passage, be
fore I make further remarks.

UNIVERSALISM, 19f
John xii. 48 — .'¦' He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not
my. words, hath one that judgeth1 him:, the word thatT
have spoken,' the same shall, judge at tlie last day!" If
there shall come such a lime as thelast day, then men will
be judged in it: or else, we are misled by language as
plain as ever fell from the lips of the Son of God,
John xiv. 3 — " And if I go and prepare a place for you,
I will came again, and receive you unto myself, that where
I am, there ye may be also." Here >the Savior promises
to come a second time. Has this promise been fulfilled?
Acts i. 10, 11 — "And while they looked .steadfastly to
ward heaven as, he went up, -behold, two men stood by
them in white apparel; which said also, Ye men of Gali
lee, why stand ye gazing "up into heaven? This same
Jesus which is taken up from you into, heaven, shall so
come in like manner, as ye have seen him go intOheavem"
Will any man dare say this has been fulfilled? — "I pause
for a reply."
Acts iii. 20, 21 — "And be shall send Jesus Christ, which
hpfore was preached unto you : whom the heavens must
receive until the times of the restitution of all things,"
Surely the most braZeri impudence- would shririk from an,
effort to apply this passage to the destruction' of Jerusa
lem, or to any event that has transpired in the history of
the world.
Acts ,x. -42—" 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 the quick and dead." So the, Apos
tles were commanded fo preach that Jesus would judge
the living and the dead : but Universalists preach that he
will judge the living and not the dead! Who commanded,,
them so to preach? Not Jesus, unleshe has revoked the ,
command given to the Apostles.
Acts xvii. 30, 31 — God " now commandeth all men. every •
where to repent : because he hath appointed a day in which
he will judge the woridj in righteousness, by that man
whom he hath ordained." Here Paul declares tp the
Athenians that God had appointed a day in the future, when
the world will be judged. Universalists say that there is
no such day appointed!! Thus flatly contradicting ,the
word of an inspired Apostle!
Acts xxiv. 25 — " And as hp reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to e,omet,, Felix trembled." -That

192 DEBATE ON
is, Paul as he was commanded, preached unto Felix and
testified, that Jesus would judge the quick and dead— that
there was a judgment to eome. And I suspect from his
character that Felix was something of a Universalist, and
hence the propriety of that subject's being urged upon
him. He was unrighteous, and hence the Apostle reason
ed of righteousness; he was intemperate, and hence the
subject of temperance was urged.; and hence 1 have con
cluded that perhaps he was tinctured with something kirid-
red'to Universalism, arid therefore Paul reasoned with him
about a judgment to come! But this is conjecture of
criurse, and you must take it only for what it is worth.
Romans ii. 12 and 16— "For as many as have sinned
without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as
have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law, — in
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ, according to my Gospel." Now into what other
meaning can this language be tortured, than that there is
a day in the future when men shall be judged?
Romans xiv. 10-12— " For we sliall all stand before tlie
judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and everjf tongue
shaU' confess to God. So then every one of us shall give
account of himself to God." If all men were standing be
fore the judgment-seat of Christ, why did the AppStle use
the language, all shall stand? And why say all "shall give
account? " Was he so ignorant of the propriety of speech,
as to use the future instead- of the present tense? And1
when was it since the beginning of the world, that eveiy
knee bowed and every tongue confessed unto, God? Just
so certain as this is future, just so certain is it yet to come
to pass that "we shall all appear before the judgment-seat
of Christ" and "every one of us shall give an account of
himself to' God." The same inspired pen, in the same
connexion and in similar terms, has recorded both events.
2 Cor. v. 10 — "For we must all appear before the judg
ment-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." This is a parallel passage to the last.
If as Universalists teach, all men are Coristantly before
Christ's judgment seat, why did Paul say "we must all ap
pear before", it? Why say that they would then receive
according'as they had done 'good or evil in the body; when

UNIVERSALISM. 193
they must iha.ve already received: it, according to Univer
salism? •,¦-.-, ., . ' -i ¦ > ¦•
' , Cpl. iii- 4—" When Christ,, who is ©ur life,, shall, appear.
then shall ye alsoappear with him iriglory." - If he never
was to appear again except to destroy Jerusalem, what
cpuld the Apostle have meant? Surely, he did not mean
thaWhe.'Golossian phurch wOuld appear in glory at thede-
struction of Jerusalem? > A"dif they did so appear, whal;
pen; sacred or profane, has recorded the, event?
1 Thess. iv. 12 unto v„ 4 — "But L would not have you. to
Ue ignorant, brethren, concei>riing them which are asleep,
that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope. For
¦if we believe that Jesus died arid .rose again, even so them
also which -sleep in Jesws will God bring with him. Forthis
we say unto you by thewprdof the Lord, that we that are
alive and remaifi.Mnfo the coming of the' Lord shall not pre
vent them which are asleep : for the Lord himself shall de
scend from heaven with a shout, with Ihe voice pf tlie arch-
•angel, and with the trump of God; . arid the dead in Christ
*hall rise first: when we which are alive and remain shall
;be -caught up together with" them in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the. air, and so shall we ever, be with thp Lprd.
Wherefore, comfort pne another with these words. But of
the times and the seasoris.jbrethreh, you have no need that
I write, unto you : fpr you yourselves know perfectly, that
*7ie day of the Lord so cometh as athief in the night.
For when they shall say* Peace and safety,; then sudden
¦destruction cometh upon then), '.as travail upon a woman
with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren,
are not in darkness, that thatd-ay should overtake you ,as a
thief." What language could be more plain? ' And could
it refer to, the destruction of Jerusalem? But the Apostle
renews the -subject in his; next epistle : 2 Thess. i. 7-1 0
— "And to yeu who- are troubled, rest with us, when the
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
¦angels, sin flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not Gpd, and that .obey notthe Gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ; who shall he. punished with everlasting de
struction from the pres,e«oe ,ef the Lord, and from the
glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in
his saints, and to be admired in all them .that believe (be-
•cause our testimony -among you was believed) in that
day." Here is a. second comirig;of ¦our 'Lord asserted in
13

194 DEBA-jTE ON
terms that cannot be applied to any occurrence at the de
struction of Jerusalem. But the subject is resumed in the
next chapter, iri aroanner that settles the question beyond
controversy. 2 Thess. ii. 1-5 — V'Npw we beseach you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by
our. gathering together unto him, that ye.be hot soon
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,, nor by
word, nor by fetter as from us, as that thp day qf Christ is
at hand. Let no man deceive you by anymeans: for that
day shall ,not come, except, there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son °f perdition:
who opposeth and exalteth himself- above all that is called
*God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth iri
the temple of Gpd, shewing himself that he is God- , Re
member ye not, that when I. was with you; I told you these
things," etc. — read the whole chapter. ¦ Now, on this paSSr
age, permit me to remark, First, That the Thessalonians,
it appears, supposed from the first Epistle of Paul, that,
the day of the Lord was at hand. This was true if the
destruction of Jerusalem was the. event alluded. to. That
icas-M hand. In. about sixteen years from the date-af that
letter, and Jerusalem was no .more,', The Roman plough
had torn -up its., very foundations,, not leaving one stone
upon another. But the Apostle assured them that the day
of. the Lord was hot athand'; therefore, he could not have
alluded lo the 'destruction of Jerusalem,
' Second. He assures them that Jesus would not come,
until there should be a falling away, and the man of sin
should be revealed,. Did this take place before the de
struction of Jerusalem? If so, when did this fallingaway
transpire? 'And who was thte man of sin? And he as
sures them, that there were then ^hindrances in the way;
that the mystery of iniquity then began to work. Were
these hindrances re-moyed in sixteen' years?-. Did; this-
mighty engine of iniquity develop itself and go into' full
operation in that, time ? Did the soil of perdition set in the
temple of God, .showing himself, that he, was God? The
most vivid imagination cannot,, before the destruction of
Jerusalem, conjure up' any thing that bears a resemblance
to the matters here predicted. And besides, Bishop New"
ton, whom the Universalists delight to honor — and since
Mr. Pingree has adduced concessions he shall have them
to bis heart's content, and I will mete unto him' according

tTNIVERSAL'ISM. 195
as -lie has measured; unto1 me— »,Bishop Newton, I Say,
shows conclusively, that this man of sin was the papacy —
that monstrous system of superstitioh and fraud, which for
centuries has "flooded the world with blood and errors.
And: iri the Pope of Rom^, claiming' to be universal bishop
— aye, Christ's vicar, assuming, the divine attributes of
holiness and infallibility — disposing of crowns, and king
doms, and continents, as if the eartb was his'propea'ty and
the workmanship of his hands— asserting absolute domin
ion over the affairs, temporal and spiritual, of all mankind
— requiring the most abject homage- of all orders' of 'men,
from the king to the beggar^and wearing at his girdle
the keys of the kingdiom of heaven a«ld even of hades, so
that he should open and none cots'ld shut, and he should
shut and none could open, we see the- fulfillment of the
Apostle's prophesy — we reeogfiize the original of the
Apostle's portrait. Now this- man of sin had -to appear,
and rule, and- fall, before^the coming of our Lord. Then
he has not come yet. J
But Finally, Why should the Thessalonkns be alarmed
at the fate of Jerusalem? What had tttey to, apprehend
from it? They Were in no way to be affected by it, and
history proves that they were" not 'at all affected by it.
Why. then* I -ask, should they be in apprehension ? And
why did the Apostie treat the subject as one that did vital
ly concern them? I defy the powers of darkness to ans
wer these inquiries upon the hypothesis of Universalism.
-The destruction of Jerusalem did not concern the-Thessa-
lonians either temporally or spiritually.': But the coming
¦of the Lord Jesus, spoken of by Paul in his letters to
them, was- intimately arid mightily associated with their
Spiritual interests, as appears froiii the Apostle's language:
Therefore, he cauld not have alluded to the destruction of
¦Jerusalem. Now T challenge Mr. Ringree to show any
defect in this syllogism.; and ,he must prove, it radically
defective, or else admit that Jesus will come to judge the
"world. 2 Tiro. iv. (I— "I charge tfhee, therefore, before 'God
-and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and
•the dead at his appearing and- kingdom." Here the Apos
tle asserts that Jesus shall' judge the living and\THE dead?
Has this event ever occurred? Never! ' And has Univer
salism, in order to maintain its unhallowed crusade against

196 DEBATE ON
the truth, the unblushing effrontery tp» say, that it will
never occur?; v
Titus ii. 12, 13 — "Teaching w, that denying ungodli
ness, and wordly lusts, we. should live soberly, righteously,
and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed
hope, and -the glorious appearing of the great God, and ohm
Savior Jesus Chsist." This means, according to Univer
salism, that the Gospel teaches all Christians1 to deny un
godliness' and to live piously in view, of that blessed hope
'and glorious appearing of Jesus Christ in the destruction of
Jerusalem!! What folly I .
. li Peter iv. £ — " Who.^shall give account to. him that
is ready fo judge the quick and dead." ' And yet Univer
salists tell us the^de'ad are not to^ be, judged at all!
2 Peter ii. 4 and &-^-"For iF-Gpd spared not the angels
that sinned, but cast them, down to hell, and delivered them
into chaitisoif dankness;, to bereserved unto judgment., *
* : * The. Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly ©ut pf
temptations, and to reserve the uhjusf unto the day of
judgment to be punished." The Orthodox speak the very
language of the Apostle upon this subject: how. then dai=e
the Universalists change us with. not -hplding the truth,
and admit at the samp time that Peter's is the language of
inspiration? What language could be. , plainer than the
Apostle's, to assert a judgmeat day, when the wicked shall
be punished?
2 Peter iii.. 10, 12—" But the day of the Lord will come
as a thief in the night; in which:. tlie heavens, shall, pass
away with ,a great, noise, and. the elements shall melt with
fervent heat, and the eai'th, also arad the works that are
the reiji. shall he burned up. Seeing then that all these
things shall be dissolved,, what mannpr of persons ought
ye to be in all, holy conversation, and goodness, looking for
and hastening unto the coming of , the day of God, where'
in the heavpns being, on fire- shall be dissolved, arid the
. elements shall melt with fervent heat!" Bas .this event
ever transpired? When arid how? Are hot the heavens
still above our heads and, the earth beneath our feet 1 Or
Will, it he urged that all this was merely poetical?— extra
vagant hyperbole?; — that it never has occurred arid never
willoccur ?. Were we to, admit this to be so,, we would
surrerider ¦ the Bible into the hands of infidelity — no man-
could defend it.. - . ¦ , .

UNIVERSALISM. lt>T
1 John iv. 17— "Herein is our love made perfeCtythat
we may have boldness in the day of Judgiment." Here is
also taught the appointment of a specific day, called "the
day of Judgment."
Jude -vk= — "And the angels which kept not their first
estate,! but lefttheir own habitation, he hath reserved in
everlasting chains' under darkness unto the judgment of
the great dayi" And yet it is denied that there is such a
"judgment" and such a "great day."
Jude 14 and 15 — "And Enoch also, the seventh from
Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord com
eth -with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment
upon all, and to cotivine all that are ungodly amorig them
of all Iheir ungodly cteeds which they have ungodly com
mitted, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sin
ners have spoken againstjhim." Has this prophesy been
fulfilled?, It has not. Nothing has ever transpired in the
history of the wprldlike it. Will it be fulfilled ? Yes,
or the word of God has failed. Then it saps the founda
tion of Universalism, for if the, prophet had been thinking
of that system, he could riot more pointedly have branded
falsehood inaffacably upon its front.
Rev. i. 4 -x—" Grace be unto you and peace from him
which is, and which was, and which is to come." It is the
general opinion of the learned, that this book was written
after the destruction of Jerusalem; and yet John, says,
Jesus "is to come."
Rev. xx. 11, 15 — "And I saw a great white throne, and
him that sat on it, from whose, face the earth and thei Itea-
vens fled away; and there was no place- for them. And I
saw the dead small and great stand before God: and the
books were opened: anchanother book was opened, which
is the book of life; and" the dead were judged out of the
things which were written in the books;. according to their,
works. And the sea gave up the dead which were ih it;
and death and hell [hades] delivered up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged every man according
to their works. And death and hell [hades] were cast into
the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whoso
ever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire." ' '
; To conclude on this subject, I would remark, that if the
Scriptures do not teach that there is to be.,a judgment day

i$8 'DEBATE ON *
-!-a day when Jesus will come to judge the quick and the
dead, then it is not possible for human language to convey\
such an idea. Mr. Pingree might just as well labor to
convince you that I have not taught such a thing,, and that
no person ever advanced such a sentiment! Ihave not
and I cannot, nor is it in the ^power of man to use more
strong, clear, and definite terms to convey the idea of such
a period, than are used in the passages I have read. If
they do not assert that doctrine, neither have' I,- nor has
any man among the living or rthe dead. When myoppo-
nent shall convince you; that when I say, there is to be a
judgment day, when the quick arid the dead shall be judged
by Jesus Christ — that all are to stand before his judgment
seat, etc., that my language cannot mean vwhat it, clearly
imports— that I mean nothing more than what is daily
transpiring,, or that I have reference to the destruction of a
village of Indian huts or the burning of a prairie, then, I
will 1 believe — no — I dare not even then believe that holy
men of old, recording the oracles of heaven, said one thing
and,, meant another !-^-that when they, might have, used
plain language, they intentionally used that which was
calculated to make false impressions and to lead into the
most fatal errors ! ! — that they so wrote, that no man could
arrive at their meaning Without giving the plain letter of
their declarations the lie direct!!! Ask me to believe
this, and. you break me from the sheet anchor of my hopes,
and bid me cast the Bible to the flames as a tissue of the
most monstrous falehoods. No, unless you bid me to re
ject as false the plain and obvious meariing of God's word,
I am bound to believe, that " as it is appointed unto men
once to die, but after this the , Judgment ; so Christ was
once .offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that
look for him; ¦ shall , he appear the second1 time without
SIN UNTO 'SALVATION." ¦ , .,
I Wish to make one other point before I conclude, and
I invite- the gentleman's eSpeclalattehtion to it. I have-
already shown that the very strongest language was used
by the divine writers to express the duration of the pun
ishment of the wicked, as " everlasting fire," " everlasting
destruction," "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire,"-
"in danger ot eternal damnation," etc., which, if interpre
ted "according to the laws of language, (and so, I insist,
they must be interpreted,) prove the .endless punishment

UNIVERSALISM. 199
of.the wicked beyond question or cavil. The word employ
ed in these quotations in the original is aioniojsj - the mpst
appropriate word thaf could be.employed, if the Writer in;
tended to teach the doctrine of endless punishment, and'
the most inappropriate and unfortunate of all words in
that copious language if they, did not. I ask Mr. Pingree
ifa stronger word for endless duration in that language
can.be fpu'nd? -He has not answered that there was: and ,
of course by his silence surrenders the point. There is .
another word of thp same family, dion, used in reference
to the same subject. This word is used denoting futurjty,
fifty-eight times, I believe, in Ihe New Testament; and fifty-
three of these, il is confessed on all hands, to be, used to. ex
press indefinite time — in the sense of everlasting or with-
out end. The remaining times it is used with reference to
punishment. I will give some specimens , of its usage in;
relation to the punishment ofthe wicked, to the happiness
of the^ righteous, and as applied to God.
• Of the wicked^ it is said, Mark iii. 29, " he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgive-,
ness."' Of God, it is said, Rom. ix. 5, " Gpd blessed for-*
ever.". Ofthe righteous, It, is said,, John viii. 52, 53 — <'he
shall never see death,. 9 * * He shall never taste of
death." - .. ¦- ,*.-.,',
Of the wicked, 2 Peter ii. 1|7 — "To whom the mists of'
darkness is reserved forever." Of God, 2 Cor. xi. 13 —
" Who is blessed forevermore.'? Of the, righteous, John
yi. -51, " he shall live forever."
Of- the wicked, Rev. xiv. .1 1-j-" And the smoke of their,
torment ascendeth up eorever and ever." ,0f God, Rev.
iv. 9, " who liveth forever and ever." < Of. the righteous,
Rev. xxii. 5, " and they shall reign forever and ever.
Of the wicked, Rev. xix. 3, " And her smoke rose up for,
ever and ever." Of God, Eev. iv. 10, "worship him that
liveth forever and ever." ,. Of thp righteous, 1 John ,ii:
17, " he abideth forever." ' ,
,Of the wicked, Rev. xx. 10, " And shall be tormented
day aad night forever and ever." Of God, Rev. xv. 7,
" who liveth forever and. ever." Of the righteous, John
xi. 26, '* he shall never die." , ¦ ,--
.. In just as strong terms,,aye, in thevery terms,then that
the eternity of God is asserted, , or that,4b,e happiness of
the righteous shall be endless,, it is asserted 'that the pun-

200 DEBATE ON
ishment of the wicked shall be endless. Deny the latterv
and you must deny the former. ' They stand or fall to
gether.

, , [ME. PINGREe's NINTH SPEECH.]
Respected Friends:— My remarks, this afternoon, must
necessarily be desultory, in consequence of having to re
ply to so. much of the speech of the forenoon, as time will
permit me to notice. I can lay down no plan for pursuing
my argument,, for the necessity of following' him.
I shall commence where Mr. Waller- commenced.
He attempts to produce an impression, upon the audi
ence that I have presented all the arguments that,could bp
presented, on behalf of the doctrine, I advocate. Hence
that last quotation from the poets , whiph be did npt- trans
late. I will merely state that I bad intended to present in
my speeches down to, this point, all the aigu ments which I
meant to use on this occasion, except such incidental ones
as might come up in the remainder ofthe debate. I might
have occupied, time by quoting many more passages; but
rt has not beei* necessary. As has been well , remarked;
one declaration of God, if plain, and understood, is enough :
— each passage is of itself sufficient. Yet for the purpose
of having ypur attention, directied fa the whofe subject,
though not absolutely -necessary, I presented . the seven
principal arguments which establish, the doctrine. Each
is plain, and Clear, and simple. They correspond te the
seven pillars of the house, sppken of by Solomon, in Prov.
ix. 1: "Wisdom hath builded her house; she hath hewn
out her seven pillars.
All Mr., Waller's remarks upon moral resurrections in
re'ation to-the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians pass for no
thing. He does not himself believe anything about it. He
does himself believe it relates to the resurrection of the
naturally dead to the immortality. .
He calls this a mistake, which I said about the Baptists
unchurching each other. If it is not true, why do they
not commune together at the Lord's Supper? On -what
ground do they exclude pach other from that rite? But
there is strife between those Baptists and the Sprinklers,
and has been for centuries. — bitter strife; and that between
good men, who all expect to go tp heaVen. I say they can

UNIVERSA&I SM . 201
never dwell together in heaven, peaceably, unless they are
changed at or after death. , -
In relation to his remarks ahout the sinfulness of the
flesh, allow me to remark, that according to Paul arid
others, all ave under the influences of sin, while "subject
to vanity," in this life,, but when -the flesh is thrown off,
the spirit is free. Mr. Waller will admit this in reference
to'some, but why are some deprived of 'their bad disposi
tions in a future state, while others are not? Men die in
different states. How is it that immortal spirits are able to.
sin in the future as. here ? I thought all the evil influences
of "the flesh" were confined to this life, and did not
extend to the future and incorruptible state. The Devil
and' Sin, and Death, are to be destroyed by Christ; so that
they shall exist no longer. Where then are the evil influ
ences to legd men to sin hereafter? 1 put it to you, if it
can be so, in the nature of things. Mr. Waller has now
given, us the list of passages- — some thirty or forty. , I can
not examine them all, • What shall I do? He represents
me as complaining, it he quoted Scripture; and also, if he
did not. . I have not done so; nor do I wish to do so. I
only asked him in the beginning of the discussion, to quote
some of his leading passages in season for free and full
discussion;, and not to pour them out in a mass, when it
Was too late to give them a due examination. But he has
©hosen not to do so. He rather depends upon the preju
dices ot his auditors tp explain all the passages as they are
commonly explained. I do not do so; I give two or three
at a time, of the leading passages on my side. I might
have tbrown.forty or fifty texts upon his attention at onCe,
as he has done, to me. What, then, shall I do now? I
must, from the necessity of the case, select and examine a
few of the most prominent, if he will not select them him
self. ....... "-. , ,
: One of the ^strongest of the passages quoted by him is,
that some have "never" forgiveness — :butarein danger
of " eternal damnation." I first remark, that if this refers
to a future life,.ihe inquiry arises, What does it mean? It
is said " all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiv
en unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor the world
to come." Therefore some sins may be forgiven in the
world to come, aside from -. blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

202 derate, On
The Romish Purgatory, instead of the Protestant Hell, in
tervening between dpath and the resurrection, would be
established by the passage. ', Does Mr. Waller believe this?
He must, if it relates to the future state of existence.
. I, shall not dwell Upon thp phrases, "hath never forgive
ness," and "eternal damnation," till afterwards. All the
passages which say " God will not have mercy," etc., ate not
to be understood as extending through our whole existence.
For a certain time, he Will not have mercy, and we are not
not to/receive pardon. But. afterwards, we shall.
Paul says that murderers, etc., shallnot inherit the king
dom of God. This is plain, positive, and explicit. But
does he say they will never come into it? Shall they by no
means, nor ever inherit it? Paul does not say so; for in
that case, none con1 d be- saved ! but the next verse reads,
" and such also were some of you." But it says.afterwards,
"But ye are washed," etc, So the sinner can by no means
enter the kingdom of Gpd while in a sinful state; but the
grace of God may afterwards fit him, to enter, as in that
case; and in all cases, finally, asl have abundantly proved'.
So that none of these passages have any bearing on the
point. Jesus Christ said once to his disciples, including
Peter, " whither I go, you cannot come,": He might have
said, never; "but," he adds, " thou shalt follow me-after-
wards." And so it is with all the other passages of the
same kind. This illustration bears on them all.. None of
these passages are in opposition to the doctrine" ot final
universal salvation. They only relate tp a certain period
of time.. - ¦-¦'"''-.'. .-•'¦'•
, My friend attempted to make out that there was some
inconsistency between a man being made not sinful, and
heing cleansed of sin. He says,, " no man liveth and sin
neth not." Therefore all die sinners, of course. He in
sists there is no change after death, except that the saints
have a new body. If ah die sinners, and; there is no
change after death in their moral character, then how are
any to be saved? Some men are justified and, become
righteous in this life, to some extent; but it does not follow
that they will never sin again. Ina future life they may
hold on, but not always here. I claim that a man may sin
forty, or forty thousand times, and yet be cleansed after
wards. The inconsistency rests upon his own head; be
cause if all men sin while on- earth, arid, all -sinners, are

U V I V E R S A I. I SM . 203
damned §tei'nally* and no moral change takes place after
death, JlLL mankind, without a single exception, must go to
Hell ! Here we have universal damnation preached as a
substitute for, universal salvation ! ^
He attempts again to ridicule the idea that men were
punished for sin and then forgiven.}, Why. did he not, set
aside the passages of God's Word that , speak of it ? Sup
pose human governments should follow this example, and
forgive or pardon criminals, merely because they should
ask it? as it is said God will do--in that sense of the word,
forgiveness. When men ask to be forgiven and repent,
wherein all human governments is there one that pardons
them on these terms? It would not do, then, to apply the
law Divine, as expounded by. Mr. Waller, to the. operation-
of any human, government. It would throw all things into
anarchy and misrule.
He ridicules the idea that forgiveness, and cleansing,.
and taking away .sin, are the same thing. He says that
forgiveness is orily taking away the punishment of sin. Is
that any better? Does it correspond better with the idea
of purification, or making holy, and righteous; that is,'the
justifying the sinner? Does that change, or cleanse, or-'
wash the sinner? No ; it merely delivers him from im
pending danger in the life to come. The ridicule falls
with tenfold more force upon his own head than upon
mine. Referring to the resurrection, he speaks ot the just dead]
and the unjust dead. I dont know that the dead,, as such,'
ave either just or unjust, pr have any character at all; but
the " just" and ** unjust" are those who are alive, and
doing justly or unjustly.- After they are dead, I dont know
that they have that character. I dont think the Bible says;
so. His own quotation from David, who speaks of riotgtvT
ing thanks " in Hell;' or Hades, shows what use is made of
that word in the Bible. Solomon says, " There is no wis
dom, nor -knowledge, nor divice in the grave"— Heb. Sheol.
Sep. Gr. Hades: ¦: Is there, then, any character?
Mr. Waller attempted to set aside the ideaof conversion
in -the grave. What Universalist has ever held that? I do;
not; at least.. In thegrave they cannot praise ,God,is" nor
have they any more a reward." .Knowledge and reward
are in this life; and after that, a resurrection to immortal
life ancf happiness, as the free gift of God. ' Somuch isto

204 DEBATE ON
be \ remembered respecting -the resurrection of the "just
and unjust dead."
. He denies, upon the strength of the Greek word ek,
that the resurrection spoken of in the 15th of 1 Corinthi
ans, is a resurrection of all men. The Savior Settles that
question as well as Paul,' Paul in 15 Cor. says, that all
who die in Adam shall rise in Christ, and to the glorious
liberty of the sons- of God. ' Jesus Christ says, aside from
that declaration of Paul, that'they shall be as tbe angels of
God in heaven; and adds, " all. live unto Him." Does it
require no change after death, to make eveh the best men
" equal to the angels, of God?"
He quotes the allusion of Scripture to Moses and the
burning bush, where Christ says, that "God is not the God
of the dead, but. of the living*" to show that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, were still living, when thatoocurred, and
not dead. And he says -"all -the sairlts live unto him."
JesusChrist does not say tlidt: he says, "for ALLlive unto
him." That is proof in our favor. '" All live uiitoGod;"
that is, prospectively, in the sense of being raised from the
dead to glory; and the condition of holy angels. The
word ek, amounts to nothing, therefore, in oppositiori to,
oUr Faith. Enough on that point.
One remark on Matthew xxv. 41: "Depart ye cursed
into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."
He argues that this applies to a future life. You recollect
the passage from Corinthiahs: " deliver such an one to Sa
tan, for the destruction of the flesh," etc. There the sin
ner, delivered over to Satan, was spoken of as "saved in
the day of the Lord Jesus." Was this man, when deliver
ed to Satan, delivered to endless fire? No; for he-is after
wards pardoned, because he had suffered enough. The
Devil himself is to be destroyed; arid all. they will be "de
livered," who were in his power. — Heb. ii- 14, 15. Are we
to suffer by the Devil, when the Devil is dead? Besides,
what power will there be in fire, in the immortal state?
What influence can it have on an incorruptible spirit ?
What spirit ever wanted water, when it had left the body,
and was in Hades? alluded to in the Parable of the Rich
Man and Lazarus, and said to be' in ihe future life, if the
spirit is exempt entirely from the influence of the bodily
appetites? So much for, the influence of fire upon incor
ruptible beings; hence it can not be in eternity.

UNIVERSALISM. SOS
He said that Universalists had borrowed/ their argument
about men being punished before they were judged,- from
Thomas Paine, Voltaire^ and Rousseau,. Does he wish to
reject, the doctrine of universal salvation, merely because
Tom Paine had one. idea that we have,, and identify him
with us? . Is that right? • Is it an argument to beexpected
from a man who intends to do fairly? to endeavor to identify
us with infidels? Suppose Mr. Waller was to preach the
doctrine that there was only one God, and Tom Paine also
argued the same thing; and an Atheist should «ay, O! I
have heard Torn Paine; the infidel, use the same argument!
Would he esteem it fair, because he happened to agree
with Tom Paine in one particular, that he should be held a
follower of Pairie, or that the point in which he agreed was
therefore of course false?
But it happens that Tom Paine was not a Universalist.
-He believed iri punishment in a future life, for sins com
mitted here. He belongs therefore rather to Mr. Waller,
than tome. I acknowledge hirri not; he held and taught
the Partialist doctririe of a future judgment and punish
ment with Mr. Waller. Let him not speak lightly of such
a friend. ' •'•'.>.'
, Lord Herbert, another celebrated. infidel, was also a be
liever in endless and infinite misery in a future life. He
would also belong to Mr. Waller's party, upon the same
principle which he attempted to apply tp me, But I pro
test against any such manoeuvres, and such appeals to pre
judice to help out an argument. Tom Paine may have
held some good sentiments ; so may Voltaire. But as
infidels, we have no lot or part with them. You know it.
You all know it; Mr. Waller knows it, and knows that it is
gross injustice to class us as his disciples.
He has said that he was once nigh upon the borders of
the same difficulty. That the same thought arose in his
mind, that it was unjust to punish before judgment, suppo
sing the theory to be true that men go to Hell when they
die, and that they are all to be judged together at some
future period. But at last it occurred to him that the
reason of this was that all the evil works that sinners do
in their lives, survive them, and operate injuriously on
mankind long after they arevdead; and consequently the
whole consequences of their sins cannot be, judged of be
fore the final winding np of the affairs of men. There is

206 debate on
an interval, sometimes, of thousands of years between the
sin and the judgment df it; and in the mean time the pun-,
ishment is going on in Hell, from whichthey are never to
get out. - .
, In reply to this,,let.us suppo$e Tom Paine had been con-
vertedlto Christianity, before he died ; and suppose him
brought to judgment. Would he be judged for.5hi3 evil
works? Mr. Waller hiriiself does not, believe it. This
explanation then goes for nothing;. While' the wicked
work he;wrote was still on earth,, to work its evil influence,
lie is not judged by its evil influence ; but goes to heaven,
and. enjoys the blessed presence of God, while his works
are working the damnation of thousands here on earth du
ring an indefinite period of ltimej hecause by clianging be
fore he dies, and being converted, all his, sins are washed
away ; he is not judged or punished for therm His argu
ment, therefore, is of no eorisequence in getting over the
difficulty. v ,
The gentleman has said a great deal about ,*' moral
graves." I never Said any thing about f moral graves."
1 said that in certain passages containing the word
"graves," that word was not used in the signification of
the.state of the naturally arid literally dead;— -that it was
uged figuratively, referring to the degradation of. man in
-his present life; and I proved it by Ezekiel, where the men
were still living, to Whom the same phrases were applied:
" brought up out of their graves"- — not " moral -gravesj,"
but something .different from the natural signification. His
attempt to cast ridicule upon me by reading passages arid-in
troducing fhe phrase " moral, graves" into them, was use
less, and not to the point. But he said " those who do
good in the moral graves come forth to life." Says- the sa
cred writer, (Acts x. and xi.,) Cornelius the centuriari was
a good and devout man; but it was necessary for him to
have something else, before he could enjoy the resurrec
tion to, life — the moral resurrection. He must hear the
Gospel, so as to be "saved." Peter instructed him: he had
not known the full Gospel, before: he was in "the graves"
of darkness and , ignorance. Others had heard, and not
believed. Hence they came fourth to the resurrection of
damnation ; as in the case of the '" five foolish virgins,"
in Matt. xxv. ; while the others, though in the darkness of
night* viatclied, were ready when the voice was- heqrd,

UNIVERSALISM. 207
" Behold the bridegroom cometh !" and received the full
life of thp Gospel. This parable illustrates the 5th fo
John. Before going further, I will make some remarks upon
the kingdom and coming of JesuS Christ, after his first
personal coming to offer himself a sacrifice for the human
race. That he was to come again, there is no dispute.
Mr. Waller asserts that his second coming is to be in per-
Bon, and is yet future ; and that he' never has come sinCe
his first coming in person to give himself a ransom for
man. >
I will, now state the doctririe as we, hold it. After the
resurrection and ascension of Christ, he was to come in
"power," and in his kingdpim, and iri, the glory of the Fa
ther, in the life-time of some who heard him speak; and
then there was to be ariotheiya personal coming, at the
resurrection of man. In his coming In his kingdom, the
judgment was i to commence. In his third coming, there' is
rio judgfnenl. The judgment is then closed, fhe kingdom
returned to God,'and He become "all in all." There are
at least three comings of Christ declared* The second Was
to be in powdr, not in person. The two others are per
sonal, although' in a restricted sense he may come fre
quently : any display of his power may be called his com
ing. 'Now for the prodf: In 16th Matt. 27 and 28, we read
thus: : " For -the Son of Man shall come in the glory of
of his Father with his angels; and theri he shall reward
every man according to bis Works." [I suppose this to be
the coming at the full establishment of the kingdom of
God. The next verse answers the question, when is Jesus
Christ to come to reward man according to his Works?]
" Verily I say unto you there be some standing here wbich
shall not taste of death till they see ihe Son of man coming
iri his kingdom." This is directly to the point.' If norie
are now living, whom the Savior addressed, he has already
come, in that sense, if he spokethe truth. James says, (ch.
5. v. 7 and 8,) " Be patient therefore brethren,'Uhfo the
coming of the Lord. ¦ Behold, the husbandman waiteth for
the precious fruit of the earth, arid hath long patience foe
it until he receive the early and the latter ra-iri. Be ye
also patient; establish your hearts : for the coming of the
Lord dra:we'th nish."
He means that the coming of the Lord was near at hand

108 DEBATE 0 N
at the time he wrote. How as, to the: declaratiori ; of -Paul
thaf '• there must be a falling away first?" Is there not
some "difficulty here? No. Because When he wrote, it
was not so near, at hand, as some supposed; although the
mystery of iniquity "had already begun to work," at tha^t
time. Arid what does John say ? " Even i now there are
many anti-christs, whereby we know that it is the last time."
(1 John ii. 18.) And accordingly not a great while after
wards, Jesus Christ did make his appearance in the clouds
of. Heaven, tn his kingdom, with power and great glory.
John in Revelation, says, (and I believe it Was written
before the destruction of Jerusalem, from internal evi-
denpe;) "Behold he cometh, and every eye shall see him
^nd they which pierced him,and all the kindreds ofthe earth
shall Wail because of him." The angel was to show John
that which " should sliortly come to pass ;"; the time was
then '.•at. hand.". Was it to be put off for thousands of
years? No: It was nigh " at hand ;" though it was not
so near, when Paul wrote. "Behold, I Come quickly," is
the language, in the last chapter of Revelation. We say
that the coming in power and kingdom of the Lord Jesus
Christ was in that " generation-" as Jesus Christ says in
the 24th of Matthew — referring to the judgment exercised
by Jesus Christ, yet speaking. not a word about the re
surrection. When hp speaks of those who go "into ever
lasting fire," thereis not a word saidabout the resurrection.
Hence it is not proper to take those passages as referring
to a future life. The passage in the immediate connection
— " pray that your flight be not in the winter, ot on the
Sabbath day" — proves that it,dpes not refer to the resur
rection of the dead.
This passage, (Matt. xxiv. 29,) is supposed by some to
be literal, and to declare a real change of the heavens and
the earth. I will explain this. It is like the 2d. chapter
of Acts. I say it is figurative, as applicable to changes in
goyerments, empires, and rulers, civil and ecclesiastical.
It dpes not refer to a literal dissolution of the heavens.
Now for the proof of this position : Peter, addressing
the Jews on the day of Pentecost, says, (Acts ii. 15,) "For
these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the
third hour of the day. But this is that [mark this] which
was spoken by the prophet Joel: and it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God;" [thjis. is spoken not of the

UNIVERSALISM. 209
dissolution of the earth; but of the' end of, thstt dispensa
tion, emd embraces a period of some extent of iime;] "I
will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh : and your sons
and your daughters shal.l prophesy, and your young men
shall. see visions and your old men Shall d,ream dreams:
and on my servants, and on my handmaidens. I will pour
but in thpSe days of my spirit ; and they shall prophesy:
And I will show -wonders in heaven. above, and signs in the
earth beneath;, blopd and fire, and vapor of; smoke. The
stm shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before that' great and notable day gf fhe Lord pomp."
Peter says this which they then witnessed, was that which
Was spoken of by the prophet Joel. Joel used that lan
guage, and Peter interpreted it to apply to events then
actually passing before them.
Now see Isaiah xxxiv., on this use of language by the
prophets. Speaking of the desolatipn of Idumea, he saya,
(the passage ..itself shows that it does not refer to the liter
al dissolution of the heavens,) "And all the host of heaven
sltall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together
as a scroll: [this illustrates what is said by Peter in his
Epistle;] "and all their host shall fall down, as thp leaf
falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig 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
icurse, tp Judgment." ,
All this language relates to. thp temporal desolation of
Idumea. I will now read the passage in Revelation vi. 12 : "And
I beheld when he opened the sixth seal, and lo! there was
a great earthquake : and the sun became black as sack?
cloth of Itair, arid the moon became as blood : and, the stars
of heaven fell unto ihe earth, even as a. fig, tree casteth her
untimely figs, when she is shaken of a'mighty wind. And
the heaven departed as a scroll, when it, is rolled together,:
and every mountain and island were moved. out of their
places. And the kings of the .earth and the great men,
arid the rich men,, and the chief captains, and the mighty
men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid them
selves in the dens and thp rocks of the mountains; and
said to the ihountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us
from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from
14

210 DEBATE ON
the wrajth of,,th,e Jjamb: for thp gre?tt day of his wrath is
eome; and. who shall be able to stand?"
All these passages, then, illustrate the use of this kindof
language, as applied to moral and civil, or political and
ecclesiastical changes upon the earth; theydowoi prove the
literal dissolution Of the material universe.
Mr. Waller has said that Hell or Hades was a place for
departed spirits, both good and bad;; containing a; depart
ment for each, j. e. Abraharn's bosom, and Tartarus; and
I have shown in the 20th of Revelation, that death and Hell
were cast into the lake of fire. Here is Hell containing
Hell and Abraham's bosom cast into the lake of fire. Here
We have more a3 to tne lake of fire, as I will now show, in
the 34th chapter of Isaiah. I will show that the lake of
fire does not refer to the eternal state. Speaking of Idu
mea, the desolations of the land, and of the people dwell
ing upon It, (verse 9.) he says. ".And the streams thereof
shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brim
stone, and tile land thereof shall become burning pitch.
It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof
shall go up forever," etc.
Here is the same language applied to the desolations of
Idumea which were temporary, and confined ta this life.
It was, to beoome burning pitch, and the fire was not to be
quenched: and " the smoke thereof was to go up forever.'''
My frierid said something about the term, " forever," and
" forever and forever." Here I show the same words ap
plied to the temporal desolation ofthe land of Idumea.
But perhaps he will say, what of this? Hp may say'it
meant the future state of eternal damnation in that case,
after all. Let us see. Isaiah says, " the cormorant and
the bittern shall possess' it;" [do they possess' the future
Hell?] "the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it;" [do
they dwell in the spiritual Hell of fire?] " and thorns shall
come up in heri palaces, nettles and brambles in the fort
resses thereof." [Do thorns grow iri the palaces of Hell ?
©o brambles and nettles grow in the fortresses of Hell \ X]
What then do I quote this passage for?" To show the
figurative use of that kind of language in Scripture. It all
refers to things on earth, and in fipie. And so I might re
fer to all those passages containing the same language;
'but it is not necessary. I do not say that they all refer. to
-the same events, but similar ones.

UNIVERSALIS.M. 2I|
1 am talking now ^bout the 24th chapter of Matthew ;
and the " tribulation" mentioned there, the dissolution of
the heavens, etc, as contemporaneous with the coming of
the Lord Jesus in power and glory, to establish his kingr
'dom, and judge the world. The "same coining is spoken
<of by him iri Matt. xvi. 27^ 28; in both which chapters,
Jesus Christ says it is to be within the life t i'me of some
who were them, living* Why else should he say ye
that are now living sfoall see' " the signs and, won
ders" preceding this evefit, if if is to happen jn this very
"generation" now living, or hereafter? Why should he
restrict it, as he did, to that lime? It was then'hd told
them, near, at the doOr. Those then liviiig were to look
for all this? "this feneration shall not pass till all these
things be accomplished."
In the face of these deelaratioHs, my friend* alluding to
these very signs and wonders, asks incredulously, "Have
we seen ar.y such things come to pass?11 Who is correct?
Is he, or Jestfs Christ ? He must either Say that Jesus
Christ did not bome, as he said he would come; or else^
that the word of God is true, and he did come.. But we
are now told that it was W0T done,* which is a flat, dirpct,
positive contradiction of the very Words «f Jesus Christi
And the sarne remarks apply to all the other passages
where this second coming is predicted; though in some pf
them, it was not so netir at hand as the Thessalonians had
supposed. I 'would believe that Jesus Christ did come iri
power and glory, when he said he would come, rather than
as in these latter days it is said, that he would come iri
4843. Hp spoke -ef Bishop Newton, amd of "concessions" made
by him. Those concessions were not'against his own sys
tem, though his system does riot agree with mine. This
is the difference between his cpncessioris and those other's
whidb I qiioteel from Orthodox writers of celebrity — these
from Whitby, Lightfoot, and others. In those cases, the
«idrnJssions are directly n/jgdinst the system they held, and
are therefore of importance. The cases are not in the
least parallel. Mr. Waller has the privilege of bringing
all the quotations he choosesrfrom fhe great store-house of
Universalism, the Bible itself, as well as all the writings of
all the great and good men who have believed in universal
salvation, upon the questipn;before us; and Iam, willing he

212 ri,EBA'TE ON *
sheuld. do so, that we may see how firmly they all write on
the great doctrine of universal salyation. "It is true, they
differ in minor things; but the great point of the final de
liverance of all human souls, they taught, as the same is
now taught by all Universalists. I have nothing more to
notice at present, in relation to that point.
I will now quote the 20th of Revelation, with a few re
marks: "And I saw a great white throne, and him that
sat on it, from whose fape the earth and the heaven fled
away ; and there was found no place for them. And I saw
the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books
were opened ; arid, another, book was opened, which is the
book of life : *md the dead were judged out of those things
which were written in the books,, according to their
works." 1 wonder who the "dead, small and great," are?
if we .understand the language" literally, ahd to refer to
ihe future life. Does the language mean great sinners,
and small sinners? or adults, and infants'! But Mr. Wal
ler says that infants are not judged," because they can dp
nothing wrong, and nothing good.
Mr, Waller. — I say nothing about infants.
, Ms- Pingree.— If they have no, knowledge or will to do
gpod or evil,, they have in fact no character. But I will
pass on. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in
it; and death and Hell delivered up the dead : and they
were judged, every man, according to their Works." That
is the same Hell in which the rich man was> a°d thus the
rich man is taken out of Hell. I urge it upon him, and
upon you, that it takes the rich man Out of Hell; if Hades
is properly Hell. "Death and Hell [Hades] delivered. up
the dead that were in them, arid were cast into the lake of
fire." Now was Abraham's bosom, [which was part of
Hades, according to Mr. Waller,] with Abraham in it, Cast
into the lake of fire? I shallnot enter' into explanations
now;l only want to show some of the absurdities which
arise from the common interpretation : a Hell in a Hell is
cast into a third' Hell; that is, into TartarUs, that is, into
itself n [MR. WALLER'S NINTH REPLY.]
I deem it unnecessary, and shall not therefore attempt
to follow Mr. IPingree in' all the positions of his last speech.
They are the same that have hitherto been discussed'; and*

UN.,1 VERBAL I SM. 213
to reply to .them would but be tp reiterate what has been
again and again said,. The gentleman has such a fondness
for his arguments that nothing seems so much to delight
him as to hear himself repeat fhein. Their utterance in
his own melodious tones appears to fall with ravishing ,
sweetness upon his ears. If necessaiy, the matter of the
Judgment will be further attended to..,
He still misrepresents the views of the Baptists; but as
I. do not esteem them in great danger frpm his assaults, J,
will not now enter into their defence. If an opponent
wprthy of my' steel, shall take the fipld against them, he
may expect to hear from me. Until then 1 aril, not dispo
sed tp leave the weightier matters in hand. ,
Mr. Pingree, is an opponent of, no ordinary daring. He
boldly, Confronts the 'Savior himself* and asserts a sin will
be forgiven, although fhe Son of God declares it shall
never be forgiven ! . Perhaps I misunderstood him- — IhOpe
I did. He seemed, however, to argue, that our Savior was
mistaken in saying the sin against the Holy Ghost hath
never forgiveness; for; in Mr. Pingree s judgment, all
sins are forgiven !..' He felt that either Jesus or Univer
salism did not'teaeh the truth pn, this subject; arid he has
left the former, and cleaved tp the Tatter/;. Not did he stop
here. He boldly poured the wafers on the everlasting
fires, and declared them extinguished, although the Scrip
tures teach thai, they shall not be quenched ! Of course,
I cannot, stand before an opponent whose giant arm is too
mighty for the omnipotence of divine truth ! [f he will
not regard the words of pur blessed Savior, in vairi may I
hope that he will listen to my words, „
He did not positively affirm, but, wifh some trepidation
of manner, seemed to insinuate that when ek was used ip
reference to the resurrection, that all the dead were in
cluded. Admit this, and what follows? Why, that when
Lazarus arose, all the dead arose with him! for he arose
out qf the dead. And when Jesus arose? all the dear] rose
again! for he too arose out of the dead.
1 have had no occasion tp use Tom Paine^s wit. The
gentleman tries to excuse himself for drawing on him for
some of his arguments, by alleging that Paine was a Par-
tialisl. Grant this, still this, was not peculiar to his ^ys}-
tem— it was not original. But Mr. Pingree borrowed from
his system and from what is peculiarly infidel in its origin.

2T4 DEBATE ON
Pairie was net an Atheist; and until Universalism arose,
nothing but Atheism ever had- the effrontery fo deny a fu
ture state ef rewards and punishments. Paine had too
iffuch common sense to embrace the absurdities of Atheism.
Excuse me for once more referring to the 15th chapter
of 1st Corinfhtans. It is the gentleman's main fortress;
and although I have driven him from it, still helingers
about its f uins. I have said and proved that, this chapter
was written especially to comfort the righteous under their
persecutions, by presenting to them the glorious estate in
reserve foi'Hhem at the resurrection. The whole connex
ion shows this. The^ all die in Adam and shall all rise in
Christ. They have borne the image of the earthy, and
shall bear tite image of the heavenly. He is' speaking of
those 'who " are Christ's,;" and not of those who are not
Chrises, as Mr! Pingree does. Besides it is apliysical and
not a moral change which th© Apostle alludes to; and,
therefore,' is wholly inadequate tpthe wants of Universal
ism. Has Mr. Pingree met these positions which I have
again arid again pressed up6n hss consideration ?, He has
no(, and he cannot. And until he does, I deem if wholly
imneeessary to notiee his spasmodic efforts to evade them.
'¦' I. commenced the other day to show that this state of be
ing is not a perfect state of retribution. I mow return to
that Subject, and in persuing this course* I iritehd to bear
down broadside upon all that Mr. Pingree has said. I carp
riot to attack him iri detail ;T wish to crash his whole sys-
terri in mass. I 'do this to save; time and to spare your pa
tience. ' I will now proceed from where I left off.
Fifth : The sufferings of the Son of God proves tliat there
is not a perfect retribution in this life — tliat sin does not suf
ficiently and adequately punish itself
Universalists must assert either that Jesus suffered just
ly for his own sins; arid thus flatly contradict the Bible,
which teaches that he was without sin and knew no sin,
that guile was not found ip his mouth; that he was holy,
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, and rirade
higher than the heavens: or else they must assert, that he
died in the room and stead of sinners, bearing their siris
in his own body upon the tree; and thus flatly contradict
themselves; for they assert that each man's sins are borne
by himself, and not by the Son of God,

UNIVERSALISM. 215
If they take either .horn of the dilemma, their cause
fails. Sixth: Jems told his disciples that they, we're to be pe%-
seailed in this world, not because of sin, but because of
righteousness. Now, unless my opponent can show that
persecution for righteousness' sake is a just "retribution,
then this is not a perfect state of rewards and punish
ments, ,
Matt. v. 10 — -12: ',' Blessed are they who are persecuted
for righteousness' sake; tor theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute
you, arid shall say all manner, of evil against you falsely,
for my sahei rejoice and be exceeding glad; for 'great is
your reward iii heaven; for so persecuted they the pro
phets which were before you,.1' Here it is asserted that
good men for their righteousness shall be perseputed in
this world,: and this Universalism says is just and right:
nay more, that this is all their reward, although our Sa
vior says, that their reward is in heaven ! [[
Matt, xxiii. 29— 3& "Woe unto you scribes and Phari
sees, hypocrites ! because ye build the tombs' of the pro
phets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and
say, if we had jbeen in the days of our fathers, we would
not have been partakers with them of the blood of the
prophets. Wherefore ye Be witnesses unto yourselves,
that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye ser
pents, ye generation of Vipers, hoW can ye escape the
damnation of Hell." This pass^ge,(I hope,; will remove
from Mr. Pingree's eyes all that film about God's punish
ment being fatherly and kind, and inflicted for the refor
mation of the sinner.
I intend,' in due time, to offer some remarks pn the term
Gehenna—" hell." Mr. PinglieP\ Iucubfattons on it. aiid
pn Lazarus, hades, Abraham's bosoni, etc., must pass fpr
the present. They will se'fve for his employment and
our amusement. When thp right time arrives, I expect
conclusively tp demonstrate that he is. wholly ignorant of
these subjects.-' But to prbcped ':'
Luke vi. gl— 26: " Blessed are ye that hunger now;
for ye shall be filled. , Blessed are ye that weep now; for
ye shall laugh. Blessed ai'e ye when meri shall hate you,
arid When fhey shall separate y&u fromtheir company, and

216 DEBATE OS,
shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for
the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap
for joy, for in like manner did their fathers. Woe unto
you that are rich, for ye have' received your consolation ?
Woe unto "you that are full ! for ye shall Hunger. Woe
Unto yon that laugh now ? for ye shall mourn and weep,
Woe unto you when aFl men shallspeak well of you."
Now what can these passages mean, except to encourage
the saipts under persecution in this world, iu View of a
glorious reward in the next; and to warn. sinners who re^
ceive their pleasure here, by the fearful retributions that
aWait them hereafter? But they can in no way be con
strued tofavov the dpctrine, that the present is a state of
perfect retribution; Indeed, the idea of all rewards and
punishments being confined to this life, owes its origin to
the brains of Universalists, like. Purgatory, which is loca
ted in the Cranium of the Pope.
Acts vii. 57 — .60: " Then they cried with a loud voice,
ahd stopped'their ears, and, ran upon him with -one accord^
and cast him out of the city arid stoned him : and the wit
nesses Jaid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose
name was Saul. , And they stoned Stephen, calling upon
God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, , And hft
kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord,' lay not
this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, h6
fell asleep."
Did Stephen, who was persecuted for the testimony of
Jesus, thus receive his reward in this life? Universalism
answers, yes !
Romans-viii. 35 and 36: "Who shatl separate us from
the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or per
secution, or famine, ornakedness, or peril, or the sword ?
As it is written, For thy sake are we killed alt the day
long; wp are accounted as sheep for, the slaughter."
Thus are the righteous rewarded, according to Univer*
salisiji! You must believe' these persecutions to be bless
ings in this life, or else you must abandon' the doctrine of
my opponent ! Can you hesitate in your decision?
I Cor. iv. 11 — 13: " E\*en unto this present hour we
both hunger. and thirst, and are naked,, and are buffetted,
and have- no certain dwelling place; iind labor, working
with our own, hands. Being reviled, we bless; being per
secuted, We suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are

UNIVERSALISM. 217
¦7 t . .
made, as the filth of the world, and are the off-sppuring of
all things unto this day." Again, 1 Cor. xv. 19 — h.h in
this life only We have hope in Christ, we are pf all men
most miserable." Again, verses 31 and 32: " I protest by
your rejoicing, I die daily. If after the manner of men,
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth, it
me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink for to-mor
row we die." Tliis argu rhent applies with equal force to
Universalism. Why suffer for religion in this world, if
we gain nothing by it in fhe world to come? Let us enjoy
ourselves as do the ungodly. Let us eat and drink for to
morrow we shall all be happy.
I bring no charge of immorality against Universalists.
They riiay be all very moral, for ought I know; but then
they are so in. spite of their, system; for 1 do qharge that
the tendency of their system is immoral. Now suppose a,
man should Come here, and profess to be the advocate of
iri4ustry, and yet .contend that' people could raise as much
corn and make as milch money by npt working. as with it;
nevertheless, should urge the importance of industry from
its advantages to health: think you, if he could convince
people of this, every plough wpuld not stop, arid the sound
of every Hammer Would not cease to be heard? Just so,
Universalists take away the reward , of righteousness here
after, and what then is' left to nerve them to, forego the
pleasures of sin and endure persecution for the, sake of
righteousness? Sin is so sweet to the natural taste, and
the cross of Christ such a burthen to men, that if you take
away the punishment in the life to 6ome, arid hold out a
blessed immortality to all, they Will be sur6 to say, Let us
eat and drink, for to-rriorrbw we wiU all be in hpaven !
Really, this is offering a premium to sin.
2 Tim. 'ii- H "and 12: "Persecutions and afflictions,
which came unto me at Antioch, at Icoriium. at Lystra;
whatpersecutions 1 endured : but out of therii all the Lord
delivered nie. Yea, and' all that will Hve godly in Christ
Jesus, shall suffer persecution."
But shall the righteous justly suffer persecution? The
Universalist responds in the affirmative : for in this life,
according to his system, there is perfeGt Retribution-
men are punished exactly according to their deeds ! Of
course there can be no injustice, or fraud, or wrong in this
life, that is. not fully and adequately punished '• Indeed,

218 DEBATE 6S
he that suffers from injustice receives but his due; for this
is just Ihe case of all the righteous: they' unjustly suffer
in this life for their. religion, and this is their reward ! To
say that these pious persons suffered justly for their siris
is to contradict the Bible, for that declares that it was not
for sin, but for righteousness.
It appears too that the sufferings of the ancient worthies
Were much more severe than the direst punishment'inflict-
ed upon the most abandoned in the Hell of the Universal
ists. ¦ I will read from the " Pro and Con of Universalism:"
"I have before considered thp case of the gambler, but
we may take a more difficult view of it. We will suppose,
then, that he constantly rises from the game a winner;
now, in that event, does he get his punishfrient? Is he not
rather rewarded for his wickedness, and encouraged to
proceed in it ? He would be encouraged, indeed, if he
fared as well as you, reader, seem to suppose; ahd in that
case why will we not all turn gamblers, since we are lured
to it by the floWers which providerice streWs iri that path !
Reader, dismiss this delusion; for such, and a very de
structive one, it really is. I will tell you how.the success
ful gambler gets his punishment. It does not follow from
the fact that he has always won, that he therefore always
shall; One more expert than himself may at any moment
strip him of ajl his past gains; his very successes serve to
lesser! his caution, and embolden him to venture larger
stakes; hence, if often happens that his entire fortune is
vibrating upon the chances of the moment; he may arise
with double his present wealth, or without a penny. What
must be his mental perturbation when so much is depend
ing on such shifting hazards ? Anxiety of this nature, so
feverish, so intense, is rapid in its progress of eating out
the soul. But aside from this, has he no reason for dis
quietude in regard to. his victims, some of whom he may
have rendered desperate by dispair at their losses, and may
visit their ruin upOn his head ' Let him who wishes fo
portray the career of the gambler as pleasant, go to a
Parisian or a London hell, (rightly flamed,,) to borrow his
lights and shades for the picture. Would you, reader, ex
change your life Of quiet and of honest self- approval, for
His, of turbulence and apprehension ?
"Consider, next, the case of the dishohest man. Sup
pose him so adroit in His arts that he is never detected; is

UNIVER'SALrsk. 21$
he therefore never punished ? " Why then starts lie at
every leaf that rustles near him? Why those uneasy
glances whence hears approaohirig footsteps ?' Why can
not he look His honest neighbors in the face, but his v eye
riiust be'constantly cowering beneath their glance ?" etc.,
etc., pp. 247-8.
Arid this is the UhivPrsalist's hell ! It may be, for ought
I "know, (for I pretend to no superior acquaintanceship
with the feelings of such persons,) that some are- very
graphically discribed by this writer; but all history attests
that there are many who have not those feelirigs and com
punctions of conscience. It is notorious that a majority
of criminals go on iri their wicked Courses'' until they be
come "past feeling" and are perfectly reckless in their
career, and even take a pleasure in crime. Such, of
oriurse, are not in this hel} ! It is your novice in guilt',
upon the commission of some minor offence, Who is start1
led and abashed at the glance df the honest man's eye :
but your veteran in vipe will look an honest man out of
countenance. He knows riothing of this Hell. His con
science is seared *s with a hot iron, and is as hard as,r tite
nether rnill-stonei His* eye never quails and his cheek
never crimsons, With shame;. Indeed there are some
rogues so adroit in their business sis to steal and rob ac
cording to law, and these are Often esteemed the riiost re- ,
spectable in community. These will coin the teats of
wretchedness, and wring the last mite from the wasted hand
of poverty, widowhood, and orphanage. They live in
splendor upon their ungodly gains, and glory in their
shariie !
And the' drunkard ! his punishment is future! While
drunk, who so rich ? so glorious ? His floor is paved with
diamonds, and he spits in gold dust ! Every thing smiles
uponhifri, and 'every sound is the sweetest music to his
ears ! Such a man is riot in perdition surely ! Even the
Universalists will not dare say so. I grant that whep he
begins to cool off, he then may be tormented. "Hobgob
lins and demons dire " may tlien float in his imagination1.
But he takes another dram or two, and he steps forth in
his wanted magnificence again,' the wisest, greatest, rich
est of mankind !
The truth is, sinners roll sin under their tongues as a
sweet morsel. They take pleasure in unrighteousness.

220 DEBATE ON
Sp pleasant is sin to them* that in spite of all consequen
ces, they will engage in it: for its pleasures, they fear
lessly dare all its dangers.
And if mental anguish be all the hell kuown to the
Scriptures, then the Christians are often in it. Aye, even
our blessed Savior said, " My soul is exceedirig sorrowful,
even unto death;" and he sweat as it were great drops of
blood, falling to the ground. Apd the Apostle had ' great
heaviness and continual sorrow of soul.' And what sauif
has not taken up the lamentation of the prophet, " Oh,
that my head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of
teal's, that I might weep day and night over the slain .of
the daughter of my people?" or has not exclaimed with
Paul, "Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me
from the body of this death?"' And where in history do
we read of the sufferings of any, fo be compared with
those experienced by millions of the disciples of Christ,
of whorn the world was not worthy?.. Their sufferings
were the most terrible upon record. Apd wHat did their
persecutors suffer? In a majority of cases, they experi
enced neither corporeal nor mental pain. They thought
they were doing God service; and were even stimulated
by their consciences to butcher the disciples of Christ,
supposing that the blood of the heretics (as they reproach
fully called them) would wash away their sins: and they
would sing te deums and keep jubilee upon hearing that
thousands of men, women, and children had been massa
cred in cold blood ! The hell of thp Universalists is de
molished by such feelings as these.
Seventh: We know, that in the commission of many sins,
the sinner is wholly unconscious of any punishment — even be
lieves himself engaged in doing what is right and pleasing to
God; and enjoys great peace of mind.
Idolatry is a sin — the great sin; and yet how many
idolaters, in their worship, experience great peace of mind I
Nay, are startled if they neglect the worship of their
idols? Sons, with a good conscience, have burned their own
mothers upon the funeral pyre of," their fathers ! Mpthers
have sacrificed their own infarits ! etc. ' , Now if peace of
mind be the heaven, arid mental anguish, the hell, of Uni
versalism, then the devotee of idolatry escapes the pun
ishment of sin, and enjoys that peace of mind which ac
cording to the system I am now opposing, is the reward of

UNI VERSA-L1SM. 221
the righteous. This peace and joy of conscience, experi
enced by the idolater, is a full and adequate puriishhient
for his sins ! — for this is a perfect state of retribution.
Eighth: This doctrine makes God unjust and unequal in
the administration of justice. I have already addriced
proofs of this in the sufferings of the people of God in
past ages.,
Look again, at history. Behold fhe sufferings of the
people of God '.—Hated, of all men for his name's sake— 7
driven into the caves and the dens of the earth — -hunted
like beasts : burnt, crucified, sawn assunder — robbed of
their property — torn from tbeir families-— driven from
their country — denied the privilege of worshipping God:
and all, not because of sin, but because of righteousness !
But Universalism says.it is just ! With demon ferocity,
it looks upop their sorrows arid their sufferings, and de
clares it all to be right ! They are receiving their recom
pense ! This is all the advantage from religion they are
evpr to expect ! It stands near the stake, and "grinning
horribly a ghastly smile,"' says to the suffering martyr, as
he writhes In the cruel flame; this is the reward of your
righteousness 1, this is a just and / righteous retribution '.
In this world, sin and righteousness receive full and ade
quate reward ! You are, suffering justly I It is the mer
ciful visitation of the Lord !
This is foul blasphemy ! It is an atrocious slander upon
the character of God ! 1 protest agairist this flagitipus
method of making the Almighty just such' a being as our
selves ! It is Universalism, and not the Judge of all the
earth, that is possessed of these most revolting and fiend
ish sentiments !
But turn another Way, and contemplate the career of
the enemies ofthe cross of Christ. If Christians have
their evil things, these, like the rich man in the parable,
very often enjoy their good things. Lovedby the world —
iri possession of Its honors and pleasures-^-living in luxu
ry and splendor — surrpurided by their families and their
friends — their favor courted, and their actions eulogized.
Ease, comfort, 'opulence, and' honor are their portions.
Yet they are the eneriiies of God and his righteousness.
They have persecuted his people and blaspheriied his
name. Universalism approaches such a one, and in bland
and Sweet, yet magniloquent strains, thus discourses : " Lo,

222 DEBATE ON
you are in, hell ! You are. experiencing now everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory
of his power ! You are burning in the fire which is un
quenchable ! and on you preys' the worm that neyer dies !
This wealth, these honors, these friends, and all these plea
sures of yours are everlasting puriisHfrients ! — the, agonies
of the second death ! You are receiving in these, the re»
pompense of your sins !!! But look yonder at those Chris
tians. Embrace their religion, and you will be rid of this
hell, and enjoy their heaven! They are receiving the
reward of their righteousness. That flame in which they
are burning is life everlasting ! Those dungeons in which
they are Confined, are the mansions which Jesus prepared
in his Father's house for all that love him! — -they are
rooms in that building not made with hands, eternal in the
heavpns !! Those racks 'and tortures are all the manifes
tations of God's love they will receive for their, faith in
him ! and those crowns of thorns on their Heads, are the
crowns of glory their Savior promised, tbem ! ! !" ,
Such is the legitimate language of Universalism, which
teaches that the wicked and the righteous receive the fruits
of their doings only in "this life T Infidelity itself, never
uttered such unhallowed slanders against the Almighty !
I shall now proceed tp show, that there is punishment
for sin and reward for righteousness, in the future state.
Under this proposition, I do not intend to argue the dura
tion of future punishments: I only propose to show that
sinners are punished after death, , The other matter will
be attended, to afterwards. If the gentleman is truly a
Universalist, should I establish this position, his doctrine
falls. He has not clearly defined his position as ye,t — he
wiU definitely take neither Universalist nor Restorationist
grounds. Hestill dangles, professedly, in mid air. I haye
no objection to his course, and utter no complaints. He is
Welcome fo elect whatever position he esteems the most
comfortable. I wage a war of extermination against the
whole system, from Restorationism dpwn to the lowest
depths of Universalism.
;Fii"st : That there is a future state of rewards and pun
ishments, t argue, because, in this world, there is not a per
fect retribution. This I have already shown. Every man
of. common observation, and Common sense knows and feels
it., ft follows then, that if the judge of all, the earth, will

UNI VERSA II 6 M. 223
do right, he will punish, in another wprldr-that. he will
there dp justice, which is another word for doing right. In
that world, fhe sinner and the saint shall reap the' fruits of
their doings. The oppressor and the oppressed, will give
an account unto God. The sinner who enjoyed his1 good
things in this', will be tormented in that, world ; while hp
who had his evil things here, and w^s poor and persecuted
on account of his religion, will there 'bathe his weary
spul iri seas ot heavenly rest,' The blood stained con
queror who could not obtain Justice in this, world, will re
ceive it there : and over ah men, however false and wrong
their positioh here, the eternal and immutable justice of
God will there forever manifest itself.
Second : If, as Universalists affirm, every; sin of each in
dividual is as certainly punished as that God sits upon his
throne, thdri there must be punishment after death. Men die
in their sins. "The wicked are turned into hell [let it be
hades, the unseen world, if you please] With all the na
tions that forget God." " Thp Wicked is driven away in
his wickedness." Some die Atheists, some Deists; drunk
ards, swearers, idolaters; some in the" act of murder or of
robbery, with the blood of the innocent upon their souls,.
Nor will it do to say that their death was their punishmprit.
Peath is the common lot. of the piOus as well as the^urigod-
ly. Besides,, on the same ship, the humble disciple of
Christ, the bold blasphemer, the drunkard, etc., etc., have.*
in an instant, gone down into the samp; watery grave ! The
same tornado, while all were asleep, has swept the spirit
arid the sinner" into eternity. It is clear then that sinners
die in their sins—enter the other wpi'ld polluted with guilt,
and with their sins' unpunished. Ballou himself admits
this. In his " Treatise on Atonement," he, says : " It .is
objected, as many are going put of this world daily,' in a
state of sinfulness and unreconcifiatiori to God, and there
being no alteration iri the soul, for the better, after it
leaves this natural life,, millions, must be miserable, as
lpng as God exists. The force of this objection stands on
the supposition,. that there is no alteration for the betted
after death. Could this supppsi tiori be proved, I grant it
would substantiate a , formidable, and (I tbink) ari unan
swerable objection against the final holiness and happiness
of all men." p. i'Sl!
There are sinners, then, who, dying in their sins, are

2*4 DEBATE ON
hot punished for them in this life,: of course they must be
punished for them in the life to come : for Universalism
asserts that every sin will meet full and adequate punish
ment. Again: "it asserts that the evils from which Jesus
came "to save men are iri this world;" and as those dying
in their sins, were not saved from these evils in this world,
it follows that they are not saved from them by the Savior
at all; for, we are told, that he saves only in this world !
And if not saved by him, they are never saved at all, for
he is the pnly Savior ! They go info the grave with their
sins, we are fold; and alsO that God punishes fully and ade
quately every transgression and sin : the conclusion is ine
vitable then, that these persons are punished after death,
the Universalists being Witnesses.
Third : Universalism, in. asserting that no man Can be
happy hereafter, unless holy, in effect asserts a future state
of punishment.
The mind Of thp Christian is made holy in this World.
The first coming of Christ was for the salvation of the
soul : he will come a second time to save the body. Hence
all his, doctrine pertained to the soul — had to, do with the
mind. He told his disciples not to fear them that kill the
body — to take no care of the body. They were to suffer
in the body. But the mind was fo be coriverted — changed
— to be born again — born from iibove. We are to believe
in him, and by sp doing, receive forgiveness of sins— are
pardoned^ justified and saved. '- Our hearts are purified by
faith. By it, we pass from death unto life, become heirs
of God ahd joint heirs with Jesus Christ. In this way,
the mind is made holy— is conformed to the law of God.
Hence says Paul, Romans i. ?5, " With the '"iind [?ious-rr-
"The rational soul, with all its powers, faculties and af
fections."*] I myself serve the law of Gpd, but with the
flesh [sarx—" the human" body,'?] the law of sin." Chris
tians are f new cr,eatureS." This renovation of their
mirids— of their moral being, takes place this side of the
grave. It is effected through the truth by the1 Spirit of
God operating on thp minds of men. But the sinner, dy
ing in his sins, has no such change wrought in him in this
world. The Atheist, the Deist, the drunkard, the liar, the
wicked of every degree, dying impenitent, have experien-
•Greenfield's Lexicon.

UNIVERSALISM.

22S

eed no such change in life. This -Mr. Ballou admits; and
confesses, that unless they- experience it after death they
must ever be miserable. They have not the principle of
holiness within them, and they cannot.beihappy in the fu-
• ture state without it. Where do they obtain this renova
tion of mind-out of this world ? Is the grave the soul's
crucible? Are the charnel house, the coffin, the winding
sheet, the skin worms ; the rottenness and stench of the
grave — are these the refiner's fire, and the fuller's soap to
cleanse those souls which, in life, defied the purifying in
fluences ofthe grace, and the truth, and the spirit of God?
Are these, more effectual iri administering, to the mind des-
eased, than the potent medicines in the pharmacopceia of
the great Physican of souls.
And liow, Oh tell me, how is the soul converted and re
generated in the next state ? Is it done without means ?
If not, what means are employed ? Has God provided
other means there than he has appointed for'this world ?
If so, what are they ? If the same, are the hearts of men
more impressible there than here ? Is the sword of the
Spirit, the word of God, wielded Jfor their conversion, in
the next world ? Have they faith ? . If not, how are they
pardoned, or justified, or saved ? How are their hearts
purified ? And if they have faith, do they obtain it with
out hearing? and. do they hear without a, preacher? and
who is commissioned to preach the Gospel in the grave?
Or will it be contended, that the Almighty treats there
tiie minds he has created as mere clods of matter, and
changes them to holiness without presentation of motive ?
To allege that God makes men holy without means, and
without the presentation of motive, is to deny all moral
agency to man; and by so doing to obliterate all the dis
tinction between vice and virtue. Destroy the .freedom of
the will, and man is- powerless to do. If he has no will to
do, then he does notHing, and can do nothing; and is no
more accountable than a steam-engine; or the wheel of a
cart. If he has no freedom of will, he can render no ser
vice to God, and can commit no sin against him, any more
than a turtle or a terrapin. And of course it follows, that
all which has been said, and sungv and written about virtue
and vice is shere nonsense; for no man can he virtudus Or
vicious, upon this principle; and right and wrong are
terms that have no rightful place in the vocabulary of men !
15

226 DEBATE ON
And, who would think of calling on a stock or a stone
to serve him? But God so calls upon man. He does' de
mand service of him.- This proves, that the Almighty re
gards him as a moral agent, that may or may not serve him
as he lists. He reasons with, men to convince their judgr •
ments, and presents: them motives to win their affections.
It is thus, in this world, they are brought from the love of
sill, to the Ibve of holiness. Will the Universalist tell us
how such a transformation is brought about in the next
world? He admits the necessity and-asserts its\ existence;
the burthen of proof then rests upon him. Is the- Atheist
there brought to admit the existence of God, and his soul
made to love him, without- one reason being offered to
change his opinion, and without one motive being present
ed to win his affections? Is the Deist, in, the same way,
brought to. love and worship Jesus? The man who could
not be won here by the Gospel of the Grace of God,, pre
sented to him in the sweet accents of' love, is he there, by
arbitrary power, made holy and righteous? changed with
out his knowledge or consent, without a reason or a mo
tive, he knows not how or where!
Fouth. The sins of the sinner do not cease With this
LIFE, AND1 IF EVERY SIN MEETS ADEQUATE PUNISHMENT, THEN.
THERE MUST BE PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH.
I 'have already established this point in my remarks up
on the judgment. Holy men of old, though dead; yet
speak. They have ceased from their labors, and their
works do follow them. 'The ancient law' giveus still act
through the laws- they made. Great conquerors, dead a.
thousand years,, yet* live in the desolations, moral ,and
physical,, which they wrought. And who can read the
writings of the illustrious dead, and not feel their influ
ence upon tbeir minds?, And who will say that the Infi
dels of the last century have ceased to act? Are they
not still persuading men to. reject and contemn the religion
of Jesus?' Every man is a part of society — a constituent
portion of a mighly moral machinery. Sin is an injury
done to the law of God — an invasion and' infraction of the
moral System, ordained of God for the-good of all his inr
telligent creatures; and if every sin is certainly punished,
where- do- these posthumous sins receive their punishment
but in.the life, to ,co.me.. ,
Fifth. Universalism in denying future punishment not only

UNIVERSALISM. 22tf
niakes our Savior an unreasonable master, but his Disciples
the veriest Quixotic adventurers that ever tabernacled in flesh.
The Savior commanded his Apostles to go and make dis
ciples of all nations. Now imagine these Apostles going
forth, and preaching Universalism to the men of the earth.
They find a man surrounded by all the good things of this
life. He is- clothed in purple and fine- linen, and fares
sumptuously every day. He has friends and relations,
whose company impart to him pleasure and delight. He,
has houses, and lands, and servants, and, stores, and cattle.
He has said to his soul, take now thine ease! An Apos
tle approaches him, and promises ¦him' great earthly re
wards' if he will embrace the Christian religion, (for re
member, Universalisrii promises only this life to. the
Christian — only temporal rewards;) -The man, in admira
tion, demands in wbat can it consist? Do you promise
more wealth, more houses and lands? No. sir; our Mas
ter says you must be willing to forsake these for. his sake;
and very likely your enemies will strip you of all yomr
possessions. Welt, then, I will have more friends, I. sup
pose?- No: You will be hated of all men far his name's
sake. But then I will have the more-pleasure with my fam
ily? No: A 'man's foes are frequently those of his own
household ; but besides, you must be; willing to forsake all
these, or you will not be worthy to be called his disciple.
Well, surely then I shall be- respected- and honored by
some body?" Oh no, sir! you will be hated and persecut
ed, aud be driven from city to city, and in all' probability,
be miserably put to death. Well, sir, you must be talking
about another world ; for surely 1 do not see how it is I
can gain anything in this, by your religion? Yes sir, it
is in this; for in the next world you gain- nothing what
ever by being a discipleof our Master!,
If the man did not spurn them for fools or maniacs, he
must have possessed more patience than Job, and more in-
senbility than a Stoic.
In making the rewards of our religion entirely in this
life, an essential feature of all false religions, and es
pecially that of Mahomet, is fastened upon it. And who
would be justifiable in giving up houses, and lands, and
wife and children, and his own life, for. su6h a religion?
Certainly none would dp it, and 1 am sure none ought t©
do it. Perhaps this will explain the reason why none o^"

ZZ8 DEBATE ON
the great company of martyrs were Universalists. I de
mand of Mr. Pingree to show how, on the pririciples of
his system, he can demand of any man to sacrifice an
earthly pleasure, not to say his life, for religion? ¦ Will he
answer? Sixth. But we will let the New Testament speak in relation
to a state of future rewards and punishments. And I re
gret that our time is so limited, as to enable me merely to
glance at this important point; to quote but a few of the
vast multitude of passages bearing directly on this sub
ject. Matt; iii. 12: " Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his
garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquencha
ble fire." That is,' as the Universalist would explain,
he will burn the chaff until it becomes wheat, and then
the unquenchable fire will go out. Matt. v. 3: " Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heav
en." And Universalism adds, Blessed are those not poor
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven! "Verse 7;
"Blessed is the merciful, for, they shall obtain mercy;"
And so shall, the unmerciful! responds Universalism.
Verse 8; "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall
see God." Universalism says, so shall the impure in
heart! Verse 9; "elessed are the peace-makers, for
they shall he called the children of God. Universalism;
And blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall be call
ed the children of God! Verse 10; " Blessed are they
who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of Heaven." Universalism; And blessed
are they who persecute the righteous, for theirs is Heav
en!! Verses 11 and 12: "Blessed are ye when men
shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all
manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake; rejoice
and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heav
en." Universalism; This is a blunder of " the dependent
creature," Jesus of Nazareth! He should have said,
great is your reward in the earth! In Heaven, these per
secuted persons will have no more reward than their per
secutors! Verse 20; "Except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Uni
versalism; But whether you shall have any righteous-

UNIVERSALISM. 229
ness at all, ye shall in every case, enter into Heaven!
Verse 22; "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall
be in danger of the judgment. [Universalism; that is, ,of
being punished' by the Court of Septemviri, although
there is no law for that Court's condemning you for such
an offence;] and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca*
shall be in danger of the council; [Universalism; and yet
the council have no jurisdiction in, such cases;] but who
soever shall say, thou, fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire.
[Universalism; that is, to be burnt in the valley pf Hin-
nom, for which there is no law, human or divine !"] Verse
29; " if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it
from thee, for it is profitable for thep that one of thy
members should perish, and not that thy wholp body-
should be cast into Hell." [Universalism; that is, into
the valley cf Hinnom, where there is not the least danger
of your being}!, cast!!] "Verse 30; "If thy right hand of
fend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee, for it is profitable
fpr thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell." , [Uni
versalism; into the valley of Hinnom; where you never
will be cast, as you very well know!]
Matt. vi. 2: "Not every one that saith unto me Lord,
Lord, shall enter- into the kingdom of Heaven; [Univers
alism; yet they shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven;]
but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in Heaven,
[Universalism; and he that doeth it not.] Many will say
unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in- thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and
in thy name done many wonderful works ? and then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you ; ^depart from me ye
that work iniquity." [Universalism; and go into Heaven!]
Matt. viii. 11, 12: "Andi say unto you, that many shall
come from the East and West, and shall sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven;
but the children of the kingdom shall he cast out into
outer darkness; [Universalism; "arid into the light and glo
ry of Heaven;] there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth." ¦
Matt. x. 15: "It shall be more tolerable for the land
of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for
that city." [Universalism; for their inhabitants' shall min^
gle together in the climes of bliss!]

-DEBATE ON
Matt. x. 28: "And-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 body and soulin Hell." Lake xii.
4, 6: "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 you shall fear.
Fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast
into Hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
The Universalists have . agonized much over these
texts, and, have made many spasmodic efforts to- deliver
themselves of their burden; but hitherto, they have labor-
ed^to little purpose. ScarCely any two of them go the
same way around them ; and no one, so far as I have ob
served, seems. satisfied with his efforts. Now, why should
dead men fear, if there be no terrors hereafter? And
what means that awful warning to fear him who was able
to-do, what man could not do, viz: " Destroy. both soul and
body in Hell," — in Gehenna. " Who, after he hath kill-.
ed, hath power to cast into Hell." A Universalist writer,
in the frenzy of his despair, tells us that the text says,
that God had power to cast into Hell, not that he will do
it! If there is no Hell, I humbly conceive that even Om
nipotence could, not cast any one into it! But another,
still more frantic, tells us, that it means that the disciples
should not fear, the Jews 'who could kill the body, but that
they should fear the Romans, who would cast both body
and life into Hinnom's vale! But how the life of a dpad
man could be cast into the valley of Hinnom, he did not
explain; nor did he tell us why the Romans should be
particularly dreaded, because they had power to cast
dead bodies into the valley of Hinnom, (which could
not have been a very, great affair.) Perhaps Mr. Pin
gree has still another explanation. I will await his ad
vance. Matt, x. 33: " Whosever shall deny me, before men him
will I also deny before my Father and the holy angels;"
[Universalism; but he shall nevertheless, be made at that
time, holy and happy 1]
.Matt. x. 37 — 39: " He that loveth father and mother more
than me is not worthy of me, [Universalism; but is worthy
of Heaven!] and he that loveth son or .daughter more than
me, is not worthy of me. [Universalism; but nevertheless
is worthy of Heaven!] And he that taketh not his cross

BNIViRSAIISM. 231
and followeth after me< is not worthy of me., [Universal
ism; but shall be forever happy!] ' He that findisth his life
shall lose it, [Universalism; and find it again in Heaven!]
and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it again."
[Universalism; in this world!!] , .,
Matt. xi. 28: '* Come unto me all ye that labor and
are heayy laden, and I will give you rest." Universalism;
in this world, in the shape of bonds and imprisonments,
and stripes and fire, and crucifixion ; and if you do not
choose to come unto me, you shall rest iri Heaven any
how'!!] Matt, xiiii 37 — 43: " He -that soweth good seed is the
son of man. The field is the loorld. [Universalism;
Judea!1] The good seed are the children of the kingdorh ;
but the tares are the children of the Wicked one. [Uni
versalism; that is, the Jews,] The enemy that sowed
them [Universalism; the Jews,] is-the devil; the harvest
is the end of fhe world, [Universalism; the destruction of
Jerusalem,] and the reapers are the angels. [Universlism;
the Roman [soldiers'.] As therefore the. tares are gather
ed and burnedtin the fire, so shall it be in the end of the
world. [Universalism; some thirty-six years hence!] The
Son of man shall send forth his angels, [Universalism;
idolatrous soldiers!] and they shall gather out of his
kingdom all things that offend, and them which do in
iquity, [Universalism; a piece of service which the Roman
angels, alias soldiers, neglected to perform!] and shall
cast them in a furnace of fire; [Universalism;' the valley
of Hinnom, this also was forgotten !] there shall' be wail
ing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their .Father."
[Universalism; that is, they shall dwell in the town of
Pella, and be Hated of all men, and be persecuted fpr
righteousness' sake!]
I hppe Mr. Pingree will not esteem. me impertinent if I
ask him a few questions. Did. not the Jewish state end
when that of the Christian commenced? Did -riot the
Christian .age commence before the destruction of Jerusa
lem? Does not " the end of the world" then, mean, the
end of the Christian age? Let him answer. ,
Matt. xiii. 49,. 50: " So. shall it be at the end ofthe
world, [Universalism; at the destruction of Jerusalem!]
the angels [Universalism; Pagan soldiers!] shali come

23*2 DEBATE ON
forth and sever the wicked from among the just, [Univer
salism; which the Roman soldiers forgot to dor a proof
that Jesus was rriistaken in their character!] and cast them
into the -furnace of fire, [Universalism; into the valley of
Hinnom, where there was no fire !] there shall be wailing
and gnashing of teeth." [Universalism; by the lifeless
corpses!!!]. [MR. PINGREE's TENTH .SPEECH.] .
Respected Friends: — According to the course of Mr.
Waller's last speech, yesterday, I shall make a slight
change in mycourse this morning. Instead of Pomingup
and making an argument on the subject of the coming of
Christ,- and other matters before introduced by him, and
replied to by me, he gave new matter, and occupied him
self with reading from old prepared manuscript sermons,
apparently, in which he discusses various questions with
Father BalloU; instead of meeting the present arguments
of Mr. Pingree.
I might save trouble, and abbreviate labor, by taking the
writings of Mr. Ballou, and reading them, to form a perfect
reply to the arguments of Mr. Waller; though in that case,
as the discussion on the part of Mr. Waller seems to he
with Mr, Ballou, I would rather he should be here to de
fend himself, in person. But as I have not brought his
works here, Imust reply myself.
As an example or twO of his various readings ot Scrip
ture, according to his notions of Universalism, take the 5th
chapter of Matthew. I shall not notice all, but take one or
two, to illustrate the principle; for I have not time for
more. For "Blessed are the peace-makers;" he reads,
blessed are the r>eace,breakers, as the Universalist reading.
This I, say is not correct. It is not true. , Positively, it is
not true; that is, in the sense in which the impression is at
tempted to be made, that the peace-breakers are blessed
like the righteous — ,that they receive the same blessing of
God as the peacemakers, and as such. I have never at
tempted, have I? to. show that they go to heaven in their
sins. Not once through this discussion ! Has any minis
ter ever preached it, any where? Never! The whole of
this pretended argument then goes for nothing. We say
that ¦oeage-breakers will be changed, and become peace
makers, and then in heaven, finally, all shall be blessed

UNIVERSALISM. 2J3
together. Is there any objection to this on the part of the
gentleman? My friettd believes that some bad men will be
saved: not go to heaven in theit wickedness, but by being
ehanged. Where is the difference then between U3? >He
says, some will be saved., I say all will be saved, from, and
not in their sins. Besides, what is " the kingdom of God?"
My friend knows that the kingdom of God, as spoken of
in the New Testament, does not always^ if ever, refer to
the immortal state; but to the Gospel kipgdom on earth.
Hence he depends on your common understanding of thpse
passages, to apply them as he wishes. The Savior, speak
ing of this[kingdom, says, " Neither shall they say,Lehere,
pr.Io there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
(Luke xvii. 20.) It is established in men's hearts, and only
seen in the Christian's Ufe and conduct. To have a Chris
tian spirit, is to enjoy the kingdom, of heaven. So also
Paul : " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." So that
the very passages he brought for proof of the misery of
the righteous, show the very reverse. They show that
those men enjoyei the kingdom of God. They show them
to have been happy and at peff.ce. True, they .were per
secuted in the flesh; yet they rejoiced in those persecu
tions, because they had hope in the Gospel of immortal
joy. Even though oppressed, they were happier than
their oppressors. While the former enjoyed peace and
joy of the Gospel, the latter had "no peace; but were
like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest." Thus teaches
a holy Penman.
I propose now to give some various readings of Scrip
ture, to follow the example of my fripnd Mr. Waller. If
his are correct, — as they are not, — mine are correct. If
not, these will set them aside ; so I propose to give them.
.When God promises Abraham that "in his seed all the
nations of the earth shall be blpssed," the Orthodox say
only some of the nations shall be blessed in- him. Peter
says, " God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to
bless you, in turning away every one of you from his ini
quities," (Acts iii. 26'.) The Orthodox say, "turning
away some of you from his iniquities."
Another case : God is " reconciling the worlp to him
self, by Jesus Christ." The Arminian says he will try to
dp it, but can not% The Calvinist says he will try to reeon->

'234 - DEB ATE O.N
clip a part of the world, arid will accomplish it. See the
difference between Orthodoxy, in its two parts, and Bible
Universalism. The Bible says, " As in Adam alb die, even so in Christ,
shall ael be made alive." Orthodoxy says, as in Adam
all -Christians die, so in the resurrection shall all Christians
he made alive. This is the difference between Orthodoxy
and the Bi'ble. The Bible says, that all shall be subject
tp Christ-; and God hecome " all im all." Orthodoxy says,
some shall be subject to Christ; and others remain in rebel
lion forever and ever. . '> '
The will of God is in favor of universal salvatiori; for
he " will have all men to be saved,1' etc. Thp Calvinist
Bays, God wills only that 'sorts shall be saved; arid that
others were made to -be damned. This is old fashioned
Calvinism, The Arminian says that God would like to
save all men, but will fail everlastingly to do it. There
again is a plain and clear distinction between Orthodoxy
and the Bible.
' Though Paul says. God will gather together all things
in Christ ; 'Orthodoxy separates a part, and says only some
shall be gathered unto liina, and that all the rest shall be
excluded for ever! Paul, in the 11th of Romans, says,
" Of whom, [i. e. God,] and through whom, and to whom
are all things," Orthodoxy says, of whom and to whom
are a part — -some only.
Upon the subject of the destruction of the enemies of
man — death, sin, Hell, or the grave, and the Devil; though
the Bible says that every, even the " last enemy" of man is
to be destroyed; yet Orthodoxy denies this; names an ene
my after "the last," more dreadful than they all, which
is God! There again is the differerice between Orthodoxy
and the Bible.
So Jesus Christ says, " If I be lifted up I will draw all
men unto me." Orthodo'xy says that Christ will draw only
a part unto him. To prove that all will come to him, Jesus
Christ said, "All that the Father hath given to me. — and
he hath given all — shall come to me; and him that com
eth to me, I will in no wise cast out." Orthodoxy says,
that some will come to Jesus, and others will wail in ever
lasting-despair! , -
Peter, in Acts iii. says there Will be a " restitution- of all
things, as spoken of by the holy prophets." Orthodoxy

UNIVERSALISM. 23,5
says there will be a institution of some thing®, but f-nol of
all. Here is the difference again between Peter and the
Orthodoxy. Thus you see that " various readings'-' can begiven on
both sides. Whenever the true, exposition ofthe Bible is
given, it does not bear .against Us. If Mr. Waller shows
that these do not bear against his theory, he will do well^-r
better than I expect. ,.-I have shown that in his " various
readings," he has. grossly perverted our sentiments;
I now proceed to advance on© more distinct aigument in
favor of universal salvation. I thought I had presented
all that I should, in this disCussion;. but Mr. Waller's say
ing that I have given all that can he given, on the side
which I advocate, has induced me to add more; that the
vanity of his boasting may be seen by all.
Jesus Christ commands us to " love our enemies." We
are required to love our neighbor as ourselves.* Paul says,
that "when one member suffers, all suffer with it." Here
we are bound in sympathy with each other, to such an
extent, that one cannot witness even slight suffering in
another, without suffering with him. Suppose we go to a
future world, and there is no njoange in our moral natures
after death.. What is the consequence, supposing the the
ory of endless torture in Hell to be true? Those who go
to heaven, when they look across the gulf, what will they
behold? The torments of human beings writhing in Hell;
and they will hear the groans, and screams, and yells of
agony of the damned, to all eternity!! Will not sights
and sounds like these make them miserable, even though
they sit around the throne of God? If they are not chang
ed after death, it follows inevitably that this will be the
case. Because the best men are afflicted by the misfor
tunes of others in this world. Mr. Waller is troubled by
the sufferings of his fellow men, now. He is doubtless
often made unhappy by them. Even though he does not
sin himself, he feels for the sufferings of others. If he is
not changed after death ; if he goes to heaven; and there
knows and sees that his friends are suffering unspeakable
misery to all eternity in Hell, I think that even- with those
high and holy feelings which belong to heaven, lie must
be miserable with them to all eternity, by the power of
sympathy. Hence, the happiness ef the saved requires
the happiness of all, to make it complete.

236 UEBATEON
I will now go hack, and notice tite last speech of Mr.
Waller, yesterday afternoon; My friend says he is wil
ling to go into a defence of the Baptists on the suhject of
their disagreements with other sects, etc. I do not ask
him to do that. This is the point : unless they undeigo a
great moral change after death, they cannot live in fellow
ship in a future life. The common doctrine is, he that
believes and is baptized here, shall be saved hereafter. He
that does not, shall be damned. Now look at the common
idea introduced; it is that he who believes and is immersed,
only he who is immersed, shall be saved; and he that is
not immersed must be damned hereafter inevitably. Hence,
I repeat, the Baptists unchurch and damn all Christendom!
I shall not now dispute the correctness of this dogma, and
of the course pursued under its influence: I only mention
it to show the absolute necessity of a change of disposition
after death, and the consequences of no change, things ex
isting as they do.
He argues from the Greek word ek, that when Lazarus
rose, all mankind rose with him,. If the word ek has that
power, it has great power, for a small word. A less matter
avails in this passage, with<8di\ Waller, than was required
by Rev. Mr. Ely, iri his discussion with Rev. A. C. Thomas.
The phrase, " they shall be accounted worthy," kept him
from being a Universalist; while the little Greek particle,
ek, keeps Mr. Waller from it. The word ek is a small
matter — a small gate through which to. send the great
mass of the human family into Hell. They must all go
through that little Greek particle ek, into Hell! I shall
say nothing more of this, at present; but leave you to de
cide whether his argument is a sound one.
We have an argument that this life is nota state of per
feet retribution. We hear the inquiry -made whether the
sufferings of Jesus Christ were for himself, or in the stead
of others; and I am required to take pne of the horns of the
dilemma. I shall take neither. He neither suffered for
his own sins, nor in the stead and place of others. He
suffered, for the benefit of others. He was a kind and benev
olent being, and suffered for the benefit of the world; as!
he was sent to suffer, by the Father, to give himself a Tan-,
som for all; and so says the Bible. I suppose my friend
is an Arminian, and believes that the death of Christ aton^
ed for the sins of the world, and that he died instead of all

UNIVERSALISM. 2'37
men. What! Is not the appointed punishment of sin, end
less damnation? and did Christ suffer endless damnation: for
every single sin that ever was or ever will be committed
by every single sinner of the human race? He did, if his
sufferings were vicarious. He endured in his own person
ten thousand millions of endless damnations! Admit then
that he thus died, arid was punished in the room and stead
of all; is any human being to suffer after JesUs Christ has
suffered in his stead? Then God inflicts double damna
tion for every sin that is committed!! ' This is the neces
sary consequence of vicarious atonement, unless all are
finally saved.
Suppose a court of justice should do so; would not all
men reprobate its conduct as cruel, Unjust, and malignant?
A man is condemned to be hung : a substitute appeal's, and
the court consents to take him and hang him in the stead
or place ofthe criminal. The executioner hangs the sub
stitute, and then the court orders him to hang the criminal
too! Would not such a court and executioner be driven
out of civilized society, With universal execration?
Just so here : Jesus Christ comes to offer himself as a
substitute for sinners who have' been condemned to endless
and hopeless damnation. He suffers all. the endless dam
nation of each of these sinners in his own person. Yet
now some Sinners are to be endlessly damned, the same as
if their puriishment had not beeri already paid in full!
Who can believe that in the government of God there ex
ists such monstrous injustice as that?
Jesus Christ came to " reconcile the world to God-" not
God to the world : and this is just the difference between
Scripture and Orthodoxy, in reference to the nature and
object of the Atonement.
Next, as to the sufferings of the Apostles: did they care
for the hatred of their eriemies? No: they endured the
sufferings willingly, for the reward of righteousness, and
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. None of these could
be taken away. They endured suffering for this : not
for their own sins : it is not spoken of as a punishment —
it was a part of the Savior's sufferings; that is, in kind.
If Jesus Christ's' sufferings were vicarious', the Apostles'
we're the same; for an Apostle speaks of "being a partaker
of Christ's sufferings:" '
Mr. Waller was "amused" by my remarks upon the

SMS debate on
subject of Hell. - He would not declare himself on
that subject^ but fet me go on for his amusement! Is
that what he cbme here for? to procure you and him
self "amusement," upon such topics as that? Hell, and the
torments of- doomed 'souls! "Was that the object of our
meeting? lis that the .thing we came here to do? Not
fully. If so,, we know what: to talk about. The faCt
is, if I have, raised a fog about the subject, it is time he
should begin to make it clear. I call on him to take
hold, of it, to declare himself; and we shall not be iri a
mist or fog,, or be talking for your amusement. I perfer
not to spend time in that way myself. I have something
to do, besides "amusing'' Mr. Waller and the audience.
I mijst here comment upon the evil and immoral ten
dency of preaching, as my friend does, -the unhappiness
of the righteous, and the liap'piness of. the unright
eous; and also of sinning in the flesh, and at the same
time being holy in mind. It is Antinomianism which
does -this. I am opposed to such preaching; the happi-
aess of the drunkard, etc., and the wretchedness of the
righteous. Suppose such doctrines were received
generally — -mem would cry, True, if we sin, we go to
Hell; but meantime, we are happy here; we can get
gloriously drunk, and enjoy ourselves wonderfully here.
If the righteous suffer most in this, life, I think I'll run
the risk of going to Hell, for the sake of being happy
while I live. So long as I have good health, I'll take
my pleasure, and live in sin; but before I die, I'll com
ply with the conditions of salvation, and secure Heaven
hereafter! That is the point.-. Men will sin while thoy
dare to; because sin makes them, according to such
preaching, so happy. This is very convenient, to have
the blessing of sin here, without any punishment, and
the blessings of Heaven hereafter! Such is the natural
tendency of such preaching. Away with-it!
Mr. Waller teaches thai the oppressors are happy in
this world, while the oppressed is crushed and miserable.
Yet, according to the Orthodox preaching, it is most like
ly that the oppressors will be the ones to get to Heaven:
being more enlightened, wealthy, and . powerful, they
have more opportunities, before death, of repentance;
while the ignorant and degraded, whom they have crushed,
goto Hell; they have no opportunities ol learning the

universalism. 239
truth. ¦ Thp Pagan world — where do they go, when they
die? Iisuppose they live wretchedly here, and go to-
Hell hereafter, if Partialism- be true. Such doctrines
make the >evils of this world worse. I see no rectifica
tion of the government of God, in Partialism, as it pro
fesses to show. '
Again, he -teaches the same error, in preaching up the
happiness of Ihe wicked.. How happy, says he, are the
wicked! Quoting the "language of JDavid, "They are
not troubled like other men," etc., but iafterwards, when
he found out their true condition, what did David -say?'
"They are utterly consumed with terror." He says -his.
foot well nigh slipped; and he says to the Lord, " I was as
a fool and a beast before thee."" If we admit the senti
ment of David, the same sentiment is true at the present
day. Mr. Waller forgets that the sinner realizes the- ter
rible consequences of his own sin, /as David did, for a.
time — until he learned the truth. ;;
The allusion was made- to the persecutors of the Walden-
ses, Albigensesi and Huguenots. What. were they persecut
ed for? For not believing with the " mass of men." Though
righteous men, they were damned he-re by the- "mass;"
and thought to- be damned hereafter ajsol So is it with
all Christians who- have been persecuted on earth.,' It
was because they didnot believe and act with the " mass
of well regulated minds" of the age in whieh they lived.
Heretiosr not believing with 'the "mass" of men,:; were
burned, because of their opinions;, aiid were supposed "'be
sides this to suffer eternal wrath to come, in Hell. Those
who persecuted and tormented thenrhpre, died Christians,
and believe they will be saved I So that they will look
down on the everlasting burnings of those thus sent before
their time-to Hell, according to the Orthodox doctrine; It
sends- some of the persecuted to perdition, and admits,
some pf the persecutors to glory 1
Another argument was advanced to, prove the unjust
distribution of rewards and punishments in this life. See
Ezek. xxxiii. 17, where we see the- similarity of, -this state
ment of Mr. Waller- and of those who found fault with
the government of God, at that time.- "Yet the chil
dren of -thy people- say, the way of the Lord is not equal;
but as -for them, their way 'is not equal ; [mark now,]
but it the wicked man turn from his wickedness and do

240 DEBATE ON
that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby."
[This is the doctrine 1 have advanced all along.] What
else? " Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal.
Oh! ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after
his Ways." The ways of God are equal; though Mr.
Waller may say they- are not "equal;" he thus .flatly
contradicts the declaration of Almighty God himself !
He spoke of the demon cruelty of Universalism, as to
saints, atad the happiness it offered to the Wicked. De
mon cruelty? Yes, fhe saints do suffer; is that the cruel
ty of Universalism? He admits the fact of their suffering.
But their sufferings work out for them glory. It is good
for us to suffer, to be purified, and chastened. Demon
cruelty indeed! to speak of sufferings that shall end with
life! No, the " demon cruelty" is on the other side, which
damns men to all eternity; which brings men into the world
— as Pagans for example^-without their own consent, and
drives them through it, and then drives them out of it, and
to Hell, without a chance of salvation, to all eternity!
There is no demon cruelty there, I suppose! Oh! the
consistency of the man; to talk of the 'demon cruelty of
mere temporal sufferings, that result in s-ood; yet believ
ers in never ending, irremediable -sufferings!
My friend inquires if men are purified in tlie grave, by
the charnel house, the worms, etc., etc. Where is the
necessity of all this talking? He can do this after I ad
vance such a notion.
Why is he still discussing with Father Ballou, and not
with me? I again invite Mr. Waller's attention to my ar
guments, duririg this discussion, and not to some body else's.
Statements have been made hPre, that Universalism takes
away free agency. Mr. Waller says, Universalism would
imply that meri were forced' to love God. Who has talk
ed of compelling men to love God? Not I, or any Uni
versalist that I know of. I shall not discuss free agency.
So far as this discussion is concerned, we may grant all
that is -asked on this subject. But I would like to know if
it be not equally taking away free agency, to compel men
to go to Hell; the Orthodox Hell, I meAri — not the Bible
Hell; but the Orthodox Hell, where men are compelled, to
hate God to eternity; and besides, will men go to Hell, if
fiee>'agents? Will they? Not if they are free agents,. to
the extent that Arminianism teaches. If my friend, Mr.

UNIVERSALISM. 241
Waller were to find himself dead, and not perfectly, pre
pared, and was told to go to Hell, arid looked across the
gulf, and saw the surges, of the lake of everlasting des
pair, and heard the cries of torment coming up from
thence, if, he were a free agent, he would .not go!( ,[ A
laugh.] I speak this not for your amusement, but to show
the absurdity of the sentiments advanced here about free
agency. So if any others were ordered -to go there,
would they go, as free agents? No! They would start
back with horror, and say, we will not go there! What
then is to be done with them, remaining free agents?
because they Can't goto Heaven, and won'tgotoHelll.God
will compell thpm to goto Hell, Oh! then he must not
Compel them to go to Heaven,, for fear of destroying tHeir
free agency, but it is perfectly consistent with-free agen
cy, to compel thpm to go to Hell, where, they, must, curse
and blaspHeme God to. all eternity! Oh ! yes, it. is , a
dreadful thing for Universalists to say that God compels
ihem to go to Heaven, to be ure and holy; but tocorii-
pel them to go to Hell, is the act of a righteous and be
nevolent God! But I have not taught- that God forces men
into Heaven. , . -
Mr. Waller said the sins of the sinner do not cease- at
bis death., Then he is an advocate of universal damnation!
for- all are sinners; so it is held that there is no cjiange
after death. This is> universal damnation — palpable and
clear. *,
, This is what the Bible says, that "men are rewarded ac-
cordingto their works," riot hereafter, but here. , Mr. Wal
ler professes to go by the Bible. He afterwards said that
the repentant sinner was no longer responsible for past
sins. What, then, is the object of all that argument about
sins not ceasing at death, and throwing pebbles in the
lake, the waves of which rebounded against the shores of
eternity, etc.?,. Now he says they are not responsible for
past sins. . What is the use of a judgment, then, in the
future? He has given up the point^and nullified the way
he tried to get rid of the force of the argument, that pun
ishment took place before trials according to Partialism.
It appears now, that Tom Paine was. a pretty, nice fel
low, after all. ( He attempted to refer us to him, as his
followers.) But now he is a man of good common sense,
not quite so bad as the Universal ista A at the present day,
16

Mi BE BATE OiN
He .may also Claim Herbert, the founder of the deistical
system. If Tom Fame and Herbert repented, judgment
would not be pronounced for evil works done after thev
were dead. Thus he overthrows his- own position, and
now thinks Tom Paine to, be a clever fellow, asid can
claim him em fais own skip, as to that point! A gloriouiJ
fraternity-. . •
We have quotations ,ef passages contaifiing the word
Hell, in wliich he substitutes the word Hinnom: and this
wasfor fun, I suppose, for '*¦ amusement." I calf on him
to cOme out with his explanation of Hell, and say what
word in the original languages of Scripturemeans the state
of endless damnation. Which Hell is, the place of endless
damnst-ion, in the original? Wfien, that is done i will
answer Mm. Itis due to Himself, to the truth, andto you
Who are assembled la hear this discission,, that he should
explain- If he will not, IwiH myself explain, the meap1
ing of theWord in the Bible.
¦ [mr. waller's TENTH REPLV/f .
My object tp-day will- be to- pEesent as much original
matter as- 1 can. I regret that the time remaining for this
debate wilfl compel me to omit many things I had prepared
for the oocasion, and even to condense what I may yet in
troduce, more than I could wish. ' Mr. Pingree and my
self have agreed to make a speech each iri the morning of
to-morrow, to contain, no new matjei' : consequently I am
compelled' to introduce whatever of new matter I can, in my
speeches of to day. Mr. Pingree has evidently exhausted
his stock. He Has shaken his wallet tp the- bottom, and
emptied his last pebble He has done little else than reit
erate for some speeches past. He reminds one of thp
complaint the negro made against his fiddle : it would play
no other tune but " 'tis as il twas! 'tis as it twas!" But I
must be excused from- following him- around His everlast
ing circle. These matters he keeps repeating, I have
hitherto refuted. I have other matters in hand, if he his
HOtw Mr. Pingree complains that I am arguing with Mr. Ba!--
lou! Well,! must argue with some one. I came here
for an argument : nor dO'I believe that -my opponent has
any gretit'cause of complaint against me for not bestowing
enough attention upon Himself. 1 am not conscious of

riNivEasALisM* 245
having neglected him; and I have heard no complaint on
that score either in or out of the house,' except from him
self. Nor am I to be terrified by threats of bringing Mr.
Ballou to meet me. If he can do the Cause of Universal
ism more justiee than Mr. Pingree, let him bp' brought.
1 do not expect to go to Texas, and my whereabouts can
easily be found. Indeed, when I consented to meet' my;
•opponent, I thought I had; testimony sufficient to itiduce
the belief that he was the Ajax Telamon of His pariy; if
;at all, but a slight remove below Miv BaHou himself! But
my friend seerris to squirm a -little under the idea of being
the child of his " Father BattOu!" But why should he?
In the. judgment of charity, can any one suppose for a
moment that Mr. Pingree would be what he now is theolo
gically, if Mr. Ballou had never -flourished? But this by
the way. You observed, no doubt, that while my opponent,
in one breath, complained of my arguing with Ballou; in
the very next, he endorsed tbe sentiments of Ballou.whioh
I controverted! Mr. Pingree took one startling position that claims atten
tion, He said, that the sufferings ofthe righteous and the
wicked were ^fght afflictions endured fora few moments,
and which worked for them a far more exceeding and
¦eternal weight of glory!
Mk. Pingree. Let me explain.
Mr. Waller. No explanation is necessary. It is a
¦question of fact. I say you did take this' position, and I
appeal to the stenographer. WiU he answer^
Stenosrapher. He did say so*
That is enough. Indeed it is iu perfect keeping with-
the rest of his system. If the righteous and the wicked
are admitted into the next world on perfect equality, with-
•out any reference to their conduct in this life, then of
course, the afflictions -of the wicked just as much as those
of the righteous, work for them an exceeding and eternal
weight of glory! And it follows too, from the fact that
the Universalist hell, instead of being- a place <of punish
ment, is nothing more than a moral labratory, purging
away the dross of the soul, and making men the better
adapted to eternal happiness! ¦ Let the man who is suffer
ing in this 'world for his sins — the drunkard.ithe thief, the
highway man,.and the murderer — take consolation* These
i%ht afflictioBS are but for a moment, and work for him *

?44 DEBATE ON
far more exceeding and eternal weight- of glpry ! If such
be the consequences, who would not glory in committing
such crimes and receiving such punishment? And why
not, Call the man hung for murder, as well as "an ApoStle
crucified for his faith, a saint and a martyr, seeing that
their sufferings produce the same , glorious results here-r
after?'- It is the legitimate tendency of Universalism to release
the sinner from punishment. I beg leave to make a quo
tation frpm the " Pro and Con of Universalism."
"' But conscience becomes callous after a while,' say
you, ' and the sinner of every kind learns to perpetrate
his deeds without compunction; hence; instead of increas-,
ing with the ratio of guilt, (as, justice would seem to re
quire,) punishment actually. diminishes as crime ihcreases.'
A specious objection, I grant you, reader, very specious;
but you overlook the fact that this moral insensibility is
itself a punishment — thegreatest of punishments." p. 249.
Here then is the deepest pit ofthe Universatist's Hell—
this " moral insensibility. .'¦'> When there is no longer com
punctions for sin, — when the. .sinner is past feeling, he
experiences the most. acute pain--^Ae greatest of punish*
ments!!", And this " greatest of- punishments," adds Mr.
Pingree, works out for him a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory!! I merely state this doctrine; it
would be an insult to your good sense to make one com
ment upon it. It sinks of its own weight to the bottom of
bottomless nonsense!
But I must pass on. After I have broken the phalanx
and routed the entire army, it Will be time enough to look
out for the stragglers.
I have demonstrated the punishment of the wicked, and
the happiness ofthe righteous in another life. I now pro
pose, to show, that these, estates are eternal. Respecting
the righteous there is no controversy. My opponent and
myself believe they will be. eternally happy. That the
Wicked will be eternally miserable, I propose to show.
First. By an argumentum ad hominum — by applying the
arguments of Universalists against -themselves.
The attributes of God are unchangeable. , They are not
opposed to the present sin and misery of mankind.. On
the contrary, Universalism tells us that the Almighty de
creed the existence of sin and misery in this world — that

UNIVERSALISM. 245
they exist in accordance with , his will and pleasure. It
follows then, that they must exist through eternity, or God
must change: — rhe must form- for himself another will and
pleasure!! God is love, and his love is unchangeable: and his love
to bis creatures caused him to predestinate their present
sin and misery. And what love decrees for them, being
unchangeable, must be eternal ! ! !
God is just — unchangeably just. And justice to his crea
tures compelled him to decree their present sin and mis
ery; and as these arc necessary for their present good, the
same justice, requires they should continue would withoui
end!! God is holy — unchangeably Holy: and his holiness abso
lutely demands the sin arid misery of his children in this
world; And this holiness never changing, being the same
yesterday, to-day, and forever, it absolutely demands, the
existence of sin. and misery through eternity !!!
God is very merciful and very kind, and changes not.
His mercy arid goodness require the present sin and mis
ery of his children; and since his lovmg kindness faileth
not, therefore this sin and misery1 must endure for ever!!!
This is the inevitable result ofthe Universalistrdoctrine,
It subverts itself, apd establishes beyond ^controversy, that
ein and misery, as they now exist, must continue eter
nally. Second. The Scriplures\do not reveal one idea respecting
the release, of sinners from, their future punishment.
1 have shown that, according to the Scriptures and to
Universalism, dinners are puriished after' death: of course,
unless the Scriptures teach us respecting, its termination,
we have no right to suppose (heir punishment will ever
end. If there be such a release, surely we might expect
to find it written as with a pencil of light, on the pages >of
the Bible,. A doctrine so. important would not be conceal
ed; and if, as Eestoratieriists affirm, men are redeemed
from hell, the doctrine would be so plainly recorded that
he who runs rnight read. , The doctrine of justification in
this life, is Clearly set forth in1 the Scriptures. The mos.t
simple may easily learn what they must do to be saved.
Now,' if isinners are to be forgiven, and if souls are to be
saved in the next world, is it not of the last importanqe
that we should know it! And yet where is it re orded In

SiS DEBATE ON
the Bible? No where! If such a thing occurs, God has
not given , information respecting it; and rio one has re
turned from the spiritland bringing the intelligence. A
truth so important, God would not have concealed from
us. But. it is not true, because not revealed.
But I will not press this .point. 1 have no opponent oa
this subject at present. -Although Mr. Pingree professes
lo fraternize with the EeStoratioriists, yet I am persuaded
Ke will not vindicate them on this point.
'Third. But ihe Scriptures employ the.very strongest terms
¦to express the j erpiiuilij of punishment; and if it is possi
ble for language to convey the idea of eternal -punishment^
then tlmt doctrine is taught in the Scriptures,
1 have already alluded' tp this subject. I asked Mr.
Pingree, for -example,., to produce, from the Greek lan-
guage> a stronger .terra than a innios to- convey the idea of
endless duration. He has produced no such word, he has
made no attempt of the ?kind; nor will he. This word is
used to "express, the. dn ration of punishment.' Mr. Pingree
has quoted authors. He has, read what he palls conces
sions. He. seemed to triumph because he had a few
learned men to/sustain him on a point oc two. He has ap
pealed to Ce-asar, and to Ceasar he shall go. Let us then
goto those who must know the meaning of this word ap
plied to the duration of punishment, arid ask .for its signi
fication. It is a Greek word, and shall we ask Greek
scholars? Wi'h united voice, for pighteen centuries,, per
sons skilled in that language, of every creed and country,.
tell us tha the prevailing meaning of,, that word isenSless,
eternal!, It is a Greek word* let us demand its meaning of
the Greeks themselves. If they do net know its tru-e
import, no one can possibly know it. They have ex
pressed hut one opinion on it, from the first introduction-
of Christianity among them to tbe present time, viz: it
means endless, eterndl. So the Apostolip fathers, decided.
So decided the Church of- the second.- century. So did all
the Latin and Greek fathers. And in this opinion have
concurred all. Christians, and especially: all scholars, and
critics x}f any note, until the days of- Hosea .Ballou. If
this he the genera) and common meaning of the term, it
must be, its meaning vvhen used in "reference to punish
ment,, unless it be shown that necessity requires th^t.it
iB.hould 'not' retain it. Can this necessity be proved fo exist?
Ii cannot — it neves has been !

UNIVERSAL* S,M. ?4f
... Why should this term have been .selected by the Spirit
of God, to express the duration ,of punishment, if it was
lolast but. a few days, or at most but a few years? A term
¦employed to express the perpituity of the happiness of
saints in light, as well as the stability of the throne pf
Gpd? Was it used ta mislead f— to impose a falsehood?
Who so impious as to make such a charge, and yet
hpw else can we explain the matter,, unless Universal
ism be admitted to be the climax ef falsehood. ,
.Here then 1 rest. This word alone .settles the qaestipn,
.until my opponent proves that it cannot have its commoa
and literal meaning when used in reference to punishment.
The burtBen of proof is his. The literal meaning must
not be departed from except necessity compels. Hp, must
show the necessity in this case, or his cause falls to the
earth. As I must hasten to get over as, much ground is I can,
I shall leave this branch of our subject for the present af
loast, and hasten to consider the propriety of punishment,
and to what end it is inflicted.
Mr. Pingree has endeavored to be facetious and then
severe upon our doctrine respecting punishmeat for sin.
But he has taken very little pains to guard his own sys
tem, which may be thus illustrated: A father takes his
child, and makes him steal, and lie; and swear, and muiv
der; and then because he does these things, he takes a
cart-whip, and flogs him severely. The little son says,
"Father, did you not force me ito lie, and steal, etc?'"
"Yes, my son, I d'd," replies the father.- " Then why dp
you whip me for doing it?" "Because it is my will and
pleasure, and Ido it for your, goodie Just so Universal
ism represents God. He makes men sin, and pupishes
them for doing it, and this punishment is for their good!
Well, suppose, we grant it. If God, in wisdom and love
has made men sin, and then puaishes them for it in' tbis
world, and- all for, their good, the same wisdom and love
will perpetuate this system of benevolence world without
.¦end; and make men forever. sia and forever punish them
for ill Pr will the gentleman argue that God becomes a
wjser legislator in the future stale, and abolishes there His
sublunary code of disciplinary punishment, founded in, in
finite wisdom, and executed in mercy and love? He must

248 DEBATE ON
aigue thus, or abandon his system; and yet If he does so
argue, he perpetrates the most egregfous nonsense. For
he now says, that the present code of laws is founded in in
finite wisdom, so that if it is changed in the next world,
it must be for the worse or the better, ff for the worse,
then God falls below himself, and if for the better, then
he must go beyond that which is infinite! So, let Mr.
Pingree turn as he may, and he is1 met by insurmountable
difficulties. But I wish to relieve him, if I can, from the agony
he is" in respecting our sentiments no divine punish*
ment. Indeed, he wholly misconceives our doctrine.
He has been fighting a phantom. No one teaches respect
ing punishments what he has been opposing. It is a mat
ter of serious regret that he has not taken more pains to
inform himself on this branch ofthe subject.
We affirm thdt the punishment pf the wicked is just, and
that what is just is nor contrary to goodness and love, but
harmonizes perfectly with tfiem. We argue that their pun
ishment is just,
First.- Because sinners, if saved, must be pardoned or
forgiven of their sins. Pardon or forgivness, in human
language, means to dispense with a penalty justly due for
crimes committed — that the individual pardoned might
justly' have suffered the punishment from which he is re
leased. This, I say, is the meaning ofthe term in the
language of men; and if the sacred writers used the
language. of our race, So we must understand their use of
this word. If they did not use it, in what language did
they write? and how can we, interpret what they have
written ? Now it is declared, in divers places, that
men are pardoned of their sins, are forgiven, — their in
iquities blotted out, covered, remitted, etc. The Univer
salist idea of sueh terms aad phrases is, that no man is
pardoned until he has suffered the full penalty of his
crimes. This is to speak in ne tongue under the Heaven?-
What governor ever said that he Had pardoned a man in
the penitentiary after he had served, the utmost moment
required by the law? And I hat would be a most inefllcieni
pardon which should be given to the murderer, after hf:
had been hung until he was dead! And that too would be
a most singular method of forgiving a debt, which should
te delayed until the utmost farthing had been exacted! —

UNIVERSALISM. 249
But the Scriptures abundantly show that'God intends to
be understood in this matter as we understand one anoth
er. The Savior directed his disciples to- pray their Heav-
, erily Father, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors." Notice the phrase, " as we forgive:" tHe same
principles-apply, in human and divine affairs. If the man
latks nonsense when he says, he has forgiven a debt upon re
ceiving the last cent of principal and interest, it is equally
nonsensical to say that our Heavenly Father forgives us, af
ter we have paid the penalty of our sins. : Besides, I have
demonstrated it to be supreme nonsense to argue that the
term: pardon or forgivness is used in one sehse by the Sac
red, and in to totally a different sense by profane writers.
As man forgives, so God forgives. We are ten thousand
talents in debt, and have nothing to pay, and our Heaven
ly Father, who is rich in mercy, for the sake of his Son,
forgives the debt. It follows then, that if our sins be for
given us, we might have justly beep punished for them, just
as a man who is pardoned for an offence against the State,
is saved by that pardon from a just punishment.
¦ So then the punishment of sinners is founded in justice,
because all who are saved, are pardoned, and consequent
ly released frpm a punishment that might have been right
eously inflicted.
, Second. TAe punishment of the sinner is just, because
no man can be saved except by the grace or favor of God;
and if by grace, tlien unmerited and undeserved.
The terms of the proposition in debate take for granted
that men are in a lost and unhallowed condition; and
hence my opponent assumes to prove their " ultimate holi
ness and salvation." They are so lost, that without a Sav
ior, none ever could have been saved. Hence, by grace,
we are saved. Christ who was rich, for our sakes became
poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich.
"By his stripes we are healed." Not by* works of right
eousness which we have done, but according to his mer
cy he saved us, by the washing Of regeneration and the
renewing of the Holy Ghost. We have no right to demand
grace. We had no-right to requite the Son of, God to die
for us. Then we did not deserve salvation., Wemight just
ly have been left in a lost condition. Of course our pun
ishment is -just and righteous, and must remain forever so,
unfil we can justly and righteously demand the grace of

250 DEBATE ON
salvation — until we can justly and righteously. claim the
death of the Son, of God. in order to our redemption.
[•am aware that Universalism may escape this by denying
the doctrine of mercy and grace. In .fact, it is a system
that destroys itself. It asserts, in effect, that there is no
salvation, and consequently, rioneed of a Savior. What
does Jesus; dp, for sinners, according to Universalism? He
does not redeem, them from guilt; for if so, they could not
receive foil and adequate punishments for it. He does
not save, them from the' curse , of the law, else why , dp
men suffer all that, the law, threatens? He does not save
them from their sins; or why, do so many die in their sins?
Aye, why do none die free from sin, according to Mr.
Pingree? The truth is, if Universalism admits that Jesus
is a Savior, then they must admit that salvation is of
grace, and if of grace, it is undeserved, and might, justly
and righteously have been withhold; which is just the
same as tn assert, that punishmept being averted by the
grace of God through Jesus Christ, then sinners deserved
that punishment, and had no right to expect, much less tp
demand their salvation. If by1grace they are saved from
punishment in this world (and tHey are saved from punish
ment,, if Saved from sin)' then they deserved punishment
in this world. The same is just as true ofthe nextiwprld.
They have no right to demand grace, It is a sovereign
act,' wholly undeserved on the part of the sinner.
No man has a right to demand exemption form the conr
sequences of his own voluntary, act. He may se.ek it as a
favor, but cannot demand it as a right. Sin is man's own
voluntay net, and punishment the natural consequence.
If he is exempted from thp consequences, it must be by
grace; and but for grace,, the sinner might of course just:
ly reap forever the fruit of his doings!
.Third. It, is just, because of the heinous nature of sin;
sin is treason against- the Almighty. ,
, I have already explained this point. If sin were per
mitted, the governments of God would be overthrown.
The sinner has revolted from that government, and. wage?
Unrelenting and deadly warfare against it., It, is a prerog
ative, of every government to preserve, its own existence.
Todo this, it must punish those who would subvert it.
Justice and. rightenushess demand such a procedure.
The Universalists themselves admit that punishment, in

UNIVERSALISM. 251
this world, -is founded in mercy and love, and is a' just and
necessary consequence of sin: how- tHen can they !deny
the same principles to pertain in relation to. punishment in
a'futu re state? If it justly pertains in time, why not ia
eternity? But Fourth." : Punishment is inflicted with a view. to the
good of society, and not of the. individual:
Our penal laws are for the preservation of the reputa
tion, the property, and the lives of the people of the Com
monwealth^ and the punishment is inflicted for the publie
good- A government that .would pardon all criminals,
while it manifested great regard, for the comfort and
feelings of the violators of law, would be unjust to and
reckless- of the rights and safety of the good and virtuous
citizens of the State. The principle of procedure in the
Divine Government in punishing sinners is the same as
¦this. Sin is an injury upon God's Government which wai
made for the good of his intelligent creatures,, The evils
of sin are not confined to the man who is the transgress
sor. Its baneful influences extend to. others. Hence he
is punished for the public good. This is the point I, wish
my opponent to see. He does not, understand' our doc
trine. Like the children in the marketplace; we have
mourned unto him,, arid he has not lamented; we have
piped unto him, and he ha3 not danced,. We have
given him line upon line; and precept- upon precept, and
yet he will not perceive our position. But I will make it
so plain, that you shall see it, if Mr. Pingree cannot.
God condescended to be temporal Governor of the Jews,
and to give them national- laws; Let us hear the reason
of his penal enactments; Deut. xiii. 10,- 1 1, " Thou shalt
stone him [the idolator] with stones, till he die, because
he hath sought to thrust thee away, from ihe Lord thy
God, and all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall. do. no
more any such wickedness as this is among you." This mail
was not punished for his reformation, but that the public
might he deterred from following his example. This is
the reason he gives for this punishment. And so he rear
sons in relation to future punishments; 2 Peter ii.,, '6,
'^Turning the cities of Sodom! and Gomorrah into ashes,
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ex
ample unto those tliat after should live ungodly." Jude 7,
''Even as Sodom- and Gomorrah and the cities about therii,
in hke manner- giving themselves over 'to .fornication and

252 DEBATE OK
going after 'strange flesh are set forth for an example, suf
fering the vengeance of eternal fire" Here then is the rea
son of punishment — it is an " example" to warn others —
to deter from sin. Upon this prinqiple is based the penal
laws of all the governments in the universe.
It follows then, that pu ishment is inflicted not in hatred
or in affection for the individual, hut of his crime, and in
view of its deleterious influence upon society if unrestrain
ed. He is punished for the public good — to preserve the
soeial compact. Why is the murderer punished? Not to
gratify revengeful feelings, nor to gratify public indigna
tion. It is not uncommon for deep and wide spread sym
pathy to be felt for the unfortunate criminal. I could nev
er see a person hanged. He may have been a young man
of respectable aiid extensive connexions, and; in an evil
hoUr, he imbued his hands in the blood of a fellow mortal.
The jury that condemns, and the Judge who: passes the
awful sentence of his doom may weep for the poor man,
but they feel that his crime must be punished. The safe
ty of society requires it.
The history of our country furnishes another illustra
tion. You remember the case of Major Andre, taken as a
spy. There was not a heart in America that did not sympa
thize with that: amiable and excellent young man. The
great and good Washington signed , his death warrant
with tears. He felt a father's sympathy for him. But
what could he do? If his'feelings as a man were left to
predominate, then the mighty interests of his country
must be overthrown. The' public good, the independence
and liberty of his country, and the fate of unborn mil
lions demanded the execution of the unfortunate British
officer, and he was hung as a spy.
So God deals with the impenitent sinnor under his
government, for he acts on this principle. He punishes not
in anger-or affection. Feelings have nothmg to do in the
case; they are not taken into consideration. He proceeds
on principles of justice and righteousness, which are but
other names for gopdness and love. He is a sovereign.
King of kings, and Lord of lords. His empire is the moral
universe. He has ordained laws Ipr the good of his sub
jects. His punishments then are not inflicted in hatred or
affection for the individual, but to preserve the law, and
to protect the rights of his law abiding creatures. ' Nor
is this- punishment inflicted arbitrarily, but is the unavoid-

UNIVERSALISM. 263
able result of sin, and: is inflicted from the necessity of
the, case. Man seeks his own ruin, he runs away Train
happiness. God punishes him by withholding mercies.
Hitherto he has given him the blessings of life and health.
Man has used them to the injury of his:benefactor. That was
a terrible sentence which.God uttered respecting Ephraim;
"He is joined to his idols, let him alone." And suppose
Gpd should withdraw all his blessings from us, and let -us
alone, what greater punishment could we imagine? Sup
pose such a sentence now executed — the Sun is extin
guished!— the .Stars fall from Heaven! — the Earth flies
to pieces! — the diseases and miseries hitherto restrained
by- his kind hand, seize upon us! — the malignant spirits
heretofore confined and fettered 'to- some extent, now in
fiendish fury rend our souls'. In a word, all is night and
anguish, arid keen despair! And why should, he not let us,
alone?' Who of you would continue tp give moriey to an
individual, that had- been in the habit, of abusing your
bounty to your injury, arid that you knew would use
whatever you gave him to abuse your feelings, arid to des
troy your goods? And yet you would ask "the Almighty
to act thus with the' sinners, who will not comp unto Jesus
that they may be saved !
But Mr. Pingree argues that men are, not free agents in
their destruction. He says they would not go to hell, and
yet, according tp the Orthodox,- they are sent there. This
is ingenious, but it has no solidity; Men do not volunta
rily. embrace the punishment, yet they perform volunta
rily what they know will lead to punishment. The act
then was voluntarily performed, in fall view ofthe conse
quences. In this consists the free agency. . Does Mr. Pin-.
gree deny that a murderer is a-,moral agent? No man is,
a murderer unless he kills with malice aforethought. Arid
Bhall we be told that he did not do the deed of his own
will — that he was not a free moral agent in the murder,
because he, did not want to be hanged! If such is not
thepoint of Mr. Pingree's argument, then I am too dull to
perceive it: — because a man does not want to suffer in
hell, therefore, he cannot be a free moral agent in doing
that which he knows will consign him to perdition ! Such
a conclusion from such premises is worthy only of chil
dren. Nor is righteousness or heaven forced upon any
man. If Universalism be true, holiness and virtue are

254 BEBAtlt'OlU:
forced upon mari!: He is not free to love and serve God,
but is compelled, nolens volensj to do so! If this be so, as I
have demonstrated, there is neither -virtue nor vice among
men. But the gentleman contends that our doctrine is, that
God' places the sinner in the next world where he cannot
serve him, and must blaspheme him forever. Now, I pro
test against his imputing his own doctrine to us; for sup
posing that we taught such sentiments, it would be but ifi
extend to the other world that system of things which he
contends prevails in this! He- says that here God makes
men sin and punishes them for it. But we hold to no such
views, either in reference to this world or the next. Man
sins voluntarily, and God punishes him for his sins, be
cause they are infractions of his law, arid tend to the in
jury and misery of his intelligent creatures. He takes no
pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but rather that he
should turn and live. To save sinners, he sent his. Sou
into the world, that whosoever believeth in him might not
perish but have everlasting life.
But I must hasten. My time is nearly expired* I in
tended to correct some palpable mistakes in the gentleman's
last speech; but for the want of time, I must leave them to
Work out their Own destruction* On the subject of a vica
rious atonement, I would recommend him to examine some
theological dictionary. His remarks on that pdint were
entirely harmless, because he wholly mistook the mean
ing of the terms. He :does not know what vicarious^
atonement means. He owes it to his reputations to study
Bach matters. Arid he is just as ignorant of Calvinism-
Calvinists do not deny free moral agency. He asks me to
state whether I am an Arminian or a Calvinist? I am
neither. I profess to belong to the school of Christ; and
to take the Bible as the man of my council. The Bible
ALONE rS MY RELIGION.
The plan of man's salvation is so plain that he who runs
may read. God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whoever believeth on him might not
perish; but have everlasting life. This was a merciful
provision. Man did not deserve it. By the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, God can be just, and the justifier of him that
believes. We are told in the parable, that a king pro
vided a great supper, and invited all to come. But some

ri M i V e:rs aiil ism. 256
excused themselves ahd would-not come. The king was
riot to blame for their refusal, but was justly provoked at
their contempt of his bounty. J'ust so in the Gospel. Hero
is a glorious feast prepared, and the invkation goes forth,
"whosoever will, let, him come!" If men eat, they shall
never hunger; if they refuse they must die. If they do
not come, whose fault is it? Noi God's; for he has pre
pared the feast, and bids all to come. But it is man's
fault. He will not come, that he may have life. What
more could love and mercy do? And what more cap man
desire'or demand? Had God done moi-e, he must have
destroyed man's moral agency, arid thereby rendered him
as incapable of goo'd- or evil, as a stock or a stone. But
the sinner iriust undergo a1 moral change, Or he cannot He
happy. This my opponent admils. Then ¦ the sinner-
must be a free moral agent, or he cannot receive such: a
change. [MB. PINGftEfi's ELEVENTH SPEECH.]
I will bow notice one passage which Has been' ¦ intro+
duced, as referring to a-future judgment after death. It
is Heb. ix. 27, 2$. 1 wilt' as briefly as possible, give a hint
ortwo, to show its proper intention and meaning, 1 have
not time to dwell uponit, at length: I'take this passage,
especially, because a great impresrion is attempted to be
made from it, as referring to a> judgment Iii a future life.
1 have stated and "established the Scripture doctrine of
judgment, during the reign of Christ, commending at his
appearing in his kingdom; to which most passages speak
ing of judgment refer, and by Which they are explained.
I have cited the 20th chapter of Revelations, also Peter,
with others, and given general explanations as to that
judgment. But this passage in 9th of Hebrews is not of
that kind. It relates to another judgment: " And as it is
Appointed unto men' once to die, and after that the judg
ment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many:
ahd unto them that look for Him shall he appear fhe secoud
time without sin unto salvation."
The context will show the subject about which the Apes-*
tie is arguing. The 'Epistle contrasts, or compares, tbe
offerings under the old dispensation, and the one great
offering under the new. Refer to the preceding chapter,
beginning at the 4th verse; where the Apostle speaks of

266 DEBATE OH
the priests entering "the hdly of holies, by the blood of
others, once in each year;" wifh which he,contrasts the
offering of Christ. The verse, "And as it is appointed
unto men once to die, and after that the judgment," is
illustrated by Exodus' xxviii. 15th and 3Qth;,16th and 9lh
of Leviticus, and 6th of Numbers. The high priest wore
" a, breast plate ot judgment," when he came out, to bless
the people.; and he pronounced a judgment of justificalioji
upon the people who were "looking" for his return; not
of condemnation, or punishment; but a blessing.;
So is Jesus Christ a high priest, wHo appeared onCe for
all, offering his own life; " and unto themthat look for him
shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.''
This shows that his judgment is not followed, by condemna
tion, but salvation. I will repeat the Whole verse: " And
as it is appointed! unto men [or thi .men, translating the
Greek article} once to die, and after that the judgment, so
Christ was once offered," etc. This does not^refer to thp
death of all men, and the judgment common to all as being
in a, future state. It refers to the priests, who "were
taken from among men," as Paul had before said.' Sp Christ
is represented as a high priest who was todie, as it wasap-
pointed unto those once to die He was to enter the Di
vine presence with "his oiqn blood;" and not hke them,
"with the blood of otliers." What likeness is tl(ere be
tween the reconciling death of Christ, followed by judg
ment, and the death of all men, and their suffering judg
ment in the life to come? The Apostle says, "And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after that the judg
ment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
unto them that look for him shall he appear without sin
unto salvation." It is clear, therefore, that if the "judg
ment" here spoken of be intended to apply to a general
judgment of all men in a future life, andto affect their
future condition in the eternal world, the passage is a
proof of universal salvation; for there is no damnation
after it. It is a "judgment" only " to salvation," accord
ing to the text itself. I challenge Mr. Waller to produce
a word, a single hint, in all this passage, of misery, of dam
nation, in the life to come; or even after this " judg
ment!" After this brief explanation, I pass on to review my
friend's last speech. 1 am sorry he saw proper to refer

UNIVERSALISM. tbi"
to my speech as disparaging to that venerated individual,
Hosea Ballou. I have uttered riothing disparaging
towards him. God forbid that I should ! There has. riot
lived a nobler spirit since the age of Luther. He was a
better man than Luther, and his reformation is a. greater
one than Luther's;. I merely said that my friend was dis
cussing with him, instead of me, as he ought to do; and
that I should be glad ff he were here to defend himself.
I protest against the charge of disparaging him. 1 would
not do it for my right hand.
As to my remarks about the sufferings of the Apostles,
working out for them a weight of glory hereafter, and' of
their enduring thetri willingly for a reward, etc., I had
reference to the purposes of God in them; and said that
they gladly endured their labors and sufferings for a re
ward. ¦ That reward was the enjoyment of fhe " kingdom
of God," here, which was "within" them., and not the gift
of immortal glory hereafter.
As to what' is Held byTJniversalists on that subject, I
refer you to the work called the " Pro and Con of Univer
salism," by Rev. George -Rogers." I desire you all to read
it. It is one of the best books ever written on out doc
trines, and 1 recommend it to all who wish to have a gene
ral view of Universalism, better than Can elsewhere be as
readily procured;, — not that I advocate, every minor idea;
contained in it; but in the whole view of Universalism, it is
the best work 1-Tiave seen.
We have now an argument for the endless punishment
of the wicked, to wit: From the attributes of God — an "^ar
gumentum ad hominem;" that is, according to us, as God is
unchangeable, and not now opposed to sin and misery, he
will not be so hereafter.
I suppose, then; if a physician should have to amputate
your limb, to saveyour life, and you should endure great
agOny during the operation, you would say to the physi
cian, now you have inflicted pain, and therefore you will
continue to inflict similar pain upon me through life.
That's the argument. But that Is riot all as to unChange-
ableriess. God has made man " subject to vanity," says
Paul. But he says afterwards, "the creature [man] shall
be delivered from this bondage of corruptr6n into the
glorious liberty pf the sons of God!" If it were not for
that declaration, we might have imagined that' sin should
17

258 debate on
continue to eternity. But the Scriptures say it shall not.
But, says .Mr.l Waller,' the Scriptures nowHere speak of
the deliverance ot the wicked frpm misery. 1, admit, that
as long as men are wicked, they are miserable; but I have
seen no proof yet that they are to be endlessly wicked;
while I have proved that they shall nU remain wicked, or
miserable. Besides, David was delivered from " the lowest.
Hell." Jonah also, was delivered "out of Hell," or Hades.
But Mr. Waller will say that was not Ihe same place, precise
ly, as the one where the Rich Man was. Well, we havp
proved that even the Rich Man is to be takenout of "Hell."
We have seen that Death and Hell (Hades) are to deliver
up the dead that were in- them. (Rev. 20.) Is not that
sufficient? My friend' referred, to Joe, Smith, We lay no claim.
to him. Joe Smith was a Partialis!.! I have seen the
Book of Mormon, and it leaches that there are some who
can never be saved. And Joe Smith is a Baptist, too...
He insists on immersion. They introduced a controversy
about it, but the author of the book urged on them the-
positive necessity ot immersion. He belongs, to my friend,
and not to me;. though I have- heard that lately his preach
ers have, inclined in, favor of restoration; but I dpnt know
how tHat may be. The Book of Mormon, has a story about
the people liying long ago, when a savage looking man, of
dreadful mien and evil disposition, came, and told them
that all men would be saved; and that the same arguments
were used againsthim, as now .by Mr. Waller. Finally,
this " savage'* Universalist was driven, from the country..
Joe was not then a Universalist; that is, if he wrote tho
Book of Mormon. . As to his subsequent views, I dont know.
certainly what they were.'
As to the same terms being used to express the duration
ot punishment, as are applied to happiness, God, and a fu
ture, life, I have a few remarks to make. Icannot promise
How fully I shall expose that argument. I will, notice it
here, as far as I haver time. If it has come up too late in.
the discussion, to be fairly and fully examined, the fault
is npt mine. As to the term rendered, "eternal," when
applied to punishment, etc., Mr. Waller told us, and cor
rectly, that the term rendered " eternal," is aionios;. and
he claims that there is no stronger term in the Greek lan
guage to express endless duration than that. I have not.

UNIVERSALISM. ^259"
time to go into that question now, philologically. Where
do we go to learn the meaning of the word? To the Lex
icon? Not for entire authority, But what does that say?
The Lexicon does not repTesentit as always meaning end
less.' What shall we dp then? Take the Bible, and see how
the term is used there." If it always means unlimited du
ration, then I give up the point; and if there are rio cir
cumstances to show a limited sense, when applied to pun
ishment. The whole system of Universalism is false, of
course, if the term in that connection means endless.
Scripture says we shall be finally delivered from the
bondage of corruption- 'But "says- Mr. Waller, the same-
term- that expresses the duration of punishment, is applied
to the duration of God; ahd our argument, therefore,' de
thrones* God, and causes the happiness ofthe righteous.- to*
cease! The word is sometimes, applied to- objects of limit
ed, and sometimes to objects -of unlimited duration: This.
I ,have shown. i3o the word, " never;" and the phrase,
"forever apd ever." These teems are only variation's of
the same word — axon, and aionios, as affected by being
associated with'prepositions,' or adjectives, etc.
Mr. Waller will- admit that' they are > all sometimes used.
in a limited sense. This is all we .'claim.' For all is ad
mitted, if this be admitted'. What then?' Do you nob'
claim that it can not mean endless, when applied to', pun
ishment? Not we. If the- word be- admitted to be once
used to mean less than endless,- it .follows, that the' word
translated " eternal," does hot necessarily prove endless
punishment. I say, not necessarily. So 'much for the
words. ' Then -we prove by other ineariSy that punishment is- lim*
ited;^*-as fl'Om the nature' of God, etc. Ail we are bound to
do, is to prove the fact that ihe words sometimes are lim
ited; and this Mr. Waller will not venture to deny.
I trust I am understood. I only deny that the words
must necessarily mean endless. 1 suppose he' will in
sist 'that they do:' But apply' the sdme argument to
him, in this way. Suppose a Jew comes and ¦ says to
Mr. Waller, Jesus Christ was' an1 impostor; and I can
prove it: How do you prove it"? Why, in this way. God
gave to Moses, our lawgiver, an "everlasting-' statute"
lie said that the offerings by the Priests once a year,
should conti'nue forever". But JeSus Christ put away
these statutes and offerings, which God said should last for*

260. BE BATE Olt
ever. , He has. abrogated the statutes, -prid.set aside the
priesthood of Aaron, and ,., established a new priesthood,
after the order of Melchizedec. He contradicts tbe pro
mises, of Almighty God. Ypu must come back lo the" fold'
of Judaism. I offer you, an opportunity to return to the
Jewish: religion. Regard the preaching of Jesus as that
of an impostor.
/What, would , Mr. Waller say to the Jew? What
could he say, but what I or any body would say as to
the words, "everlasting," etc? He, may get over the dif
ficulty as he best can. But He canppt; for I know not
what he could, say to an argument like that,' except to
adopt the argument I use here-^-that the meaning of the
words is limited,-— that it , was , the design of God that
such things should come to an end.* But we have
the authority pf God for the fact that it was to he
everlasting ; and thus the Jew would say, you de
throne God, and destroy- heaven !,! It stops the hap
piness, of ihe righteous; for the same word, ".ever
lasting,'? is applied -to both. Wh$t could Mr. Waller say
to that? ,1 will take the, position of the Jew now, for ar
gument's: sake, „.aiid I woujd like to hear his answer.
Opine, Sir, what will you do , with this argument?. How
will you show that Christ is not an arrant, impostor in ab
rogating a priesthood that God said should be everlasting?
I have given reasons for the propriety of punishment
in this life — remedial punishment.
Has Mr. Waller given reasons to show the proprie:y
of endless punishment? '.,-,- ,
Not one. He represents that if it is good for man to
be punished here, it may be so to all eternity. But there
is no "afterward.s," to endless misery, as there is to the
punishments which, God really inflicts. - Therefore,, it can
not be for their.^ooiZ. If it were limited, it would have a
meaning; if unlimited, none. There is no propriety in
arguing thus.
He next talks about relieving my agony, and my being
mistaken in his views of punishment. Whether this be
so or npt, you all know whether I have made any mistake
about the common opinion, as to endless punishment.
He next argues that punishment is just. , Let him
prove tl}e justice of endless misery, and then he may say
in regard to it, what he says about it? goodness,, etc. I
admit the justness of the punishment of -sin,. because sin

UNIVEKS l,tl,SM. 12S1
is contrary to God's law; but endless misery is unjust-^
monstrously unjust. There is a great difference between
•"punishment being just," and endless torture being jast;
a very great difference. We de not, cannot deserve that.
Universal salvation does not depend on the 'pardon of
sin, in the sense he gave it, as, Mr. Waller seems to inti
mate. It only teaches that men do not deserve a punish
ment sa cruel!. Perhaps in the first sin, a. man is cut off.
Does he for this deserve endless .damnation? No! No
man will say he does. Yet that is a consequence of the
commpn doctrine. '¦ '
-Mr. Waller has, again attempted to ridicule the idea of
our being punished, and then forgiven. He corripares it
to a creditor forgiving a debt, after it. is all paid. Apply
this to his own doctrine; Jesus Christ suffered our punish
ment. The debt is paid. Yet we are made fo pay -it
again'. That is worse than punishing and forgiving; it is
punishing twice, and not forgiving at ail! But in refer
ence to our views, I have shown that in the Bible the word
"Forgiveness," is -not wsedin the legal sense, but as' the
taking away of our sins.' Says John fhe Baptist, " Behold
the Lamb of God, who taked-h away -the- sin, 'of- the world."
This is forgiveness, in the Scripture signification of that
word. The common statement of the doctrine is that Christ
took our punishment rNow where are we informed that
he suffered endless damnation? which is said to be our
punishment. Where is it? If lie did take our punish
ment, why are we still to :suffer it? We shall all escape
U; so that universal Salvation does Hot depend on this idea
of the punishment first, -and forgiveness after, of sins. In
one case or the other, the doctrine is equally established.
But we are saved entirely by grace. ' '•'•What then be
comes of all the argument for works and rewards?
Mr. Waller. I saythere must be good deeds.
- Mr. Pingree. Good'deeds would make but little dif
ference upon his : theory. He said there Were none that
«do good, and that sin does ¦ oppose the law of Gpd, and
Jesus Christ said " not one jot nor one tittle of the law
should pass away." - All this is Correct. It is what we say1,
and we say that all miist be brought to obey the law of God.
There will' be universal salvation, because sin is opposed
tp the laws of God, which stand and triumph, and all will

262 DEBATE ON
be brought to obey, through the grace of God. Is there
punishment for him who comes to God? Does He not say
that God pardons all who cpmC to him, if they take the
proper course? , Well, we prove that all will finaUy come
to God, or to. Christ, and so be saved, > ,
Now he says that sin injures others, besides the sinner,
and therefore, ought to be punished. So say we. There
fore, also, all the sins of all sinners must be punished.
1 Mr. Waller. My position was that sin injured others,
and therefore it was just to punish it.
Mr. Pingree, Then I say that if just, all sinners are
to be punished for every sin, arid all men sin. Therefore,
all men are to be endlessly punished. This again is uni
versal damnation! But to punish, some, and let others
go free; is that just? But he, has a' way of escape for
some. This is the difference.
He says sin is punished for an example to others. Not
to others living here, certainly! Sodpm and Gomorrah
were overthrown for an " example" to them that should
come after. But how can their future punishment after
the general Judgment, be an r example to thosp living
here? - The example as applied to future punishment
comes too late, everlastingly too late: Who is influenced
by that example here? Nobody sees it — it affords no ex
ample. But the punishment of Sodom, it, is said, is put
off till after the general judgment. Oh! the influence by
the example is then to be felt in other worlds. Then hu
man creatures, — God's children — are bound to fill Hell for
the benefit of other beings! — to keep the, angels, perhaps
from sinning!— tp keep saints from sinning hereafter! —
Does that look like a Being of Justice, and Wisdom, arid
Goodness? ',-.,,
Suppose a State should not punish its criminals till the
final winding up of its affairs, and after all its members
had passed away. The example would pome too late;
would it not? Sp in this ease. Endless misery hereafter
affords no " example." It comes too late.
, He says punishment is npt arbitrary, but just; and the
unavoidable , result of sin. God necessarily punishes sin.
Hpre again then is universal damnation; for all do sin.
If punishment is unavoidable,, then all must gO to Hell for
ever, if that is the proper and necessary punishment.
That is what we say— -that punishment is not, arbitrary ;

UNIVERSALISM. 263
and yet God says he " will by na means clear the guilty."
Hence punishment must be limited, and suffered; or else
we have final, endless, universal damnation!
He says' he has not denied free agency. He gives an
illustration to show that he does" believe in free agency.
In reply, I ask, is the murderer allowed to repent in Hell?
even though he wants to? Is he willing to be punished
there'? If willing to repent, it is most likely 'he would be
Wilting while suffering. Is this allowed? I ask, will he
be aUowed to repent? Has he the privilege to repent and
/o»;e God hereafter? No! says Partialism. This is Worse
than the penitentiary. For governors allow men to re
pent. But the penitentiary of which the Devil is sheriff,
or turnkey, allows rio repentance. They must sin on to
all eternity! says' Partialism, with all its boasted free
agency. He says the love of Gpd was manifested In sending his
Son Jesus. How many people did he love in giving his
Son to die for them? I answer, all: — he is impartial — he
died for all. No: he died for a paltry few! say Mr. Wal
ler and other Partialists. Look at the mass of mankind.
What have they heard of the Gospel , and of salvation?
Nothing. What evidence have they of God's loVe ? Pagans
— blind idolators cannot choose the offered mercy of God;
for it is not offered to them. Do they go to Hell? Can
they help it? What though they cry to God fpr mercy —
can they be saved? No: though theyptostrate themselves
on the earth, arid cry to all eternity, they CANNOT be
saved! Is there any free agency there? Are they free
to embrace God's terms, and be baptized, and saved? ARE
THEY FREE? They have no such freedom. Mark it,
forget it not; and let us hear rip more about this free
agency. ;
He says I dont know his views about vicarious atone-
merit. I dont want lo know them. It is enough to say
that Christ suffered in the room and stead of man. I am
taunted with 'ignorance; but ifT know enough to see what
concerns this discussion, it is all I want at present.'
He says he belongs to the school of Jesus. Yet on the
first day of the debatefwHen I referred to that school, he did
not follow his Master's example: he appealed to the" mass of
mankiiid,n toUecide this question. Here isari inconsistency.
My friend comes now to the school iri which I have endea-

264 DEBATE ON
vorpd. I hope in God we may bothcome to it ! and there learn
the true wisdom. . Can the Pagans come to Christ? that's
the question npw. In all past ages, How mariy millions of
Pagans have lived!. Can they come? are they free to Come?
No: if they are thus brought into this world by God, and
driven through it into Hell,, without , thp least chance pf
escaping it, God is not just. They have no such opportu
nity* Tliey have not this freedom, according to Partial
ism. He now says expressly there must be a moral
change, or the sinner in this world cannot be happy here
after. What is the man about? I am. perfectly astonish
ed; after, arguing fpr the happiness of the wicked, and the
unhappiness of the righteous, as he, has throughout this
discussion. If sin makes men happy here, it, may make
them so to all eternity,, .and the doctrine of endless misery
is a perfect humbug! Why change, if sufficiently happy
in sin? Let him be happy still, and forever, even in Hell!
He has taken a club' to beat his own brains out! He now
virtually admits that the sinful man will be eternally hap
py; and then he says he must experience a moral ehange
before he can be happy in the next world ; but that is what
we say f He must be reconciled to God — raised in Christ;
—all must, experience this change; but while, wicked, we
suffer nothing but death, misery, damnation, and wretch
edness. „ ¦ [me. waller's eleventh speech.]
I shall have to trust a good deal to the common sense of
the audience in this discission. There are some things
in the fast speech that 1 presume you all will decide do
not merit my attentipn, especially to the neglect of many
important matters I have yet in reserve, some of which I
shall be compelled to omit, for want of time. Especially
must I trust to, you the correction of his misrepresenta
tions. What, he told you I was about to. say in the conclu
sion of my last speech, when I was Stopped by the expira
tion of my time, was all imaginary. He has put words
into my mouth, and seems more at his ease, in replying to
what he would have me say, than to what I do say. I Was
about to say, when interrupted, that man could not be hap
py in, the world, to come withoujt a change, wrought in
grace through the righteousness of faith in this world;
and be' supposes that I was going to say, and argues as if
I did say, they could not be happy in this life without a

UNI VER.SALISM. 265
moral change; and that having such a change ,they would
be happy ! , ' , -
He wishes that Mr. Ballou were here to defend himself!
I Would have no objection,— not the slightest. What I have
said is stereotyped, I neither seek nor decline controversy
with a respectable individual. If Mr. Pingree thinks that
Universalism will fare better in other hands than his own,
he can easily know where I am to be found. His wishes
will be gratified. ^
.; It is, a principle admitted by all expert Biblical critics,
that the common sense interpretation of the Bibte is the
true, sense — that the sense which is naturally' and readily
suggested fo a plain, unsophisticated, yet strong minded
and: intelligent man, is generally the true sense. All writ
ers say that this is the best rule of interpretation. Now
3pply this rule, at your leisure, to the 9th chapter of He
brews, last two verses—" And as it , is appointed unto men
once to die, but after this the judgment,1 so Christ, was. once
offered lo bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for
him\shall he appear a second time viithqut sin unto, salvation.'''
Mr- Ballou's. interpretation of this passage has more good
sense in it, than that of any other Uni-versalist's which has
fallen under my observation. He says that the "Judg
ment" whjch follows death is the execution of the sen
tence, " Dust thou art, and unto dust, shalt thou return."
But Mr. Ballou cannot keep up with his follqwers. Mr.
Pingree far outstrips him. He has become greater than ¦
his master. He follows <the author of the " Pro and Con
of Universalism." He commends this book to you as the
very best of productions. I recommend you to study the
Bible, as decidedly preferable tp the " Pro and Con of Uni
versalism." ,
Mr. Pingree. I said it was among the best books on
Universalism. Mr. Waller. I grant it teaches that doctrine much
more clearly than the Bible, which does not teach it at all.
Still t insist you had better study the Bible. But to Mr.
Pingree's interpretation of this passage, which- he has bor
rowed of the" Pro arid Con of Universalism." The 'men,*
says he, are the High Priests, who .die by killing a sheep
Of. a goat for the sacrifice ! And after thus dying, or rath
er committing suicide hy proxy, they put on the breast-;
plate and go into the most holy place; and as this hreast-

266 DEBATE ON
plate, among other words, had that of " Judgment'' written
upon it, the putting Pn of this breast-plate is the judgment
riientioned by the Apostle!'!! Then the passage means,
according to this most lucid exposition, "And as it is ap
pointed Unto the High Priests once to die, by killing a sheep
or a goat, but after this the putting on qf the br-east-plate:
so Christ was once offered, " etc! I feel I should Insult
you to offer one word of comment upon such an interpre
tation. Suffice it to say, its far-fetched and extraordina
ry character shows' coriclusive'ty that this text is a moun
tain in the way of Universalism-— that its plain .and obvi
ous serise Subverts the whole 'system. And when was this
interpretation invented?' Why since the year 1818! Bal
lou himself could not discover it. • It is the work of des
peration. Indeed, it is a virtual surrender, for when a
man has to outrage common sense arid every principle of
interpretation to sustain him in an argument, it is because,
his affairs are in the worst-possible condition, and' he feels
that only a death struggle can save him. Hence he makes
one desperate leap, it Is from truth into the dark abyss Of
absurdity! So the Jews in their madness threw them
selves into their burning temple.
•But Mr. Pingree seems to 'think, that after all, the pas
sage did not prove any thing for me, inasmuch as it was
not said, after delth, the damnation, but the Judgment. I
xptoted it to prove the judgment. No one ever supposed
that all Would be damned after death, but that all would be
judged. This the text proves, and it is-all that I quoted it
to prove. This is quite sufficient to subvert the, very
foundations of Universalism.
' I shouldbe glad if Mr. Pingree would more specifically
give us his views respecting the reward of the righteous.
He says that it is in this world; and that their sufferings are
all for their good. But the wicked suffer for the same pur
pose. The declaration, that " these light afflictions which
are for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory," must, according to this theory,
be applied to this life, aye, and this also applies to the
wicked, since all their punishment is for their good ; and
since the gentleman insists that they suffer, more than the
righteous, of course more " exceeding and eternal" will
be the weight of I heir glory! ,
Mr, Pingree complains that I brought the term aionios

UNIVERSALISM. 267
top late into the discussion. Well* why did he not intro
duce it sooner. I brought it forward On yesterday, and this
was the earliest possible period that I could. I have used
all the dispatch in my power. I have never debated With
any, one before who has held^out so many signals of dis
tress as my present opponent. He has scarcely made a
speech that he has not uttered some distressing complaint!
1 am sorry that he is so sensitive and feels so much pain.
But my conscience tells me that the fault is not mine. I
am satisfied that he has had, and still has ample time to
meet this branch of the subject, if if can be met.- The
want of time is a poor excuse. He has as much time as
myself. And it appears he did have time; for he attempt
ed a reply. He admits that aionios, in the New Testa
ment, always means eternal, except when applied to pun
ishment! He does notpretend to deny butthat it istr^nsla-
ted eternal even in that .connection, or that all scholars and
translators understand it to mean eternal. If it. does not
mean eternal when applied to punishment, it devolves pn
Him to show it." That it may be used sometimes in a lim
ited sense, will not serve his purpose; he is to show that
it must be used in such a sense when applied to punish
ment. Has he done this? Far from it; for he has at
tempted nothing ef the kind. His utmost effort is to prove
that as punishment is disciplinary, and as God is willing
that all should be saved, therefore, punishment is not eter
nal; and the word aionios does not mean everlasting! —
This is arguing in a circle. M& proves that punishment
is not eternal by Universalism; and.theri proves Univers
alism by the fact that punishment is not eternal! So the
Papists prove. the' infallibility of their Church by tradition,
and prove tradition by the infallibility of their Church.
He has conceded that the eommon meaning of this word is
endless. To deny this was' more than even the impudent
spirit of Universalism durst prompt him to do. The rule
of interpretation which must apply in this case is, that
the common meaning of a word is its meaning every
where, unless the context shows that it must have another
sense — the literal meaning -of a word must never be de
parted from unless, necessity compels. Has he brought
the doctrine of punishment under, these conditions? Has
he showed from the context that aionios cannot have its
literal and common meaning? He has* attempted nothing

268 DEBATE ON
of the kind. He has gone off to other places and other
usages. All that he has said avails nothing — is worse
than chaff. It does not meet the case. I repeat, he must
show the necessity for departing from the common mean*-
ing of this word when applied to punishment, this must be
done by'showing that punishment camiot be eternal; a
work, which as far as L know, has not been undertaken hy
any one; for that, as Well as anything else, may- be eter
nal for ought we can show to the contrary. And if it may
be eternal, then this word must have its usual and literal
meaning. > , -.
, This word may be applied tp limited .objects. Mr. Pin
gree has referred to instances where it is so applied. But
this -by no means proves that it, is used in a limited sense.
Adjectives qualify nouns, but nouns never qualify adject
ives. , When, for example, we say that a man is an endless
talker, it is not the adjective endless which we limit or '
qualify;, it means just, as much here as in any other con
nection, but it is the. noun talker that is affected: and thus
the expression is considered hyperbolical. Thus too, when
the lover speaks of the angelic beauty of his fair one: .it
is. his object " tp raise a mortal to the skies," and not "to
drag an angel down." The adjective is not affected iitall
in its signification by such usage. . The angels "are not
disparaged, but the lady is greatly flattered. This applies
to aionios:. it may be used in reference fo a limited object,
but never in a limited sense. The Scriptures then- liter
ally assert, that the punishment of the wicked is eternal —
is endless: Now Mr. Pingree must set aside the literal
sense of the Bible, or his doctrine is ruined. He must
show the language to be figurative or hyperbolical. This
is what lies before him, and I trust he will meet it fairly,
and if so, I know he must forever abandon the system he
now defends. The Bible plainly and literally declares
that punishment is eternal; this is conceded, it cannot be
denied. My, opponent has assumed. to set aside the plain
letter of revelation,, and how? By showing an " evident
reason or necessity" for deserting the literal meaning? He
has done nothing of the kind — it is what he never can do.
When he makes the effort, I will show by the same reason
and necessity, that the happiness of the righteous, nor the
throne of the, Almighty, is" eternal. I humbly conceive, as
I have before intimated,: that this settles the controversy.

UNJVERSALISM. 269
There was another position. taken by Mr, Pingree', which
claims attention. I saw the same idea set forth in the
"Star in the West," and will read it as presented in that
paper. My opponent, who is assistant editor of that paper,
quotes the. following anecdote i
^'Universalism. — There was, sometime since, a man pass
ing through the State of North Carolina1, callirig himself a
preacher. On a certain night he preached a sermon at
 ; OH'WhicH occasion, among his auditors there was a
certain old German. After sermon, the German request
ed to speak to the preacher a few words in private. His
reverence politely complying, when the old man addressed
him as follows-: ¦ • ,
" Is de doctrine you breach here to night true?''' "Cer
tainly true;" replied his gravity. "Vel ten/' rejoined the
German, '.*pe sure you must keep it a secret from Chake
Tavis." 'i Why so?" inquired the preacher. "Pecause,"
said, the old man, " Cha-kp Tavis has stole one-half of my
smit tools already; and if he finds out dare ish no.hell or
punishment, pe sure he will come, and steal te palance."
Upon this anecdote Mr. Pihgree thus comments : —
'¦Now all that is necessary to be said in relation to this
anecdote, is, that it is admitted that Schake, stole half of
the Dutchman's 'smit tools,' while a Partialist — believing,
doubtless, with all of that class, that he pould steal, and;
even murder, and repent,, and gO to heaven, escaping all
punishment. And if Universalism had been -taught him,
he would not have stolen anymore; but if not, he has
probably stolen 'te palance'. before this time. The anec
dote only shows the mistake and ignorance of the German
in relation to the legitimate influence of Universalism —
hence his most foolish remark,, now endorsed and retailed
by the Editors of the 'Lutheran Observer,' and ' Baptist
Banner.' ' '
" Apropos to this, while dealing, in anecdotes, I have
heard one in substance as follows: A inan was caught in
the act of theft — stealing, I believe, a bundle of hay.
The person who saw him, told him that he would pay for
that at the day of judgment. ' Well,1 observed the thief,
' if I can have as long credit as that, I'tl take. anoi her. bun
dle!'- — probably believing he could comply with certain
' conditions' prescribed by a Partialist church, before death,.
and so not have to pay either at the day of judgment.

270 DERATE ON
" If the Editor of the ' Baptist Banner' proposes to over
throw Universalism by means of anecdotes, will he have
the kindness to copy this article into his paper?" ¦
The point of these remarks is, that' our doctrine tends.
to immorality, because we preach that. sinners donot meet
with full and adequate punishment for their sins in this
world; but that they will, unless they repent, be punished
in hell. Novv these are strange conclusions. What if
we do preach that sinners are not fully punishedi until in-
eternity, does- that destroy the hell of Universalis™?, Are
we not told, that there is and that there can' be no. escape-
from a full and adequate punishment for sin? -s Did not the-
man who stole the smith's tools, and the one who Stole the-
bundle of hay experience all the fires ofthe UniVersalist's
hell? Most certainly, if there is any truth in the-system,-
for- it teaches that there can be no escape from them.. How
then could Mr. Pingree say in relation to one of tliese in
dividuals', " If Universalism had been taught him, he would
not have stolen any more?" '.What does it signify whe
ther it was taught 'him -or not? Would he be understood.
to mean that ignorance extinguishes tho flames of his per
dition? Or that a mart might suffer full aiid adequate pun
ishment for his cririaeS, and not experience pain? That-.
while he is writhing in anguish, he will experience no
pain, because he is taught that there is a terrible ret ribu^
tion in the world to come? This is to dispute all experi
ence and to- deride all facts.
" Who can hold a fire in his hand,
By. thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge, of appetite,
By bare imagination pf a feast?
Dr Wallbw naked iri December snoW)
By thinking" 0(1 fantastic Summer's hetf-t?'
O,nol the apprehension oftk; go<od,
Gives but the greater feeling ofthe worse."
Philosophically speaking, then, our doctrine Would but
fkn the fires of the Universalist hell. How then, I demand,
if there is any virlue in their system, do we hinder its
operation V
But let us suppose that Universalism had been taught
the- fellow who stole the hay, and let Mr. Pingree have been
his teacher, " My dear fellow," methinks 1 Hear my bland
artd amiable frieiid say to him, " you are now suffering the

UNIVERSALISM. 271
torments of hell. ; There is no hell in the next, world, — ¦
no judgment seat there. You now endure the penalty for
the crime you, have oommitled in taking that hay; and if
you take any mpre, you,may at last become callous in<
conscience, and feel no compunction for any crime you.
may commit; and " this moral insensibility is itself a pun
ishment — the greatest of punishments." But all. this suf
fering which you. now,, and will, experience for your sin,
will work for you a far more exceeding and eternal weight
of glory!" Surely, sueh a speech, unless, the man was
dead to his own welfare, would induce him tp steal— not
another bundle— but a whole stack of hay! If telling a«
man that he will be punished in a. cpming day, tends to
immorality, what must telling him that he will enjoy glory
and happiness at that time, lead; him, to perform? Can.
folly itself subscribe to. tlie position, that a.beliefin,,futi3,rp
punishment induces men to transgress, more than a belief
in certain future happiness?
I am not disposed to let the matter stop, Here. The ar
gument of Mr.. Pingree, is, in effect, that thp punishment
for sin contended for Jby Universalists, is wholly inadequate
to prevent crime. These anecdotes, as embellished by
himself, conclusively prpvp it. The two villains mention
ed, feeling all tHe horrors of Universalist perdition, went
on in. crime. That hell- necessarily burns in, the bosom of
every, transgressor, Mr. Pingree being, witness. These
men felt its fires, but Were undeterred.. Of course Uni
versalism could not restrain them; and Mr. Pingree pro
poses to stop their career, not by holding up mpre punish
ment, (which he admits too must exist to prevent crime,)
but the everlasting happiness of heaven !!!. Never was the
human mind before insulted. by the presentatipn of a Sys--
tem of ethics so monstrous and absurd !l
Mr. Pingree, in the 'article read; from the "Star in. the:
West," argues as if we removed the Universalist's- tor—
ments of hell, and yet he has more than once insisted iri:
.this debate, as fundamental to- his system, that we might.
as well think of hurling the Almighty from his throne, as
to endeavor to save the sinner from, full, and adequate
punishment for his sins. Then his charge of fmmprality
amounts to this: That we preach, future punishment, and
the sinner endures temporal punishment; when we ought
to preaeh temporal punishment and future happiness!!

272 DEBATE ON
Sudh logic needs only to be mentioned, in order to be des*
pised. 1 will now return to the argument' of my last speech.
When I sat down, I was sHowing that punishment is not
arbitrarily inflicted,, nor is it for the gratification of any
revengeful feelings, but is the inevitable result of' sin, and
inflicted from the necessity ,pf the case.
God is under rio obligatiOn-'to save sinners,. He might,
without the violation of any' principle of his nature, have
left men without the hope Of salvation. And had not Je
sus come into the world, men must have remained lost
and undone. His is the only name given under Heaven
among men whereby we must be saved". Unless as urged
before, it can be shown that we of right might demand
the death of the Son of God for our salvation, then we
might justly have been left in sin, to reap the bitter fruits
consequent upon it. Our salvation being' of pure grace,
without the slightest worth or rrierit onout part, might iri
perfeet righteousness, have been withheld.
Besides, men as sinners, are unfit for Heaven and do not
want to go there, and it would be inflicting a punishment
on them if sent there without a change of their moral be
ing. I grant they do not want to be punished, and that
they want to be happy, but they do not want to give up
their sins, they do not want holiness' without which 'none
can see God, ahd hone can be happy. His conduct proves
that he does not want to go to HeaVen, the holy Habitation
of God, of angels, and of the spirits of the just made per
fect; and to take' him there would be a violation of his will,
and would make him miserable. He cannot enjoy the so
ciety of religious people here. Even the conversation of
a pious mother, or-faiher, or sister, or brother, or wife, is
exceedingly disagreeable to him- — he always shuns it— -his
affections are set upon the things of earth. He is earth
ly, sensual, devilish, in the temper and dispositiph of his
mind. His whole moral being. is opposed to God— he bates
what God loves, arid loves what God hates. A thorough,
radical moral change must be effected in him' then, or he
cannot be happy in Heaven. If he Cannot talk with pleas-'
ureabout religion here for a few moments with his best
friends and nearest relations, how could he relish an eter
nity of such conversation? And there he would find no-
tliin"' to his taste — he would be consumed with desires

UNI VEU S A LI SM. 273
never to be satisfied — he would hunger and thirst after
pleasure that he could never enjoy. Nothing that his
heart delighted in, and every thing that his heart loathed,
would be there.
God would be there. He would stand in his dread pres
ence .without a veil between, apd his heart would be en
mity against God. Jesus would be there, King of kings,
and Lord of lords; and he would not have Christ Jesus to
reign over him. Heaven is lighted, with glory and truth;
but the sinner loves darkness rather than light, because
his deedsare evil. The delights of the blessed are right
eousness and holiness: but. he takes, pleasure in unright
eousness, and rolls sin under his tongue as a sweet morsel.
The law of God,, which is holy, just and good, pertains
there: but he is carnal, sold under sin. In a word, if tak
en to Heavpu, the sinner Would be denied every delight of
his heart, in a place wholly urisuited to his taste, with, no
other society but such as he loaths, governed by one he
hates; burfhened, by a law he despises, and far' away from
every Object he esteems essential to his happiness. He
would writhe in eternal torment, and Heaven wouldi be
Hell to him. '
Now'is God bound to change irren^to give them new
natures arid- new! moral beings? Will Mr. Pingree ven
ture upon a position so monstrous? Will he dare say that
God is under obligations to make a man fit for Heaven^
although he desires nothing of the sort? Unless he as
sumes this, let ¦¦'him cease tp complain of the hardship of
punishment: because the sinner could be placed no Where
in the universe where he could be happy. If left in sin,
where he wants to be lpft, he is in misery: if taken to
Heaven, where he d&es.jiot want to be, I have demonstrat
ed that he would be a wretched, miserable, desolate being.
His punishment then arises /iri the nature Of the case; it
is an inevitable consequence of the course he has chosen.
He plucks down ruin upon his' own head. - ¦ "•
Mr, Pingree mistook my positions respecting Hades! I
deem it a waste of time to recapitulate them: Suffice it
to say?,that I showed that although hades did riot necessa
rily imply torment," yet it was some tiin'es lisei inJ that
sense; and that the parable of. the rich man arid Lazarus
proved it beyond question. Mr. Pingree's efforts at ridi
cule on this parable, his facetious allusions to the water,
18

274 DEBATE ON
fipger, Abraham's bosom, etc.,. recoiled upon himself. Tfc^
fore an audience accustomed to look upon fhe Bible res
pectfully, he should handle*such subjects with some de
gree of delicacy. The Bible speaks of Jehovah himself
as possessed of the parts of a man. The divine writers
were, obliged to use the language of earth to .convey ideas
of heaven. The • word .paradise means a fiower garden,
heaven means the air. This every scholar knows. The
words, house, pity, temple, Canaan, etc., are Used with ref
erence to the abodes of ' thp blessed. All. his.- ridicule
against this parable applies with eqrial force against God,
and Heaven, or rather ¦ against the Bible. Admit, thai
there is the. weight of a feather in his criticisms, and the
entire book of God must be discarded as ."worse than- old
wive's fables'. „ Such matters are edged topis, and he
ought to handle them carefully;, unskilful use of. them
may ..injure Christianity itself, more than they will benefit
his cause.
1 now proceed to redeem -my promise respecting the
word Gehenna. . If the real meaning of paradise .is " flow^
er garden," and of heaven "is "air," so the primary mean
ing of Gehenna is the " Valley of the son of Hinnom,
which is by the. entry of the east gate" of Jerusalem.
( Jer. xix. 2.) Here the Jews in the days of their degen
eracy burnt -incense unto.falsegods, and, built also the high
places of -Bant, and burnt their sons and,.d'aughters in sacr
ri-fice to idols; and it is palled Tophet because they beat
drums and timbrels that the shrieks of the infants might
not be heard by the parents: (Jer. vii. 31,) Josiah destroyed
this horrible1 worship:. ( 2, Kings, xxiii. 1-0. ) Some writers
say that, in after time, it was used as a receptacle of the
carcasses of beasts which died in the city, which were
burnt there.. Now where on, earth could a -more appropri
ate type of Hell be' found than Aliis; and if a " flower gar
den" was selected as suitable-to. convey an , idea of Heav-
en,'surely this loathsome vale might convey a very appro
priate idea of perdition. Certain it is that in the days of
the Savior it was used by .thejews in the sense of what we
now mean, by Hell; If the gentleman denies this (asl
presume he will- not) I am prepared' to show that, it . was
used in that sense by all the Jews, in, the days ofthe Sa
vior. The -Jewish commeritators,VJosephus, and all bibli
cal scholars of any note attest this fact. But I repeat, I

UNIVERSALISM. 275
do not suppose it will be disputed. This, being the mean
ing of the word in fhe days of the Savior,- let us examine
his usage of it, and see if he gave another sense to it.
Matt. v. 22: " But whosoever shall say, thou fopl, shall
be in Manger o"f Hell fire" — Gehenna fire. Now those to
whorn he spoke understood by Gehenna fire just what we
mean by "Hell fire;" how then must they have under
stood him? Did he intend to mislead them? Did he. use
their own language? If not, what language did he use?
There was no fire then kept in the vale of Hinnom. No
onO'had a right a burn them there.' For him to tell them
that they were in danger pf the fire in the valley of Hin-
nPm,.would have beeri ridiculous nonsense.
Matt. v. 29, 30: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it
out and cast it from thee, for it is more profitable for thee
that one of thy members ; should perish, and not that
thy whole body should be cast into Hell. And if thy right
hand offend thee, Cut it off,' and cast it from thee, for it is
profitable for thee that pne of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell" —
Gehanna. Mark ix. 43 — 48: "Arid if thy hand offend thee, cut it
off; it i3 better for thee to enter into' life maimed; than
having two hands to. go into Hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched; where" their Worm dieth not and the
fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it1
off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than hav
ing two feet to be cast into Hell", into" the fire that never
shall be quenched: where their worm" dieth riot, and the
fire is not, quenched. , And if thine eye offend thee, pluck
it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of
G<jd with one eye, than having two' eyes" tp be cast into
Hell, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not
quenched." ¦" Matt, xviii. 9: "And if thine eye offend thee, plueli it out,
and cast it from thee; it is betterfor thee fo enter into life
with one eye, rather than hayirig two eyes to be cast into
Hell fire." In the verse above, the language is, "Be cast
into everlasting fire."
Now what can the Savior mean by Geheriua and Gehenna
fire, in these exhortations? Not literally the vale of
Hinnom; for then there could be no meaning to His lan
guage. Not the destruction of Jerusaleiri as some Uni vers-

276 DEBATE ON
alists suppose, for then no ope could have understood his
meaning, for the word never was used in that sense. The
truth is, the exhortatipn of the Savior Corresponds with a
sayings of the Jews? ¦',' It is, better for thee to be scorched
with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a
devouring flame in the world. to come.'' ¦.'/¦ .,',
Matt. x. 28 : "And fear not them which -kill the body,
but are not able to kill. the- soul, but rather fear him which
is able to destroy both spuland body in Hell."
Luke xii. 4, 5: " And I .say untp you, roy 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
you shall fear: Fear huh,, which, after he hath killed,, halh
power to cast into. HeU; yea, I, say untp- you, Fear him."
, These passages have made pur Universalist friends
travail in great pain. They are reduced'to great extrem
ities in their, efforts, to escape, their.' plain and pbvioiis
sense. The author of the " Plain Guide to Universalism"
tells us, that the passage in Luke does not say, God will des
troy both soul and body in Hell, but it says he is able to 4o
so. It describes his ability, not his will, nor his purpose."
(page 92.) .But not. satisfied with this, and feeling his 'con
science still, burthened, he fries another expedient, and la
bors on page 94 to show that the word soul (in the original
psuche) means mere ",,animal life,'' and not the "immortal
spirit." Tliese are death struggles — the writhings of des
pair—the ravings of frenzy. T'hey, heed not- bp answer
ed. 'No: these passages prove beyond the. power. of es
cape, , that the Universalist exposition of this word is the
veriest abortion of nonsense. , No one .was ever, destroyed,
soul and body, in the valley pf Hinnom. The Lord nev
er destroyed, the soul .and. body of Jew or any one else in
it, at the time, of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor before
or since. And no Jew was burnt there by Ihe Romans
when Jerusalem was' destroyed. The, language of our
Lord- in these passages pomports precisely with the sense
attached to Gehenna,, by all the Jews of that day, viz: a
state of torment, in, the -world to come. , This meaning
gives point to his discourse, no other will. And if he, was
speaking in, the -language of men, and to be understood. by
the menrto whom he spoke, he could not have used it in
any other sense.
... M»tt. xxiii. 15: " And when he is made, ye make, him

UNIVERSALISM. 277
two fold more the child of Hell than yourselves!' • Verse
33: " Ye serpents, ye ' generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of Hell?"
James iii. 6: "And it is set on fire of Hell."
I believe I have quoted all thkpassages where this word!
is used. Now, remember its meaning at that time was a
state of future punishment; corresponding precisely' to the
common meaning attached now to the Eriglish word Hell.
Do not these passages show that the Savior used it in its
common acceptation? That ' was its literal and pre
vailing meaning in that day; and can the slightest reason
be given why the Savior should have used it in any other
sense, unless he designed to mislead? If he designed to
teach temporal punishment merely, why take a Word thai
the people were all in the habit of applying to eternal
punishment? Was the language too barren to furnish'a
word suited to his purposes, that he must arrest onefrorri
its common, and force upon it am unusual sense? And if
he intended to allude to the destruction of Jerusalem, why
take this word that no man- had ever used 'in that senise,
and press it into service, when net one of his hearers, if
all the faculties of their minds had .been tortured, could
have' guessed at the idea he designed to convey? Accord
ing to Universalism, the Delphic oracle never spojee more
obscurely than" did our Savior! And irideed if they can
make it appear, that he used it in a spilse in which it was
never used by any one except hiinsel'f; then I may exercise
my privilege of guessing as well as Universalists, and shall
insist that not the destruction of Jerusalem was meant; but
of the Bastile and of Moscow* and I can support- my opin
ion by as sound criticism as the best of them. I Challenge
Mr. Pingree to put me to the proof - ¦ , ' '
But to sum up the matter. 'Gehenna denotes, in the
New Testament, a place of punishment. ¦ That the Jews
in thein the days of the Savior, used.it iri reference- to
future punishment, no man who has-any reputation to lose
as a seholar, will deny, or has ever denied. There is no
evidence that the valley of Hiripom was used as a place of
punishment in' the times of: the SaviOr and his Apostles.
Our Savior mentions various persecutions which the disci
ples should undergo, but he makes no allusion to their be
ing punished by the Jews inythe valley of Hinnom. The
Apostles never once allude to the factthat they had been

278 DEBATE ON
f
in danger, or that they apprehended the danger, of being
punished in that place. The Jews never threatened them
or their master with such a punishment.
There is no evidence that a. perpetual fire was kept up in
the valley of Hinnom, in the days of our Savior, as the
Un i ve rsalists affirm- No writer of that age, pr near. that
age mentions any such thing. And those modern writers
who conjectured such was the case, Have relied upon Rab-
bi Kimchi, who flourished about, the fourteenth century.
Neither the. Lord nor the Romans destroyed. both soul and
body of the Jews in this valley- at the destruction of Jeru
salem. No one at that time was bnrnt there. And neither
Jews nor Romans were want to burri criminals in the val
ley of Hinnom.
In a word, if Jesus riieant to be understood by those to
whom he spoke — if he used human language at all — he
could not by Gehenna have meant the, destruction of Jeru
salem, as the author of the " Pro and Con .of Universal
ism" affirms; for the word was never used by any one of
the inhabitants of earth inthat^ sense. But if he used it
in its then commonly received sense (and we must believe
he did, or else esteem him a deceiver,) then hp meant by
it all that we mean by the terrible word hell! The al
ternative is^then presented toyou, either of rejecting Uni
versalism,, or else pf discarding the Savior as a deceiver!
, There is. one other passage that deserves attention ; 2.
Peter, ii. 4: " God spared not the angels that sinned, but
cast them down to Hell, and delivered them unto chains of
darkness, to be. reserved unto Judgment." Here the word
Hell is translated from Tartarus. The author of the
"Plain Guide to Universalism" very prudently forebore to
make any comments on this word. ,And even the intrepid
author of the " Pro and Con^of Universalism" jhas quailed
before this passage. He does hot allude to it. Indeed
none of the Universalist writers upon whoseworks I have
been able to lay my hands, have ventured an explanation.
The reason is obvipus enough. If they know any thing at
all; they must know that Tartarjus can have reference to
nothing else but future punishment. This is its usage in
a^, writers who have occasion to employ it — whether saint
or sage, poet, historian, or orator. Clearly then Peter
teaches future punishment; for he used a word, that so far
as known, is never employed in any other sense.

UNIVERSALISM. 279
No marvel then that, Jeremiah White, Chaplain to Oli
ver Cromwell; undone ofthe most able and learned: of
all the advocates of the " ultimate holiness and salvation
of all men," felt compelled by facts top stubborn to bend,
to utter this soleirin warning Mk.feis brethren:— ¦" Let hus
THAT DENIES HELL' TAKE HEED LEST IT BE VERIFIED UPON
HIMSELF, WE HAVE AS MUCH FOR HELL AS WE HAVE -FOR
Heaven,!'." (Restoration of 'all 'Things, page 27.) I hope
my friend will profit by the warning.
[MR. PINGREE's TWELFTH SPEECH.]
Respected Friends: — I Shall first examine, as far asl
thipk it necessary, Mr. Waller's last speech of the fore
noon. His first remark was upon Hebrews, ix. 27, 28 ;
and he laid down the maxim that, in interpreting Scrip
ture, the common sense interpretation of the passage was
usually, if not always, the rigflit one.
I grant that the common sense interpretation is the right
one. But we must arrive at the common sense view of a
passage, frequently, by inquiring into -the circumstances
tfhder which it was spoken, oi' written, and by true exami
nation, gain a knowledge of the subject of if. We must
look at the. context, compare it with parallel passages, and
learn something about the nature ofthe subject elsewhere,
before we can be perfectly certain we have got the right
meaning of tbe author. Now in reference to that passage,
where the word "creature" is used, he pursued a different
course from the , one he now prescribes to me. Though
he objects to my course, he did the same thing which he
charges upon me. He was not willing to take the obvious
meaning of the word creature. He must go to the context,
and try to show a different meaning; although in this he
did not succeed.
He attempts to ridicule my interpretation of Hebrew
ix. 27, 28; arid says the allusion to the breastplate of right
eousness, etc., is all fancy and imagination. I appeal -to
you, after what has been said, if the institution of that
rite, under the old dispensation, was. not typical of the ap
pearing of Christ, under the new.
, As to, the reward of the wicked and the righteous, did I
say the, wicked could "inherit the kingdom of God?" No;
I have Urged all the time, that they cannot' enjoy, if they
are not righteous, the peace, and happiness which the good

280 DEBATE ON
man has. Here is the difference: One is in the kingdom
of God; the other is out of it,— in darkness, wretchedness*
misery, and death.' > ,
He represents me as complaining and being" tormented
about aion, etc. Iliave not complained, nor shown signs
of being tormented. I have merely stated thp matter of
fact, that when I introduced passages bearing upon the
question, he was not willing to attend to them, until I en
forced them by comments and showed their bearing upon
the subject. I merely said'that I myself should follow his
example; and I propose to do 'so, to some extent, at least.
As to his illustration about the argument of the Roman
Catholic, in a circle, it does not bear on the point. I h^ve
not argued in favor of Universalism from punishment not
being endless, and then proved that punishment is not
endless, from Universalism. I have argued in favor of
universal salvation from the Word of God, and that
punishment was not endless, from the nature and object of
punishment. . He says the ordinary acceptation of Scripture is always
right. He takes it for, granted that, the word rendered
"eternal," means endless; which0isthe very point in dispute.
The context and subject must show the meaning, lit the
24th and 25th of Matthew, the context shows plainly that
the punishment there- spoken of, was -in this life — at the
coming of Jesus Christ in glory, within, that generation.
The context, I say, shows this. In 2 Thessalonians, the
funishments were to be at the coming pf Jesus Christ.
have shown the time to. be in the life lime of somp then
living. The Jews were in captivity for seventy years.
This was said to be .everlasting; and yet it was endured
only seventy years! See 2 Kings xiii., 22, 23; Jeremiah
xxix. 10 — 14; and xxiii. 39, 40. All these passages refer
to the same matter; and illustrate 2 Thessalonians, as to
the " presence -of God," and the limited .signification of
" everlasting," when applied to punishment.
Now we. Have an admission from my friend, here, that
overthrows the doctrine of endless punishment forever!
He has once for all surrendered the word everlasting,
(aionios) as a positive proof of endless punishment. That
is, he has admitted that though the word itself is not lim
ited, in signification, yet it is applied to limited things.
This is all we ask. If it be applied so, po argument can.

UNIVERSALISM. 281
be founded pn, it which is of any use to prove that, punish
ment is ehdless. The argument derived, from the force
of that word is loslf by that admission, forever 1 . < ¦
I have thought it would have been as well for, Mr. Wal
ler, considering the circumstances, occupying as he-does
a different position in social life, from myself, to have
allowed me to show how well I might compliment the fair
sex upon their " bright. eyes,?.' etc. ; rather than do it him
self. It may do for his amusement^ and yours, my friends.
Far myself, I am here tp discuss .the great question of the
doom of the human soul, and that for all eternity; and in
answer to grave arguments, we have illustrations from
the gentleman's faricy ajbout the bright eyes;of women!
This is for your " amusement," I, presume.
I thank him for his anecdote about the Dutchman. As
he has commenced anecdote telling, you will allpw me to
relate another, which J. heard to-day: A fellow stole a
number of things, and he-who lost them was -in trouble,
lest, he should npt be punished. Oh! said his friend, he
will be., punished hereafter. There is a Hell in store for
him. Yes, says the mart, but curse the fellow! I'm afraid
he'll repent! (Grpat laughter.) I ask' pardon for. exciting
laughter — it is merely to show thp spirit of the man,- and
the evil consequences of putting far off the evil day. ¦ .,
Just. so in reference to this opinion, if carried out.- Still
he represents that they have, superior claims to morality,
because they have the advantage of all the. Hell of this
life, and another beyond, and endless. Yes; but they are
deluded with the idea that sin is pleasant-heve. > I want to
disabuse them of that . licentious notion. I want to drive
that all away. I do not wish them to be deluded any
longer; but tolea.rri that ", there -is no peace to the wicked:''
We have an additional idea';, that the sinner cannot be
Happy- in religious company. Take the sinner with his
pvil inclinations- into the world' of glory,-and he would be
miserable there, says Mr. Waller. - Admitted— while un
changed and sinful; but the .sinner, is. to be changed-HS/^w
he can enjoy it; can he not? That is the- point. We do
not say the impenitent sinner could go to heaven and be
happy. What we contend for, is the ~ ul liihdle - holiness,
(and happiness Consequently) of all men : this is what we
prove in this discussion.
But are we not taught by Mr. Waller, that in this world

282 , DEBATE ON
the wicked are happy? > Why riot fet them all go to heaven?
or let them be in Hell, with boon companions? On Mr.
Waller's theory, they could be very happy. Besides,
there is the best of society in Hell, according to Partialism,
— some of the greatest men that ever lived ; such as Cicero,
Demosthenes, Homer, and Plato; and even our own Wash
ington and Franklin! If there be no change after death,
arid sinners are so happy here, they would not ask to go
to heaven: Hell would be heaven to them! Thus Mr.
Waller himself overthrows the doctrine of endless misery.
If there be a change after death, they are saved in heaven.
If no change, they are happy in Hell! So either way,
we are content. I think he must admit that the happy
sinner here, will be a happy sinner hereafter; or else ad
mit a cliange- after death. One or the other he must do.
! will now pass on.
He says the place of Hell is the least consideration in
this controversy. It wouldi look a little more Orthodox, if
he were to give it not quite so small-a place in his estima
tion. It occupies the largest " place'Mn most Partialist
sermons. He says I misrepresent his doctrine of Hades. Hesays
he did not mean that Hades was a place of torment,. but
the stale in which the dead were put, after the separation
of the soul from the body. I care not. He admits it is
not a place of endless damnation; and I have proved that
it shall.be destroyed.
We next have Tartarus introduced, from the classics,
to show a place where the wicked were tormented to eter
nity. In view ofthe facts admitted, that cannot be endless;
because Death and Hades— and Tartarus is said to be in
Hades — are to be cast-into the lake of fire, and destroyed.
Abraham's bosom is in Hades too ! and that is cast into
the lake of fife, also. I suppose, if all those criticisms are
adopted by Mr. Waller. This lake of fire, I suppose, is
Gehenna — the real* final Hell.
Mr. Waller. 1 do not admit that Hades includes, pun
ishment necessarily.
.Mr. Pingree. Then all that parable about the Rich
Manand Lazarus has nothing whatever to do with the
discussion; for the argument was entirely founded on that
idea- Mr, Waller, Abraham's bosom is, accordmg to- the

UNIVERSALISM. 283
Jews, is in Hades. I was giving the different notions that
prevailed. Josephus says that, the Jews believed in two
departments for the dead. One was Abraham's bosom,
and the other Hades, in- a bad sense. Hades -was a gene
ral term for the place of the dead.
Mr^ Pingree. Well, let it pass. It is the Same Hades
iu which the Rich Man was; the same Hades that deliver
ed up its dead- in Revelation ;, the same Hades that was
cast into the lake of fire, and the same Hades that the
Apostle says is to have no victory. That Hades, then, can
be no evidence of endless punishment; although the whole
force of Mr. Waller's argument was in the idea that Christ
adopted the views of Hell, as expressed by -Josephus.
Gehenna comes next. He says it was a term used by
the Jews, to represent a place of future -and endless tor
ture; and that therefore Jesus Christ used it so. If so, I
ask as I did. before, what "is there new in Christianity?
This shows the knowledge, we Have of a future life to be
derived from the Pagans. We, are indebted to the Greeks
and barbarians for our views of the immortal state. The
Savior only adopted the terms and. ideas he found in use,
with the meaning of Jews and Pagans attached to them.
So we derive our knowledge from the Jews and Pagans,
after all, and not frpm God pr from Jesus Christ!
All the remarks about fhe destruction of Jerusalem,
can go for what they are worth. Universalists do not say
those passages where Gehenna is found, refer to a literal
burning in the valley of Hinnom. It is admitted- by the
Orthodox, that the- original meaning of Gehenna, or Hell,
was this valley of Hinnom. But they say it was changed
afterwards to mean a future and endless Hell. Dr. G.
Campbell and others distinctly admit this., Now the ques
tion comes up,, who changed the meaning of the word?
who?- God? Jesus Christ? the Prophets? or Apostles?
No: but uninspired men.
So with the English word Hell. Two or three hundred
years ago, when the present translation of the Bible was
made,, it did not exclusively mean what we mean now by
it. Professor Stuart wilf tell you so. -Dr. Adam Clarke
says so; grid sp Mr- Waller will admit. It is no news to
him, — this fact respecting the word Hell iri English.
He says the Jews used Gehenna to represent a place of
endless punishments Thepnly authority for this, is in the

284 debate on
Targums. And Horne, who is good authority in refer
ence to these Jewish books, says:
"The Targum of Onkelos: 'The generally received
opinion is that Onkelos was a proselyte to Judaism, and a
disciple of the celebrated Rabbi Hillel, who flourished
about fifty years before the Christian era; and consequent
ly that Onkelos was contemporary with our Savior; Bau
er and Jahn, however, place him in the second century.'
Intro, ii. 159.
'"Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan: 'Learned men are
unanimously of opinion that this Targum could not have
been written before the seventh, or even the eighth cen
tury.' Ibid. 159.
'- "Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel: Some suppose this
Jonathanto have lived in the days of Christ, and Wol
fius thinks he lived a short- time before that period.
' From the silence of Origen and Jerome concerning this
Targum, of which they could not but have availed them
selves if it had really existed in their time, and also from
its being cited in the Talmud, both Bauer and Jahn date-it
much later than is generally admitted,; the former in
deed is of opinion that its true date cannot be ascertained;.
and the latter, from the inequalities of style and method
observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the in
terpretations of several learned men, made about the
close of the'third or fourth century.-1 " Ibid. 160.
Then who would place much dependence on that testi
mony from the Targums? There is no evidence in the
Bible. The Old Testament is silent as to it. If sb, there
is no evidence of that usage in the time of Christ.
While I am about it, I. will read a quotation from Mac-
Knight, on this point :
' Into the deep. The word abyssos in this passage sig
nifies the place where the wicked spirits are punished; as
it does likewise Rev, xx. 3, where it- is translated the bot
tomless pit; properly it denotes'a place" without bottom, or
so deep that it cannot be fathomed. The Greeks describ
ed their Tartarus in this manner, and the Jews, when
they wrote Greek, did not scruple to adopt their express
ions, because they were universally understood. Besides
the Hebrew language did not furnish proper words for these
ideas, which was the reason that the first Christians also,
when they Had occasion to speak of the state of evil spir-

UNI VERBALISM. 285
its, made use of terms purely Greek, such as Hades, Tar. -
tarosas, &c.' " Har. Evan. sec. 32,.
Thus it is seen that the Hebrew language did not pre
sent proper words, to express the future world of .woe.
Hence the Jews borrowed words from thp Pagans, to
represent that idea; and they borrowed the idea too!
¦ What then is the fact abont Gehenna?' It is this: If is a
phrase signifying, originally, the valley of Hinnom — this
is admitted. But we say it was used figuratively, by Jesus
Christ, to express the temporal calamities that were to
befall the Jewish people;— not the mere burning of bodies
in the .valley. And for evidence of this, we quote the 19th
of Jeremiah. I call your attention tp the whole chapter,
that you may examine it again at your leisure-
"Thus saith the (Lord, 'go andget apottpr's earthen/bot
tle, and take of the ancierits of the pepple, and of the an-.
cients of the priests; and go forth unto the valley of the
son of Hinnom, which is by the entry, of t-he east gate,
and proclaim there the, words that I shall tell thee.. And
say, hear ye the word of the Lord, 0 kings of Judah, arid
inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus saith the Lord of hosts,
the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place,
the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Be
cause they have forsakep me and have estranged, this
place, and have -burned incense in it unto othergods, whom
neither they ripr their fathers have known, nor the. kings
of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of in
nocents;, they have built also the high placesof Baal, to
burn fheir sons with, fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal/
which I commanded not, por spakp it, neithpr camp it into
my mind: therefore, behold, ^the days come, saith the
Lord, ;that this place shall ho more be called Tophet, nor
the valley of the son of Hinnorc'V'but the. valley of Slaugh
ter. And 1 will rnake void the pounsel-of Judah and Jeru
salem in this place; and I will cause thpm, to fall by the
sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that
.seek their lives; and their carcasses willT give to,be meat
for the fowls. pf the heaven, arid for the beasts, of the earth.
And 1 will make this city desolate, and a hissing:, every
one that, passeth thereby shall be astonished , and , hiss be
cause of afll the plagues, thereof. Arid I will cause them to
eat tlie flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters,,
and they shall eat every one the flesh ©/his friend in, the

286 DEBATE ON
seige and straitness wherewith their enemies, and they that
seek their lives, shall slrajten thpm. Then shalt thou
break (he bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee,
and shalt say unto them, thus saith the Lord of hosts;
Even so will I break this pepple and this city, as one break
eth a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again:
and tHey shall buryjhem in Tophet, till there be no place
to bury. Thus will I do unto this place, saith the Lord,
and to the inhabitants thereof, andeven make this city as
Tophet: and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of
the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of To
phet, because of all the Houses upon whose roofs they
have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, aud
have poured out drink-offerings unto Other gods. Then
came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the Lord had sent
him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord's
house; and' said to all tlie people, thus saith the Lord of
hosts, the God. of Israel ; Behold I will bring upon "this city
and upon all her townsall the evil that I have pronounced
against it, because they have hardened their necks', that
they might not hear my words." (Jer. 19th. chap.)
Here Jererhiah went to Tophet, and prophesied-, and
came up out of it again. Now,' at the present time it is
thought to represent the place of endless damnation. Yet
Jererniah went there and came back again t
Take1 another passage: Jer. vii. 29 — 34 — to show the
use of the phrase by the prophet, and then we shall
have the Savior's language taken -from the prophet, un
derstood. " Cut "off thy Hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it
away, and take up a lamentation On high places; fpr the
Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his
wrath. For the children of Judah have done evil in
my sight, saith "the Lord: they have Set their abomina
tions in the house Which i3 Called by my name, to pol
lute it; and they have built the high places of Tophet;
[then there men built HELL!] which i.s in the valley of the
son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in
the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into
my heart. Therefore, the days come, saith the Lord, that
it shall no more be called Tophet, npr the valley of the
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall
bury m Tophet till there is no place." Is this the place
of endless damnation here ifter?

UNIVERSALISM. 287
Isaiah xxx. 33: " For Tophet is ordained of old; yea for
the king it is prepared; He' hath made it ,deep arid large,
, the pile thereof, is fife and much wood; the breath of the
Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth kindle iL"
Hei-e we have a description of Tophet, and yet it can
not be pretended that it here rneans a place of future dam
nation. So much for the origin of Hell, as Tophet, and
the valley of Hinnom. As to the word Gehenna,- he re
fers to. Balfour's 1st Inquiry, and you will see stated
there the facts. Gehenna is generally claimed by
the learned Orthodox, tb be the only word mPan'ng their
Hetl. Sheol. and Hades are giveri up. But they say that
Gehenna has an emblamaticql or symbolical signification^
and this the, Partialist's world of woe. This is Di\ Geo.
Campbell's opinion. It is admitted by seyeral Orthodox
authors that Gehenna represents other things iri the .New
Testament, besides the place of the. damned in a future
life. Some learned Ortliodoi^writers say tHat Sheol and.
Hades never were used to mean-Hell, as now understood-.
Iri addressing the Gentiles, thp word Gehenna was nev
er used — never.. It was only used in addressing fhe Jews;
and they only could understand it, because, it represented
punishments relating to them. It is strange, Uritess it was
only intended to apply to that people, that it was never ad
dressed to the Gentiles. . It is not found in all the apostol
ical preaching, as recorded in the Acts. If that be the
word to express a future immortal state of punishment, it
is strange they never used it in speaking to any but Jews.
Again, neither Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gelienna is
any. where called endless,-,ih Scripture. The future salva
tion is no where declared to be salvation from, this sort of
Hell. Salvation now is supposed to be from that; and
therein the Church differs from Scripture. John the
Aposlle never used the word Gehenna:. This is strange,
if it was the express word for future punishment. I sup
pose the reaspn As, that those -books were not addressed
exclusively to the Jews. Lukfe does not use it in the Acts.
This is strange, if it was the word for future punishment,
Paul never used it in all his sermonsor Epistles. Yet he
says he did not "fail to declare all the counsel of God-"
Hence Gehenna as an endless Hpl!,.is not included "in- the
counsel of God. as to the .destiny of mankind' in general.
Is it not strange that Paul, the great preacher never

288 D E B A T E ON
used Gehenna, the, word for' future and endless punish
ment? His preaching was generally to' the Gentiles, and
this word concerned the Jews only. 'Peter never used it
in his preaching, or in his Epistles. Jude pever" used it.
These are curious facts, now urged on Mr. Waller's atten
tion. You will recollect, too, that there are four words rend
ered Hell; yet that these foiir words do riot mean, the
same thing; and yet one word, Sheol, is rendered by-thrpe
words, the Grave, Hell, and Pit, and the whole four whrds
are supposed tp mean thp one HELL,' by the mass o'f pro
fessed Christians. 1 say this is also a curious fact.
Again; I do not say it for the learited Orthodox, nor for
Mr. Waller, but for the benefit of "the audience general
ly; but it is a fact, that 'the learned Orthodox "have, two
Hells; the corbmori people but one; and that is " Hell,"
as commonly1 understood by the word in preaching. If you
ask, what is Hell? they reply Hell is Hell; 'and that's all
they know about it.. But the learned Orthodox, and Mr.
Waller, believe in two Hells. '"' '
Mr. Waller: The gentleman is mistaken.
'Mr. Pingkee. f say the learned Orthodox do,.
Ma. Waller.j No, Sir. , , • " '
MrI Ping're-e. Why, first, there is Hades, imfnediafely
after death; and then there is the second Hell, which is
Gehenna, after the resurrection," and it appears to me as if
the admissions of Mr. Waller'were riearly the, same; be-
cause^ has he not said that the Rich Man went to Hadfes,
and is not, that one He'll? and is it not said'that Hades , shall
" deliver np' the dead thatare in it;" and after that, Hades
(where the Rich Man was) Was cast info the lake of fire;
and is riot that the second Hell? adopting here the com
mon interpretation .of the " lake of fire."
It is a fact worth remembering in this, connection, (I
mention it not for. Mr. Waller's benefit; he is familiar
with it, but for those who are listening to.the discussion;)
that it is asserted -by Orthodox writers--Rev. Stephen
Remington, of New York, Dr. Joel Hawes, a writer
agairist Universalism, Dr. George Campbell — the Ency
clopedia of Religious Knowlege, Greerifield, and others,
that Tartarus or Gegenria is in Hades. It .is commonly
believed,-' also, that the lake of fire in Ravelatioifs is in
Hades, and is the same as Tartarus or Gehenna. See the

universalism. £39
absurdity * here is Tartarus in Hades', and Gehennd in
Hades, and Hades delivers up thp dead, and is afterwards
cast into ihe iake of fire, and the lake of fire is Gehenna.
Therefore, this Hell in Hell is cast into Hell ; that.ls, it is
cast into itself! T shall not dwell on this, point. I dp not
charge Mr. Waller with holding these absurdities; be
cause he now protests against it. Part or all Of tliese op
tions are held, however, generally by fhe learned and
other Orthodox.
Let us examine some passages j where the word, Gehen
na is found in the New Testament. We shall not apply to
the Targums, whose date is not established. I know of
no other means of determining its meaning, but the New
Testament itself, It is true we may appealto the Qld
Testament (foi explanation; because Je^us Christ was a
Jew, and used the word in a similar sense, to that of thp
Old Testament. Yef if is necessary to come to the Ifew
Testament itself, to learn how the Savior used it.
Take this passage, Matt. v. 21. "Ye have heard that it
was said by them of old- fline,. Thou slialt not kill;, arid"
whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment: ,
But I say whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of .the., judgment; and whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council, but whosoever "shall , say, Thou fppl, shall, he iri
danger of Hell fire."
Here the originalis Gehenna; and "Hell fire" i» the
Gehenna of fire. Mr. Waller quotes this passage,., you
will remember, and ridicules the idea that it had allusion
to Heing burned in the valley of Hinnom. Yet I will give
Orthodox authority who say's it has that allusion. You
can judge how, much it is worth. It is Di\ A^am Clai;kp, ,
the celebrated Methodist coriirrientat,er pnthe Bible. ,
He says, " Shall be in danger of the judgment ; shall
be iiab/e to the judgment. That is, to, have the matter
brought before, a senate, composed pf twenty-three mag
istrates, whose business it was to judge in cases of mur
der arid other , capital crirries; It punished -criminals by
strangling, or beheading, Sf-c. ;
" The council; thp famous couricil, known among the
Jews by the name of 'Sanbedrim. It was composed of
seventy-two elders, six chosen out of each tribe., Thjs
grand Sanhedrim not onlv 'received' app6als from the in-
19

290 debate on
ferior Sanhedrim, or court of twenty-three, mentioned
above,; but could alone take cdguizance, in the first in-'
smnce, of the highest Crimes, and alone inflict the pun
ishment af stoning.
"Shalt be in danger of, Hell fire; shall" be liable lo
the Hell of fire. "Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the
son of H'nnnm- This place was near Jerusalem, and had
been formerly used for those, abominable sacrifices, in
which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to.
pass through the fire to Mbloch. A particular place in
this valley was called Tophet, from (ebrew) tophet,
the fire stove, in which, some suppose they burnt their
ohildreri alive to the above idol. See 2d Kings xxiii. 10.
2d Chron. xxvii., 3. Jer. vii. 31, 32.
" Now proportioned to these three offences, were three
different degrees of punishment,, each exceeding the
other in their different degrees of guilt, (1.) The judg-
nenl, the council "of twenty-three, which could inflict the
punishment of strangling. ' (2.) The Sanhedrim, ojr
great council, which could inflict the punishment of
Zoning. Arid (3.) The Heing burnt alive in the, valley
of the son of Hinnom. This appears to be, the meaning
of our Lord." Com. in loe.
Here a single remark: why does the Savior make this
difference between sins, and say some shall be in danger
of " the judgment," some of "the council,"' and sOme
'of Hell fire?" Mr. Waller and the other Orthodox
hold that all. sinners are to go into Hell fire. Why
the distinction bpiwepn " the judgment," the " council,"
and "Hell fire?" Why subject One to the judgment,
one to the council, and cine to Hell fire? Either the Savj
ior meant that some sins did hot deserve Hell fire, or the
passage does not refer to the judgment and punishment
in a future life. If the word;Hell fire does refer to a, fu
ture punishment, then there are some sins which do, not
deserve it. Rev. Mr. Townsend Has a jsimilar remark in
the "Chronological Bible, edited, by Rev. Mr. Cpit;, he
says here are three gradations of crime, hei'e spokpn of,
and three gradations of punishment. Alexander Camp
bell, one of the teachers in modern theplogy, and a. great
" reformer," expresses the same sentiment' in his preface.
to the New Testament. We have thp- admission that all
i/irwuelato to temporal punishment.

CNIVERSALISM. 291
Mr. Townsend says: — " HpTe are three gradations of
orimes mentioned hy our Lord, and three degrees of pun
ishment respectively annexed to each/ The first is cause
less anger, unaccoriipariied with any abusive expressions
to aggravate, it; the second may be supposed to arise from
the same source, increased by an exelahiatiori, which de
notes the triumph of vanity, mixed with insult and con
tempt; the^third seems naturally" to rise One degree high
er, and occasions the opprobrious epithet, "Thou fool."
v The two former, we may observe, are threatened with,
the temporal punishment or ariimadversion; of the Jewish
tribunals, the council and the judgment,; which were now
deprived" of the power of life and death, and could there
fore take cogn,iz^nce; only of minor offences.
¦Now it is highly analogous -to our Savior's reason
ing to suppose, that the punishment annexed to the last
crimewould.be of s. temporal nalurij also, particularly
as it can only :be considered as an abuse of speech, like
that of the preceding, though in a more aggravated form.
On the contrary, to imagine that, for) the distinction be
tween ' Raca,' and.:' thou fool,' our blessed Lord should in
stantly pass from such a sentence as, the Jewish Sanhe
drim could pronounce,' to.theawful doom of eternal' pun
ishment in hell-fire is what cannot be reconciled to- anv
rational rule of faith, or known measure of justice. But
a- critical examination of the original text will remove
this difficulty.'^ ¦, ¦ -'•
^After giving the usual definition of the word gehenna,
he continues: — ' From the loatfisOriio -scene which this
place exhibited^ as well as from the fi-res which were
kept constantly burning there, it was. frequently, used as
the emblem' or' symbol of hell, and1 of hell-torments in a
state of eternity. But 'bur blessed. Lord may Well be
aupposed-'to'use it here in its literal sense, without any
reference to its metaphorical meaning; ahd this will
serve to clear the text of its supposed difficulty.". Note
in lod
Let us now examine another passage, Mark ix. 43— ,49:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it, off, it 'is bettor for
thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to
go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
where, the worm dieth not and the fire is riot quenched.
And if thy foot offend tliee, cut it off, it is 'better- for thee

292 DI BATE on
to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast
into Hell, into the fire that is not, quenched-; where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for, thee to
enter into the kingdom of God wvtH one eye, than having.
two eyes to he cast intorHell-fire; where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched:'',
Now observe the contrast there is between " life" and
the ''kingdom of Gad," and "Hell." The inquiry there
fore is, where is the "life" of the Gospel?. It is, certain
ly in this state of existence. "The kingdom of God
cometh not with observation," says the Savior, "neither
shall men say, Lo here !,. or to there! but the kingdom
of God is within you." Paul says 'Hhe kingdom of God
is righteousness, and peace arid joy in the Holy Spirit;" and
it is again said, "Repent;- for the kingdom of God, is at
hand.',' This means the kingdom that is within the hearts
of men here. Does it mean that in this passage?, or the
future kingdom of immortal glory? Our Savior said it is
better to enter into it, -maimed,, or halt, or blind, than to
be cast whole into Hell f]re. Do we go fo Heaven, and
enter the state of immortal glory, maimed, or- halt, or
blind? Surely not; but the kingdom is on earth that we
can enter in that condition of body. Then if, "life,"
here used as synonymous with the kingdom 43f Heaven,
applies to this state of existence, • Hell fire must also ap
ply to it. Both those states here sppken of by out ^Sav
ior, belong to the same' state: they are directly contrasted.
But say you, 't'the fire is not quenched." Let, me give
an example of this same phrase found in. Isaiah xxxiv. 9-,
10: and then you can judge about its, burning to all eter
nity, or belonging to the immortal state. It is applied to
Idumea, and illustrates too, the "lake of fire," in Revpr
lations: "And the-'Streams thereof shall be turned into
pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land
thereof shall become burning pitch. ,, It shall not be
quenched night nor day; [it is in this world, because it is
spoken of the land of-Idumea,] the smoke thereof shall
go up for ever: from generation to generation shall it lie
waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever."
Here are the strongest terms of unlimited duration about
which so much has been said and written, applied to a tem
poral judgment upon the land of Idumea.

UNIVERSALISM. 293
Again; Jeremiah xvii. 27; will show how the sacred
Writers are accustomed to speak of "fire" that should "not
be quenched." "But if ye will not hearken unto me to
hallow the Sabbath day,and not to bear a burden, even en
tering into the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day;
then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof," [of what?
Hell? no: but of . Jerusalem!] "And it -shall devour the
palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be'quenched."
There is a difference between quenching a fires and let
ting it go out, after it has consumed every thing in its way;
it is not an endless burning. Here are two fires, then,
which shall not be quenched; one was to burn up Idumea,
and the other' the gates and palaces of Jerusalem. There
fore when they propose, to prove the' eternity of Hell fire
hereafter, they must take' examples of other expressions,
and not these. -
Take 'another Chapter. Isaiah lxvi. 24 : " And they
shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that
have transgressed against me; for their wormshallnot.die.
neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be 'an ab
horring unto all flesh." Does that mean endless fire and
worm? Yet it is. declared to be unquenchable and undy
ing. Where, then, is the proof of the eternity of hell fife —
derived frpm the use of the same language- in Mark?
Especially in view of thpi context, and oth^r passages in
the same connections?
So much for the facts bearing upon this question. The
Old Testament has the phrases'^ihe sense of which is ad
mitted by the Ortho'dpx writers; and they are used in the
passages which Jesus Christ uttered. That is all that is
uecessary to say at present. " -'
As Hades and-Sheol have been! discussed., it is well enough
now to present the real views of Universalists respecting
them ; not the carricatures of them presented by our ene
mies. Sheol means, literally,, the grave, or the state of all ihe
dead, good arid bad; the place where Jacob went, and
where Korah and his company went. David said, "The
wicked shall be turnedinto Hell, and: all the nations that for
get God ;" that is, into the grave, (Sheol,) literally. It
expresses ^punishment, wheft used literally, only when they
suffer a violent and premature death ; as when Moses said
of Korah, Dathrin, and Abtiam, and their "families, " If

294 debate oN
they should die the common death of all men," then the
Lord had not sent, him, but if^the Lord should prepare " a
new thing," as if' the ground sHouJd open and swallow them
up, then the, people would know they Had sinned against
God; or again, where men are said to-be turned into Hell,
— expressing violence.' Biitwhenin the state Of the dead,
they have no mpre misery, and no more happiness there.
Solomon says there is no knowledge, or wisdom, or device in
the grave, Heb., Sheol; Gr. Hades; whither thou goest."
There is np mpre consciousness in the grave— Sheol — the
literal Hell of the Old , Testament.
Most words may be. used in & literal or figurative signi-
catiom So, Sheol, When a man is dead, all isdarkrieSs,
sUence, and gloom in the grave; and the word signifying
the! grave, was used, to, express moral darkness and .misery
in the present life. Now Hell, in its figurative significa
tion is only the Slieol of .the Old Testament, and which
was used to represent- misery in this' life., " The pains of
Heil got hold upon. , me," says David. Afterwards he
speaks of having been delivered " from the lowest Hell."
He used the word in its figurative sense. In the literal
Hell of the Old Testament, there Was no idea of misery.
In the figurative sense it was expressive of misery pn earih,
in the present life; not in the future lifer The same is
true of the Hades of the New Testament. They are ad
mitted to be alike in signification. This was the Hades in
to which Jesus Christ went, as said by Peter in Acts. In
the passage, "O Death! where is thy sting; O grave, Hades,
where is thy victory?" thp word is used also in its literal
sense, as when applied to Christ. In other passages, it has
the figurative meaning; as in the damnation of Capernaum;
" and thou, Capernaum,, which art exalted to Heaven,
shalt be brought dowp to, Hell." That is, to misery and
degradation in this life. The story, of the rich tnan and
Lazarus was a parable, intended to represent things on
this earth, by figures taken from death and the grave.
If jt were used in its literal sense, there would be some
mistake between the Wise Man and JesusChrist. For
the Wise Man says, "There is no knowledge, or wisdom, or
device, in the grave (Hades) whither thou goest." But Je
sus Christ says there is torment there. The argument is,
then, tliat.it was used in the parable of the Rich Man in
its figurative sense, drawn from the darkness and gloom

CNIVERS ALI SH. 296
thrown over death and the graye; here affording no proof
of post mortem misery.
Those areour views. Through these you perceive, that
neither of these words had application to misery in a fu
ture life; but applied altogether to misery in this life, by
a figure drawn from death, and the grave. I request yom
to reflect on these views at your leisure, in connection par
ticularly with what Mr. Waller may say in his next
speech. I leave the matter with you, for the present.
[mr. waller's TWELFTH REPLY.];
My remarks this evening Will necessarily be desultory.
Mr. Pirigteeand mysf'lf have agreed to make a speech
each in the morning, by way of recapitulating the whple
matter. Whatever new matter \ may wish to introduce
must be. done now. I regret that the time agrped upon
has not been sufficient to enable me to bring before ydu
all that I wish or intended on> this important Question. I
am forced for the want of time to omit many important
matters. My business now will be Chiefly to rpcuir to
some former positions, to notice objections, and further to
confirm and support what I have alrepdy advanced. On
many points of importance, I, have felt that I have had
no opponent. True, Mr. Pingree alluded to them some
times by ridicule, and sometimes by an effort at argument;
but alf simply by way of producing mystification1,, rather
than casting light.
And once more I will call your attention to .the Judg
ment day. The positioh of Universalists on this subject is
that the Judgment is in this world, and is constantly going
on; and some say that the time specifically called the
Judgment day is the Gospel day; others, that it means the
day of Jerusalem's destruction. If I understand Mr. Pin
gree,- he takes the first two positions. Now,T naye grant
ed that there is a judgment in the earth, that "judgment
has come upon all men unto condemnation." That "he
that believeth nOt is Condemned already." I have grant
ed, and proved too, that the " believer was justified from
.11 thirigsV" that we are "justified by failh." But still this
oes not dispense with the doctrine. of a Judgment day;
hen Christ shall judge the quick and the dead, arid the
;t that after death there is a judgment. These positions
mine have not been met. I Have already amply sub-

296 PEBate on
tainpd my dpctrine from the Scr.iptjj.res, and will only
refer to one or two passages heretofore adduced. Now
how does Mr. Pingree dispose of the passage in Heb. ix. 27:
" As it is appointed unto men once to die, but, after this the
judgment?'' He admits the cOmmon sense reading of the
passage is against him, and admits as a general principle,
that the' Bible ought tp be interpreted on common senseprln-
ciples ; but then-he says that I have departed from those prin
ciples, and therefore he may! Well,. suppose I am guilty
as charged,, does he mean that my guilt is his innocence?
Does he condemn what I practice, and then do the same
thing? aye, make what he calls sins in me, virtues in him
self? If my memory serves, he has not, since this debate
commenced, plead me as an excuse for himself, without
first condemning in me the very things that, he adopts!
But I wholly deny that I am guilty of the charge. No
thing that I have said or done furnishes the slightest pal
liation, not to say justification of the monstrous nonsense
perpetrated in the Universalist exposition of this passage!
I will not insult your good sense by following hira in his
tortuous exposition, as he called it, of the context. I
plant myself upon the plain and obvious meaniog of the
text, and defy the gates of Hell to move me. The gen-
tlerijan's exposition only proves. that his system will not
let him believe, what God says — leads him to' contradict
what God affirms? What has he said? Why, that it is
not appointed unto men once to die; for according to.his
own showing, it was not pppointed unto the Hgh priest to
die, but only to'kill beasts!! This mqde of interpretation,
would turn the whole Bible into nonsense, and I ,could
prove just as easily, that in the beginning God did not
create' the Heaven and the Earth: tHat Jesus was not born
in Bethlehem of Judea, that he never was in the world:
that he dtd'not dip,: was not buried: did not rise again; for
these things are not more explicitly declared in the Scrip
tures, than that it is, "appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment." To enter upon a defence of
this passage, against the objectipns brought, is but to vin
dicate the Bible against the charge of being written in a I
manner which places it beyond the possibility of heing in-/
terpreted by man! that it is worse thari Jewish fables, and
less intelligible than the books of the Sybils.
But a judgment after death is supported by -other pa

universalism. 287
ages. Jesus shall ": Judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and kingdom." John, in prophetic vision, Saw
"the dead, small and great, standing before the judgment
seat of Christ." Again, the Savior said, " The queen of
the South shall rise [exordiomai, " come out"] in the judg
ment with the men of this generation, and condemn them.
The meri of N.irievah shall rise [anastesontia] in the judg
ment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn
it." Here the Son of God declares, the queen of, tho
South and the- men then living shall come Out together:
and the Ninevitesl apd the men of that generation shall
he raised together, in the judgment. What language can
be more plain and unequivocal? And yet Universalism
contradipts all this, and says there is rio judgment after
death! ' ,'
The fact then that there, is- a judgment of men before
death, does., not militate against the positioh that -there
is a judgment after death. As well might it be argued
that because men live in time, they will notlive in eter
nity: because the saints love Gocl here, they will not love
him hereafter: or because we Have magistrates' courts,
that therefore we. Have no courts of appeals!
Mr. Pingree stated ap-objection to my reasoning pn the
propriety of the judgment day, and says, suppose Tom
Paine had become a Christian before he died, how would
he.be treated in- the judgment? would he not-be condemn
ed for what his infidel writings had done? And so with
other cases. Supposing I could not answer this objection,
it argues nothing against the fact. asserted in thp Scrip
tures, that there is a- judgment day. There are many
facts,, in and out of the Scriptures, that I am wholly incom
petent to explain. I am surrounded with mystery. Bui.
tliis matter, I am happy to say, is easily disposed of. The
gentleman argues with me as if I were a Universalist.
He forgets that I subscribe to tHe doctrine of the pardon
or forgiveness of, sins, in the human acceptation of that
term. If we forgive men their trespasses, even so will
our heaven!)' Father forgive us our trespasses. Yea, if
a brother offends seventy times in a day, and seventy
times in a day, returns and says-,T repent,, we are bound
to forgive him. And God remembers the sins and the
iniquities of the penitent no mpre. Had Tom Paine re
pented of his sins arid believed in Jesus,, his iriiquities

296 DEBATE ON
would have been pardoned, and his sins covered. As, a
believer he would have had his past offences remitted,
and bean taken into the family of Heaven, been justified,
become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Of course what
God forgives and forgets, he will riot bring into judgment.
Besides the very fact of his repenting and believing in
Jesus, would, be' passing' sentence of condemnation upon
his former sentiments and practice; arid then no one could
urge these as his sentiments which he himself had con
demned. The public renunciation of his sentiments
would have done more to discredit them, than all that the
ablest writers have urged in their refutation. They
would at once have gone out of use and sunk' into obliv
ion. It is' easy to see that in this way he. might have
done more for the cause of Christianity, than he has ever
done against it; he might have forever staid the influence
of his works which no one else could do, and even turn
them to favor the cause they now injure.
I might instance many men eminent in piety and use
fulness, who were once irifidels, but no man now knows
them as infidels. All the impression they make upon the
world is in favor of religion. They have ceased from
their labors, and iheir works do fellow tbem. They turn
ed many to righteousness, and shallshine as stars forever
in the coronal of the Redeemer. Such is the doctririe of
the Bible; ahd thus dissolves this objection at the touch
of truth.
As I am on the subject of repentance, I trust I will be
pardoned for condescending to notice an anecdote related
by Mr. Pingree, which, with the utmost deference, I beg
leave to say, appeared rather low for such an Occasion
and such a subject. The substance of it, ,1 think, was this:
A' man had some goods stolen, ahd upon being told that
the thief would be punished hereafter, exclaimed, "Oh,
curse the fellow, I'm afraid he'll repent." Now Mr. Pin
gree would have told him there was no possibility of his
escaping a just recompense for his crime, that he would
certainly and assuredly rrieet full and adequate punish
ment! It is strange that he should insist that pur doctrine
encourages immorality simply because it teaches that fu
ture punishment may Jbe escaped, when hp himself not
only teaches that it may be escaped, but is here to prove
that there is no such punishment at all! So his own an-

UNIVERSALISM. 299
ecdote .makes himself rediculous, and demonstrates the
immoral tendency of his doctrine! Is it not most astonsh-
ing too, that future punishment furnishes no terrors- to
evil doers, when he and,his.brethern have Heen constantly
declaring by mouth and pen, ever since the year eighteen
hundred and eighteen, that many individuals have been
made tenants of mad-houses in consequence of this terri
ble doctrine? But enough: the Hnivei-salist who would
curse a man for repenting of his siris, has a spirit, if not
so grovelling as a thief's, yet much more savage and
fiendish. Once more respecting Gehennd and Tartarus. He says
that Dr. M*Knight admits that the Hebrew had rio word
meaning hell. Neither had it any word meaning heaven.
Mr. Pingrep says the word originally meant the valley of
Hinnom, and told us as if it were quite a discovery y that
Jeremiah went into Tophet! And what does that prove?
By the same school-boy logic, I can prove' the gentleman
himself has been in heaven; for no doubt he has been in a
flower garden, and I have seen him myself in the air!
He admits that Gehenna meant hell in the days pf the
Savior, but affirmedwith great earnestness, that God had
not given it that meaning; but uninspired men! No mat
ter that was the meaning of the word in that day. That
is enough, and settles the question. We are not asking
how words came to have their meaning, but what is their
meanings 1 am not aware that there is a word in the Bi
ble that owes its meaning to inspiration,. Certain it is,
the Greek language in which the New Testament was
written, was the language of Pagans? Did Mr. Pingree
know this? If He did, it is strange he did not tremble
while indulging his sneers op the uninspired meaning of
Gehenna among the Jews. Even, tbe awful name of God
Himself, in the original of the New Testament, had its
meaning from uninspired men — from Pagans! And, I re
peat, the same is true of every word in the New Testa
ment, so far as I know or believe Then', by the same
rule be rejects the meaning of Gehenna among the Jews,
in the days of the Savior, be rejects 'every word of the
New Testament; which is a step further than the most
daring infidel has gone ! '
But he says«the Jews got their notions of future punish
ment from the Pagans! Well, suppose they did; the Sa-

300 DEBATE ON
rior endorsed them as true. Now is it not passing strange,
that Jesus in reproving the Jews for their errors and tra
ditions, if he knew. they held this error, so monstrous in
the eyes of Mi-. Pingree, tHat he never once reproved
them for it— never once intimated lhat it was wrong? He
could reprove them for tithing anise, mint, and cummin;
for their foolish washings; and their superstitious observ
ance of days; and yet wholly neglect to utter one syllable
of warning against thisiterrible heresy! Yea, he rebuked
them for the things they had received by the tradition of
their elders; but never uttered a word against this tradi
tion of the Pagans! Now, who can believe this?
But it is enough, that he concedes that the Jews, in the
days of the' Savior, used Geliehna liv the sense that we
attach to hell. Now; would Jesus, in talking to them,
speak in their own, or in an unknown, tongue? If in their
own tongue, then he meant by Gehenna what they did.
If he spoke to them in an unknown tongue, in the name
of all that's curious, I demand what tongue wash? And
is it not a most astonishing miracle that they should have
understood him at all?
But the gentleman seemed to think it strange that the
Apostle did not use this word when preaching' or writing
to the Gentiles. It is enough that they preached fhe
doctrine. They told them that the impenitent should be
" punished with' everlasting destruction from the glory of
God." They reasoned with them ¦ of '¦ righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come." They called upon
them to repent in view of that day in which God should
"judge the world by that man whom he had ordained.''
They told them that God would render " indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man
that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile."
They were told that God spared not the angels that fell,
'• but cast them down to Tartarus." But 1 need not mul
tiply passages. Mr. Pingree tells us that the Jews got
their notions of hell from the Pagans; of course, then he
admits that the Pagans believed the doctrine of future
punishment. Why then did not the Apostles preach against
it?' Had they been Universalists, would they have not
done so? Did you ever hear a Universalist preach; or
did you ever read any thing from him half as long as an
apostolic epistle, that did not have something to say for

UNIVERSALISM. 301
His doctrine; arid that expressed too in such plain language
that no one could misunderstand the subject. And yet the
Apostles, went out preaching among Partialists, to use my
frjends fayorite: term; and far from condemning the doo
trine, used words and phrases that the most learned and
acute — indeed everybody for seventeen centuries supposed
decidedly- to approve it! - flow will Universalists. explain
this matter? Will they charge the Apostles with, being'
unfaithful; or else unskillful?
But Mr. Pingree says, that according to the notion "of
the Pagans, Tartarus was a department in. Hades; and the
Jews taught that Gehenna was a department iri Hades; arid
he. has proved that Hades will 'be-destroyed, and of course,
'Tartarus or Gehenna! Now I am not sure whether he
designed this Tot argument or wit. In either case it is
entirely harmless, except so far as it concerns himself.
The Word Hades, as I proved, was a wordof varied usage,
and of course, its signification had to.be determined' most
generally by its context. I showed that it was used in
the sense of the grave; and in that sense it is to be des
troyed. . In tbe sense of the receptacle of the soul separate
from the body, it will epase upon the resurrection; but in
the sense of a state of punishment, it is not to be destroyed.
Now, it was used in these several senses by Jews and Pa
gans, and it is so used in the New Testament; but Jews-,
nor Pagans, nor the New Testament intimate that it shall
cease as a state of punishment. Mr. Pihgree ought either
to have shown that it was not used in these several ways,
or else ought not to have attempted this instance of wit
or argument, whichever, he may please to -term it:, for
until he does this, such' remarks bear all the' lineaments
of great ignorance of the subject.
But the Orthodox taught two hells; hades was hell, and
1he lake of. fire and brimstone was hell; and yet hades was
cast into the bake of fire and brimstpne! Hell cast info
hell!! Or hades cast info tariarus, wHiehis a department
of hades! The greater cast into the less — the whole into
thp part U The remarks just made apply to these speci
mens pf wit. Hades in the passage alluded to is evidently
used in the sense of the receptacle of departed soula in a
state of punishment, if the, gentleman must' insist, that such
are our views; and the. souls at the day pf judgment are

302 DEBATE ON
brought out of this slate and united with the body, and
then cast into Tartarus, Gehenna, or lake Of fire and brim
stone. It was the inhabitants of hades, and not hades itself,
that were cast into the lake of fire and brimstone; just as
the inhabitants, and not Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all
the region round about the Jordan, were baptised Of John -
in Jordan. This the passage shows., " And the sea gave up
the dead; and death and hades delivered up the dead which
were in them, and they [the dead that were in them] were
judged every man according to their works : and death and
hades [the dead which were in them] were cast into the
lake of fire." Now the passage shows, not that death and
hades, but those that were in them, were delivered up, were
judged every man according to their works, and were' cast
into the lake of fire. So this most remarkable exbibition
made by the gentleman in his desperate effort at wilicism,
was a most ridiculous want of skill in an- interpretation
not above the capacity of a Sunday school scholar!'
He told us that the punishments in- Matt. v. 22, »v.ere
temporal. I cannot see bow1 this can be. Now what court
in Judea had' a right to inflict temporal punishment on a
man for being angry with his brother? And what law,
human or divine, authorized the council to inflict temporal
punishment on a man for saying " raca,"-to his brother?
And who'was like to burn a man iri the valley of Hinnom,
for saying " thou' fool?" Such an interpretation makes
nonsense of the pasSagd. But let the punishments -be
spiritual, pertaining to that kingdom which is not of this
world, and the explanation is easy -and natural.
He asked if men entered into heaven maimed? or blind?
etc., and inferred hence that these passages did not teach
a danger of being cast into Gehenna, in- the Jewish sense
of that term. This is sheer quibbling. I hope Mr. Pin-
srree will pardon my ealling things by their right names.
The same mode of illustrating spiritual truths pertains
throughout the Bible. The Almighty is said to repent, to
be angry, to be pleased, as if affected with the feelings of a
man. Whoever from hence inferred that the Bible taught
that there was no God?^-or that 'he was altogether such a
being as ourselves? But Mr. Pingree's mode of interpret
ing Scripture would result in this. Therefore it is impro
per and absurd. The meaning of our Savior is, as every

UNIVERSALISM. 303
one will see in an instant, that we must discard whatever
is dear to us, if -it leads us to sin; for it is better to give
them up, than by committing sin, to be cast into hell.
Well, he has abandoned the idea of quenching the fire
which shall never be qupnphed; and of killing ihe worms
that never die. He now -contends that the fire goes out;
and the worm that dieth not? nevertheless does die! Hp
may pursue unmolested all such wonderful achievements
in logic!
Hades, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he
says, is used in a figurative sense! Did be imagine this?
Or was it communicated, to,' him in a dream? Certain it is
that it was suggested: lo him by the ghost of his system.
If he had not felt himself reduced to the last extremity,
he never would have taken the- desperate position .that
the Savior based this parable on the phantom of Hades.
I venture, to say if this parable is based upon the figure
of, a thing that has no existence, that it. has not its fel
low in the whole world of parables!. Andlthen it assumed
this pepuliar 'and unique shape for the especial accom
modation .of Mr. Pirigrec's, system !
But I perceive I have bestowed: as much attention to,
this branch of the subject as my time will allow. I, inu.st
proceed to other matter?: l.will take pecasion. to say,
however,, before I proceed, that Mr. Pingree, in asserting
that, "everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord and the glory of his: power," and similar passages,
related to temporal punishments, or punishments, in this
life, brought no Other authority to . his , support than his
own!,, As ponderous as I am disposed to regard his word
on ordinary occasions, hp .must pardon me, if, on a subject
so grave, as this, I panuot receive it,, being alone. Mere
assertions, will, not suffice. He .must bring proofs. He
must use arguments.
Mr. .Pingree ipl'd you that iniadmitting that , aionios^
though signifying endless, was applied tp things of a limited
nature, -I surrendered the whole matter in dispute! The
surrender is on his part! He has surrendered to me the
literal meaning of the word— zhe grants that to bp eternal
— endless, He does not dispute my position that it, retain*
its literal meaning when applied to limited objects; and has
virtually surrendered that in all such cases it retains its
ordinary meaning; and that the object, not aionios, is «f-

304 DEBATE ON
fected, making the phrase hyperbolical. Then he sur
renders the point, that when it is applied to punishment it
means endless or eternal, and that the vScriptures literally
teaCh endless punishment, endless destruction, etc., etc.
This appears to me to be surrendering 'the whole 'contro
versy. True, he has' a salvo. He endeavors to make it
appear that in all such cases, we must, understand the
language as Hyperbolical, for he says that punishment is
limited. Aye, but has he proved this? Can he prove it?
The very assertion is. begging the question, is faking for
gianted the very thing in Controversy. But is eternal
life limited? If not, neither is the punishment ofthe
wicked, for we have these use antithetically.^
Matt. xxv. 46: " And these shall go away into everlast
ing punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." The
words "everlasting" arid "eternal" are translated- from
the same word, aionios. According to the law of antithe
sis, " everlasting punishment" is the very"1' opposite- of
" life eternal,''' if the latter is endless, So is trip former.
This is necessarily so, unless we charge the Spirit of God
with being incapable of communicating ideas intelligibly.
Such would be the rule for Interpreting it,' if found in any
correct writer. It is pf Universal application.' I defy an
exception in the writings of any author of repute. An
exception would be a violation of the laws of language.
If then the life of th,e righteous is endless^ so is the
puhishmeht ofthe wicked. Jesus himself Has placed
them antithetically. Sp then " eriflless punishment" is no
hyperbole, it is just as true as endless life. He that
cannot lie, has asserted the one in the same terms and in
the same connection, as he has asserted the other.
I will quote one or two other instances of* antithesis.
Rom. v. 21: "That as sin hath reigned unto death,
even so might grace reign, through righteousness, unto
eternal life, by Jesus Ch rist ou r Lord," Here death and eter
nal life are opposite. Then sin reigned unto eternal death.
Again, Rom. vi. 23: " The wages of sin is death, Hut
the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our
Lord." Here is the antithesis again. So the meaning is,
" The wages of sin is eternal death; for if man was not
entirely deprived of ' eternal life,' how. could it be the
* gift of God.' And if en-hre/y deprived of ' eternal life,'
of course he- was in eternal death. I might pursue*' this

U N I-V E R S A L I S M . 305
subject much further, but time presses. Enough has been
said, I trust, to show conclusively that the Scriptures
mean what they say, when they declare that the wicked
" shall gp away into everlasting punishment." &
A kind of Jerusalem mania infects the Universalists,
and the contagion seems to have extended4 to Mr. Pingree !
Every calamity and every punishment, almost, mentioned
in the-Bible, they apply to that ill-fated city and its de
voted inhabitants ! They arp consumed in Gehenna fire
and everlasting fire! On them feast the worms that nev
er die!- They are raised out of their moral graves to
shame and everlasting contempt? It was that city that
Went to everlasting punishment! Paul mentions its over
throw in his epistle to the Thessalonians, when he speaks
of the day of the Lord as not being at hand, and that be
fore it came, the man of sin rind son of perdition must be
revealed, and then Jerusalem should be punishpd with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and
the glory of his pOwer. When the Apostle charged Tim-
othy-before the Lord Jesus Christ, "who shall judge the
quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom," he al
luded to his coming to destroy Jerusalem! When we are
told that Jesus shall " come a second time without sin
unto salvation;" we are to understand he comes to de
stroy Jerusalem, and to send the disciples to Pella. When
James1 speaks of the tongues being "set on fire of .Gehen
na," he means the fires Of the valley of Hinnom in which
the Jews were not burned On the destruction of their city.
When Peter says, " The Heavens and the. earth which are
now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto
fire against the day of Judgment and the perdition of un
godly men," that great event is alluded to. And Enoch,
also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these things,
saying " Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his
saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all
that are ungodly among them of their ungodly deeds which
they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speech
es which ungodly sinners have spoken against him"!!!
The poor Jews, were the dead, small and great, which,
John saw standing before God! "And the sea gave up
the dead [Jews] which were in it, and Death and, Hades
delivered up the dead [Jews] which were in them; and
they Were judged, every man according to their works"!!
20

306 DEBATE ON
But it would take me several days to quote all the pass,-
age3 which they refer to this one event.
But not the least, singular manifestation of this mania
is their treatment of Matt. xxv. I am aware that,, tliey
attempt from Matt. xxiv. 24: " This generation shall not
pass away until all these things" be fulfilled," and the "par
allel passage in Luke, to show that- all the Savjor said oh
that occasion was fulfilled in the destruction of Jer-usalsin.
Now I might show that the. word generation , may mean
a race or lineage, and therefore might apply to the Jews,
who, though scattered. all, over the world, are still most
wonderfully, and. doubtless for some wise purpose, pre
served a distinct people. I. might, I say, show that1 this
verse is clearly.susceptible of such an interpretation, and
thus subvert the last hope of the Universalists from It;
but it is unnecessary. I shall commence 47 verses in ad
vance of this; and where of coui'se it can have no neces
sary bearing, and give you a specimen of Universalist ex
position, taking for granted, as they do, that this xxiv. 34:
furnishes, the key to the whole discourse .of the Savior on
this occasion. Matt. xxv. 31 — 34: " When the Son of
man shall-.come in his glory [fo the destruction of Jerusa
lem,] and all the hp-ly angels [Pagan Roman soldiers,]
wjth him, then shall be sit upon the throne of *his glory.
[this is a hyperbole.] xVnd before him shall be gathered
all nations, [this was neglected,] and he shall separate
them one from another as. a shepherd divideth his sheep
form the goats, [this was npt done,] and he shall set the
sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left, [which
was not done.] Then shall the King say. to. those, on his
right hand [to his discipjes, who. were- not on his right
hand,] come ye, blessed of my Father, inherit the king
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
[run oyer to the town of Pel.la which was built,a great
while since the foundation of tbe w.prldi!]
Verse 41; " Then shall he say, also, unto them on his
left hand, [to , the Jews,] depart, ye cursed, into everlast
ing f\re, prepared by -the devil and his angels." [go , into.
Jerusalem, and you will be destroyed by the .Romans; the
"devil and his, , angels" are mere retorical flourishes.!]
Ve^sp 46: " Aneji these [Jews] shall go away into eye iv
lasthigpunishmenV [shall, be killed by the Romans apd
go.^Q.H.eavpn;] , bujjtlip, righteous into life eternal'*--[inta

UNIVERSALISM. 307
the town of Pella, to , suffer poverty, and persecution,
many years after those Jews killed by the Romans have
gone to the abodes of -the blessed.] ... Let this suffice. You
can pursue this' course at your leisure, with other passa
ges similarly perverted by the Universalists. Their sys
tem stultifies the whole Bible; makes it more absurd than
the ravings of the Pythia — a complete nose of wax to be
turned any way. It makes us build for eternUy upon va-
' jior! The truth is$ the passages I have been quoting just
as well refer to the day upon which our Declaration of
Independence was declared, as to the destruction of
-Jerusalem. I deem- it unnecessary to detain in order to expose foiv
ther Mr. Pingree's misapplications of the Scriptures, I
have in many instances thought it would be an, abuse of
your intelligence to notice them. 1 noted two instances
especially, in his last speech. I His quotations from 2
Kings, and Jeremiah, which he said alluded to the seventy
years captivity of the Jews. If you think it worth while
to examine for yourselves, you will see, at once the passa^
ges have no such meaning; The name of his mistakes,
in this way, Since the commencement of this di.scussipn,,
is Legion. I charge him with no design in the matter..
His system has put out his eyes. But I have thought it
unwise to neglect weightier- matters to expose his com
ments on quotations of Scripture. If I have erred.it has
been a defect in judgment.
Mr. Pingree insists upon the necessity of a moral
change after death, apd.even asserted that I had conceded
the necessity! This .as;, a ¦ most flagrant mistake. I have
made no such concession, and hold no such doctrine. I'
subscribe implicitly loathe .declarations of the Scriptures..
That every one who is a, disciple of Christ, has tlie Spirit
-of Christ, and with his mind serve&tlie law of, God. Will
Mr. Pingree himself say that such a one must he chang
ed,, so as not to have the Spirit of Christ, and- not with his.
mind serve the law of God, or they are unfit for Heaven?
He must take this ground, or his assertion that a Christian
must experiericea moral change after death is as empty
as a vacuum, 1 know and -lament the, divisions among
christians; but this is an error of judgment, it arises from
education, from w.rpng teaching.; But their hearts are.

308 DEBATE ON
cast in the same mould. Their heads may not be alike, but
the same law is written upon rthpir hearts. They have
the same spirit, the Spirit of Christ, or they are none Of
his. But the gentleman wholly mistakes the matter, if he
supposes that because they differ, they hate one anoth
er. No; he that hates his brother is no Christian, but
is a murderer, and has not eternal' life abiding in him.
Love is the fulfilling of the law, and the Spirit of Christ
is love, and the man who serves the law with his mind. and
has the Spirit of Christ, (and without thesp he is no Chris
tian,) must love his brethren; aye, his enemies. Mr. Pin
gree, I am persuaded, does not believe that I have any
hatred to him, as widely as we differ. I entertain none
but the kindest feelings toward him. Our intercourse,
since the commencement of this discussion, is enough to
convince him of this. And I believe he reciprocates
those feelings. I am sure he does if his conduct has. truly
represented his feelings. There needs no moral change
after death, then, in order to the amicable association of
Christians in that glorious world ; but only better instruc
tion — the complete triumph of that love that now prevails
iri their hearts.
In proving that the punishment inflicted on sinners in
eternity, is founded in justice and righteousness, and,
therefore, in strict conformity to the love and mercy of
God — that it is not arbitrarily inflicted, or inflcted from
revengeful feelings, but the nature and necessity of things,
I have completely answered and annihilated all that Mr.
Pingree has said, by way of ad captandum valgus, res
pecting the misery the righteous must experience, in be
holding the condemnation and sufferings of their friends
and relatives. The objection supposes an impossibility;
that the saints iri light will have hearts opposed to the. law
of God, and to God's justice, holiness and love; hearts
revolting at what is done in accordance with law, opposing
what is just, and righteous, and necessary! This cannot
be. Such emotions can prevail in no heavenly bosom.
No heart can there revolt at a thing, when the righteous
law of God approves it well. But the objection is found
ed in another mistake: that we take our natural feelings
to Heaven, when the Savior tells us that we do -not; but
are as the Angels of God. This whole objection then is

UNIVERSALISM. 309.
founded in gross errpr; and Mr. Pi ngrce's pathetic decla
mation on it is less than nothing, and perhaps was indulg
ed in because he had nothing better to say.
Mr. Pingree's efforts in the way of pathetic, struck me
as a most singular failure. Hp said that our doctrine
mMe Washington,' and other great and good men, the
companions of the, wicked in Hell! Mr. Pingree is the
very first man that I ever he^rd say Washington was not
a Christian! The charge is a, slander upon his name!
He was not only Nature's nobleman, but a Christian, " the
noblest style of man!" Would the gentleman take the
finest chaptet from the fame of this great man? And it
is a most unwarrantahle misrepresentation of- our views to
say that we teach the damnation of good men. We do no
such thing, as every Universalist knows.
Oh! but says Mr. Pingree, your doctrine was held by
the Pagans! Yes, and it was held, and is held by all the
eminently good and learned in the present and all past
ages. The fact that many, or even all the heathens hold
the doctrine, is no proof of its having originated among
them. As well might it be said, that we are indebted to
them for the doctrine of Heaven and of the Soul's immor
tality. The'ahcient^ heathen philosophers tell us that the
doctrine came down from the most primitive antiquity, and
is "older thari philosophy."' They say it did not origin
ate with them. And 1 now defy the gentleman to point to
the age this side of Adam when it did begin. If it came
from the heathen, let him tell when, and who first taught
it. But he ought to be careful in making reflections of
this sort. He ought to have inquired into the paternity
of his own dpctrine;' Mr. Ballou was the first 'who*. ad-
mittmg the Bible, proclaimed that there was no punish
ment after death. But the very first propagator of the
sentiment of no future punishment was a Pagan! ¦
[ME. PINGREE'S ' LAST SPEECH.]
Respected Friends:— -This mol'ning, as we have ar
ranged, each of us has the privilege of discussing the
question for an hour, according to the rule which is to
govern us; and that is, that we are not to introduce new
matter, but each is to have, the privilege of replying to
the last speech, or to any orie made during the discussion.
My present object will be to review as summarily as pos-

310 debate on
sible, Mr.' Waller's last speech, of yesterday afternoon,'
and after that to recapitulate the prominent points brought
up in this discussion, and the arguments adduced on both
sides to sustain those positions.
He told you that you would be astonished with what ease
he could dissipate the. mists I had thrown about the sub
ject; and noiloubt when ,ypu saw how it was done, you were
both astonishpd and surprised.!,, I- was. I was almost
alarmed and terrified at the first setting forth of such a
tremenduous threat. He then proceeded to observe that
he had a word to say about the judgment after death, ahd
quoted again the passage in Heb. ix. 27, 28: making the
declaration that it refers to a judgment, after death, in
which all tlie actions donepn earth are decided upon.
I have already said repeatedly, that neither Mr. Waller
nor the Orthodox Church believes that, that all men will
be judged for all their acts done in this life. He believes,
and they believe, as I have shown, that a murderer or a
liar, or any other sinner, may sin till nigh death, and then
repent, and die, and not be punished for his sins. So the
upright man, who has. done good all his life, may commit
one sin, die thus suddenly, and go to Hell, and not be re?
warded for the good he has done. The fate of both is
determined- to all eternity, by the state of mind and. heart
in which they are at the moment of death. If a man dies
a sinner, he remains so to all eternity. If he dies. a saint,
he remains so to all eternity. I say this is the common
opinion '•
I called Mr. Waller's attention to the context of this
passage in Hebrews. I did this to show the subject of the
chapter, and the Apostle's argument, and thus throw: light
on it, by reading the preceding language, beginning at thei
16th verse: "For where a testament is, there must also
be'the death of the testator. For a testament is of force
after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force at all while
thp testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testa
ment was dedicated without blood; ["blood" is used for
death, observe.] For when Moses had spoken every pre
cept to the people according to the law, he took the blood
of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
hyssop; and sprinkled both the book and all the people:
Saying,i/«s is the blood of the testament which God hath
enjoined unto you." [Ridicule was attempted to be made

UNIVERSALISM. 311
of rtfeMdea "of a man's offering "the blood, of others," in-
stead-of his own death; yet the Apostle takes that law as
given by Moses, as an. illustration of Christ's death.] "It
was therefore neeessary [.mark!] that the patterns of
things in the Heavens, should be purified with these; but
the heavpnly things themselves with better sacrifices than
these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places
, made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but
roto Heaven itself, now , to appear in the presence of God
for .us.- Npr yet that he shall offer himself often, as the
high priest entereth the holy place every year with the
blood of others." [This explains the pass-age, "once to
die." The high priest was once t© die, that is, once every
year, figuratively, by, a typical .death, as it were by proxy ;
not- by himself, but " by the blood qf others," not his own
blood.] For then must" he {Christ] often have suffered
since the foundation of .-the world.; but now once in the
end of theworld, [understand that,] hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice <©f, himself. And as it is ap
pointed unto men once to die„hut after that the judgment,
so Christ was once offered to hear the sins of many; and
unto fhem.that look for him, shallhe appear the second
time without-si® -unto salivation."
It is" plainly a comparison or contrast .between the first
•offerings of tihe Jews, and the offering pf J-esus Christ.
He alludes to -them in contrast throughout the chapter.
Christ was to- appear a. second time unto Salvation to those
that looked for him; for.it was for pronouncing ablessing,
and not a cursing, that the priest appeared, when he came
out of the holy ef holies. But if this "judgment" refers
to a future life, the passage is. then a proof of universal
salvation, as before -shown ; though 1 deny that he has
demonstrated that it has relation to the immortal state-.
It would hp strange indeed, if Paul now should leave the
subject of the sacrifices made by the High Priest, abruptly,
at this point, and the offering of Jesus Christ, and talk
about the natural death of allmen, and the General Judg
ment, to be followed by endless damnation! He did not
do it. The passage belongs to his subject, and he is show
ing still the same general reasoning. There is no intima
tion of any punishment, either, to follow the judgment, as
exhibited in this place; it was a judgment of justification —
ef "salvation.'' Mark that!

312 DJSBATE ON
We have thp passage quoted, "I came not to. judge the
world," etc. Admitted in relation to. hiis first, his personal.
coming; but his second coming was to judge the world.
This we have established by-proof tHat has not been set
aside. :
We have also; passages referring to the>" day of judg
ment." That the "day" here, does not refer tp. a future
life, I have established by abundant proof. When is this
"day?" If if is to take place after the literal, heavens
pass away, it is not " the last day." - It is rather the', first
day pf Eternity ; because it is placed, according to the
common opinion, after the heavens and the. earth have
passed away. We have Scripture examples of this use pf
the word " day," as found here. Says one,, " now is the
day of salvation." It is not a day in , Eternity. It some
times refers to the whole period 'of the Gospel Dispensa
tion; and "day" is used in the same sense, as applied to
the general judgment by Jesus Christ. It is a progressive
judgment, going on continually, through theperiod in which
Christ is now ruling, reigning, and judging the worlds in
his " kingdom," and by his Gospel.
He quoted a passage) in , Peter, where he quotes, tHe pror
phet Joel, in which he speaks of the " last days." But Pe
ter says those were the." last days." He referred to the'last
days of the Old Dispensation. John says, in relation to his
time, " There are, that is, now, many antichrists, whereby
we know that it, this, is the last time." It relates not to
Eternity. , - , -
He quotes the declaration, tliat for ''every idle woi;d we
shall have togive an account." Does that not take place
here? Mr. Waller does not believe that for every idle
word,, men will be punished. Peter denied his- Master.
Was he to be punished for it? Mr. Waller would say,
No. We say that men are judged; but during the prog
ress of the Kingdom of Christ. Christ is the Judge of
the " living and the dead," says Mr. Waller. But what
says Paul in the text, to Timothy? 2d Tim. iv. 1: He
says it is to be "at Christ's appearing -and kingdom;" ,not
in the immortal life; but during the reign. of JesusChrist,
to commence at his "coming," and the establishment of
his " kingdom."
Matt. xxiv. and xxv. He says Universalists apply this
to the " destruction of Jerusalem." I protest against this

UNIVERSALISM. 31,3
representation of our yiews. . This coming in power and
glory, and the judgment .embraces the destruction of Jeru
salem; but tiotall those things were to be fulfilled at that
tripp;, it was a progressive matter commencing then. I have
not said anything about the " destruction of Jerusalem."
All-he saidabout'the Christians retreating to Pella, amounts
to nothing. TAat.Was not the reward. The reward is
" the Kingdom of^God^" and that is within men; it con
sists of " righteousness; peaoe and jpy in the Holy Spirit."
It is. a perversion to represent. Universalists as believing
that Pella was the Kingdom of Godi He knows better.
: He says that the passage, " this generation shall not
pass," etc., applies to the race of the Jews being kept dis
tinct from other nations. Then where is the point of the
Savior's idea, if that is the meaning of "generation"?
What means the illustration of " the 'fig tree1"? '*' While
the brapch -is yet tender and putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is , nigh. So ye," he says, "when ye
shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the
doers.. .Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till-all these things bp. fulfilled;" (that is, thousands,
and perhaps^ tens Of thousands of years! according to Mr.
Waller and others; yet it all bears upon the period nigh at
liand, yea, even at thp doorsV) Mr. Waller therefore de
nies the ordinary meaning of4he mords, "this genera
tion," to be the average period of human life.
Mr. Waller/ No, Sir.
Mr: Pingree. If he does not, I do not see the force of
his last argument about the " ordinary meaning" of words.
In the .first chapter of Matthew, it says, "All. the genera
tions from Abraham to David are fourteen generationsv;
and-from David .until the captivity are fourteen genera
tions, and from the captivity to Christ, are fourteen gener
ations." , Does the fourteen generations here mean four
teen distinct races of men V But the period of time is
given; so that it cannot be so. But if there is no force in
that argument, the 16th of Matthew will settle the ques
tion as to what our Savior did mean; for he there says, in
allusion to the same event, (verse 22,) " Verily I say unto
you, there be some slandinghere which shall not taste of
death, till- they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom"
Tfye same idea is expressed in both texts, but in different
words-. - In one place he says, "This generation shall not
pass till all those things be accomplished;" and in the

314 DEB ATE ON
other, " there be some standing here that. shall not taste -qf
death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom1;"
that is, shall not die. It is pertain, therefore, if Jesus
Christ spoke the truth, that the second coming, of Christ
is past; as he positively said'it should be,. in' the life -time
of some then living., Was all that- language, "pray ye
that your flight be riot in the winter or on the sabbath day,"
etc.; us'ed'in, reference to the general judgment? ! Was it
to be after the' literal heavens and the earth-had passed
away, and we were, in thp. immortal world? !
All that paraphrase about the Roman Emperor,'' and the
Roman army, I will not reply to. I have advanced no such
sentiments— Christ sil;s upon the throne of his kingdom,
and rules over his kingdom by the Gospel, now, and has
for eighteen hundred years.
Everlasting, as used in this place. Mr. Waller says that
the word rendered " everlasting," is applied antithetically
to future " life,"'nnd to future "punishment; arid challenges
the production of any ease where a sentiment is- antitheti
cally expressed, and where the same word qualifying the
objects means one thing iri one branch of the antithesis,
and a different thing in another branch. All this is unne
cessary — I admit that the terms mean the same tiling in
both members of the antithesis. I have denied, the posi
tion that either of them applies to a' future state; and have
asserted and proved, that "-'everlasting punishment," -and
" everlasting life," when used in the same expression, both
apply to this state of existence. Do 1 therefore deny the
doctrine of a future life"? • No.; it is incorrect in him to
say so. Christ says, that at the resurrection, we shall be
" as the angels of God in heaven." The doctrine of t-he
resurrection establishes the idea of the future, immortal
life. Then the 5th of John has been introduced: our Sa
vior's words are, " he that heareth my word and believeth
in him that sent me HATH-*-that is, now— everlasting life;"
and he defines what it is; to " know God and, Jesus Christ."
This they had — that was this "everlasting life," enjoyed
here. Mr. Waller says that those who fell away- from grace,
can never be renewed. Yet they had enjoyed the " everlast
ing, life," according to.the above, passage. Therefore it is
enjoyed-in this world, and may be lost again, according to
that passage. It is the enjoyment of "the kingdom' of

UNIVERSALISM. 315
God," in this life. I do not deny immortal life. But I as
sert that the phraste, "everlasting life," as frequently found
in the New Testament, has application to the spiritual life
of the Christian in this world, also; although I do not af
firm it to Have -that meaning, exclusively. In 5th Romans,
it is said, that as -by the disobedience of one man " many,"
or the many have sinned, so by the obedience of one shall
" many," the same many, be made righteous. Here is an
antithesis.- Take all his doctrine in relation to antitheses,
which is correct, arid see the result. How many are made
sinners by Adam? All men. So upon the other side of
the antithesis, "all men" who had endured the judgment
of condemnation in, Adam," shall be made righteous in
Christ,, and " justified," verse 18. Therefore it follows
that all. will be saved; does it not? There are two verses
containing antitheses in this chapter; and both of them
positively prove the doctrine of Universal Salvation, ac
cording to -the gentleman's own mode of interpretation,
which, in principle^ is correct.
Thus I have taken up his gauntlet, and first shown that
the text quoted by him does not apply to the immortal
state, and then thrown it down to him on the. 5th of Ro
mans. As to "everlasting" being applied to "limited objects;"
I have preferred not to deny what Mr.' Waller calls the
¦ordinary meaning of the word, but granting it, he admits
that it may be applied to limited objects. If so, I say the
wovd in itself does not necessarily prove the endless dura
tion of the object to which it is applied; and therefore can
never prove the endlessness of punishment. His admis
sion destroys all the force of his argument.
We hear again the old remark, that sin-done here, in
fluences men after the death of the sinner; and yet he
admits, that after repentance, previous sin is not judged,
or punished. Therefore, as shown before, the remark
passes for nothing; it has no force at all.
In regard -to the agreement of mind among Christians.
He agrees very well, to be sure! with all other sects, and
with mine; for he will not admit them nor us to the Lord's
Supper! Now if the Church of Christ be thus divided
here, and we undergo no moral change after death, how
can they commune together with the Lord in heaven?
That has not been answered. I put the question again.

316 DEBATE ON
There is. no concert among the professors of Christianity.
Perhaps, Mr. Waller may be more benevolent than, others;
but you all dp know that the professed Christian Church is
a scene pf strife of mind with mind-: -,'. They do no,t dwell
together in peace : they cannot after death, -unless morally
changed in heart and mind.
The anecdote of John Nefrton— - wilh his mother's influ
ence — was all well enough, but the prayers of- his mother
did not affect him till He was in middle life. Now as an
illustration of what I have before said, suppose this poor
woman had sinned before death; according to the Orthodox
views, she would have gone tp Judgment as a sinner, and
consequently to Hell, notwithstanding all her previous
good vyorks! This would be a necessary corisequence of
the state of mind in wliich she died, and not- according to
her general works on, the earth.
We have quoted here the passage, "avenge not your
selves; vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Here is tlie
difficulty of this passage, according to the Orthodox doe-
trine : a man may. not be avenged: He may escape all
punishment, by repentance. That was the difficulty with
regard to the- man that stole the hay; who said, if he was
not to pay for it till the judgment, he would take another
bundle ! Hence, Mr. Waller himself does not believe that
declaration. Gehenna and Tartarus in Hades. We have here the de
nial of Mr. Waller as to that. Mr. Greenfield has been
repeated to us as Orthodox authority on this point. What
he says has beeri understood.
Mr. Waller rose to explain. I stated that with learned
men, when they spoke of Hades -as a place of punishment,
, might speak of Tartarus ov Gehenna as a part of it.
Where he states that I said they were, in Hades, I: said only
they might be.
Mr. Pingree. Let that pass. According to the learned
of the Orthodox, there are two Hells. I have proved -this
on the authority of Greenfield, Kenrick, George Camp
bell, and others, that Tartarus and Gehenna are depart
ments in Hades. Greenfield says that Tartarus was sup
posed to be the place of punishment iri Hades, and makes
it equivalent to Gelienna. You may recollect my remarks
as to the doom of Hades, proving that it shall be destroyed,
with the Hells within it!

UNIVERSALISM. 317
As. io "human language," words changing their
meanings, the New Testament being written in a Pagan
language," there is no. difference between us. But the
question between us, is, Did the Sacred Writers use Pagan
words in a Pagan sense? -
How are the words, Hades and Tartarus borrowed from
the Pagan notionl They had Tartarus, and Elysium,, or
Paradise, or Abraham's bosom. If the Sacred Writers
used these words with the acceptation common to Pagans,
the Gospel reveals nothing new as to the future place of
punishment. It simply adopts the Pagan ftotions. If they
did not adopt the Pagan notions, by employing Pagan lan
guage,, then Mr. Waller's argument and affected ridicule
as to my views of human language, all go for nothirig.
Christianity is Pagariism; or else Mr. Waller's labor is all
lost. That is all I propose to say in reference to this last
speech of Waller.
I will now proceed briefiyto recapitulate the arguments.
throughout this discussion. I have about one hour, but I
may not occupy the whole of my time.
After some preliminary remarks upon the origin of this
discussion, and defining the terms of the proposition, I
proceeded to draw my first argument in favor of the pro
position that the- Scriptures , teaChthe ultimate holiness, and
happiness of all men, from the nature of God, his character,
attribvi.es, and relationship to men. Lshowed he was " the
Father of our spirits;" that, as' John' says, " God is Love;"
that God, as, David says, "is Goon unto All;", apd, as the
Savior says, is "Kind even to the evil and unthankful :"
that though he punishes, it is' -for our good I That he is a
Being of Goodness and Love, and that his unfailing good
ness is over all his works forever; that this forbids the
idea of perpetual perdition and torture being the lot of any
of God's creatures.
The reply to this was, that if God punishes sin in this life,
he will punish it hereafter. In answer, it was shown that
there is a great difference between temporal punishments,
inflicted for the benefit of the sufferer, and endless tor
ment's,, resulting in no good. Parents, to be sure, should
punish their children; but fpr their benefit. Ifa parent
should, take his own child and torture him through life, it
would be. monstrous! The first is according, to Universal
ism; the last is according to Partialism.

3 18 D*E RATE on
My second argument was' from Romans viii.. 21. "Be
cause the creature -itself, [that is the. human creation]
shall be delivered from the bondage of 'corruption into the
glorious liberty of the- children of. God;" in connection
with what Paul says to the Hebrews, " destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them,
who through fear of death have all their li e tiaic been
subject to bondage.".
To' this second argument, Mr. Waller has replied '..the
first passage, is confined to the saints; but if .so, it must be-
confined to the 'Roman saints, whom he was addressing,
and not the saints now — Mr. Waller and others! But this.
has no force, because the Apostle afterwards distinguishes
between the "creation" ahd 'the saints; — " and not they
only but we also," embracing all, saints and siwnsers. So.
the argument remains firm, and has not been, and cannot
be wrested out of the hands of the Universalists. , The
passage in Hebrews, has not been- noticed at all.
My third argument was from Romans v. The Apostle
argues, that because, all have sjnned, it is necessary that a.
Savior should come; and concludes that they all should
become righteous, be justified, live-, and be- sayed. The
argument is this: as "many" a's have-' sinned, will "be
made righteous;" and so be saved, 'be they more or le.ss.
If thereare any that are not' lo be saved, they are those
that have not sinned. But all have sinned, aud the same
all are to enjoy this blessing; that, is, .' according to the
force of antithesis in the Apostle's argument.
My fourth argument was from Col. i. 2.0: the reconcilia
tion of all to God, He- says it applies only to fhe saints;
because addressed to the Church of Colossos.. If restrict
ed at all, then it must be restricted to the Colossian saints.
But Christ was to reconcile all— '" thp world," to. God;
and even the saints were sinners, before they, we re recon
ciled. If all are reconciled, then all shall be saved. This
is the doctrine of universal salvation. God will not damn
those who are reconciled to him, but will save them.. It
is his purpose thus to save them; and his purposes are not
to be frustrated. The promise is of reconciliation, and
consequently, of salvation to all men — fo the world.
5. The fifth argument was drawn from 1 Tim. ii. 4, and
iy, 10: where it is said to be God's will that all men

UNIVERSALISM. 319
should be saved ; and. that God " is the Savior of all -men,
especially of those that believe."
There are twp sorts of salvation ; that of the immortal
state, which is a cpmmon gift to all, and that which -is
specially enjoyed by believeirs in this life." Says Paul
" We are saved, now, by hope." " He that believeth- not
is condemned,, or damned, -already*," says the Savior. Be
yond them both', is the ultimate salvation of all men. They
"shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into
the glorious liberty of fhe children of God;"' and shall be
"as the angels of God in Heaven," clothed upon with im
mortality, incori-uption, and glory.
The only reply to this was that mere sinkvow, and there
fore they cannot - all be saved. Partiahsts differ among
themselves as to" the doctrine 'of endless damnation. "/We
say that here men are " made subject.to vanity;" but that
"grace shall imoch more- abound than the offence;" and
that, finally, all will be saved. Some ofthe Orthodox say
that God will have some to be saved, and will be able, 'to
accomplish his -will with regard to, these; (this is the Cal-
vanist.) Others say that God would like, to have all saved ,
but cannot, effect il; (this is the Arminian.) Therefore
God, in't'his 'latter case, must possess, if unchangeable, an,
eternally ungr-atified, desire ! !
My sixth argument was founded upon' the' doctrine of
the resurrection, as declared by the Savior to the Sadducees,
in Matt, xxii.,' and Luke xx.; and by Paul to the Corinthi
ans; in fhe :15th chapter of the 1st Epistle. Paul says, "as
all die in Adam, so shall all be', made alive in Christ."
But "how?" the- question is asked; "and with what body,
shall they rise?" ' He then proceeds to, -say that they sfealli
rise with an incorruptible body, immortal, in power and
g-lo-ry. The Savior says they shall " be as the angels of
god in heaven." Mr. Waller asserts that all these decla
rations relate to the Christians alone; and quotes St. Paul's
language, , " we," and "us," etc., in connection, to prove
it. But this -argument has no bearing on general doc
trines, like, that of the resurrection, as before declared;
because, if , restricted in that manner, it would by the same
logic apply to ,the Corinthians only, whom he was address
ing.. Neither .Mr. Waller nor any of us here present
could derive any benefit from it. We should have no
hope of the resurrection, upon such a rule of construe-

320 DEBATE ON
tion. Then the argument is absurd, in restricting it to
the Christians whom he was addressing; HecaUse the' oth
er Fpassage,) "we shall all appear before -the Judgment
seat of Christ," would by the same rule be restricted- to
those whom he addressed — -the saints,— ^and not- apply to the
whole world. But that passage has been quoted as a proof
that all the. world shall be judged. Again, tho passage,
" How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?"
and so all those passages quoted. Mankind Iri general have
nothing to do with tfiem, if Mr.. Waller's rule be adopted;
only the saints, living at that time.
Then there was an argument a'teinpted to be founded
on the use of the Greek particle ek,in the language ofthe
Savior to the Sadducees; as if that restricted the number to
be raised and made "as the Angels ol God." I showed yon
Paul's declaration, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." ' Christ himself says, " all live
unto" Godj in relation to this resurrection to a glorious
condition. I showed that this particle ek could. Tint stand
between us and Heaven. I showed the plain declarations
of our Savior, and showed that they referred to all men;
fo'all who die, whether more or less: ,'
My seventh argument was that we find in the Bible, that
all the enemies of man shall finally be destroyed, even to
" the last," which is death, for Jesus is to " take away the
sin of the world;" the devil and all his works, and' Hell,
and finally death itself, are to be' destroyed. Tothis there
was no reply. The argument stands urirefuted, irrefuta
ble. All men will finally be forever free from all- ene
mies, — sin, misery, death, h.ell, — every one; and conse
quently all savtd, all liapjy. We need fear no enemy be
yond death, for Paul calls that "the last!"
These are the seven principal arguments- 'that I have
presented in favor of the proposition in controversy.
They may be called seven pillars of the temple of univer
sal salvation. 1 have incidentally adduced others, which
are as follows, and may be numbered as the others.
8. The promise of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
that he would bless in their seed — Jesus Christ, — "all the
nations, and kindreds, and families of the. earth." Peter
says that this promise is to be performed -by turning them
away from their iniquiiies. And this promise has been con
firmed by the solemn oath- of Almighty God himself; it

UNI VERSALISM. 3*1
cannot fail. The blessing was shown as above, to be-Salva-
tisn, a deliverance from sin. To this there was no reply.
9. There is a promise of the subjection of all things to
Christ, in xv. Corinthians, at the time ofthe resurrection;
and that then Christ would surrender his authority to God,
that God may he " all in all." To this we have had no
distinct reply.
10. The purpose of God is expressed in Paul's letter to
the Epesians to gatlier together all in one unto Christ,
Eph. ,i. 10: " That in the dispensation of the fulness of
times he might gather together in one all things iri Christ.
both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even
in him. I do not recollect having any reply to this.
1 1. Next I presented the last verse of Romans xi. " For
of him, and through him," that is to God, " are all things,
to whom be glory forever, Amen." Here the doctrine is
not expressed by the word, " salvation," or holiness, but
that all shall return to God. Consequently^ all shall be
happy; or else those who are with God must be miserable.
12. Then Christ says, " If I be lifted up, I will draw all.
men unto me;" arid those that eome, shall not be cast out.
That is universal salvation.
.13. Again; "Every knee shall bow, and every tongue
confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Fath
er." Phil. ii. 9, 10. This cannot be, until all are purifi
ed, become holy and happy.. Then they will make the
joyful confession j and God will be glorified.
14. The next argument is founded on the declaration
of Peter in Acts iii., "Of the restitution of all things
spoken of by God's holy prophets."
15. Theri Jesus Christ says, "Not one jot nor one tittle
shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" that is, till all
men are brought to. love God and each other; for " 'Love
is the fulfilling of ihe law;" and then " God," who is dove,
'' will be all in all!"
16. My next argument was that the happiness ofthe saved,
requires the salvation of all men. Now if the common
doctrine be true, that there is no change after death, and
the good are mada miserable by the sufferings of others
here, they will experience great suffering in knowing or
witnessing the torments of the damned hereafter. If they
experience no moral change, they will, while in Heaven,
be made miserable, by the groans and cries of despair of

322 debate on
the damned, crying from Hell for help and mercy. They
never can be happy, while this lastsy though they be right
by the throne of God; if there is no moral change after
death. Thus the happiness of the saved, requires the sal
vation of all.
This is the fair, and beautiful, and most glorious temple
of universal salvation, whose foundations are in Scripture,
fact, and reason; whose builder is the Holy God, the Au
thor ef our great salvation, who will pffect the ultimate
holiness and happiness pf all his creatures. All sin will
pass away, and all temptation. All will be pure, holy, and
happy, and saved in the immortal state. These promises
are the joy of those here who hold this faith. It leads them
.to adore the goodness of the Creator, and to love one an
other as brethren. Hearer! will you not enter into this
heavenly temple, and rejoice even now, in all its light, and
life, and glory 2
Opposed to this is the system of endless damnation —
of endless sin and rebellion against God, with cursings and
blasphemies of millions without number, of wretches en
during "Hell horrors" to all eternity. It is not true, says
this system, that God and the Savior will destroy the Dev
il; but that he is, and will ever remain within the govern
ment of God, as an enemy — an arch-adversary, who will
claim the largest and most powerful kingdom, and hold it
to. all eternity, in spite of God and the Savior; in spile of
the Holy Spirit a:id all the powers of Heaven; having, in
short, absolute spiritual sway over by far the greatest part
of God's moral universe. The powers of evil, says this
system, have been in successful rebellion against the pow
ers of good, and will be forever able to maintain their as-
.oendency; so that the creatures of God's hand, whom ha
loves and wills to save, are by violence snatched from
Him, and made devils of, to curse -and blaspheme his holy
name, and yell in the tortures of Hell, to all eternity, be
ing wholl)' in the power of the devil.
And this system is for the glory of God; is it?! It was
for his glory, that this kingdom of endless pain, despair,
and blasphemy was permitted, and the monarchy of the
universe divided with the enemy! But sin is said to be
contrary to the will of God: and yet it is said he will per
petuate it, to all eternity! This is one of the horrible ab
surdities of Partialism. No, it is Universalism that glori-

universalism. 323
fies Gpd, representing all his will to be accomplished;
while Partialism glorifies tHe Devil ! !
I am now prepared to recapitulate Mr. Waller's prindi-
pal arguments, and my replies to them. There were
various remarks made, which I look upon as being the —
(I hardly know how to term it.) Though such remarks
and insinuations make but little impression: ; yet they
evince an affected superiority in those who hold the Par
tialist system, and particularly my friend, Mr. Waller,
over Universalists, and especially over his present oppo
nent. He Has been insinuating continually about "a little
learning being a dangerous thing;" and that I have but
little, while he by implication, has "drank deep ofthe Pier
ian spring," etc.; also that while " in deep water, little
boats must keep near shore;" and declarihg that I know
nothing of the doctrine he holds, and that I have not read
enough,, etc., "and expressing how he has been di.wjjpoi-nted
in the ability of his antagonist, and all that; and about
Quixotic adventures, etc. These are the only things I
have found unpleasant during the discussion. 1 have
made no pretensions to learning or great talents, here or
elsewhere. I would rather the discussion had gone forth-
without these things, and- let all judge of the ability ofthe
arguments, by the arguments themselves, and nbt by tho
great display of learning by the speakers. Mr. Waller is
doubt a great scholar, and a worthy opponent of the doc
trine of universal salvation. Thus will I speak of him.
The first argument he made was in (he assertion that
the " mass of well regulated minds," in all ages and coun
tries; have been believers in eternal punishment; and that
those who believed in universal salvation were few and
inconsiderable. You will recollect the reply I made to
this argument.- The mass of mankind may be mistaken.
Majorities are not always right; but on the contrary are
generally wrong in matters of religious belief The same
reasoning would extinguish light in the world always, and
on all subjects; and stop all progress. Moreover, ill the
proposition before us, the appeal is not to the mass of men's
opinions, but to the- Scriptures.
He next said our doctrine was of modern origin; but E
proved that the doctrine of the ultimate salvation of alt
mankind was believed frofntbe earliest ages of the church,
hy Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen,

324 DEBATE ON
and others, until it wag "condemned by the 5th Council as
heretical; and not till then was the doctrine of strictly end
less damnation settled to be the dogma of the Church as
such. He said that modern Universalism, as hp calls it,
was a new thing; that Hosea Ballou was the author of it,
and that it originated - in the year 1818. But I showed
that it was advocated a long time before the life-time of
Mr. Ballou. -A book was written two hundred years ago,
by one Richardson, in which he denied all future punish
ment, on Scripture grounds.
He next argued upon the cruelty of universal salvation,
in making men suffer all they deserved for the;ir sins; and
said thatjwe admitted of no pardoning merpy in fhe Savior.
He dwelt upon the " demon cruelty," and the " maligpity"
of Universalism. It is incomprehensible to us where the
" demon cruelty" of the doctrine of universal salvation
lies. But for present purposes, it is sufficient to say that
while it teaches that God inflicts certain and inevitable pun
ishment upon sin here, for the benefit of the sinner, it
teaches also that all mankind are to be delivered from the
bondage of vanity and sin, and made holy and happy here
after. My friend, Mr. Waller, thinks there is " demon
cruelty" in this; while a doctrine which teaches that the
greater part of God's creatures are brought into the world
to be driven through it in a state of suffering and sin, and
thence into a world of endless torment, while a few only
are selected as the subjects of God's favor, has no cruelty
in it, but is the perfection of benevolence and goodness!!
Then he maintained that Christ suffered as a substitute
for all men; notwithstanding which the greater part are
yet to suffer the sentence of endless torment in their own
proper persons! Thus a double damnation is inflicted:
first upon the substitute, and then upon the sinner him
self. As if the judge in a civil court, should accept a
substitute and hang him, and then hang the criminal too!
This is not common cruelty, but a double cruelty ! ! or
justice, as it is called!
Remarks were made with regard to forgiveness, the put
ting away of sins, remitting claims after they were paid,
and punishing first fully, then forgiving the sinner, etc.
Hull, proved from the Bible, that the sinner could be first
punished sufficiently, and then be forgiven, as was the case
with the man in. Corinth; as to whom the Apostle declares

UNIVERSALISM. 326
that having been "sufficiently* punished, he must now be
forgiven. The ridicule of Mr. Waller falls therefore upon
the Bible, and not upon Universalists.
He charged upon us that we denied the use of words in
their common sense. This was explairied by the force of
the words in Scripture applicable to punishment and forgiv
ness. Sm is really referred to by the Scriptures as a disease,
to be cleansed, purified, and purged away by punishment and
the presentation of powerful motives. They do not put
a way 'deserved punishment. God says, " I will by no means
clear the guilty;" and "the wicked shall not be unpunish
ed." Yet here Mr. Waller says God will clear the guilty,
and under some circumstances, let' him go unpunished,
which is a flat contradiction of God's Word.
He referred to the words of Christ, respecting the sin
against the Holy Spirit, as a proof that there was one sin,
at least, which Would never be pardoned, tp all eternity.
The declaration of our Savior is, that all manner of sin
shall be forgiven unto men, but that this sin shall not be
forgiven "neither in this world, nor in the world' to come."
Is not this a plain intimation that some sins may be forgiven
in the future life? Thus his view of the passage, refer-
ing it to the future life, demonstrably establishes the Ro
mish Purgatory! But the " world to come" — then " to
come," was the age to come.
Next come his " Twelve Facts" and Twelve Assump
tions." It is not necessary for me to notice these at this
time. He next contrasts Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount,
with the alleged language which he says Universalists
would use; substituting the wicked for the righteous, and
the unbeliever for the believer, as our doctrine. This has
been sufficiently denied, that we save the wicked and un
believer, as such. We say they will all be made righteous,
and then and thus they are saved, of course. All this pa
raphrasing of that language, in the meaning he attaches
to it, passes for nothing. It is entirely aside of the ques
tion, and is a miserable misrepresentation of our views.
He quotes the passage that " no murderer hath eternal
life," etc. But I showed that he believes some murderers
will be saved; and the same of other sinners. So these
passages should not be brought to bear on the condition of
men in a future life. Theyare not believed by Mr. Wai-

326 dsbatz on
ler himself, in that sense, so as to exclude every rnurderei;.
If so, then these passages are no proof of the endless per
dition of any human soul.
He then objects to the doctrine of present punishment,
Sin does not punish itself in this life, he say.
Mr, Waller. I did not say.that sin did not punish it
self in this life. I said there was not a perfect retribution
in this life.
Mr. Pingree. The very expressions he has referred
tp, as proof of punishment hereafter, show that the punish-
ishment was in this- life: that.it is confined to the present
state of existence.
Although it may be asserted that punishment was not
all inflicted at some particular period of time; yet this is no
evidence pf its not being fully inflicted, finally, in this life.
I referred also to thp passage in Hebrews: "Every
transgression received [the time was then past,] a just
[not a partial] recompense of reward." Then again, the
punishment of the wicked is said, in some places, to beat-
ready accomplished. As where a Sacred Writer says, "The
punishment of my people is accomplished,;" referring to
time then past. If the punishment was not perfectly
accomplished, the fault was in the government of God,
or else, the Sacred Writers uttered an untruth.
Proverbs xi. 31: "Behold the righteous shall be re
compensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the
sinner." This passage has been said to be quoted by Pe
ter, as follows: 1 Peter iv. 18: "And if the righleous
scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner
appear!" and this was quoted as a proof of endless pun
ishment hereafter. But I showed that Peter establishes
our principle; for he says in the verse immediately pre
ceding, (1 Peter iv. 17,) " For the time is come — then come
— that judgment must begin at the house of God." The
time had then come, he says. The punishment, therefore,
of the "ungodly and the sinner," in the verse following,
is not in the future life : it had commenced then. In
either case, then, it teaches present rewards and punish
ments; while thp future life is the gift of God, and not a
reward;; — whether we read it according to the version in
the Old Testament, or in the New. . ,
Mr. Waller has referred to the passage that speaks of
" the sorer punishment" of men under the Gospel dishen-

uni versal-ism. 327
sation. , I showed that this was iri " the great tribulation —
such as never was before," spoken of by Christ. But
what is the Gospel for? "Is the law against the promises?
God forbid !" says an Apostle. Men were judged by the
law, during the present life. But the Gospel goes beyond
that — the Gospel as given to Abraham. It goes to " bless
all nations." They shall be "judged by the law;" yet
all shall be blessed at a future time. I demand Ihe place
where punishment was said to be endless, according to
" the law." I call his attention to the fact that they were
to be "judged by the law." And it would be unjust and
monstrous, to inflict endless torment, when that law does
not call for it. •
Again; it is said, " They that sin without law, shall perish
without law." According to that idea, if there be no mor
al change after' death, all Pagans' are inevitably lost; if
" perdition," in this place; ia. end less damnation. They are
all sinful ; they are idolaters, and depraved., They will
therefore be damned endlessly. So idiots are said to be
depraved. So all the saints who do not die in a right con
dition of heart. For they say the condition of heart at
death determines the immortal destiny. It has been- ad
mitted that infants are' saved. How saved, if there is no
change after death? If it were so, a good mother must
destroy her infants, if she wishes them not. to be damned
endlessly;, because if they grow up, they must sin,' and
perhaps be damned!
Mr. Waller said as to the change after death, spoken of
in the Bible, it was only a change of body — of the flesh.
All have this change then. The wicked put off the flesh
as well as the righteous. Do they not put off its sinful
influences also? The same argument will apply to both.
They will be relieved from temptation, "the flesh, and
the Devil," and all the causes which interfere belween the
spirit and holiness, and purity, and heaven. It is enough
of a change for that purpose, to change the body, accord
ing to Mr. Waller's admission.
Next was introduced the doctrine ofthe coming of Jesus
Christ. I showed from Scripture, that his' first coming
was to proclaim his Gospel, and suffer and die, and rise
again for the good of. man. His " second" appearance
was in power and glory to fully establish his kingdom, and
was lo have been in that "generation"— within the life-

328 DEBATE ON
time of some whom he addressed. James said " It draweth
nigh," in his time. To John it was said, "I come quickly."
Paul says, that some were living who would see il; there
was to be "a falling away first;" but the mystery of ini
quity had already begun to work. If I understand the
passages correctly, all corroborate each other; and there
is no contradiction. Both say it was not then far off; and
" the mystery of iniquity" I account for by the early cor
ruptions of Christ's Gospel, which began to appear in the
Church, through pagan philosophy, and which led to the
grand error of endless damnation, and all its train of
errors. We come now to speak of the doctrine of Judgment.
Universalists say that the judgment under Christ com
menced when the kingdom ot God was established on
earth, at his second coming; and that men are judged all
the time during their life-time, under his reign, and "ac
cording to their works." While the contrary doctrine is
that their fate depends upon the state vof mind they are in
at the moment of death; which contradicts, the doctrine
that men are judged " according to their works." There
is to be a coming of Christ at the resurrection. It is a
personal coming; at that, time there is not said to be any
judgment; but all men are to be raised to glory. The
judgment is to terminate in the universal salvation of men,
at the time God has determined to raise the dead. No
judgment after that; it ceases then.
Punishment: Mr. Waller says it is just in God to pun
ish before the general judgment. He says the object of
the delay is that the sins committed may work all the evil
they can, before the final trial. But yet he admits that
those who have sinned most, and whose works remain do
ing evil on earlh, may have repented before death, and
they will not be judged for their works, after all. So those
who have done well — as Newton's mother, for instance,
but die in their sins, will not be rewarded for their good
works. This admission sets aside all that argument for
men being punished before they are finally judged. Mr.
Waller says Tom Paine used this argument. What if he
did'? I do not recollect ever seeing it in his works. He
may have used the same idea; but was it necessary for
him to insinuate that I borrowed it from Tom Pairie? Mr.
Waller presents nothing new. Suppose1! say te him, you

universalism. 329
" borrow" irora such and such a writer. I care not what
source the argument comes from, if it is agood one, and
irrefutable. We next noticed the passages in Daniel. John, and 22d
«f Revelations. He says they relate to the "just dead,
and unjust dead." I showed that the dead have no' char
acter at all ; that in the grave there is " no wisdom, no
knowledge, and no device;" and that they " know noi any
thing; nor have any more reward."
Paul " hoped," desired, expected the resurrection of the
'dead, just aud unjust. Could he hope the resurrection of
men to endless sinning, blasphemy, and damnation?! If
¦so, he would be worse than 'Tertullian, who said " how I
shall laugh! how rejoice! how exult! to spe the tortures
and agemy of the damned!" He hoped for it, because he
looked for them to rise in glory, sinless and pure. Those
passages in John v. and Daniel xii., I showed had marks
ofthe time at which what was predicted was to happen; a
time short of the general resurrection ; and referring to
the scattering of the holy people — and the troubles-'-" the
tribulation," to come upon men, in this life. In the 5th of
John it is said "the lime now is" — then was — when "the
dead should hear the voice of the Son of God." It refer
red not to the' resurrection ofthe literally dead; but those
in ignorance, darkness, or sin.
On the use of the word, " graves," in this place, it is me
taphorical. Persons are said to be in their " graves" who
were in captivity, and still living. That word does not
establish the application of these threatenings to the liter
ally dead. Besides, the literally dead are in Hades,
another word from the one here rendered " graves."
The argument from the use of the word "fire," as re
presenting punishment, I showed that those expressions
apply to this life, and not to the immortal state. Sodom
and Gomorrah were burned by fire; yet that did not relate
to eternity.- The use of the word fire does not, can not
prove endless punishment in a future life by fire; even
though it is called " everlasting fire." We are said to be
"purged" by fire. It is applied to things saved; as things
are purified by fire.
His readings of Scripture, substituting the love of God
for the anger of GodV-the./erce love of God tov the fierce
wrath of God, and calling a fierce fire a fierce blessing, etc.

330 DERATE ON
falls harmless upon my position. It is only a ridiculing
ofthe Scriptures; for they teach that we are" saved so as
by fire;" Mr. Waller's attempt to ridicule the idea, to the
contrary, notwithstanding. .
Next we have the sufferings of the righteous in this life.
He speaks of the oppressor and the oppressed meeting in
heaven; and attacks Universalism on that account. I
showed that on his theory, there was more chance for the
oppressor going to heaveni than the oppressed. The one
has wealth, education, society, and is in the way of pos
sessing every advantage to enlighten his mind and learn
the truth, unto repentance, while the other is often poor,
ignorant,, neglected, down-trodden, and in the way of be
coming vicious; so that the former may go to heaven, and
the latter to Hell, on his theory. After oppressing and
persecuting his victim on earth, and perhaps being the
means of driving him to Hell, the oppressor may, after
death, have the pleasure of exulting apd gloating over the
poor wretches' sufferings in eternal. torture!!
The reply is of no consequence, about bringing the holy
and wicked together, hereafter. I show it to be the glory
of the Gospel to bring those who hate, to love; so that,
finally, there will be none wicked. This, I repeat, is the
glory of Christianity, to accomplish this; and yet Mr. Wal
ler attempts to ridicule the idea!
Thai Hell or Hade* is a place of punishment, he says is
proved by the parable of tlie Rich Man and Lazarus; and
he says that no other parable can be found based on fiction
or falsehood.
Mr. Waller. 1 said that out Savior would not use a
parable based on that which could not exist.
Mr. Pingree. The argument supposes that Hades em
braced Tartarus; and that Tartarus was a place of future
punishment, and was used by the Savior in the same sense
as used by the Jews at that time ; for Ihe argument is
founded on this assertion. Christ is made therefore to
adopt only the Pagan Hades, if used as they used it; — the
Jews having learned it from them, and if not, there is no
force in the argument.
Sheol and Hades mean literally only the state of the
dead, good and bad. It is tbe state of unconsciousness and
sleep, and, the associations of darkness and gloom are al
ways connected with the grave. When used figuratively,

UNIVERSALISM. 831
It means moral darkness and degradation and! gloomy and
in that sense is applied to the condition of those men. who
are in this life punished for their sins; as David1, says,
"The pains of Hell. gat hold upon me — I found trouble and
sorrow* This Was Hell to him, but endured here, and
not in fhe immortal state. When used literally^ it does
not represent, suffering; — only when used figuratively, re
lative to this life-; the figure is drawn from, death- apd, the
grave- As to Gehenna, it relates to the temporal calamities of
the Jewish people, — -not particularly to- being buried alive
in the valley -of Hinnom — -but tp great tribulations and
¦calamities to be endured in-Ahislife, as shown by an appeal
to the language of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Savior Himr
self. Neithei" word, then, — Sheol, Hadss,^ Tartarus, or
Ge7(en7ia,-~refers to what is to be after the resurrection
in a future state. Each word, so far as punishment is,. ex
pressed by it, is, confined to this life.
Next we Have a discussion on the words." everlasting,"
"" forever," "eternal," etc. Granting all that he asks, for
argument's sake, I showed that these words were, often
applied to things of limited, duration. And Mr. Waller ad
mits this. If not, he would be compelled to,be a Jew, and
offer sacrifices, as under the old •' statute,", said to be "ever
lasting^" or else, he would contradict and dethrone God,
by his being a Christian, accoring to what he has said of
Universrlist views. What thep is my argument? That
everlasting does never mean ..eternal? not that. I do not
say that it cannot ; hut I say it is not necessarily so, from
these words being applied to it, which we know are applied lo
things not endless; and then from other sources I prove that
punishment is not endless.
¦" Fire unquenchable." Mr, Waller savs we contradict
•Scripture by saying it may be' quenched. The worm that
never dies, we say does die, etc. J showed that we have
both these terms applied in Scripture to fhipgs began and
ended in this life. Fire, which was called " unquenchable,"
has gone out long ago. Apply the same argument to the
passage in 34th of Isaiah, and last chapter of Isaiah. So
the fire in ^5th of Matthew; where it is said to be with
" the Devil." There is an illustration of this in 1 Cor. v.,
in the case of the incestuous man who was delivered over
to Satan, and received siufficient punishment; and yet that

332 DEBATE ON
was in the present life. So that form of expression does
not refer to a future life. Besides, these things are cori
nected with the writing of Jesus Christ, which was to" he
within that generation, the life-time of those then Irving-
On the sufferings of Jesus Christ, he charges me with
being ignorant of the Orthodox doctrine of atonement. I
say if Christ suffered in the stead of sinners, then all are tp
be saved, unless monstrous injustice is done. That is
universal salvation; or else God desires a double vengeance!
Jesus Christ suffering our punishment first, then we suffer
it over again afterward!— double damnation!!
We next hear about the unequal distribution of rewards
and punishments in this life. Here I quoted Ezekiel, who
said they were equal, in opposition to the doctrine of the
gentleman, and the wicked people living in EzeMel's ti»me.
When and where ave all men to enjoy this universal'sal-
valion? Mr. Waller asks. The Bible does not tell, pre
cisely; neither does my proposition require me to toll. —
Salvation is the " ultimate" condition of all men.
One thought more on this subject. If there is no change
after death, will not the wiched be happy in Hell? fo*- Mr.
Waller has said they are happy here. There they will
have their boon companions, continue sinful, and so be
happy even in Hell; that is, if the wicked man is happy
here, as Mr. Waller has asserted, and there is no moral
change after death. In this case even, we have universal
happiness, if not universal salvation.
Allow me to return my sincere thanks to the audience,
for the good order and feeling which they have manifested
during this discussion. We have not had to witness strife
among our hearers, but there has been a good tone of feel
ing throughout.
I than the Moderators for their presence and attefition,
though they have not been called on for a decision of any
point, during the discussion.
I tender my thanks.
[mr. waller's last reply.]
We have now arrived at the conclusion of the whole
matter. Let us reviewthe grounds passed over, and calm
ly survey the condition of things. We are now in posses
sion of tt\e whole strength of Universalism.. All that was
possible for -him to present, Mr. Pingree has presented.

universalism. 333
He has not been straitened for time, arid has bad a patient
hearing. And in justice to him and with perfect cafldbr, I
must be permitted tosay, that he has fully sustained the cha
racter given of him to mp by his hrethren, as being one of
the ablest advocates and defenders of their cause. Others-
perhaps might, have been found, whp would have) been,
mpre adventurous — have entered upon the defence of mat
ters which he has declined to defend. But his. extreme
caution has been his strength. While he has adriotly en
deavoured to conceal the deformed features of hjs system,
he has, with admirable tact and ability, presented what
ever might appear pleasing and plausible aborit it. He
has spoken fpr triumph; and.if he has failed jn his efforts to-
persuade you to embrace his sentiments, I believe no one
else need attempt it. If Universalism Has fallen it has been
of its own weight, and because it cannot be sustained, how
ever well defended. I have read much in its. favor, and I
know that Mr. Pingree has laid , before you aU .that has-
any real, claims to strength or ingenuity in the whole
scheme. You then are in possession of Universalism with
its reasons. Let us briefly examine it.
It is a remarkable fact, that while Mr. Pingree stood
pleged before you, to prove from the Scriptures " the ulti
mate holiness and salvation of all men," he has not ad
duced the first passage that expressly sustained his propo
sition; pr either part of it. He said that all men would
ultimately be holy ; but he cited no passage of the Bible
which asserted it distinctly. He said that all men would
be ultimately saved; but found no -text that said so too!
He, made no attempt to sustain himself in this way, and
was forced by the dire necessities of his cause, to make
good his. proposition, as well as he could, by inference !
In a matter so weighty, involving the tremendous concerns
of jthe soul in eternity, inference, to say the least of, it, is
a dangerous and hazardous mpde of arriving at conclu
sions. These inferences were at first seven, he called
them seven pillars, corresponding,, as he assured us, to sev
en pillars in some temple, of wisdom! He afterwards ad
ded another, and these were all, as he assured us. In his
summary, however, this mprning, he enumerated fourteen!
But he made this number by splitting the original pillars!
They are all comprehended, in fact, in his first inferences..
We now call vour attention to them in order: .

S34 debate on
: 1st. He inferred the ultimate 'holiness and salvation
of all men,"in the first place, from the nature and charac
ter of God, and his relations to men ; He was good, his
nature was love, and he was the father of our spirits.''
I Shewed, in reply, that this proved too much for Uni
versalism, which, in logic, is the same as proving nothing
at all. Fo*, according to Universalism. God decreed alt
the sin and misery of this life, and decreed it too, in love
and for the good of mankind. It asserts also that God is>
¦unc'hangable; and consequently the same love and good
ness would perpetuate sin and misery, world without end,
¦unless God annulled his decree and changed his plan of
benevolence, which is all one as to aSsert that his character
has changed! So that Universalism, instead of the ultimate
holiness and salvation of all men, proves the very reverse -l
We proved also, that punishment was founded in justice
and righieousness, and of course in love. So that instead
of the nature and character of God and his relations to
men subverting the doctrine of future punishment, it was
established by them.
It was further showed, that while- Universalism asserted
that God was love, and that he was merciful and kind, for
the sake of an argument; yet it did not hold really any
such sentiment; but on the contrary laught that there was
no forgivness with God, as that word is understood' in the
language of men — that he would not forgive men their tres
passes — that he visited on every man full and adequate
punishment for every transgression! That though sin
ners should repent, arid the Son of God intercede, yet
God would sternly exact the utmost farthing for theirsins.
And thus this pillar of Universalism was demolished!
And thus ended his first speech and his first argument; his
time not being filled out!
2nd. His second inference was from Romans viri. 18 — -
21'. But as he utterly failed to show from the passage
that the earnest expectation of all men waited for the
manifestation of the sons of God;" as he did not attempt
to prove, and as it was Utterly inipdssible to prove, had
ihe attempt been made, that infants, idiots, infidels, athe
ists, pagans, etc., etc. have any expectations on the subject,
or waited for any such manifestation, this whole inference,
" like the baseless fabric of a vision," vanished into air —
thin air.

universalism. 335'
3d. His third inference, was founded on Romans1 v. 12,
etc. But when I inquired and pressed him to give an ex
plicit answer— 'whether he believed in the fall of man? that
sin had come upon all men in consequence of Adam's trans
gression? and whether he did not believe that men now posr
sessed the same character as when created? he gave no res
ponse. The inquiry remains unanswered; leaving the im
pression that he does not believe the doctrine of the fall
of man. Indeed; on his second proposition, he frequently
and emphatically quoted, " The creature was made subject-
to vanity,?' apparently to prove that man was created as
he now is. How then could the declaration, "as by the
offence of one Judgment came upon all men unto condem
nation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life" — prove Mr.
Pingree's doctrine, when he does not believe that all are
in condemnation by the offence of one, and when he ut
terly repudiates the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?
And especially too, since it is declared in the same corinec-
tion, that this gift of God is " through righteousness, [not
through si7i,] unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord?"'
This inference then utterly failed him!
4th. This' inference was drawn from 2 Cor. v. 19:
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself."
But I showed that the school of Universalism of which
Mr. Pingree was a disciple, taught that "all the evils from
which Christ came to save men were in this life;" that he-
" came into the world to save men from ihe evil thereof,"
and therefore, this text, to suit his purpose, must prove
that all men are reconciled to God in this life! which is
alike abhorrent to reason, to revelation, and to common
sense. But granting his system contended that this recon
ciliation was brought about in the life to come, I demarid-
ed whether it was effected by means of the gospel, or by
some other means? To this inquiry he admitted he could
give no answer, and insisted he was not bound to give. any*
So his own inference, by his own confession, drifted him
into an ocean without a bottom, and without a shore; on
which he was tempestitossed, in the gloom ahd darkness of
profound ignorance, without a rudder or a compass? It
was further shown from the context, that the work of re
conciliation was Committed to the disciples; for the re
mainder of the verse says,- " and hath committed' unto us

336 DEBATE ON
the word, of reconciliation." ;And we demanded to he in
formed whether, after death, this, word was still in the
hands of the disciples? Or, whether the work of recon
ciliation took place there without faith? And if so, how?
And if by faith, how could they believe in him of whom
they had- not heard? And if. they heard, how could they
hear without a preacher? And who preached to them,
there? Tp these questions, Mr. Pingree absolutely refus
ed to reply; admitting again that his system led him whol
ly beyond the light of revelation, far into the regions- of
•chaos and niifht! And thus this inferential piltairof Uni
versalism was lost in the thick clouds of darkness, utterly
beyond the ken of the mind's eye !
5th. His fifth inference was drawn from 1 Tim. ii. 4:.
"Whp will have all men to be saved and come lo the
knowledge ofthe truth." He alleged that1 God's will
must be done — that he would do all his pleasure, and none
oould hinder him. This, I ajso demonstrated, proved too'
mueh. For Mr. Pingree bad no right to infer that this
"'will" extended only to another life. That it was. true of
this world. Besides, Universalism affirmed that Christ
came lo save men from this present evil world. That,
therefore, this text proved, according to Universalism, that
all men are saved here ! that all men have the knowledge
of the truth here!!
Besides; it is the will of God that no man should blas
pheme; for he has said to every one, "Thou shalt not
take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," therefore,
according to Mr. Pingree's reasoning on the will of God,
no man can take the name of the Lord in vain. . It is God's:
will that no one should worship idols, for he wrote with
his own- hand, "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me:" ergo, says Mr. Pingree, there are no idolaters! His
will is that none should lie; for he Has said, " Thou shalt
not bear false witness;" therefore none do lie! It is the
will of the Lord, thaknone should murder, for he has said
"thou shalt not kill;" therefore no man ever took the
life of his fellow man! His will is that all men should
love Him supremely, and each other as themselves; and
therefore all do love him supremely and their neighbors
as themselves!!
Verily, Universalism is a most splendid scheme — in the
ory. For it not only proposes to save, all men hereafter,

UNIVERSALISM.

33ft

but. makes them as pure as the law of God' in this world!
demonstrates that no one of the innumerable millions Of
men who have 'inhabited' the earth ever coiririritted a siri,
and shows that it is utterly impossible for sin to be com
mitted by any of the millions who may flourish hereafter!
Aye, proves that there never was such ix thing as sin! —
that it is a sheer chimera!! The' radical defect in the
scheme is, that it is ALL THEORY! — it is all shadowy va
por, as" impalpable to the touch of common sehse as the
ghosts -of Fingal!" It is a monstrous falsehood ! — an ig
nis flatuus of Hell, dancing in the quagmires of murky im
aginations to delude men of their souls! '
Under this inference he quoted also 1 Tim. iv. 10: He
" is the Savior of all men, but especially Of those that be
lieve." I showed from one of his own writers, that this
Special ov greater salvation Was confined to this life; and
therefore, the general or less salvation canhot extend to
the life to come. Through Jesus are received all" the
blessings of life, and of (hese all men partake.' This is
vthe common salvation.
6th. He next inferred his doctrine, because as be said,
the enemies of all men were to be destroyed. And his ar
guments under this head were most unique. Because the
Apostle declared that temporal death, the last eneriiy of
the Christian, should be destroyed, Mr. Pihgree earhe' to
the strange and illogicnl Conclusion, that there was no
second death!' — no destruction of both soul and body in
hell! — no everlasting punishment! — -no casting of' the
wicked into the lake of fire which is the second death!!
His premises ahd conclusions were the poles asunder.
His effort at the destruction of the Devil was also a sin
gular affair! He quoted a passage: on the destruction of
the works of the devil, and then iri the trite 'Warrior pomp,
he rose in all the grandeur of conquest, "his arm reful
gent with the stroke' of satan's death, and bade the cdri'-
gregation hail ! for lo! the devil prostrate in the dust?
and man again is free!" It, was really an achievement ihi
the moral — not sublime, but ridiculous, beyond all lan
guage, and whieh' defies all description. It ferriihded. me
of the old nursery ballad:— ' , '¦
"Sortie' say the Devil'e dead
And buried in » Pumpkin." . - .
, In sober seriousness, I'thoughr his rencounter with: the

338 DEBATE OH
prince of darkness a very doiighty. affair; as purely fan
ciful, as the renowned adventures of La Mancha's '>Knj'ght
pf the woeful countenance." . It was .all smoke* depend
upon it, and tliis pillar of his system, the mere vapor of
smoke! 7th. His next inference was founded upon 1 Cor. 15:
This I showed could prove nothing' for him, although he
was pleased to call it, the " main pillar" of Universalism,
— .because the apostle was proving the resurrection of the
saints, and therefore, not " the ultimate holiness and salva
tion of all men." We proved lhat the dead in Christ (and
the apostle in this cliapter was treatingof such — of those
who "were Christ's," and not of those who were not
Christ's) should be raised before the wicked; — that those
who should be accounted worthy to obtain Heaven, should
be raised "out of" [ek] or "from among" the dead.
That while the righteous should be raised to glory, the
wicked should be raised to shame and everlasting contempt
— that the righteous should come forth to (he resurrection
of life, and the wicked to the resurrection of damnation.
, Instead of replying tp the arguments and criticisms 1
advanced/on the Savior's reply to the Saducees respecting
the resurrection, from [ek — out of] the dead, Mr. Pingree
attempted to be facetious on my making so much; as he
was pleased to say, of the little word ek! True, the word
is short, very short, but, is, nevertheless, a lever of suf
ficient length, aye, and of strength tea, to overturn the
whole system of Universalism, I grant this may be ow
ing to the emptiness and want of gravity on the part of
the system. That I leave Mr. Pingree philosophically to-ac-
count for to his own satisfaction and at his earliest leisure.
If our criticism be incorrect, then it follows, lhat when
Lazarus arosp, all the- dead arose; and lhat when Christ
arose, all the dead arose again ; for both Lazarus and the
Savior, the Scriptures tell us» arose from [ek] the dead.
And if all the dead rose these several times, then Peter on
the day of pentieost^ though full ofthe Holy; Ghost,
committed an egregious blunder, in saying that "David is
not ascended into the heavens! (ActiS ii.' 34.) The truth
is, there was not a shadow of an attempt to overthrow this
position. It stands as firm as the foundations of earth, and
defies all assault.
But I proved conclusively that thp xv. of 1 Corinthians

UNIVERSALISM. 339
was inadequate- to his doctrine, and utterly unappropriate
to a cause like his. He asserted a moral change in the
resurrection, this chapter proves only a physical change.
His cause demands >a change of soul after death; this
chapter proves only a change of -body! To urge a moral
from a physical change, is. about such an enterprize in ra
tiocination*, as to urge that .the sun, moon, and stars
"adamantine spheres are wheeled through ihe void im
mense," by the ten commandments!
These seven inferences, he called the seven pillars of
Universalism, and when he had finished them, be said, hit:
work was done ! He accomplished this in two days, — in
just half the time he. himself proposed to discuss the sub
ject! But it was alight work, and no marvel then that it
was so soon accomplished. And such pillars, forsooth!
They remind one 6f the notion ascribed to some ancient
geographers: That the world stands on the back of an el
ephant, and the elephant stands on nothing! Such pillars
as these are insufficient to support a gossamer temple! — to
uphold "trifles light as air!". And yet these are the pil
lars upon which he invites-you to rest the mighty ccncerns
of your immortal spirits! Beware! oh, beware! they will-,
they must give way; and let your souls fall into bottomless
perdition! 8th. But Mr. Pingree himself seemed to distrust the
ability of these pillars to sustain his temple, and accord
ingly on yesterday made- another inference. It was the
same distrust, I suppose, that induced him this morning: to
divide his pillars so as to make fourteen, concluding per
haps, that numerical, would answer as a substitute ior in
trinsic strength.1 His eighth inference, as well as 1 could
comprehend it, wasrsomefhing like this: The Savior said.
that not one jot or tittle of the law should fail, but that
all should.be fulfilled; and therefore all men -must be con
formed to the law. But he strangely forgot that the law had
its penal sanctions: " The soul that sins shall die." And
is it written, "Cursed.is every one that continueth not in all
thiiigs written in -the book of the law to do them.'' A law
is alike fulfiUed when, ils\ requisitions are observed, or its
penalties, enforced against its violators. Mr. Pingree must
have forgoitera I his, or surely he never would have ven
tured upon an inference so preposterous. Besides, as I
have already shown, this .position of Mr- "Pingree's btiars,

340 DEBATE ON ¦
just as strongly upon. this warld as the, next; and proves
teally that the law has never been-violated at'all! -So he
must, try his. hand again. He seems to forget that his sys
tem has two ends— -that while he is taking care of one,
the other is running away with him.
I have thus-given, I think, a fair account of all the main
propositions which Mr. Pingree thought essential to his
systpm. It is for you, ta determine upon thpir weight.
There were other minor points made, not necessary to be
touched upon1 in a recapitulation, and all involved in thp
major, ones already notned. I have grappled with the pil
lars of his edifice, knowing that in the ruin of these, the
whole edifici.. must fall to tHe, earth!
I will very briefly glance at the arguments adduced in
this discussion agairist Universalism. ¦ The proposition in
debate covers the whole, ground of controversy between
Universalists and the rest of the Christian World, of course
it may be attacked from many points. I regret that the
time allotted to this discussion did not permit me to go so
fully into 'he subject as I wished, and as I came prepared
to, do. I have not presented more than half the matter I
had prepared ; but I trust I have presented enough for the
occasion. In truth, my business Here was properly not to
assail but to defend ; and having shown that Mr. Pingree
had not iiij'-.r; ,-ti his doctrine from the Bible, my work was
done. He had failed to make good his proposition. But
I not only did this, I carried the war also into the ene
mies territories, and assailed the monster Universalism on
the throne of hifi do-minions.
I stated it a^ a fact, and it was" admitted^ that Universal
ism as heid by f"' . Pingree owed its origin, to Hosea Bal
lou, in 181£. True, Mr. Pingree asserted that some one
before that time had published a book setting' forth the
same doctrine, ar:l promised to.produce it, but. failed to. do
so. The book would be a literary curiosity, and. ought
to ¦ be pi-cnrcd and placed in some museum. It' wasi
also urgec' as a fact and admitted to be- so, that all Chris-.
Hans, of ev< ry creed aud country, learned and unlearned,
frpm tbe days "of the Apostles to the nineteenth, century,
With perfe,;', aid uninterrupted unanimity, had pronounc
ed the,' sent noe of condemnation on Universalisim, And
it was urged, that if .they were mistaken on so important
#nd fundamental a doctrine, thea it must-he because it was

UNIVERSALISM. 341
wiot revealed in the Bible; Or else how could It escape
the diligent research arid' critical investigation ' pf all the
Bearried arid gdod during the lapse' of so many age3? But
Mr. Pihgree undertook to show that Universalism might
be in the Bible notwithstanding! Yes", it m< ghl he there,
just as infidelity arid atheism might be there! and who cari
tell, if Mr. Ballou shall succeed in proving that all Chri^-
tiaris, embracing the ripest scholars and profoundest think
ers that ever adorned -the world, were incompetent to un
derstand the language of the Bible in relation to the soul's
•destiny, but that some bolder adventurer than he may
arise and claim that all Christians have been mistaken re
specting the- Lord God and our Savior? and affirm that the
Scriptures teach that there is no God, and that Jesus
Christ did not come into the world to save sinners? Arid
why not? If 'Christians have all been mistaken on the
one point, why not on the other? And if Universalism be
a truth which for ages was rejected by 'all the lovers of
the Bible, with perfeet unanimity, the same cannot be al-
ledged of any other truth revealed of God, no ihatter how
inconsiderable. If error has prevailed and beeri- predom
inant it* past ages of the church, there was no truth re
jected but has had its advocates, if not its martyrs, save
this one of Universalism, admitting its truth! In this- re
spect it stands alone ; and pleads its tr,uth by admitting
that all the lovers of truth for seventeen centuries con
spired its destruction !
It was also admitted that iirour definitions of the word
hell, eternal punishment, and judgment, in short, of all the
words pertaining to, this controversy, that we were sustain
ed by all the Apostolic Fathers, by the entire church of
the second century, by the Greeks in Whose language the
New Testament was written, and by all scholars, critics',
commentators, and translators of any' note in all age's of
the church. Now are not the decisions of suCh men, oft
points too which it is not possible they could misunder
stand, enough to crush forpver the wild and visionary
speculations of Universalism — that cannot boast one schol
ar or critic of eminence? , , ,
Our doctrine does not deperid upon inference; but upon,
passages of Scripture, as plain and as' positive as those
which assert the existence of God and the creation of* the
world. Do we believe in a state "of punishment after

34S2 DEBATE ON
death? The Scriptures say, " The rich man died and was
buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment."
Do we believe that men will be raised out of their
graves, part to happiness and part lo misery! It is writ*
reri,^" All that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and
shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the res
urreetion Of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation." Do we hold that the wicked
will be eternally punished? It is. declared in the Bible,
" These shall go away into everlasting punishment", — the
wicked " shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power." Do we teach a Judgment after death?. The
Scriptures say, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the Judgment. " These and many other passa
ges on each of these points, in their plain and obvious
sense, and in the very strongest terms, assert our doctrine.
And Mr. Pingree, like all his brethren, has called all his
ingenuity and tact into requisition to evade the meaning
that naturally suggests itself to the mind of every reader!
He has) been arguing to show that while the Bible says
one thing, it means another! — ami in the, face of the posi-
tiveideclaration of .the word of God, says that the rich
man was not in torment after death! — that the wicked do
not come forth to the resurrection of damnation !— ihey do
not go into everlasting punishment! That there is no
Judgment after death ! In these and many other instances,
you heard him flatly contradict the Scriptures and charge
God with falsehood! — saying "peace! peace!" to those
for whom God declared there was no peace, and promis
ing life and light lo those whom, God affirmed should not
see life, and that for them was reserved the blackness of
darkness forever!
It is because the Bible speaks thus plainly on these sub
jects, that all Christians were perfectly united upon them,
for so' many ages- To the learned and the unlearned,
through common sense principles of interpretation, the
Bible spoke the same things, because it could not speak
any thing else. If the Bible be interpreted according to its
plain letter-1— if it means what it says, our doctrine is es
tablished beyond controversy, and Universalism subverted
beyond recovery!
We proved that all punishment was not disciplinary-—

UNIVERSALISM. 343
not inflicted for the individual good of the sinner/ . That
this doctrine, so vital to Universalism, was contrary to rea
son, and contradictory to the plain declarations- of Holy
Writ. It is unnecessary to refer to Mr. Pingree's- efforts
at reply on this point. You cannot have forgotten them.
We next proved that this life was not a state of perfect
retribution. Eight or more propositions were presented in
proof of this positon; which received scarcely' a passing
notice. They remain unanswered; a tolerably clear in
dication that, in the opinion of my opponent, they were
unanswerable! Our next position was, that there is a future state of re
wards and punishments. We preset! ted six propositions;
the principle answer to which was a complaint that we
quoted too many passages of Scripture!
We then showed lhat the future estates of men would
be eternal. We argued that the eternal punishment of
the wicked necessarily followed from Ihe arguments of
the UnivCrsalisfs themselves — that it was taught in the
same terms as the existence of God, and the duration of
the happiness of the righteous— in the very strongest
terms it was possible to employ; and I requested ^r. Pin
gree to state, if stronger words to express endless dura
tion, than those employed; were to be found in the Greek
language. He did not pretend that there were. It is con
fessed then, and true, if Mr.Tingree is capable Of defend
ing his cause, that the endless duration of future punish
ment is expressed in the Very strongest terms the Grdek
language could furnish; and iheGreek is the most copious
language ever spoken. It was also conceded that the lit
eral and common meaning of aionios was endless; and that,
therefore, when connected with punishment, unless it was
shown to be used in a figurative and' uncommon sense, it
taught that punishment was endless. Thus making it
manifest again that Universalism, to'be true, had to prove
that the letter of the Bible was not true,iin a case like
this! But Mr. Pingree made a concession this morning -that
settles this controversy. This;was the admission, (it was
made iri reference to Matt, xxvi 46:) '' We admit that ev
erlasting punishment is expressed by the same word as
life eternal; and that one is just as long as the other!''
lie seems to speak for. himself and brethren — -that this

344 DEBATE ON '
was the doctrine of UntversalismT-that the terms are the
sarne, and the eternal puriishment of the wicked is just as
long as the eternal life of the righteous J Well, I invite
Mr. Pingree's attention to just one passage in the New
Testament-. I hope he, will operihis ears and* listen atten
tively; for I now expect to Convert him. Indeed, I insist
he must be converted; for I intend to show that this eter
nal life extends beyond this world. It is John xii. £6:
" He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he; that hateth
his life in this world" — [it is kosmos in Greek, Mr. Pingree,
and cannot mean "age," or "state," or any thing of the
sort, but simply what we vulgarly term the " world," or
"the earth,"] — "he that hateth his life in this world shall
keep unto life eternal." Here then is promised, after
the life of this world is lost, the life eternal,
Mr. Pingree. I did not assert that " eternal life" was
always confined to this world. I was, speaking of Matt.
xxv. 46: where it means spiritual life— the life enjoyed
through the. Gospel. Though I do not deny that it is
sometimes applied to the immortal state.
Mr. Waller. You certainly Contended that the term
everlasting, applied to the life of the righteous and to the
punishment of the wicked, meant the same thing in each
case — that " one was just as long as the other."
Mr. Pingree. Not in the passage you just read; but
in the text then under consideration.
Mr. Wailler. You did not say in what passage; your
remark was a general one. Nor am I willing to admit
that the phrase" eternal life" changes its meanings, as of
ten as the chameleon its color, for the especial benefit of
our Universalist friends. To say that " eternal life" means
spiritual life, is an assumption without a shadow of found
ation. Universalists pretend to predicate this definition
on the passages which declare that the believer " hath ev
erlasting life." Well, believers have immortal souls.
And if one. is limited to this life, why not the other? If
the "everlasting life" terminates at the grave, why not the
"Immortal soul?" This everlasting life, like tbe soul,
carhmences in -this world, and extends through eternity.
The word aionios expresses duration, and docs not mean
spiritual. For such a, definition it has only the declaration
wrung from Universalism by the -anguish of its death
struggles! Take home with you, then, the fact forced

universalism. 345
from the unwilling lips of Mr- Pingree, that the punish
ment of the wicked is as enduring as the everlast
ing life of the righteous!!! , I khew that this admis
sion would have to come. I have been trying togetit from
him for several days.. He has struggled against it as long
as he could, and only brought'it out in the last extremjty.
But it has come, and settles the controversy forever. With
this concession, Universalism sinks lower than Hades!
I also disproved the Universalist system by showing that
there was after death a "Judgment"— ^-a day when all must
stand before the "judgment-seat of Christ." The proofs
on this point were many — expressed in language so plain
that he who runs may read. Mr. Pingree made a faint
effort to show that the passages adduced applied mainly to
the destruction of Jerusalem. As a specimen of the straits
to which he felt himself reduped, I need only to-refer you
to what he said in his comments on the xxiv. and xxv.
chapters of Matt. I first understood him to apply every
thing in these chapters to the destructionof Jerusalem.
This morning, however, he tells us, that he did not 'say
they were all fulfilled at that time — they only commenced
then, and have been fulfilling ever since." And then turn
ed right round, and demonstrated to his entire satisfaction,
that the generation of men, then living did not pass away
until "all these things were fulfilled!!" You all ob
served- the contradiction! And how, 1 demand, could all
these things have been fulfilled in, the life time ofthe then
generation of men, as Mr. Pingree and all Universalists
affirm, and yet it should be ,true that some of them are
now being fulfilled, and others remain still to be fulfilled!
Mr. Pingree arose to explain: I said- that what Jesus
Christ said in refernce to judgment, etc., were fulfilled in
that generation: but that His coming to reign in. his king
dom, to judge the World, etc., though it begun then, pro
gressed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and continues
now. I thought I explained my position clearly.
Mr. Waller. I do not see that the gentleman is at all
benefited by his explanation. How can he except such
things as suit. his convenience, after asserting that "ALL
these things" were fulfilled in that generation? it still
presents a palpable contradiction. • J.i needs rio comment.
It is to be expected, that when men try to. wrest the Scrip-

346 DEBATE ON
tures from their true meaning to suit some darling story,
they i will become involved in contradiction.
I also objected to Universalism, or to the " Ultimate holi
ness and salvation of all men," from the use of the terms
Gehenna and Tartarus inithe Scriptures; showing that these
words were understood, by the people to whom Jesus and
his Apostles preached to mean a state of. everlasting pun
ishment for the- wicked in , a state of future life. That
while Jesus knew the Jews of his day attached to Gehenna
that-meaning which now in the English language is at
tached to the word Hell; and while he knew they held to
the endless punishment of the wicked; yet he did not re
prove them for. it; whjch,if it was an error, is most unac
countable, seeing that he faithfully and frequently chided
them for their errors and heresies. Nay, he not only did
not charge them with error in this matter, but spoke to
them as if it were true; asking them, "how could they
escape the damnation of Gehenna?" and warning them to
fear him, who after lie hath killed, had power " to des
troy-both soul and body in Gehenna," etc. etc. He used
the word precisely as if the then Jewish definition of it
was the true one. There is not a syllable in all the New
Testament remotely charging the Jews with being wrong
on this subject. Can we believe that the blessed Savior
would have connived at an error so fatal to the truth and
to the best interests of men, as tbe Universalists declare
the belief of future punishments to be? Why should Je
sus be sb silent and they so clamorous upon the doctrine;
seeing that he as well as they were surrounded by Par-
tialists? The apostles too pursued thesame course with the Jews.
They went among the Gentiles, who also believed that the
wicked would be punished after death — that for the aban
doned and ihe abominable were reserved the unquencha
ble fires of the fearful Tartarus: and while the apostles
reproved them for their errors, they never intimated lhat
they erred upon this all important subject. On the con
trary, they preached to them precisely as if il was true ;
and in terms and phrases which, if interpreted literally,
could mean only that meh were punished in the lake of
fire. If they meant what they said, the Gentiles to whom
they preached, must have.believed that they taught a, pun
ishment for the ungodly and unbelieving in a future state.

universalism. 347
Had they been Universalists, as hone3t men, could they
have acted thus? Would they have concealed the truth
from the nations? Would they have suffered the heathen
to believe Such a monstrous falsehood, arid utter no word
of warning or reproof? The course of Mr. Pingree, and
of all Universalists, who make this the burden of their
every discourse, answers no! NO! They would from the
house tops have proclaimed against it. If. there is any
virtue, if any consolation — if any truth in Universalism;
and especially if it abounds in all these thing, as Mr. Pin
gree and his brethren tell us it does, how could -the apos
tles hold their peace on the subject? How dare they re
frain from deluging the souls of their hearers with ihis
flodd of celestial light? But they concealed their light.
They put it under a bushel! I insist upon it, if Universal
ism be true, the conduct of the apostles is not only Unac
countable, but wholly inexcusable. They did 'not dis:
charge the trust committed to their hands. But as we
cannot believe thi3, it follows that Universalism is the most
improbable of all falsehoods.
But Mr. Pingree u rg.es again, because it is indispensible
to his system, that. Christians cannot commune together in
this world, and therefore cannot hereafter; unless' changed
after death. Now, I had supposed that all Christians, ac
quainted, with one another, did commune together. They
are brethren, animated' by the same spirit, sustained by
the same faith, cheered by the same hope, and journeying
the same road lo the same sweet and glorious home. And
if Christians, they have the spirit of Christ, and love one
another; and if this be not communion — if this be not the
golden chain thai shall bind together the souls of the re
deemed in the' regions of the blessed,-! confess I am in
midnight darkness upon the subject. Each Christian feels
in relation to all he knows to be Christians, no matter what
their stations in life; or color, or creed, or country, a Sym
pathy and relationship, higher and holier than any natur
al tie; and there is among all Christians, acquainted with
each other, a mingling of hearts and sympathies, at once
sweet ahd hallowed, that afford a rich foretaste of the
heavenly union of all the sanctified^ in glory. Christians
do cherish feelings of communion with each other;
Mr. Pingree: I think the gentleman is mistaken.
Ma. Waller. Well, perhaps there are some who do

548 DEBATE ON
not. But they are in a state of back-sliding. They have
lost their first love. They are not in the enjoyment of
religion. The love of the Savior is not shed abroad in
their hearts. They have not the spirit of Christ. But
God will not let them die in this way. He will reclaim
them. But the gentleman means, I know, that we do not
all sit down at the Lord's table together. But that is no
evidence of a want of communion — it is not communion
with each other at all. The Supper was never instituted
for any such purpose. lt,was designed to show forth the
Lord's death until he cornes a second time without sin
unto salvation. If Christians wereto commune together
in this way only, there would, -indeed, be very little Chris
tian communion in this world. There sits the venerable
father Scott, and 1 see many others of my brethren here,
belonging to the same denomination with myself, with
whom I never sat at the Lord's table. Is it, therefore, to
be concluded that we haVe never communed as Christians
together? With many of them I have held sweet com
munion. I solemnly declare that I know not the lover of
my blessed Savior uppn earth for whom I have not Chris
tian fellowship, and would not hold Christian coirimunion;
that same communion, only less in degree, that I hope to
hold with him in heaven. I trust I have said enough upon
this subject. If Mr. Pingree or any other gentleman of
standing among his brethreri has any thing to say against
the Baptists not inviting to the Lord's table, those whom the
Lord himself has not invited, 'at a suitable time, and on a
proper occasion, he will not find me wanting in all proper
attentions to him. But this is not a subject to justify the
introduction of such matters.
Mr. Pingree further urged, in his last speech, that unless
amoral change was effected after death, admitting ourdoc-
trine to be true, the saved would sympathize so keenly
with the lost, as lo be miserable, instead of being happy,
in heaven: And in favor of his own doctrine, drew the
conclusion, that in order to secure the happiness of the
righteous, it was requisite that all men should be saved.
I answered this objection last evening, I believe. The
mistake of Mr. Pingree owes itself to his not draw
ing the proper distinction between moral, relations
and natural relations. The Christian is not of those
who walk after the flesh, but of those who walk after

universalism.' 349
the spirit. • He will be- delivered from the body of this
death. His mind that now serves the law of God will
then be emancipated from its -thraldom of flesh.' The
mind will then be free frpm the ties of natural affections,.
and the attachments formed here based upon those affec
tions merely, will all be cast off when this corruptible
shall put on incorruption. All his natural relations are
destroyed in death; and his moral relations only survive
His natural sympathies and his flesh are left in the grave.
But all of this I demonstrated on yesterday; let us, there
fore, return to the work of recapitulation.
I showed that the Universalists had false notions of the
true end and aim of punishment, and that especially they
were mistaken iri their views'of what we taught upon this
subject. On this branch of the subject, we proved1 that to
punish ihe violator of a law established for the good of sor
ciety, was right and just; and not to puftish was a flagrant
outrage upon the well being and rights of the unoffend
ing and the virtuous^was to favor the bad at the expense
of the good. This is the principle upswi which, all human
governments are based. God has given his- intelligent
creatures a law — it isdesigned for the good af the whole.
He that violates that law inflicts a wrong Upon all intelligent
creatures; and if he is not punished for his course, then his
welfare is more regarded than theirs: and others are encour
aged to trespass, and thus the whole-social system ofthe mor
al Universe is endangered. It is just aud right then- that the
transgressor should be punished. But even Universalism
admits that punishment is right; but they say it should not
continue. forever. But who made them the judge? They
admit that all are saved by grace, and that no one can be
saved iri any other way. Well, who has a right to de
mand grace? Is God bound to be gracious to sinners? If
not, he is not bound to save them. Consequently might,
ii righteousness and justice, leave them forever unsaved
— lost. And this is all we contend for. Besides, wep'roved
that the sinner, did not want to be saved — that he loved
darkness rather than light — that he would not come uiito
Jesus that he might have life. Is Universalism itself im
pudent enough to urge thalt God should save those who
will not be stfved?^who spurn the mercy of God? — and
will not that Christ Jesus should reigfl over them? Arid
that because we teach that God will not force men to be

350 DEBATE ON
saved, that. therefore we teach that he is unmerciful ana
does not love his creatures? If. he were to force his will,
man would cease to be a free moral agent ;, and consequent-
Sy as incapable of virtue or vice as a stock or a stone.
It is clear then that the everlasting destruction of the
ungodly from the presence of God and the glory of his
power is founded in justice and righteousness — is the
necessary result of the nature of things: for unless itcould
be shown that the sinner's moral being could be changed
after death, where the gospel is not, then it i.s in vain to
urge his salvation. God extends no grace to the sinner in
the next world: he makes no proclamation of peace and
pardon there: and if grace be withheld and the door of
mercy closed, how can the sinner there be saved? You rei
member that Mr. Pingree acknowledged that here his sys-
tym led him into utter darkness — that it furnished no solu
tion of such inquiries. I marvel at the temerity which ven
tures beyond the light of revelation, and defies tbe horrors
of a gloom more dreary than the night of the grave!
I expressed my apprehensions that Universalism tended
to immorality. I mean. nothing disrespectful to the mem
bers of that persuasion. I prefer no charge against them.
Far from it. I have but very few acquaintances among
them, and I take great pleasure in testifying to fhe moral
worth of those few. But men do not always practice ac
cording to their doctrine. To the system then, and not to
the professors, my remarks must be understood as apply
ing. I may pursue this to its legitimate consequences
without at all impugning ihe conduct or motives of its ad
vocates. The future is the polar star of our, being— the main
spring of human action. " Man never is, hutto be blessed."
It is in reference to the happiness that mankind think ihcy
discry in the distance, that men-toil and labor for worldly
p-ain. For this. they fell the forest, till the ground, make
farms, build cities, construct highways, dig canals, launch
the steamer, and. spread the canvass to every breeze! It
is this that stimulates them to brave any danger, to en
counter any difficulty, to forego ease, and comfort, and
quietude — they see in the future more than ,a recompenso
forevery sacrifice and more .than a solace for every sor
row. They are cheered in the night of their toil by the
flash of celes ial light which dar^s through the portals of

universalism. 351
their blissful home; and occasionally they inhale a breeze,
fragrant from the spice fields of the land of their delight.
Take this prospect from the vision — destroy the hope, set
before them — and at once you remove the motive, of their
exertion and enterprize, and they sink into inaction and
despair. It is not the pleasure of labor, but its promises
of good,-that stimulate to industry. These principles ap
ply to the great subject of religion. Admit there is no
hereafter, and then says the Apostle, there is no sense in
being religious. " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die." He clearly did not agree with the Universalists
that thebenefits of religion were confined exclusively to this
fife. For were this the case, says he, '" we are of all men
most miserable;" It was the future that, gave to religion
its consolations. And although persecuted and hated of all
men — exposed to every peril and every privation, he es
teemed tHese but light afflictions-wliich were for a moment
and which would work for him a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory. "For in this .we groan, earnest
ly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is
from heaven." It is the lively hope of " ari inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" in
reserve for him, that cheers the Christian- in his dreary
pilgrimage through life. It is the bright and glorious fu
ture that is set before him in the Gospel, that makes him
count his life as nothing and leads him to forsake houses,
and lands, and wife, and children, and every earthly bless
ing for the religion of Jesus.
Universalism destroys this hope of the Christian, by de
claring that God will not render eternal life iu the future
to those who, by patient continuing in well doing, seek for
glory, and honor, and immortality." The hope of heaven.
on the principles of that system, furnishes no motive to
Christian action and can pour no oil of consolation into
the stricken heart of the pious man when persecuted for
righteousness' sake. Nay. why should he suffer for reli
gion? — why endure the hatred of theworld and. thp frown
of relations? — why embrace a martyr's stake, seeing there
is no martyr'* crownf What does the man gain, who is
burned for his religion, any more than he who is hung for
his crimes, seeing they both go to enjoy eternal life? Haa
our religion any consolations arising from a hope of heav
en?. Does it impart swoet comfort ia the sick and- dying

352 DEBATE. ON.
hour, because of the hope that soon, free from all sorrow
arid pain, we shall enter upon the fruition Of unfading
happiness? If so, Universalism is a fraud and a falsehood,
for it tells usthat our religion has nothing to do with a fu
ture life — that its ends and hopes are confined to this
evanescerit world !
But it not only robs the Christian of his hope and tears
from him all motive of running with patience the race that is
set before him in view ofthe crown laid up in heaven for all
that love our Lord Jesus, but it ministers an opiate to the con
science of ungodly men. ' It tells them, it is true, that they
will suffer full and adequate punishment for all their sins,
but lhat they will suffer it in this life. And what of that?
Have they not just as much to encourage them under their
sufferings for sin, as Christians have under their sufferings
for righteousness' sake? And what are all the sufferings
of this life? They will soon be over. And then these
sufferings work for the sinner a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory!! Surely, then the drunkard, the
liar, and all the abominable and unclean, may run with
patience their race! They are on their journey home!
They will get to heaven before many a Christian; for
'many of them will not live out half their days! And then
if they should become weary of life; — if "the stings and
arrows of outrageous fortune," and " the heart-ache, and
the thousand natural shocks that flesh ts heir to;" and if
 "The whips and scores of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's con t litre!;;,
The pang's of despiswd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the sp«ni9"
which he must take from the unworthy, become insupporta
ble, why he "might his quietus make with a bare bodkin!"'
He might "shuffle off this mortal Coil" by means of a dose
of laudanum, by a bullet in his brains, or a dagger in his
heart!" And surely " it is nobler in the mind to suffer"
such wrongs and miseries, when we can so easily " take
arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them,"
and die and enjoy ineffable happiness and glory, world
without end! And surely if Destructionism says to the
sinner, " Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die," Uni
versalism may echo the sentiment, and " roll the rapturous
hosannah round" the world of sinners, — " Eat and drink,
for to-morrow you die, and go to heaven!" If Universal-

C N I V E-R S A L I S 1} . 363
ism be true, then verily Christianity is a most miserable
farce! And what -advantage hath a Universalist? and what pro
fit is there in Universalism? None whatever. Grant that
men are in sin and misery: — does not Universalism say
they were ordained of God for the good of man? And
will its ministers frustrate* tHe purposes of the Most High,
and urge an exterminating warfare upon his scliemes of
benevolence? "Woe unto the man tHat striveth with his
Maker!" They should let the sinner alone! He js Walk
ing in the paths that God has ordained for him; and they
must be palhs of pleasantness and peace, for infinite Wis
dom devised them for his good ! And suppose that " Par
tialism" is an error and a sin, tending to make men miser
able. Universalism assures us that it exists by the fiat of
God. It is his pleasure that it should exist; and he will
do all his pleasure. Besides it can do ho harm: for, sup
posing that men suffer from it, it is for their good! Men
only suffer for their good ! ! All punishment is discipli
nary; and any miseries men may experience frofn "Par
tialism," are but for a moment, and work for them a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory! And admit
ting Universalism to be true, man can gain nothing by em
bracing it, and lose nothing by opposing it. In either case,
he but fulfils his destiny, and does what has been dope for
his good! The Universalist preacher, in calling upon men
to change their sentiments and embrace his system, abuses
man and insults God! — abuses man in asking him to do
what he cannot, more than a log or a stump; and insults
God by presuming to subvert his benevolent operations in
behalf of his creatures! The brain of madness never
projected a scheme more extravagantly foolish than that
of Universalism!
But if it should turn out, that it is not only a system of
folly, but of egregious falsehood, how fearfully dangerous
is iti— a moral simoon, poisoned and heated by hell,
blowing in terrible tempest over the soul! Every consid
eration then warns you against its embrace. If true, it
can sppak no promise ; and if false, it utters the thunders
of perdition!
Ii' there is no punishment hereafter, and all are happy
when they die, the murderer and the assassin are philan
thropists! — they are doing the greatest amount ot good
23

3M . DEBATE ON
possible to theii fellow-men — taking them from misery and
sending them to heaven! War too is the greatest of bles
sings to mankind! And all the conquerors that ambition
ever begat, " from Macedonia's madman to the Sweed,"
who have polluted the earth with the blood of innocence,
and washed it with the tears of the bereaved and the wid
owed, were engaged in the benevolent work of making
immortal souls, heirs of glory! And the Savior then mis
took the most efficient way of establishing his kingdom.
Instead of sending out his Apostles alone and unprotected
in the world, to preach the Gospel, he should have sent
them out at the head of formidable armies, to kill and to
'destroy mankind, and thus "compel them to come" into
heaven! But Mr;'Pingree made an effort this morning to offset this,
by showing that our doctrine was as bad as his, for we held
to the salvation of infants; then, said he, it is a good work
to kill them, and thus save them from the evil of the
world! But the cases are not analagous. The law of
God forbids their murder; and he that should do the deed
is liable to eternal damnation; for no murderer shall in
herit the kingdom of God. Not so, however, on the, other
hand: the murderer does not endanger his soul; and even
granting he should be punished here; if would only be for
his good, and secure to him the greater glory hereafter!
But there was an inference in Mr. Pingree's last speech
that I have almost forgot to notice. Because it is written,
That in Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed, therefore, the gentleman argues, all men will be
¦saved. The conclusions do not necessarily follow upon
the premises. If he will take the trouble to study care
fully the 3rd chapter of Galatians, he will find thai these
blessings come upon men through faith. By the "seed" of
Abraham, our blessed Savior is meant. Through him, all
our temporal blessings come. In this sense, all nations
have been blessed in him. But doubtless, in the text re
ferred to, spiritual blessings are meant. These have come
to many nations. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the rich
est boon of heaven. Our nation is blessed in its posses
sion;, and how many blessings it has diffused" ariiong the
nations of the civilized world! " And I am persuaded the
promise 'will be strictly fulfilled.' The 'prophecies certain
ly teach, ihthe plainest language possible, that the heath-

UNIVERSALISM. 356.
en are to be given to thp Savior for an inheritance and
the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession. The
stone, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which was cast
out of the mountain without hands, became a mountain,
and filled the whole earth, and this stone was the king
dom which the Lord God should set up. And it is declar
ed also by Daniel the prophet, that "the greatness.of the
kingdom under the whole heaven shall be'given to the
people of the saints of the Most High." The Scrip
tures abound with glowing descriptions of a period of
'rest and prosperity to the people of God, when the king
doms of this world shall became'the kingdoms of our Lord
and his Christ— -when Jesus shall reign king of nations as
he is now king of saints.
The Jews, before the coming of Messiah, understood a
millenium of rest, when triumphant over all their ene-
mieSa the people of God should prevail over all the earth
a thousand years, to be taught in the writings of their
prophets,. Christians generally, in every age since the
Savior, have so understood the Bible. It is evident, tosay
the feast, that it is far, mpre reasonable to infer that it is in
some such way the nations are to bp blessed in the seed of
Abraham,, than to infer from Ihe, passage alluded, to Uni
versalism, with all its lorig train, of absurdities and contia-
dictions. There is another idea connected with this matter which
I will throw out merely as a speculation; it is: That
more will be saved than lost. This has nothing to do with,
our controversy with Universalism, as God might, withou'f
wrong to any, Have permitted all to be lost: still it maybe
interesting as a truth. Already, we know, there is a great
company in heaven which no man can number; and what
a host shall still be saved, when that glorious period shall
be realized, so long the burden of every prayer, when(
God's will shall be done in earth as it is done in heaven..
The duration of that period of course is a matter pf con
jecture. Some suppose it will continue 360,000, and I see
no reason why this should not be so. But be this as it
may, I hesitate not to say, that the amount of happiness will
be much greater than if man bad not fallen. Every soul
redeemed enjoys an affinity of bliss above what he could
have enjoyed," had he forever remained in the primeval
abode of man. Take then into the account, the happiness

356 BERATE OR
of all the redeemed, how incalculable the increase of hap
piness beyond what it could have been had man remained
as he was created! God has overruled evil for good.
I deem it unnecessary to notice any other particulars
brought up by Mr. Pingree in his last speech. Lain not
aware that either then or in any former speech, he ad
vanced any thing of importance which I have not attended
to. If so, the omission has been without design; and must
now remain without an ansvver, as time admonishes me to
draw to a conclusion.
My friends! perhaps I address you for the last time.
In a few hours, I leave this place, it may be forever. But
just recovering from a severe and protracted illness, my
health still unsettled, and my constitution greatly impair
ed, I can make no calculations relating to the events of
this life. Since I was last in this place, I have been called
upon to look death in the face; for some time not know
ing what hour I should be summoned to the eternal world.
I think I then experienced some of the sweets of religion^
and especially the value of its consolations on a sick bed,
in prospect of the grave. How empty then the world and
all its pleasures! And how precious then the glorious
hope, that when heart and flesh shall fail, heaven, happi
ness, eternal joys shall be ours! • How pleasant to feel then,
when kindred and friends must forsake us, that Jesus will
take us, and in his own everlasting arms, bear us safely
over the dark, cold waves of death, to glory and to God!
This Savior I confidently hold up, as able to save to the
uttermost all who will come unto God through him. Be
lieve on him and you shall have everlasting life. And
there is no other name but his, given under heaven or
among men whereby we must be saved. Lean on his
strong arm for salvation, and though called to pass through
the valley of the shadow of death, you need fear no evil.
But I am not informed of any promise of salvation to
'those out of Jesus Christ; and at this, perhaps the last
time you will ever hear my voice, I warn you solemnly
not to trust the tremendous concerns of your souls to
another. I thank you all for the kind, courteous, and respectful
attention you have given this discussion. I thank you,
citizens of Warsaw, for the many instances of kindness,
attention, and hospitality which I have received at your

tNIVBRSALIITH. 357
hands. May heaven's choicest blessings be yours. I am
bappy to believe that no unkind feelings have sprung up
from this debate, but that the speakers and their respec
tive brethren, will part as they met— -friends. And to
you, Messrs. Moderators, I render my most heart-felt ac
knowledgments for the patience and impartiality with
which you have presided over our discussion. Be assured
for this you will ever have my most grateful recollections.
And in taking this my puhlic leave of Mr. Pingree, permit
me to assure him, though we widely differ on one of the
most vitally important doctrines of the Bible, that I enter
tain for him personally no other than the kindest feelings.
And humbly pray through Jesus Christ, that when all our
differences of opinion shall be sunk in the grave, we shall
meet and mingle in a better and a brighter world.

i-i.

Mi4N